The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Victim Advocacy Services in Urban Programs: A

Description by Staff and Clients of Service

Provisions and Gaps

Author(s): Carol Bohmer Ph.D. ; Denise E. Bronson Ph.D. ;

Helen Hartnett Ph.D. ; Jennifer Brandt MSW ;

Kristen S. Kania M.A.

Document No.: 182368

Date Received: May 15, 2000

Award Number: 97-WT-VX-0009

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
VICTIMADVOCACY SERVICES IN URBAN PROGRAMS: 

A DESCRIPTION BY STAFFAND CLIENTS 

OF SER VICE PROVISION AND GAPS 

Prepared by 

Carol Bohmer, LL.M, Ph.D. 

Denise E. Bronson, MSW, Ph.D. 

Helen Hartnett, MSW, Ph.D. 

Jennifer Brandt, MSW 

The Ohio State University 

Kristen S. Kania, MA 

Social Science Research Analyst 

Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services 

This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-0009 awarded by the National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...................................................... 3 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 4 

Thepartnership ......................................................... 5 

Administration of VAWA Funds in Ohio .................................... -6 

Table 1 : Incidents of Domestic Violence: 1993-98 ....................... 10 

Definitions of Victim Advocacy ........................................... 12 

Outcome Studies on Advocacy ............................................ 15 

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS .............................................. 17 

Overview ............................................................. 17 

Agency Selection ....................................................... 17 

Table 2: Participating Agencies ...................................... 19 

Phase1 ............................................................... 20 

Agency Survey Data Collection ...................................... 20 

Focus Group Data Collection ........................................ 21 

PhaseII ............................................................... 23 

Battered Women’s Shelter .......................................... 24 

Prosecutor’s Office ............................................... 26 

FNDNGS .................................................................. 27 

Phase1 ............................................................... 27 

Table 3 : Summary Information of Participating Agencies ........... 29 

Table 4: Direct and Referral Legal Services ...................... 30 

Table 5: Direct and Referral Non-Legal Services .................. 31 

Client and Staff Focus Groups ....................................... 31 

............ 31 

Material Resources .................................... 33 

Non-Material Resources ............................... 34 

Case Management Services ............................. 35 

Educational Services .................................. 36 

Legal Services ....................................... 36 

Visitation Services .................................... 42 

Children’s Services .................................... 43 

PhaseII ............................................................... 49 

Battered Women’s Shelter .......................................... 50 

Figure 1 : Parent Goal Attainment Scale - Case #4 ................. 51 

Reasons for Seeking Services and Pathways to Services 

Gaps in Services ............................................ 44 

Figure 2 . Child Goal Attainment Scale - Case #4 .................. 52 

Prosecutor’s Office Program ........................................ 53 

Table 6: T-tests on Item Means for 2nd and 6th District Officers ..... 54 

Table 7: Mean Scores for Items Answered Only by 2”d District 

Officers .................................................. 55 

IMPLICATIONSANDCONCLUSION ........................................... 57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES .............................................................. 59 

APPENDIXA: Agency Survey ................................................. 63 

APPENDIX B: Focus Group Questions ........................................... 69 

APPENDIX C: Logic Model for Battered Women’s Shelter ........................... 73 

APPENDIX D: Goal Attainment Scales and Counseling Questionnaire for Battered Women’s 

Shelter ............................................................... 74 

APPENDIX E: Police Questionnaire ............................................. 82 

i 

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The focus of this research and evaluation endeavor was on direct service programs, 

particularly victim advocacy services, in Ohio receiving funding through the S. T. U.P. FormuZa 

Grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. It was undertaken as a 

collaborative partnership between the Ohio Office ofcriminal Justice Services (OCJS) and The Ohio 

State University (OSU). 

The objectives of this project were to: describe and compare existing advocacy services in 

Ohio; compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key variables in the delivery of services; 

develop a better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and delivered; and, 

assess the effectiveness of those services. 

This project was completed in two phases. The first phase focused on gathering 

comprehensive information about thirteen VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in 

Ohio, Descriptive information on funding, staffing, number of clients served, and other agency 

demographic information was collected through interviews with agency administrators and a survey. 

Focus groups with clients and service providers were also conducted in each of the agencies. 

The second phase of the research focused on developing ways to evaluate service outcomes. 

Two agencies with different service objectives were selected to participate in the evaluation phase. 

One of the agencies selected was a shelter program, and the other program selected was based in a 

prosecutor’s office. 

A number of themes emerged from the client and staff focus groups in terms of the kinds of 

services provided by the participating VAWA-funded agencies. When asked during the focus group 

interviews, most clients and service providers spoke of advocacy in operational terms. The 

implications for this study are broad-reaching, and future research could go in many directions. 

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 

ne passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 reflected public 

recognition of the seriousness of violence against women. It acknowledged, among other things, the 

need to improve the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence and sexual assault by 

improving the range and effectiveness of services provided to victims of domestic violence, stalking, 

and sexual assault. Before these improvements can be initiated, however, information is needed 

about what services are currently available and the extent to which they are effective. This research 

represents an effort to provide this information. 

This research and evaluation project focused on direct service programs, particularly victim 

advocacy services, in Ohio receiving VAWA funding. It was undertaken as a collaborative 

partnership by the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) and The Ohio State University 

(OSU). 

OCJS is charged with administering, in part, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 

and furthering knowledge on the causes ofviolence against women. Increasingly, OCJS is interested 

in collecting more systematic information on service outcomes and more specific descriptions of 

how VAWA monies are being used to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. 

The objectives of this project were to: 

Describe and compare existing advocacy services in Ohio. 

Compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key variables in the delivery of services 

distinguishing each typology. 

Develop a better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and delivered. 

Assess the effectiveness of those services in terms of helping women to pursue adjudication 

of the perpetrator and achieve goals identified in other areas of personal functioning. 

rn 

’ 

1 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
This project was completed in two phases. The first phase focused on gathering 

comprehensive information about thirteen VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in 

Ohio. Descriptive information on funding, staffing, number of clients served, and other agency 

demographic information was collected through interviews with agency administrators and a survey. 

Focus groups with clients and service providers were also conducted in each of the agencies. 

The second phase of the research focused on developing ways to evaluate service outcomes. 

Two agencies with different service objectives were selected to participate in the evaluation phase. 

One of the agencies selected was a shelter program, and the other program selected was based in a 

prosecutor's office, which focused on the impact of efforts to implement victimless prosecution and 

changes in how police officers responded to domestic violence cases. 

The Partnership 

In 1997, OCJS and researchers from OSU applied for and received funding from theNational 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) to complete an evaluation of VAWA-funded advocacy programs in Ohio. 

The OCJS staff and OSU researchers collaboratively produced the funded proposal and worked 

cooperatively to complete the project. In Phase I, researchers from OCJS designed and conducted 

the agency survey, and analyzed the survey data. In addition, OCJS researched and analyzed the 

Ohio domestic violence data. The research team from OSU conducted the agency visits and 

collected and analyzed the focus group data. In Phase 11, the OSU researchers worked with two 

victim service agencies to develop and implement quantitative outcome measures, and analyzed the 

outcome data provided by these agencies. The final report reflects the combined efforts of OCJS and 

osu. 

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
~dministration of VA WA Funds in Ohio 

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Grant Program assists states and units of local 

government to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to 

combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases 

involving crimes against women. Beginning in 1994, OCJS was designated by Governor George 

V. Voinovich to administer the S. T. 0. P. Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program in Ohio. 

OCJS allocates federal dollars to geographic areas of Ohio based on a crime rate to 

population formula. During the first fimding year, FY 1995, the Ohio VAWA Oversight Committee 

funded statewide training programs throughout nine regions across the state. The Committee also 

commissioned a statewide needs assessment to identify deficiencies in combating violent crimes 

against women throughout Ohio. VAWA project funding then began for the first time in Ohio 

during the following funding year, FY 1996. 

As an Ohio’s administrative agency, OCJS, has taken the position that all VAWA projects 

must collaborate with law enforcement, prosecution, and victim service providers at a minimum in 

order to effectuate the purpose of the VAWA. The purpose of VAWA is to improve the criminal 

justice system’s response for women victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

Therefore, Ohio’s approach promotes a seamless response for adult women victims of the abovereferred crimes. 

In the last four years of Ohio’s VAWA Directives, the Application has stated: 

All applicants must demonstrate a Collaboration 

among law enforcement, prosecution, and victim 

service providers. An existing board or a new 

Collaboration with participants from each of these 

three disciplines is required to make ongoing 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
decisions for the project. The law enforcement and 

prosecution representatives must have jurisdiction in 

the victim service provider’s target area. A victim 

service provider may be part of more than one 

Collaboration applying for a subgrant. OCJS 

encourages the participation of other disciplines on 

the Collaboration including representatives from 

courts, corrections, health, judiciary, parole, 

probation, government, social service, trauma centers, 

victims, and others. 

The Ohio VAWA Directives further asks applicants under the Collaboration section to: 

Describe in one Memo of Understanding or three 

Letters of Participation how the project will establish 

andor continue to ensure Collaboration among law 

enforcement, prosecution, and victim service 

providers to promote a seamless and cohesive 

response of the criminal justice system by serving 

women victims of violent crime, including domestic 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The 

documentation must include how the Collaboration 

will make ongoing project decisions. The 

documentation must include a signature by each 

representative of the Collaboration. The 

documentation must be current (this year). Under each 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
signature, type the name, title, agency, and phone 

number of the Collaboration member. 

Ohio has averaged approximately 70 projects per funding cycle since FY 1996. Currently, 

there are seven funding categories: 

e Law Enforcement and/or Prosecution Training 

e Law Enforcement and/or Prosecution Enhancement 

e Law Enforcement and/or Prosecution Policies 

Data Collection and Communication Systems 

#f. 

e 

e Victims Services Programs 

Visitation Centers 

e Stalking Programs. 

Services vary greatly across funding categories. Although there may be an average of 70 

VAWA projects subsidized during any given funding year, the objectives of the programs can differ 

not only across categories but also within each category. For example, one law enforcement project 

may use VAWA funds solely for domestic violence response training, while another law 

enforcement project may use its VAWA funds to revise policies referring to the collection evidence 

to better document incidents of domestic violence, stalking, andor sexual assault. Additionally, 

during the same funding year, VAWA funds also may subsidize all or part of the salary of an 

advocate. Regardless of specific project objectives, the collective purpose of VAWA funding is to 

provide a seamless response from the criminal justice system to adult women victims of domestic 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking in Ohio. 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Domestic Violence Statistics in Oliio 

Almost 4 million American women are abused by their husbands or boyfriends each year 

(The Commonwealth Fund, 1993). Domestic violence is one of the most common of all crimes. 

Acts of domestic violence occur every 15 seconds in the United States (Pennsylvania Attorney 

General’s Family Violence Task Force, 1998). According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund 

(FUND), more than 1 in 3 Americans has witnessed an incident of domestic violence (FUND, 1995). 

Domestic violence occurs regardless of age, race, ethnicity, mental or physical ability, sexual 

orientation, socioeconomic status or religious background. Victims come fiom all walks of life but 

most often are women. Nationally, the most rapid growth in domestic relation caseloads is occurring 

in domestic violence filings. For example, between 1991-93, of 24 state with three year filing 

figures, 1 8 reported an increase of 20 percent or more (National Center for the State Courts, 1995). 

Ohio is no exception to this national propensity toward domestic violence. According to data 

reported to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI&I), a division of the 

Ohio Attorney General’s Offce, over 755,000 domestic violence calls’ were placed to law 

enforcement agencies between 1993 and 1998 (See Table 1). - 

’In Ohio, domestic violence is defined as knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm, 

recklessly causing serious harm, andlor threatening to knowingly cause imminent physical harm to a family or 

household member. A famiry or household member is defined as any of the following, who is residing or has resided 

with the offender: a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the offender; parent or child of the 

offender; andor, another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the offender. “Person living as a spouse” 

means a person who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is 

cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of 

the alleged commission of the act in question (ORC 52919.25). 

9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1: Incidents of Domestic Violence: 1993-98’ 

Fr 1 

1994 

102,854 

16,682 

1995 

151,895 

42,709 

1996 

159,497 

44,393 

5439 

62,052 

55,195 

1997 1998 

139,964 117,067 

44,860 40,634 

55,018 37,734 

63,258 55,747 

58,172 60,811 

32,413 I 60,032 

Domestic Violence Calls 

Domestic Violence Arrests’ 

No Action Taken 

1993 

83,884 

14,830 

40,526 

Source: Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification 

All domestic violence calls and arrests in Ohio are tracked through the Ohio Attorney 

General’s Office. As stipulated in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 93 1 13.32, incidents of domestic 

dispute and domestic violence are reported to BCI&I by the sheriff of a county, constable or chief 

ofpolice of a township, city, or village. The Ohio Attorney General oversees the statistical reporting, 

required pursuant to the ORC 93 113.32, to ensure accuracy and integrity of the data. 

Counties, townships, and municipalities report monthly on relevant domestic dispute and 

domestic violence problems as determined by the superintendent of BCI&I. The statute specifies 

the following information must be reported: 

e The number of domestic violence problems and disputes 

The relationship of the alleged victim of the domestic violence to the alleged e 

offender 

52,333 

ZReporting has been mandated since September 1984; however, complete data are only available for years 

1993 through 1998. 

50,020 

3Domestic violence arrests are based on an aggregation of arrests recorded under ORC Q 2919.25, 2919.27, 

or other ORC sections or equivalent local ordinances. 

4Complaints filed are based on an aggregation of total complaints filed under ORC Q 2919.25,2919.27, or 

other ORC sections or equivalent local ordinances. 

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
The relationship of the complainant to the alleged offender 

The relationship of all other persons involved 

The action taken by the law enforcement officers who handled the incident. 

Additionally, arrests and referrals to “other agencies” are tracked as well as cases in which 

“no action” was taken. “Other agencies” may include other local law enforcement agencies, as well 

as referrals of domestic violence cases or cases involving a violation of a protection order for 

prosecution under federal law as stipulated under the ORC §2935.032(G)’. ’ 

According to data reported to BCI&I between 1993 and 1998, domestic violence calls, 

arrests, and complaints have steadily increased (See Table I). In particular, domestic violence arrests 

have more than doubled over the five year reporting span. This increase may be attributed to several 

factors. 

Domestic violence arrest rates may have increased as a direct result of the introduction of 

VAWA funding throughout Ohio. In 1995, VAWA-funded, regional training programs took place 

to raise awareness about the criminality of domestic violence. Then, in 1996, VAWA funding for 

local projects began. These projects included law enforcement training, enhancement, and policy 

development programs. 

Additionally, in 1997, Ohio passed legislation6 requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt 

a written domestic violence response policy. The legislation modified many aspects of the Ohio 

Revised Code referring to domestic violence. Specifically, the state’s “preferred arrest” arrest policy 

was broadened. In the case of domestic violence, a “preferred” or warrantless arrest, may be made 

sEach agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision has authority to arrest an offender for an alleged 

incident of the offense of domestic violence or an alleged incident of the offense of violating a protection order shall 

consider refening the case to federal authorities for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2261 if the incident constitutes a 

violation of federal law. 

6Amended Substitute Senate Bill 1, 122”‘ Ohio General Assembly. 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
by a peace officer if upon arrival to the scene said officer has reasonable ground to believe a person 

at the scene committed the offense of domestic violence or the offense of violating a protection order 

or a consent agreement based on a temporary protection order or civil protection order issued by a 

court within the state or by a court of another state. 

From information provided on both the state and federal level, it is understood that domestic 

violence is more than “a private family matter,” as once commonly thought. In fact, nearly nine out 

of ten Americans say that women being beaten is a serious problem facing many families (FUND, 

1995). This concern cuts across race, gender and age groups. According to the Family Violence 

Prevention Fund, 8 1 percent of those polled in their I995 Survey on Domestic VioZence believed 

something can be done to reduce domestic violence in America (FUND, 1995). 

The intent of this research project is to evaluate the direct service programs, particularly 

victim advocacy services, as fimded through VAWA, thus, creating greater understanding of the 

effectiveness of the grant program in Ohio. Through evaluation, a better understanding ofthe impact 

of VAWA is gained. Evaluation also allows areas of strength and weakness to be identified. 

Consequently, it creates opportunities for improvement while continuing to reduce domestic 

violence. 

Definitions of Victim Advocacy 

Despite a sizable body of literature regarding advocacy for victims of domestic violence, 

there remains a great deal of confusion about how to define advocacy and what activities constitute 

advocacy services. It seems definitions differ in part depending on who is providing the information 

and whether advocacy is occumng at an individual or systemic level. For example, in 1994, Peled 

and Edleson noted, “(The) literature defining advocacy is almost nonexistent and there is no 

12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
systematic research on the parameters of advocacy." They conducted a national survey which asked 

service providers themselves how they defined advocacy and to describe the nature of the services 

they performed for battered women. Peled and Edleson discovered most domestic violence service 

providers identified themselves as engaging in some form of "advocacy." They also found that 

definitions were framed in terms of the following: providing direct services; representing battered 

women and acting as liaison for them; and, community education and policy work. 

Generally, advocacy activities are categorized as either individual-based (i.e., working 

specifically with or on behalf of individuals to ensure access to resources and opportunities) or 

systems-based (Le., advocating to change and improve institutional responses). 

At the individual level, activities identified as individual-level advocacy employ a variety 

of services including activities such as helping a woman safely move her belongings out of her 

residence or accompanying a woman through the court process (Sullivan and Keefe, 1999). Facts 

about domestic violence, medical assistance, and emergency shelter/ transportation to shelter are also 

frequently provided to the victim (Gwinn and O'Dell, 1993). 

Systems-level advocacy, or class advocacy, generally targets the criminal justice system, the 

health care system, the welfare system, and other similar institutions (Sullivan and Keefe, 1999). 

System advocacy is an effort to reform institutional responses to battered women, collectively, so 

that the totality of their experience is taken into account, leading to greater safety for victims, and 

greater accountability for batterers. Kutchins and Kutchins (1 987) see advocacy as that which takes 

place mithin an adversary forum. They trace the origin of advocacy to the activity of lawyers 

working in the sixties for Mobilization for Yourh and in the War on Poverw. For them, advocacy 

has a more adversarial meaning, and can be defined as "helping his or her client when there is a 

conflict . " 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Legal advocacy, in particular, has been discussed by numerous authors. The rape crisis 

movement in the 1970s began the practice of providing a person to accompany victims through the 

system (Koss and Harvey, 199 1 ; Karmen, 1990: 248). Similarly, many programs for survivors of 

domestic violence have also involved legal advocacy (Andrews, 1992; Shorr, 1986). 

Legal advocacy was also discussed by Hart in the 1995 Justice Research Statistics 

Association (JRSA) Conference on State and Local Program: Innovative Court Programs. Hart 

stated that the objectives of legal advocacy include, “[Tlo assure that battered women are informed 

about the full array of legal options available; to assist battered women in developing safety plans; 

k 

to enable timely, effective access to the justice system; to provide support and accompaniment for 

battered women as they proceed through the justice system; to enhance the quality of representation 

of victims therein; and, to improve the outcomes for battered women participating in all parts of the 

civil and criminal justice system” @. 1). 

Many authors have noted that advocacy actually involves varying degrees of both assisting 

individuals as well as working to change systems. Herbert and Mould (1 992) wrote, “[AJdvocacy 

is not primarily concerned with providing a service, but rather with assuring the availability and 

relevance of the service provided. It implies a pro-active step beyond the mandated delivery of 

service” (p. 117). Grigsby and Hartman (1997) provide another comprehensive models for 

intervening with battered women. Their model is a response to what the authors describe as, “the 

strong codependency movement of the late 1980s that pathologized battered women without 

recognizing or addressing the external or internal oppression accounting for their behavior and 

symptoms.” They address barriers in the environment which include information (and 

misinformation), the behavior of the batterer, money, transportation, police assistance, the criminal 

justice system, attorneys, religious counseling, the mental health system, physical/cultural 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
accessibility to sheltershervices, discrimination, language, physical barriers, culture, immigration, 

and affordable housing. Helping clients with these potential barriers could be called providing 

advocacy. Interestingly, they do not use the term itself, though they provide the most comprehensive 

description of the areas in which a helping professional could be involved in advocating for hisher 

client. 

Outcome Stirdies on Advocacy 

Questions about the effectiveness of advocacy services have also received some attention in 

the literature. This work has important implications for both service providers and those who fund 

such services. Considering the importance of the topic, there have been relatively few studies on the 

outcome of advocacy for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault. An exception to this was 

a study by Sullivan and her colleagues on advocacy for battered women (Sullivan et al., 1994). 

Sullivan and her colleagues conducted an experimental study in which a group of battered women 

were provided with the services of an advocate for four to six hours a week for ten weeks postshelter. In the follow-up study six months later, they found no significant differences in the amount 

of physical abuse suffered by the experimental group as compared to the controls. They did find, 

however, those women who had advocates reported they were more satisfied with their overall 

quality of life. 

There appears to be no parallel empirical work on the outcome of advocacy for sexual assault 

survivors. Even those studies which have examined treatment programs for rape survivors suffer 

from design difficulties which prevent drawing conclusions about effectiveness (Foa et al., 1993). 

The connections between legal advocacy and advocacy more broadly defined are, at present, 

unclear, as is the impact of either. Thus, more needs to be known about the range of services 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
provided under the term advocacy; about how they are perceived by the providers themselves, not 

to mention the clients who receive the services. More also needs to be known about the relative 

effectiveness of the various different advocacy services for both battered and sexually assaulted 

women; and, what works, what does not, and under what circumstances, 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
STUDY DESIGNAlvD METHODS 

Overview 

This research was completed in two phases. The first phase focused on gathering 

comprehensive information about thirteen VAWA-funded, urban programs in Ohio providing direct 

services. Descriptive information on funding, staffing, number of clients served, and other agency 

demographic information was collected through interviews with agency administrators and a detailed 

agency survey. Focus groups were also conducted in each of the agencies with clients and service 

providers. 

' 

The second phase of the research focused on developing ways to evaluate the service 

outcomes. Two agencies with different service objectives were selected and asked to voluntarily 

participate in the evaluation phase. One of the volunteer agencies was a shelter program, and the 

other program was based in a prosecutor's office and focused on the impact of efforts to implement 

victimless prosecution and changes in how police officers responded to domestic violence cases. 

Agency Selection 

In FY 1996,55 programs in Ohio were competitively selected through a grants process to 

receive VAWA funding. In Ohio, federal funds for victim advocay are administered either by OCJS 

directly (to 84 rural counties) or by regional planning units that coordinate services in the four major 

urban counties. For this study, VAWA programs in the urban centers were selected since they 

offered the largest number of clients and the richest diversity of services. The number of agencies 

participating in the evaluation was further restricted to those agencies identified as providing direct 

services to victims (rather than using the funding to hire new staff, purchase cameras or cellular 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
phones, etc.). When these two criteria &e., urban programs providing direct services) were applied 

thirteen victims’ advocacy programs were identified to participate in the evaluation (See Table 2). 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 2: Participating Agencies 

Team Approach to Violence Against 

Women 

Summit One Safe Night 

Cleveland 

Akron 

Domestic Violence Courtroom Advocate d Columbus 

Toledo Police Department Resource Unit Toledo 

Victim Services Domestic Violence/ 

Sta lking 

Domestic Violence Witness Assistance 

Visitation Center 

MontgomeT Victim Services 

Columbus 

Cleveland 

Dayton 

Subgrantee Implementing agency Program Title Location 

YWCA of Greater 

Cincinnati 

YWCA of Greater 

Cincinnati ~~ 

City of Cleveland City Prosecutor's Office 

Battered Women's Battered Women's 

Shelter Shelter 

Lucas County Board of Lucas County 

Prosecutor's Office 

ce 

City of Columbus Columbus City Attorney 

Domestic Violence Prosecutor I 

Franklin County The Columbus Urban 

Commissioners League 

City of Toledo Toledo Police 

Department ~~ 

Family and Child Abuse 

Prevention Center 

Family and Child Abuse 

Prevention Center ~~ ~ 

Southeast, Inc. Stalking Victims Help I Columbus 

Anemis Center for 

Southeast, Inc. 

Artemis Center for 

Alternatives to Domestic Alternatives to Domestic 

Violence Violence 

CHOICES for Victims 

of Domestic Violence 

CHOICES for Victims 

of Domestic Violence 

Cleveland Women, 1nc.I 

Templum, Inc. 

Cleveland Women, Inc./ 

Templum, Inc. 

YWCA of Dayton, Inc. YWCA of Dayton, Inc. 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Phase I 

One of the objectives of this research was to provide a description of the victim advocacy 

services provided to women in Ohio through the awarding of VAWA money. We were especially 

interested in the types of agencies providing advocacy services, how those programs defined 

advocacy, how those definitions were reflected in the services being delivered, and what outcomes 

the funded agencies hoped to achieve. The agency surveys and focus groups were conducted to 

gather information from administrators, clients, and staff involved with the VAWA programs. 

B 

Agency Sicrvey Data Collection 

A survey (See Appendix A) was mailed to each of the thirteen participating agencies. 

Respondents could either mail or fax their completed surveys; additionally, a few telephone 

interviews were conducted due to time constraints. The survey was designed to collect detailed 

information from each of the projects. The design was based on current OCJS and federal VAWA 

quarterly performance reports, as well as a series of questions aimed at soliciting more detailed 

information on organizational structure, clients served, and agency services. 

Many of the questions were based on the Model Victim Assistance Program (Model). The 

Model was developed by Dr. Marlene A. Young, Executive Director, and John H. Stein, Esq., 

Deputy Director, of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA). The Model is based 

on a synthesis of knowledge and experience gained over the last two decades from work with 

prosecutor-based, police-based, and corrections-based victidwitness service programs, and from 

community-based victim assistance projects, notably those serving victims of sexual assault and 

domestic violence. 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Survey questions were also based on elements of the Evaluation Guidebook: For Projects 

Funded by S. T. 0. P. Formula Grants Under the Violence Against Women Act (Burt, Harrell, 

Newmark, Aron, Jacobs, et. al., 1997). The Evaluation Guidebook was written by researchers at the 

Urban Institute supported by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant. The Evaluation Guidebook 

was designed as a resource for those interested in learning more about the success of domestic 

violence programs. 

FOCUS Group Data Collection 

Focus groups were used to collect data from clients and staff perceptions on the following 

(See Appendix B for list ofprompt questions): 

rn Definitions of advocacy 

rn What services are provided 

rn What outcomes are important 

This qualitative approach to data collection allowed us to describe services from the 

perspectives of the providers and the recipients, and to compare their views on these critical 

questions while still being sensitive to the needs of the women who participated. Qualitative 

research is an accepted way of conducting research, especially in areas such as victim advocacy 

where there is little agreement or knowledge about key concepts, service goals, and outcomes. This 

approach provides an opportunity to hear, observe and sometimes experience things that may not 

have been previously considered when investigating long-standing social issues (Creswell, 1998). 

This approach is consistent with research which seeks to examine the ways in which women 

experience their lives (DeVault, 1991). Thus, the interview guides used did not label reasons for 

Types of services needed by victims 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
seeking service, the method of service delivery, or client needs. For example, the questions did not 

presume that the reasons for seeking service would include domestic violence. Similarly, the term 

“advocacy” was never used unless raised by the participants. We believe this approach helps to 

reduce any potential bias that might be introduced by the phrasing of the questions. At the 

completion of the focus groups, the taped interviews were transcribed and analyzed usingNU*DDIST, 

a software program specifically designed to analyze qualitative data. The quotations presented in 

the report are examples of themes which emerged from the interview data when all the transcripts 

were analyzed using NU*DIST. 

* 

Each of the focus groups lasted 1-1.5 hours and the discussions were audio-taped for later 

transcription and analysis. The number of participants in each group ranged from two to sixteen. 

No demographic data were collected on the participants to protect the confidentiality of the clients 

and staff. Site codes were also omitted for the same reason. This was done in response to concerns 

raised by the university’s human subjects committee who felt that the small number of focus group 

participants at each site could make identification possible if the site was known. The importance 

of this confidentiality was illustrated during a client interview, when it was revealed that the woman 

had recently arrived in town from elsewhere in order to hide from her abuser. Omitting the site code 

did limit the ways in which we could analyze the interview data, but we thought that the number of 

participants in the focus groups already limited any meaningful analysis of service type 

subcategories and believed that the limitations from omitting this piece of information was offset 

by the benefit of increased confidentiality. 

The transcripts were reviewed by the research team to establish reliability, and were 

subsequently coded and analyzed using NUD*IST software. This computer program allows 

researchers to code and categorize the data in a systematic and logical way which is often difficult 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
with hand coding. The themes in the qualitative data emerged based on an initial analysis of the staff 

interviews and the client interviews. These themes were coded using the NU*DIST tree framework 

which allows the researcher to categorize the data based on thematic areas. 

Data fiom each of the client and staff interviews was coded three times. First, the data were 

examined for the broad categorical themes presented in the original research proposal (i.e., services 

provided and service outcomes). At this point in the analysis, however, it became clear that service 

gaps were also an important thematic category. Next, the data were separated into more detailed 

topic areas using the subcategories of material services versus nonmaterial services. Finally, the data 

were categorized into specific activities based on the identified service areas. 

' 

Respecting the confidentiality of the women's experiences and stories was also important 

during the analysis. For this reason, the analysis was conducted based on aggregate data rather then 

by individual program or city. Themes that emerged across all groups were identified. 

Following the coding of the data, the two data sets (clients and staff) were compared for 

similarities and differences. The comparison component became very relevant and an important part 

of the analysis. It highlighted the areas where the victim experiences and service provider 

expectations differed. 

Phase II 

The second phase of the research focused on developing ways to evaluate the service 

outcomes. Two agencies were asked to volunteer to be involved with the outcome evaluation based 

on differences in their service objectives for the program (one providing legal services and one 

providing shelter services), the adequacy of the client base, and the extent to which the outcome 

measures developed could be adopted by other programs. One of the agencies selected was a shelter 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
program. The VAWA-funded programs in this agency were part of a comprehensive service 

package providing emergency shelter, counseling, parenting programs, and other services for victims 

of domestic violence. The other program was based in a prosecutor’s office in a large urban area 

and focused on the impact of efforts to implement victimless prosecution and changes in how police 

officers responded to domestic violence cases. 

Battered Women ’s Shelter 

The evaluation methods were developed cooperatively with the shelter staff using the “logic 

model” implemented by the United Way in Ohio and elsewhere to guide agencies in documenting 

service outcomes. The logic model helps agency staff to identify measurable outcomes based on the 

goals of the program and the treatment hypotheses guiding service delivery. The staff developed a 

logic model for their program and identified areas in which outcome measures were needed (See 

Appendix C). Based on the staff assessment, it was determined outcome measures were needed to 

assess the effectiveness of the parenting component of the shelter and to evaluate the impact of the 

individual counseling program on client attitudes toward seeking assistance. 

For the parenting program, several different outcome measures were discussed. The staff 

was especially interested in assessing the mother’s ability to implement new parenting methods. As 

a result, an observational strategy was selected over a paper-pencil measure of knowledge or 

attitudes toward parenting. The observational data provide information on the natural interactions 

of the mothers and their children before, during, and after participation in the shelter’s parenting 

classes. Several goals the staff considered to be critical were identified and goal attainment scales 

were designed to provide a simple and quick way for staff to consistently and systematically record 

their observations of parenting behavior during weekly observation sessions (See Appendix Dfor 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
each goal attainment scale). Specific definitional anchors were developed for each point on the 

scales. Also, inter-rater reliability tests were conducted with the two staff members to insure 

consistently. Preliminary testing of the scales indicated an acceptable level of inter-rater agreement. 

The staff agreed to conduct weekly observations of 20 minutes each and to rate the mother and 

children on each of the scales. Data for each client were graphed to track individual progress and 

to facilitate clinical decision-making. The ratings range from +2 (performing much above 

expectations on that goal) to -2 (performing much below expectations on that goal). A rating of zero 

indicates that the client is meeting expectations in that area. The staff was trained to create graphs 

for all clients and to use the graphs for assessing change. 

Staff from the Counseling Program also participated in identifying goals and measurable 

objectives for their program. After several discussions, they decided that they were most interested 

in evaluating the extent to which the clients’ attitudes toward coming to the shelter change during 

their stay and during the course of individual counseling. The staff created a list of the attitudes they 

addressed in counseling. Using these items, a questionnaire was developed consisting of twelve 

items (See Appendix 0). Clients were asked to complete the questionnaire within three days of 

entering the shelter or at the beginning of the first individual counseling session. At that time, the 

form was completed once to capture their current attitudes. The client was also asked to reflect on 

how she would have answered these questions prior to coming to the shelter. Each month the client 

remained in the shelter she is asked to complete the questionnaire again. Scores range from 0-36 

with lower scores indicative of more positive attitudes toward being in the shelter. 

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Prosecutor’s Office 

This VAWA-funded program focused on improving services to victims through changing 

how the police and prosecutors respond to domestic violence cases. One police district in this city 

was selected as the site for implementing the new program, which included training for police 

officers and placing a prosecutor in the district office to work directly with the police on domestic 

violence cases. In addition, a “victimless prosecution” model was adopted. To evaluate the 

effectiveness of the program, statistics on rates of prosecution, number of domestic violence 

complaints, and other statistical information were already being collected. Data on the impact ofthe 

training for officers was missing, however. To better determine the effectiveness of the police 

officer training and their increased access to information on the outcome of the case from the 

prosecutor, a questionnaire was developed (See Appendix E). The program coordinator, prosecuting 

attorney for the second district, two district detectives, and others involved with the program 

participated in designing the questionnaire. 

). 

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first 20 questions were completed by all 

respondents in both districts and address attitudes toward domestic violence cases. Five additional 

questions were included on the second district version to assess the officers’ reactions to specific 

procedural changes that were implemented as part of the new approach to dealing with domestic 

violence. A pilot test of the questionnaire was completed in April 1999. 

During October 1999, the questionnaire was distributed to all officers in the second district 

as well to officers in the sixth district, who served as a comparison group. The sixth district handled 

a similar number of domestic violence cases and had a comparable number of officers employed in 

the district. Identifying information was not included on the questionnaire to insure the 

confidentiality of the officers’ responses. 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
FINDINGS 

Phase I 

Survev Results 

Data collected through the agency surveys precipitated interesting information. Surveys were 

mailed to each of the thirteen participating agencies; eleven responded. According to the respondent 

agencies, projects providing advocacy services ranged in size from serving 120 clients per year to 

serving 1 0,000- 15,000 clients per year. Agency budgets also varied greatly among the participating 

agencies. The total budgets of the larger agencies exceeded four million dollars annually while 

funding for the smallest program was $75,000. Table 3 provides a summary of the agencies 

participating in the survey, total number of clients served, number of clients receiving advocacy 

services, number of direct service providers within each agency, total annual budget, and funding 

for advocacy programs. 

Nearly 65 thousand clients were reportedly served by the respondent agencies; moreover, 

86% of those clients received some form of advocacy services. A total of $500,000 was budgeted 

for advocacy services by the reporting agencies, which accounts for approximately 5 1 % of the total 

budget amounts disclosed. 

According to the participating survey respondents, 9 1 YO of the clients served were from an 

urban setting, while 4% were from suburban areas and 5% were from rural communities. However, 

as stated previously, urban programs were specifically targeted for this evaluation. Agencies also 

Lvere asked to report on the ethnicityhace of their clients served. Fifty-seven percent of the clients 

served through the responding agencies were African-Americans, while about 4% were Hispanic, 

and less than 1 % of the clients reported were Asian-Americans or Native Americans. The remaining 

3 8% of the clients served fell into the “other” category. These statistics correlate with those reported 

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
by BCI&I. According to BCI&I data discussed earlier, African-Americans were the largest group 

to report incidents of domestic violence in Ohio between 1997 and 1998. 

When probed on the age range of clients served, approximately 74% of those reportedly 

served were between the age of 18 and 45. Of this particular age group, 37% were reported between 

18 and 24. Although a condition ofthe VAWA Grant stipulates monies be used toward adult female 

victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault, many of the responding agencies have 

multiple funding streams. Therefore, they are able to serve a broader range of clients. Accordingly, 

I 

the participating survey respondents reported approximately 14% of the victims served by their 

agencies were under the age of 18. 

A series of questions was written to solicit information on agency services, specifically, 

addressing collaborative efforts and services provided. Collaborative efforts are recognized as a key 

element in achieving this goal. A coordinated community response to domestic violence involves 

each agency in the criminal justice system clarifying and coordinating their policies, procedures and 

protocols in order to provide safety for victims. 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Alternatives to 

Domestic Violenc 

* VA WA Clients OnIy 

nn Entire Agency Budgel. 

Advocacy 

Budget 

Missing 

$283,691 

- 

$484,000 

$500,000 

$1.4 million 4 Missing 

$84,000 

$955,000 

$1,030,079 

$75,000 

I Missing 

Respondents were asked to indicate which agencies they were working with throughout their 

communities. All eleven indicated they collaborate with law enforcement agencies, local 

prosecution, and area victim services. Nine out of eleven respondents reported they collaborate with 

court, probation, and social service personnel. Seven out of eleven participating agencies indicated 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
they work in conjunction with trauma centers andor children’s services. Six out of the eleven 

responding projects denoted collaborative involvement with public officials and/or health agencies. 

Of the remaining categories, parole officers and adult protective services, less than half indicated 

collaborative involvement. 

Questions regarding assistance provided were divided between direct and/or referral services, 

These categories, however, were not mutually exclusive but were self-defined by the participating 

respondents. The answers were then broken down between legal and nonlegal services for analyses 

purposes (See Tables 4 and 5). 

The respondents indicated that more direct legal services (i.e., court escort and assistance 

with the prosecution) were offered than direct nonlegal services (i.e., shelter or assistance with 

educational needs). Other than crisis intervention assistance, by and large, the nonlegal services 

were referred. The three most prevalent direct services, as indicated by 10 out of eleven respondent 

Direct 

Service 

Referral 

Service 

agencies, offered were as follows: 

Assist wl Info on Court Assist wl Assist Assist Assist wl Assist wl 

Law Legal Escort Victim wl wl Crime Prosecution 

Enforcement Process Impact TPOs CPOs Victim 

Statement Comp 

Claims 

91% 82% 82% 64% 73% 64% 55% 91% 

(10) (9) (9) (7) (8) (7) (6) (10) 

45% 36% 27% 27% 27% 36% 55% 45% 

(5) (4) (3) (3) (3) (4) (6) (5) 

e Assistance with Law Enforcement 

e Assistance with Prosecution 

. Crisis Intervention. 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Crisis Shelter Assist wl Assist wl 

Intervention Transitional Life Skills & 

Housing Job 

Readiness 

Direct 91% 3 6% 27% 36% 

Service (10) (4) (3 1 (4) 

Semce (7) (9) (8) (6) 

Referral 64% 82% 73% 55% 

Client and Staff Focus Groups 

Reasonsfor Seeking Services and Patlzwuys to Services. The clients sought services from 

a variet). of avenues. Many of the clients were aware of shelters in their communities and were selfreferred. For many clients, seeking service fiom a battered woman's shelter seemed to be the only 

Assist wl 

Educational 

Needs 

3 6% 

(4) 

(7) 

64% 

available option. Client statements made during the focus groups reflect a sense of desperation that 

preceded going to the shelter. One woman said, "I was ready to end it all. I was ready to give my 

kids to him. I was ready to jump off the tallest building . . . [then] I called here . . . 'I Another 

mentioned being afraid to talk to anyone, and that her husband might know. However, she did 

contact someone when she thought she would either end up dead or commit suicide. 

In addition to believing there were no other good options, women reported seeking services 

for the safety of themselves and their children. A client mentioned seeking assistance in getting 

supervised visitations for her child and ex-spouse. Finally, many women reported seeking services 

as a way to change their lives. For example, one client said, "I had in my mind two years ago that 

I had to leave. . . You've got to go. . . Once you take that first step, then you can get where you are 

going. The first step is to get out. I'm glad I took that step. Now I can see my future." 

The staff identified many of the same paths to services as those mentioned by the clients. 

Like the clients, staff mentioned that many women self-referred. Typically women found out about 

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
advocacy programs through the phonebook, calls to hotline numbers, and/or word-of-mouth. Staff 

reported women seek services because they are in crisis due to violence. One staff member 

mentioned women often need information and referral. Some staff also mentioned clients are 

seeking protection for both themselves and for their children. Finally, staff also explained women 

seek services because they lack resources and are "economically abused." According to one staff 

participant, "most of them can't afford to go to some private counselor." She went on to say, "You 

know some people might choose to go to a private attorney or go to a private counseling service, but 

many of these people don't have that level of sophistication, and don't have the financial resources 

available to them anyway." 

# 

For many victims, agency personnel in the court initiate service. Some of the agencies have 

a representative in court to advocate for the victim whenever domestic violence cases being heard. 

Such individuals approach the victims and offer their assistance. This in-court advocacy may be 

followed by other services (e.g., case management, housing assistance, counseling, etc.) depending 

on the needs of the individual victim. Some agencies have the service providers contact the victims 

before the court hearing to initiate services. One client who participated in the focus group 

interviews stated, "[The advocate] contacted me . . . and that was about 8:OO on Monday morning, 

and she typed up all the papers and took me physically into the court room . ." 

Referrals by police officers are also common pathways to service for victims. The following 

is an example from the client focus group interviews presenting one victim's experience with a 

police referral in her own words: 

"When my ex@usband] got arrested, and I was brought down at the police station 

. . . they called a detective for domestic violence . . . She brought me over here. I 

hadn't even heard of it, she just referred me and brought me over the same day. After 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
two years he started to drink and that night he was drinking, he beat me . . . he 

snatched a phone off the wall. In a few minutes, the police were there, and the 

policeman came and [my husband] didn't want to cooperate with them. I started to 

talk and they said, 'We're going to take you out of here' . . . Two ladies came to the 

door and they were from Victim Assistance. . . 'Forget him, we have somewhere to 

take you' . . . So the policeman took me, my grandson, and a few clothes . . . I' 

Services Provided. A number of themes emerged from the client and staff focus groups in 

terms of the kinds of services provided by the participating VAWA-funded agencies in this study. 

These services were categorized according to the following themes: 

+ Material Resources 

+ Non-material Resources 

+ Case management Services 

+ Educational Services 

+ 

+ Visitation Supervision 

+ Services to Children 

Legal Services (advocacy and victimless prosecution) 

Material Resources 

Material resources refer to concrete goods and services provided to women. For example, 

this category includes services such as transportation, shelter, financial assistance, childcare, help 

with returning to school, linking victims to the Ohio Attorney General's Victims of Crime 

Compensation Program', and assisting with identifying housing opportunities. Clients specifically 

'The Crime Victims Assistance Program is responsible for the administration of a state grant program, the 

State Victims Assistance Act (SVAA), and a federal grant program, the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). The funds 

are provided to eligible crime victims assistance programs operating in public and non-profit agencies located 

throughout Ohio. 

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
mentioned the helpfulness of transportation, being given a cellular phone and assistance with finding 

childcare. One client indicated that she is "thankful for the childcare that I needed for my kids which 

enabled me to keep my job . . . stay employed." Another, who was a victim of stalking, credits the 

cellular phone she was given as providing her with a sense of safety. The staff also described 

important material services provided through their programs. An overarching theme within this 

category for staff is providing safe housing as a starting point to providing other services, or as an 

essential component for women to leave abuse relationships. The following quote illustrates this 

point, "The primary responsibility that we have, I think, in terms of what we're offering for our 

Iprogram] is to safely relocate people so that it is our number one criterion . . . so if safe housing can 

be established, once that is done, it's really time for them to leave [the abuser]." 

Non-Material Resources 

Non-material resources refer to various types of emotional support provided to victims. 

Services in this category, according to the clients, include self-esteem groups, counseling, 

compassion, empathy, reassurance, and around-the-clock availability of the service providers. 

According to clients, non-material support may represent the most encompassing and perhaps most 

significant service offered by agencies and their providers. Clients also credit service providers with 

providing encouragement and support toward the decision to press charges against their batterers. 

One client stated, "I honest-to-God don't think that I would be here right now because I never would 

have went in there [court] that first day. He would have been out on the street, and he would have 

killed me, and he would have killed my kids, and I know that . . . I know that." 

Another important aspect of non-material resources for clients is linkage with other battered 

women to reduce feelings of isolation and shame. According to one participant, "The women I met 

at the shelter . . . we keep a group that to this day, at five years later, we still contact each other if 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
something goes on with one another. . . This example illustrates the bonds created among women 

experiencing similar violence. Other women described the significant relationships they formed with 

the service providers. Service workers were described as “angels,” “mothers,” and one person said 

about a staff person, “She is like a blanket to me.” 

The staff described the non-material resources using professional terminology such as 

providing “validation,” “reassurance,” “guidance in decision-making,” and ‘.‘reducing isolation.” For 

example, one staff noted the importance of “validating them as a person and that one-on-one,” 

Another staff described her interaction with a client, “They may not themselves say they are a 

victim; we validate that for them, but letting them talk about it and being open with, not being 

judgmental and let them vent their feelings.” Reassuring victims that they are not “crazy” also 

emerged as an important non-material resource. One staff person explained this by saying, “A lot 

of people are calling in and their first words are, ‘I’m not even sure I should be calling you, but 

somebody told me to so . . . ’ They call just to make sure that they’re not crazy. They’ve been told 

they’re crazy so often that they’re starting to doubt themselves. They need to hear from somebody 

that knows, you know, understands.” 

Case Management Services 

Clients and staff both mentioned case management services in the focus group discussions. 

As defined by focus group participants, case management refers to providing information or 

referrals, goal setting, and case planning (including client safety plans). For example, clients 

reported, “They encourage you and teach you things, oversee your stay here. You set goals and 

attain your goals. When you first meet with them you set a deadline when you’re supposed to be out 

and kind of walk with you through everything.” Another went on to say, “This agency referred me 

[to other services] and they have helped to fill out my paper work.” Staff descriptions are similar 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
to those of the clients. According to the staff, "Case management tells the women to set up her 

goals, whatever her goals are." Another said, ''it's not always what they want to do, but they need 

those referrals of where to go to get that kind of counseling, or to the Department of Human Services 

for monetary help, talking about ways to get them free child care, or even to shelters, whatever it is." 

Educational Services 

Educational services are another important service mentioned by both the staff and clients. 

This category is defined broadly to include activities designed to help victims understand the cycle 

of violence, available options, and how to access services. Education is provided through informal 

and formal mechanisms, such as through individual or group meetings. Staff reported providing 

education in the areas of STD or HIV for rape victims, dealing with employers, obtaining restitution, 

legal rights, job training, or returning to school. Of the agencies survey, safety training was also 

identified as an essential aspect of educational services provided. A client commented, "They taught 

through the class that if your curtains are pulled closed just to call the police, but if your curtains are 

open everything was O.K. . . . and just going through that class and teaching about stuff. . . it has 

really helped me a lot." 

Legal Services 

With the implementation of preferred arrest' and pro-prosecution strategies, the prevalence 

of legal services in the form of court advocacy has increased considerably. Consequently, this issue 

was commonly reflected in client and staff comments during the focus groups. In particular, this 

area of service seemed to be especially important for staff, who talked at length about legal advocacy 

* When there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense of violence, the offense of domestic violence, 

the offense of violating a protection order, or the offense of menacing by stalking has been committed, a peace 

officer may arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, any person who the peace officer has reasonable 

cause to believe is guilty of the violation (ORC § 2935). 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
and "victimless prosecution." In contrast, clients were much more likely to talk only about advocacy 

services. 

Clients describe legal advocacy services as both formal and informal supports. The formal 

assistance included help in obtaining protection orders, reviewing court procedures, advocating to 

court personnel to have hearings placed earlier on the dockets, and notifying clients if perpetrators 

were released from custody. One client reported: 

"They did everything like the first day . . . you know walked me over here [court], 

did everything, went to court with me. I had no idea what was going on, what to 

expect, who to talk to, anything. They just did everything . . . like step by step. 

Called me at home, told me what to expect, what to do, where to go. I mean, I didn't 

even know how to get around downtown, to go to the places I needed to go. They 

did everything." 

The informal'assistance often consisted of emotional support during the trial or hearings. 

One client talked about how her worker sat in the court room, "[The advocate] She can't do anything 

to help me, except sit there and hand me tissues cause I cry.'' One client gave a particularly clear 

description of the formal and informal advocacy services in the court setting. She said, "she went 

to the judge and asked permission for him [the batterer] to have to leave so I could go in there and 

talk to the judge . . . And she helped, you know, she like knew how terrified I was . . . She knows 

everybody, and she will do whatever she can to make sure you don't pass through anything that is 

difficult for you. She helped me. If it wasn't for. . . her I would not be right here right now. I really 

believe that. She helped me so much and she still does. She's still going to court, she still calls me 

II ... 

37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
ne staff also talked about providing legal advocacy, and mentioned conflicts inherent in the 

interaction between social services and the legal system. Most of the staff encouraged the victim 

to file chargers against the batterer but recognized the many barriers which keep victims from 

proceeding. Advocates seemed tom between promoting the client's right to determine what was in 

her best interest and the social obligation of encouraging the victim to prosecute. Even when the 

staff believe prosecution is not in the base interest of the client they feel an obligation to work with 

the legal system. 

2 

The advocates frequently need to convince their clients that domestic violence is a crime. 

"Sometimes they just don't understand why it is that just because he pushed me or smacked me or 

pulled the phone out of the wall why that's a crime. They don't even understand that it is a crime." 

One service provider said 'I . . . you know we might not be able to convince her that this isn't 

healthy, it's none of our business, but frankly . . . what he's doing is a crime, whether she wants to 

stay with him, that's her personal choice, she's a grown woman but what he's doing the bottom line 

is criminal." 

For those clients who prosecute, the staff noted a number of possible negative consequences 

for that decision. The complexity and slowness of the system and the lack of follow through on 

prosecution frequently jeopardizes the life of the victim. For example, one staff member stated, "the 

court system takes so long that after the third or fourth time they've been down there, they want to 

dismiss; I just want to get this over with.'' Another staff member pointed out the complexities of the 

criminal proceedings, "Well, the court is very confusing, like a lot of things, the attorneys are 

working together. They're talking to each other, the judge isn't explaining everything that happens. 

I mean it's fast. You know there are different terms they may not understand." 

38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
ne new preferred arrest policies also cause women to be afraid that the abuser will retaliate 

though the legal system. For example, a staff respondent described one case, "My victim was 

arraigned yesterday. She filed a domestic violence report against the father of her child and when 

the police went to arrest him he said that she had poked him in the eye so they turned around and 

went back to her house and arrested her in front of her children." Another had a situation in which 

". . . in retaliation, the man said that she had pulled a gun on him. This woman . . . never owned a 

gun in her whole life and was scared to death of this man. . . and yet, she's going to court on this, 

had to spend thousands of dollars to get an attorney to defend her on this totally ridiculous charge, 

and I've just been seeing it happen over and over and over again." 

Legal advocacy is critically important given the barriers and problems presented by the legal 

system. One of the most frequently mentioned advocacy activities is explaining the legal system to 

the victim. To address these issues, some advocates give out written information to victims 

explaining legal terminology. In addition to providing information and assistance in the court, 

advocates in some jurisdictions ride along with police officers to assist victims. As one staff person 

explained, "[We] see that it's our jobs to explain to these victims what exactly does a TPO 

[Temporary Protection Order] mean, what kind of power it gives you, and like being a secondary 

responder to the police. Nine times out of ten, the victims are signing temporary motions for the 

temporary protection order and they are totally unaware that they need to appear in court the next 

day." Advocates also share information about the court process, who will be there, what steps will 

be followed, and what the likely outcomes will be. One staff member described a case, "I explained 

to her there will be a deputy in between the two of you . . . there's going to be plenty of people, 

deputies . . . the judge. There's nothing to worry about." From the point of view of the client, this 

help seems essential. It may be impossible to maneuver the system without the help of someone 

39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
knowledgeable. As one client remarked, "You won't make it in the system through abuse or 

anything without someone representing you . . . taking you there." 

Besides providing information, advocates indicated that being in court with the victim also 

allowed them to provide informal assistance in the form of emotional support. During a focus group 

interview, a staff respondent mentioned, "Our victims, a lot of times, express that our presence there 

. . . helps them to understand the court system. . . and the other important thing is support. I've had 

many a victim say to me, I could have never done this." The value of emotional support as part of 

advocacy is clearly presented in one agency's written materials in which victim advocacy is defined 

as "support, encouragement, teaching, advocating for whatever that person needs." The staff in this 

agency call their services "crisis support linking" to highlight these functions. 

Staff described a variety of other support roles they play in helping women deal with the 

legal system. Several staff noted the importance of being a voice for victims who cannot speak for 

themselves, supporting women with any decisions they make about their futures, and helping women 

understand that they have a right to be heard. These services are intended to provide women with 

a sense of power and accomplishment. One staff respondent stated, "[The victims] have the right 

to voice their wishes and voice their opinions." Another service provider said, "I've had many a 

victim say to me 'I could never have done this'." 

Several staff explained that advocacy targets the system as well as the victim. For example, 

some stated advocacy in the court was the easiest part of the job since they understand the system 

and can work through it. One person commented, "I think that's one of the neat things about 

advocacy. You know, we're not a part of the system, however, we're very much working in it." The 

advocacy tasks help to insure the system complies with domestic violence laws, and forces the 

system to be more responsive to the needs of women, though there is some disagreement about 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
exactly whose needs take precedence. In some situations, making the system work smoothly may 

be in conflict with the autonomy needs of the clients. As noted by one worker, "[We're] advocating 

on behalf of Ohio domestic violence laws because . . . the people at court, the prosecutors, they aren't 

focused only on domestic violence; they're not only doing domestic violence cases." The advocate 

may also speed up the process and make it easier for the prosecutor and the defense attorney. One 

staff respondent explained, "I don't see it so much making the job easier on the judge, but it certainly 

makes the job 100% easier on the defense attorney and the prosecutor because we're basically talking 

to the victim and making the decisions and talking to both the prosecutor and the defense attorney 

and, you know, coming up with a decision." 

' 

For some, their posture is more assertive in acting for the legal system, and justifying its 

benefits. One staff respondent noted, "A lot of times they [the victims] go back and live with these 

guys and you're pressuring them to press charges . . . they can honestly say it's not me doing it, it's 

the prosecutor's office, and I have seen relief on more than one face." The power of the court to 

control the actions of the victims is also used by the service providers in their interactions with 

clients. 'I. . . [T]f you don't show up for court, it will get dismissed. They could be held in contempt 

of court or you know different things like that which are not fair . , . " 

Others see their position as one in which they have the power. "I don't know that they are 

choosing us particularly in court, because they are not choosing us, we are there. . . you know we 

are sort of choosing them, or we're offering them assistance. If we weren't there, they wouldn't have 

anythmg. There's nobody in court doing that." 

They also act as agents for the women who are going through the court system. "We try to 

either encourage them or we usually try not to speak for them, we want to have them speak for 

themselves. But if they can't. . . I think we would all speak up at that point." And, a client tells of 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
her service provider acting as her representative, "I was supposed to have talked at the arraignment, 

and I couldn't, my legs were jumping off the table. I was so scared because I said I know if I testify 

he'll kill me . . . so [the advocate] got up and testified for me." 

The results fiom our focus group lead us to the conclusion that the role of a legal advocate 

is one in u-hich there is some ambivalence about exactly whom the advocate serves: the victim or 

the court system. Some staff members do not feel that serving the needs of the victim and playing 

a role in the legal system is in conflict, while others feel this conflict and deal with it in their own 

way. Some of our findings address the ways in which service providers see their role as both 

working uith and for victims and also cooperating with personnel in the criminal justice system to 

make it n-ork more smoothly. Community-based agencies and those within the criminal justice 

system do not work at arms length from each other; on the contrary, they are involved in a complex 

web of cooperative and joint arrangements to provide services. This type of cooperation is explicitly 

encouraged by VAWA fbnders, since it strengthens the seamless response system. 

Visitation Services 

One site receiving VAWA-funding provided visitation services to allow children to spend 

time with their fathers even when the mother has a protection order against the father or is living in 

a shelter. Visitation rights can present a significant risk for women and this program reduces that 

risk by offering a safe drop off point and supervised visitation. This service provides a safe place 

for children to meet with the parent and helps to maintain a connection between the child and parent. 

The visitations are monitored and are categorized according to the different levels of supervision 

required. 

As described by one worker, "There are different types of visitation. There's maximum 

supervision and moderate type supervision." Maximum supervision requires a staff person to be 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
present during the visit and to listen to all verbal communication between the child and parent. 

Moderate supervision requires watching the interactions but not necessarily being close enough to 

hear. One client described the visitation program by noting how the staff work to protect the mother 

from contact with a violent partner. "They have several precautions. What happens is . . . his father 

comes first, fifteen minutes before we arrive so that they can run him through the metal detector and 

see if anything, you know, looks like he's under the influence, or something is not right. And then 

I come with J--- and I walk him up to the door. I come fifteen minutes later, so his father's already 

in there. So I don't see his father at all. He's in another room. When I pick him up they give LIS 

fifteen minutes before his father leaves so that there's no encounters in the parking lot or whatever 

. . . and he can't play with my car. . . those are the kinds of things you run into when they know 

rvhere your car is going to be. They can let the air out of your tires, or whatever, or wait for you. 

I think they really thought that through and I like that." 

Children's Services' 

Finally, clients and staff talked about services provided to children, including child care and 

classes for children. The most common response from staff was that children need safety, security, 

and stability, and services were designed to address these needs. They also noted that children 

leaving a violent situation and going to shelter can experience trauma that must be addressed. In 

addition, services for children often allow staff to work with mothers, and provide respite for 

mothers. One worker explained, "The children's activity program provides the opportunity for 

moms to be away from the kids, to attend groups, to do business, or just to rest." The services 

provided include support groups for children, activity programs, school connections, and summer 

Although VAWA monies cannot be used directly to fund youth initiatives, the co-mingling of funds from 

multiple hnding streams agencies and programs receiving VAWA-funding to provide such services. 

43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
school programs. Staff also noted that children need activities that model how to behave in nonviolent ways. 

Gaps in Services. Throughout the staff and client focus groups one consistent theme 

surfaced which was labeled, “gaps in services.” For clients, the gaps in service can be generally 

grouped in terms of safety issues, problems with the “system,” and limitations of the shelter 

programs. The staff, with more knowledge about what services currently exist, were more likely to 

talk about service needs that are simply not available andor problems with access to existing 

services. Although there is overlap in what is seen as gaps in services between the clients and staff, 

e 

the emphasis on what is needed clearly reflects the specific perspectives of the victims and the 

service providers. 

For the clients, safety was identified as the area of greatest concern and the one in which they 

perceived the largest gap in service. Many women expressed concern for their immediate and 

ongoing safety through statements such as, “I’ve got a protection order, but does that mean he’s 

going to abide by it?” or “I told [the court] that win or lose . . . if I testify against him he’s going to 

come after me; and he is.” Another reported, “I said just keep him away from [me]. . .and they 

couldn‘t do that. So he was out right away, and he was stalking [me].” For many women in the 

focus groups fear was a part of life, especially when the batterer was out of custody. One woman 

described the situation for her by saying, “I’m afraid and when he gets out I’m gonna hide . . . 

because I know as soon as he gets out ofjail he will come straight for me.” Another reported on her 

experience in court and said, “When you’re standing there . . . and the judge [is] done and they give 

you that restraining order . . . the judge looked at me and said ‘this little piece of paper won’t keep 

you alive.” Finally, one victim, in reflecting on how little the legal system can really do to protect 

women, noted, “I think the only time when you feel safe is when that person lives with you . . .” 

44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
The women also expressed fears for the safety of their children. This was especially true for 

those women mandated to honor ongoing court-ordered visitations despite current allegations of 

domestic violence filed against the batterer. One client indicated the court approved visitation to 

a father of a child he almost ran over. Another described her situation, “We are petrified of him and 

we know he’s going to get us. He will somehow and there’s nothing I can do about it. I mean I can’t 

just pick up three kids and move them somewhere ‘cause he has visitation. I’ll always have to allow 

that.” Women who refused to comply with the visitation orders were subject to court sanctions, as 

reported by one client. She said, “They found me in contempt of court for not allowing visitation.” 

Common themes throughout the discussions with battered women were the perception of inaction, 

lack of follow-through, and poor communication on the part of both police and prosecutors. Several 

women complained, “The systems don’t work together” or that “The prosecutor tells you one thing, 

the detective tells you another . . .” These problems were evident in stories told by the victims: 

“They did arrest him but they never since then did anything . . . He was laughing even 

though they arrested him before. They walked him out, took all the keys and told him he’s 

not allowed in. He laughed about it and kept going in.” 

“Some of the reaction you get is they just don’t want to deal with it . . . They just want to 

minimize it and pretend it’s not real, and you’re overreacting.” 

“When [the police] came they were not going to arrest him. He was telling them all kinds 

of things and the house, of course, was a wreck. They wouldn’t even file charges because 

I never went to a hospital . . . when you are held hostage for a week, how are you going to 

go to a hospital?” 

rn 

45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
“Most of the cops left [our house] right away . . . One of the cops, I guess knew him [the 

batterer]. He had worked at the jail when [my ex] was there. And they were buddies . . . 

They were laughing and the one cop told me that if you don’t leave, he will kill you.” 

“Sergeant X was wonderful, but then arookie police officer showed up. . . and I was charged 

with disorderly conduct. . . So it cost me a lawyer. I have disorderly conduct on my record 

because my husband pushed me off of a porch, and I called [911 J for help . . . I didn’t touch 

my husband. I did nothing.” 

Gaps in the legal system were also mentioned by several staff. Many commented on the lack 

of follow-up by detectives and police oficers in investigating cases. One staff person stated, 

“. . .even if the victim goes down to the prosecutor’s office on their own, and says look this is what 

happened to me, you might prosecute but there’s no detective that follows up and does an 

investigation.” Another worker noted, “. ..and a lot ofthem [victims] complain there’s a warrant for 

the suspect but he’s not been arrested. Then I have to explain, well, they don’t go out necessarily 

looking for them. Especially domestic violence. I mean, if he is a murderer that’s different. But 

for domestic violence, and things like that, they don’t go out specifically looking for them. I’d like 

to see the unit personally self-contained.” Several staff also commented on the lack of available 

legal help that women could afford. 

Some of the women attributed these problems within the system to ongoing perceptions on 

the part of police or prosecutors that women “deserve” to be abused. One victim’s statement 

characterizes this perception, “I hear them say that women deserved it. . . or why didn’t they leave 

. . . or why don’t they get their kids out . . . I’d like to shout from a mountain top that there [are] 

women doing it, but sometimes they don’t make it or live through it, or there isn’t help for their 

children.” 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Women also discussed problems with the court system. Some described the court process 

as another form of abuse. They said things like, “The court system beats you up,” or “I was battling 

the courts as much as I was battling my ex.” Other complaints focused on the length of time needed 

to prosecute, the cost, and the ultimate failure of the courts to convince the batterer that domestic 

violence is a crime with serious consequences. Some of the representative statements included: 

‘The courts will drag it out.” 

”The process is too long.” 

”The red tape . . . you have to go through all these other avenues before you can get anything 

done.” 

”He beat me up real bad, threw a big beer can at my head like three times, he choked me with 

an electrical cord, doused me with kerosene and lit me on fire and took me to the river. . . 

And the cops came to my house, said [it was] domestic violence. The judge couldn’t believe 

they said domestic violence and now it’s in a higher court. . . like attempted murder. I mean, 

if p] wouldn’t have been married to him what would they have done?’ 

Some of the complaints about gaps in service were not about the way the court deals with 

domestic violence, but about the way they were treated by the court in other, related contexts, most 

frequently divorce-related issues. While this may be seen as tangential to the direct needs of 

domestic violence victims, for them it was central to their ability to be self-sufficient and 

autonomous. As one woman put it, ”I’m losing my house . . . [it] is in foreclosure because he said 

he didn‘t care what no damn woman judge said . . . he’s not making house payments. We went to 

court over that and he said [he’d] make them, and that was nine months [ago] and he stili hasn‘t done 

it.” Another victim said: “I had no representation in court . . . I had to hire an attorney . . . He [the 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
batterer] is working, he’s making $60,000 a year, [but] he has not paid any utilities, he didn’t pay 

child support for six months, he’s done nothing. And they‘re letting him get away with that . . . ” 

Gaps in services were also discussed by the staff in their focus groups. The predominant gap 

identified by staff was the lack of financial resources that could be used to secure shelter, housing, 

and other non-material services needed by the women. For example, one staff commented, “It’s very 

tough to find emergency money [someltimes to help them move or things like that.” Another stated, 

“One thing that I can really think of that is needed is financial assistance with hospital bills.” Some 

stated that when emergency assistance is available, the time required to secure the money can be a 

barrier. One said, “. . .the Ohio Victims of Crime Assistance Funds are available but there’s such a 

time lag in actually getting those funds, so if you don’t have the money up front to be able to do it, 

or you don’t have an attorney who’s willing to wait for nine months to get paid, you know, in other 

words, the delay is a real hardship.” The availability of housing andor temporary shelter is also 

mentioned as an issue and some believe that the consequence of this gap may be that women don’t 

move out of the situation more quickly. For example, “I’m sure that we have a lot of victims that 

would move out of the situation where they find themselves if there was help in doing that.” 

Other barriers and gaps in service include lack of transportation, lack of child care, and the 

location of services which may deter women from receiving help. One staff person stated, “But a 

lot of women don’t want to come downtown . . . at night.” Another example came from staff in a 

different agency who said, “Well, a lot of women, I guess, if you have kids, multiple children, who 

wants to drag them on? You know it kind of discourages them, or what if you don’t live close to a 

bus line.’’ This concern was echoed by clients. “Helping your child . . . that’s one of the biggest 

problems. So you can go on interviews, you know, all the stuff that normally you’re not allowed to 

take your child to. You really don’t have anyone to babysit.” 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
In addition, the staff noted that many of the women lack the training or education to compete 

in the labor market. Language was another barrier mentioned. One staff person stated that some 

clients speak only Spanish so that if there are no Spanish-speaking staff available to communicate 

with them, they will not be effectively served. 

Several staff members also mentioned public responsiveness and understanding of violence 

as a gap. "It is hard for people to identify with victims, period.'' One staff member believed that this 

lack of public understanding affects the availability of services and the treatment of domestic 

violence victims. "One of the biggies for me is people in the community being able, I wish I could 

provide people in the community who could support and understand the whole battered women's 

syndrome. You know we have so many clients who are in custody battles and Children's Services 

who say well, she's pretty out there and she's doing this, and . . . they don't see, well she's acting like 

this because she's been battered for ten years . . . and she's making allegations of sexual abuse that 

are probably true, but she has no proof, SO they think she's nuts . . . 'I This concern for greater 

understanding points to a need not only for public education, but also for education within the 

community which provides related services to victims of domestic violence. 

Phase II 

The findings for Phase I1 are reported separately for the two participating agencies. The 

evaluation in the battered women's shelter was hampered by data collection problems due to the 

availability of mothers with children in the shelter and staff turnover. This report does include the 

complete findings for the program housed in the Prosecutor's Office. 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women’s Shelter 

A number of factors interfered with data collection at the battered women’s shelter. Initially, 

the agency experienced a period of several months in which the number of residents in the shelter 

was very low. As a result, there were few opportunities to implement either the observational goal 

attainment scales or the counseling questionnaire. In addition, all but one staff member who 

participated in the design of the data collection tools left the agency and there were delays in hiring 

new workers. When new staff were employed they were not taught to use the outcome data 

collection procedures and data collection was suspended. The agency eventually decided to 

withdraw from the study. 

Figures 1 and 2 provide examples of the initial analysis of the goal attainment data for one 

case. Figure 1 provides the observational ratings on three scales for three observation sessions. 

Parenting skills in all three areas (discipline, positive interaction, and praise) show improvement for 

this client. Similarly, in Figure 2 the goal attainment data for one child are presented. These data 

also indicate steady improvement in the two areas monitored for children (discussing feelings and 

appropriately expressing anger). 

The counseling questionnaire was also implemented after a lengthy delay due to the drop in 

the shelter population. In addition, during the data collection period, the residents tended to have 

short stays of less than one month. This restricted attempts to assess client change due to 

participating in the counseling program. As a result, only data from initial contacts have been 

provided. 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
9, 

Y 

c 

4- Positive Interaction 

Praise 

1 

- 

VI 

c 

U 

i5 

-+- Discipline 

-3r- Praise 

--_- 

+Positive Interaction -_ 

.. 

.r 

1 2 3 

-1 -1 1 

-2 -2 

~___ __ ____--.~ - .- - 

___. ~ ~. - .- . 

-2 -1 - 0 

0 --__ 

f p 

0 

N + 

w 

Y 

m 

C .- 

.&I 

d 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

-1.5 

-2 

-2.5 

Parent Goal Attainment Scales - Case #4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
1.5 

.. . ..... 

1 

0 

-2 

.- _. 

... -- .... 

-- - -.-- -- - ...... 

1 

2 3 

1 1 

-1 0 

........ .... .............. - 

....... -, ... - . __ ... - - ............ - - . 

. ........ . - ......... 

2 

U 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

-1.5 

-2 

-2.5 

_- 

Discuss feelings . - -- - . 

-- --_ 

Child Goal Attainment Scales - Case ##4 

-+- Discuss feelings 

-E+- Express anger 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Prosecutor's Ofice Program 

Data were collected from 43 officers in both the 2"" and 6* districts for a total sample of 86 

respondents. As Table 7 indicates, the responses of the officers in District 2 who participated in the 

domestic violence training and used the revised response procedures are very similar to the officers 

in District 6 who did not receive the training or use the revised procedures. Despite the subjective 

impressions of the prosecutor working in the second district, the officers appear to hold very similar 

' 

attitudes toward domestic violence cases as their colleagues in a comparable district who did not 

participate in the VAWA-funded program. Table 7 shows the group means and t-tests for each item 

on the questionnaire. Although only one item indicates statistically significant differences between 

the Pd and 6* districts, the mean scores on fourteen items show that the attitudes of the officers in 

the 2"d district differ from those of the 61h district in the direction consistent with the training they 

received. Interestingly, the only significant difference between the two districts was on question 12 

with the officers in the 6* district more likely to feel that their supervisors support their efforts to 

investigate domestic violence cases. 

53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6: T-tests on Item hfeans for 2nd and 6th District Offlcers (I=Strongly agree, 2=Agree, 3=DiSagree, & 

SURVEY QUESTIONS 

1. It is a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases. 

2. Domestic violence cases are likely to result in a conviction. 

4=strongb disagree). 

2nd 

District 

3.47 

2.44 

t 

3. I feel sympathetic toward the victim of domestic violence. t 4. Many of the victims in domestic violence cases are overreacting to the situation. 

sig. 

(2-tailed) 

~~ 

5. I think it is often the victim’s fault when domestic violence 

occurs. 

6. Prosecution should proceed in domestic violence cases 

even if the victim is uninvolved or uncooperative. 

District 

3.23 

2.16 

3.35 

7. Prosecution even without the victim’s cooperation will 

re\vard the officer’s hard work on domestic violence cases. 

8. The prosecutor’s office is cooperating with police on 

domestic violence cases. 

2.58 

2.40 

1.98 

2.16 

investigating domestic violence cases. 

13. The justice system is responsive to my interactions in 

domestic violence cases. 

2.67 

2.5 1 2.54 

3.16 

2.09 

2.47 

2.07 

9. I feel like I can be part of the process in prosecuting 

domestic violence cases. 

2.19 1.98 

~~ 

10. I am willing to talk with the prosecutor and discuss 

domestic violence cases with which I am involved. 

1 1. I think that domestic violence calls are emotionally 

draining for officers. 

1.77 

- 

2.28 

12. I feel that I get good support from my supervisors for I I 2.33 1.91 

+ -.847 

.I74 I .863 

.l30 -I--- + 

1 -.352 

I -.750 

307 

Ioj/ 2.508 

-.I57 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
SURVEY QUESTIONS 2"d 

District 

14. I usually find out the result of domestic violence cases I 

6h 

District 

investigate. 

15. I consider domestic violence less serious when drugs or 

3.07 

3.42 

3.56 

alcohol are involved. 

16. Domestic violence is a private, family matter and police 

3.14 

3.30 

3.4 

should not be involved. 

3.09 

6.10 

~~ 

17. Repeat calls to the same household for domestic violence 

2.88 

6.34 

are a waste of police time. 

18. Victims often contribute to domestic violence. ~~ 

19. Resorting to domestic violence can be an understandable 

response to life stresses. 

20. Where would you place domestic violence on a scale of 1- 

IO (1 =speeding ticket, 1 O=murder) in terms of the seriousness 

of the crime? 

2-84 I 2*70 

t 

-.48 1 

.942 

1.45 

.694 

-.3 19 

1.26 

-.785 

- 

s1g. 

(2-tailed) 

.632 

349 

.152 

.489 

.75 1 

.212 

.434 

Officers in the 2"d District were also asked to answer five questions pertaining to specific 

procedural changes that were implemented for handling domestic violence cases. Table 8 provides 

the mean scores for each of these items, 

Table 7: Mean Scores for Items Answered Only by 2"' District Officers 

SURVEY ITEM Mean S.D. 

2 I. I am more iikely to provide more detail in my reports since the 

supplemental report was initiated. 

2.63 .76 

55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
SURVEY ITEM Mean S.D. 

22. I think the new supplemental reports are helpful in investigating 

domestic violence cases. 

2.42 .76 

-~ 

23. I do not like the new supplemental reports. I 2.35 I .9 

24. It is easier to investigate and respond to domestic violence cases than 

it was one year ago. 

25. I will seek out the prosecutor for domestic violence cases to discuss 

2.56 .67 

2.44 .8 

the case. 

56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION 

For government funding agencies, such as OCJS, defining advocacy is a fundamental aspect 

of evaluating services addressing domestic violence reduction. It is essential to know what tvorh, 

what doesn 't tvark, and why. A better understanding of victim services and advocacy activities, 

allows policy makers to further fund effective programs and assist in the continual improvement of 

service delivery. 

As we proceeded in our research, it became evident we would not be able to come up with 

one definition of advocacy as originally proposed. A singular definition could oversimplify a very 

complex concept. Defining advocacy can be approached from varying perspectives (e.g., individualbased or systems-based). Also, definitions may differ dependent upon whom is asked as well as 

who is asking to define advocacy. 

The responses to the focus group questions, however, did indicate several common themes. 

When asked during the focus group interviews, most clients and service providers spoke of advocacy 

in operational terns (as previously detailed): 

+ Tangible Goods and Services + Services to Children 

4 Emotional Support + Legal Services 

4 Case Management + Visitation Supervision. 

+ Education 

When asked specifically to provide one overarching definition of what they meant by 

advocacy, staff respondents usually talked about empowering their clients. However, within this 

interpretation is hidden a wide variety of meanings. For some, empowerment meant autonomy, and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
individual decision-making. As one staff member put it, “To me, a big part of advocacy is maybe 

stepping in when they are at that point, but knowing when to back off and let them and letting them 

take over so that I am further and further out of the picture and they’re like, yeah, I did this.“ 

While for others, empowerment had a more specific connotation, including leaving the 

abusive partner, prosecuting him in court, being self-supporting, and parenting their children 

“appropriately.” Thus, for many service providers advocacy means intervening with individuals in 

ways that are also likely to bring about societal change. This includes, for some of those who 

. 

provide legal advocacy, a belief that prosecution and punishment of the abuser are the best solution 

to the problem of domestic violence. 

The implications for this study are broad-reaching, and future research could go in many 

directions. For example, the “gaps in services,” as identified in Phase I of this evaluation, may be 

a by-product of the “system.” By attempting to accommodate the needs of victims with a system 

designed to punish perpetrators, societal demands often outweigh the needs of the individual victim. 

It is neither fair to society nor the individual victim to debate which is greater or more important; 

however, it is necessary to understand both. Moreover, it is essential both are addressed by the 

“system.” 

A fundamental goal of the S. T. O.P. Formula Grant programs hnded under VAWA is to 

provide a seamless response from the criminal justice system to adult women victims of domestic 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Perhaps, an element of creating a seamless response is 

actually creating a seamless system, one which takes into consideration the needs of the victims as 

well as the greater demands of society as a whole. A comprehensive evaluation of the interaction 

between various systems (Le., criminal justice system, health care system, etc.) as well as their 

interactions with victims may produce a better understanding of victim services in Ohio. 

58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES 

Andrews, A.B. 1992. Victimization and Survivor Services. New York, N.Y.: Springer 

Publishing Co. 

Attorney General’s Family Violence Task Force. (1 998). Domestic Violence Stats: 

Domestic Violence Rape Crisis and Domestic Violence Services - Understanding the Issue. The 

Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Family Violence Task Force, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Burt, M. R., A. V. Harrell, L. C. Newmark, L. Y. Aron, L. K. Jacobs, et. al. (1997). 

Evaluation Guidebook. (95-WT-NX-0005). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

Collins, K., C. Schoen, S. Joseph, L. Duchon, E. Simantov, and M. Yellowitz. (1998). 

“Health Concerns Across a Women’s Lifespan.” The 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, The 

Commonwealth Fund. 

The Commonwealth Fund. (1993). The First Commehensive Survey of Women’s Health. 

New York. The Commonwealth Fund. 

Creswell, John W. (1 998). Oualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosinp Among Five 

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
DeVault, M.L. (1991). Talking and Listening from the Women’s Standpoint: Feminist 

Strategies for Interview and Analysis. Social Problems, 37(1): 96-1 16. 

Foa, E.B., B.O. Rothbaum, D.S. Eggs, and T.B. Murdoch. 1991. “Treatment of 

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in rape victims: A comparison between cognitive-behavioral 

procedures and counseling.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchology. 59: 71 5-723. 

The Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1 995). National Survey on Domestic Violence. 

San Francisco. The Family Violence Prevention Fund. 

Grigsby, N. and B.R. Hartman. 1997. “The barriers model: an integrated strategy for 

intervention with battered women.” Psvchotherauy. 34(4): 485-497. 

Gwinn, C.G., J.D., and Sgt. A. O’Dell. 1993. “Stopping the Violence: The Role of the 

Police Officer and the Prosecutor.” Western State University Law Review. 20 (2): 15 1 1. 

Hart, B.J. (1995). “Legal Advocacy Against Domestic Violence.” Presentation at the 

Justice Research Statistics Association Conference on State and Local Programs: Innovative Court 

Programs. 

Herbert, M.D., and Mould, J.W. (1992). “The Advocacy Role in Public Child Welfare.” 

Child Welfare. 71 (2): 114-130. 

60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Karmen, A. 1990. Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimolow. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, 

CA.: BrooksKole. 

Koss M.P., and M.R. Harvey. 1991. The Rape Victim: Clinical and Communiw 

Interventions. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage. 

Kutchins, H. & S. Kutchins. 1987. "Advocacy and the Adversary System." Journal of 

Sociologv and Social Welfare. 14(3): 1 19- 133. 

National Center for the State Courts. (1995). Examining the Work of State Courts. A 

National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project, National Center for the State Courts. 

Peled, E., and J. L. Edleson. 1994. "Advocacy for Battered Women: A National Survey." 

Journal of Family Violence. 9(3):285-296. 

Shorr, A. 1986. Common Decency: Domestic Policies After Reagan. New Haven: Yale 

University Press. 

Sullivan, C.M., R. Campbell, H. Angelique, K.K. Eby, and W.S. Davidson 11. 1994. "h 

advocacy intervention program for women with abusive partners: Six month follow-up." American 

Journal of Community Psvcholow. 22(1): 101-122. 

61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Sullivan, C.M., and M. Keefe. 1999. Evaluations of Advocacy Efforts to End Intimate Male 

Violence Against Women. Applied Research Forum, National Electronic Network on Violence 

Against Women, National Resource Center Domestic Violence, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence. 

Young, M. A., and J. H. Stein. (1988) Model Victim Assistance Program. National 

Organization for Victim Assistance, Washington, D.C. 

62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A: Agency Survey 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Violence Against Women Act: 

Advocacy Services in Ohio 

Information Survey 

Organization Information: 

How many people are employed in your 

4 Number of direct service providers? 

d Number of support staff? 

Number of Administrators? 

9. 

11. 

IO 

11. 

c/ Number of other employees? 

What is the annual budget of your agency? 

What are the three primary sources of your agency’s fundin 

How much of your budget is spent on victim advocacy services? 

Please list all paid and unpaid staff positions. 

Do you train your unpaid staff positions? 

Do you train your paid staff positions? 

Please indicate the number of volunteers utilized during the project. 

If your project included providing trai 

enforcement and/or prosecution or ot 

Client Information: 

Please indicate the total number of per 

Please indicate the total number of Per 

monies. 

How many clients receive victim advo 

Do you limit the type of victims you serve? 

Do you limit the number of victims you Serve? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
16. 

17. 

Please list your target population? 

I! ;I I 

I: 

I1 

What is the average length of Stay? 

18. 

r.. in 

~eport by type of victimization the total number of victims served. If a victim suffered 

multiple types of victimization, please include her under each appropriate category. This means 

tile roral number of victims reported here may sum more than the total number of victims 

reported in ;?O. 

Primary Victims 

Type of Victimization Unknown 

Secondary Victims 

Please specify the total number of victims serve 

Geographic Location: ish Speaking: 

Suburban 

Urban 

Rural Other non-English language 

ccordingly within each cat 

Span ish -5 pea ki n g 

Speakers of an Asian language 

* 'N~E: mrsl includes the Appalachian Region 

RaciaVEthnic Population: D. Special Needs: 

African-American 

His pan ics 

Asian -Am 2 rican 

Native American 

Pacific Islander 

Other 

Age of Victims served: 

Juveniles: 

0-4 

5-9 

A d Ul ts: 

18-24 

25-33 

Me n ta I I y/e m 0 ti o n a I I y c h a I I en g e d 

women 

Physically/medically challenged 

e 

10-1 4 

15-17 

34-45 

46-54 55 + 

HOW many victims representing underserved populations 

populations are defined by geographic location, raciaI/ethnic group, foreign language, or other 

special needs. Please count victims who represent several underserved population only once. 

This number must be less than or equal to the total number of victims reported in #79. 

e served? Unders 

Number of victims representing underserved populations 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
.If. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

Agency Services Information: 

When did you begin providing advocacy services? 

Month Year 

Please indicate the type(s1 of agencies collaborating with your project: 

Law Enforcement - Social Services Personnel - Prosecution 

Victims services - Health Agencies 

Court Personnel - Trauma Center Representatives Probation 

Judicial 

Parole Officers 

- Public Officials - 

- Children's Services 

- 

- - 

- 

- - = Adult Protective Services 

- 

Please indicate the number of newly established 

benefitting from additional resources as a result 

Sexual Assault 

Domestic Violence 

Victim Advocacy 

Other (Specify) 

Rape Crisis 

Leg a I Assistance 

B a tt e red W o ma n 's S h e It e r 

Hotline Calls 

Protocol DevelopmenUSafety Plan 

Identify the sources of victim access 

d Walk-in 

/ Referrals 

/ Service providers are contacted 

by law enforcement and hospitals responding to crime scene or to 

location of victim. 

to your agency: 

/ Direct calling of victim 

by service provider. 

d Service providers review law 

enforcement reports and call or write. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
74. 

2. 

please indicate the number of direct and/or referral services provided by your project to 

victims? 

Direct Services Referral Services 

Crisis In re wen tio n 

Information about the 

legal process 

Transportation 

Shelter 

Transitional Housing 

Counseling 

Assistance with 

social Services 

Ed uca t io n 

Life Skills!Job Readiness 

Court Escort 

Victim Impact Statement 

Crime Victim Compensation 

Claims Assistance 

Assistance with Employers 

Assistance with Creditors 

Assistance with TPOs 

Assistance with CPOs 

Assistance with 

Law Enforcement 

Assistance with Prosecution 

Assistance with Other Services 

(Please specify services) 

How many victims of stalking were targeted by your project? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
26. If a law enforcement andlor PrOSeCUtiOn Project, how many arrests and indictments were filed, /I) and what was the disposition of these cases? 

27. 

Arrests 

Indicted 

Failure to Indict 

Reasons for failure to indict - 

NO prior conviction 

Unable to get victim before 

grand Jury or refusal to testify 

Grand jury ignored 

3 

Pled Guilty 

Pled to, specify charge: 

Plea-Bargained 

Due to ramifications of 

losing the right to own and 

possess a gun under Federal Brady Act 

Convicted 

Not Guilty 

Dropped 

0 t h e r (Specify) 

Pending 

Protection Order Granted 

Protection Order Issued Against 

the Same Offender Same Victim 

Protection Order Issued Against 

the Same Offender Different Victim 

911 Calls 

Out-of-state Protection Orders 

Enforced 

Number of Repeat Offenders 

(i.e. recidivism rates) 

How many of the staIkers/perpetrators have a history of domestic violence? 

To ta I n umber of s ta I ke rs/pe rpe t ra tors 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B: Focus Group Questions 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Interview Guide 

Service Recipients 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

What happened that brought you here? 

Why did you choose to come here? 

Why this agency? Why this service? 

What were you hoping to get? 

What is it like to come here, how would you describe a day? 

Is it far fiom where you live? 

Do you feel safe? 

Are other people here coming for services supportive of you? 

Are the staff supportive of you? In what ways? 

What do you get here? 

Is it what you wanted? Why or why not? 

What other services might you need that are not provided here? 

What is your biggest success since coming here? 

How will you know when you no longer need to come? 

* * * * *when mentioned, what is advocacy? Case management? Adjudication? Is the legal 

process important? Why or why not? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Staff Interview Guide ~~ 

1. What happened that brings women here? 

2. Who would you describe as your target population? 

3. Why do women choose this agency? Why this service? 

4. What do they need? 

5. What is it like to come here, how would you describe a day? 

6. Is it far from where the women live? you live? 

7. Do you feel safe? Do the women feel safe? 

8. Are the women here coming for services supportive of each other? you? 

9. Are the staff supportive of the women? Of you? In what ways? 

10. What do women get here? 

1 1. Is it what they wanted? Why or why not? 

12. What other services might women need that are not provided here? 

13. What is the biggest success you see for women in coming here? 

14. How will you know when the women no longer need the services provided? 

*****when mentioned, what is advocacy? Case management? Adjudication? Is the legal 

process important? Why or why not? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX C: Logic Model for Battered Women’s Shelter 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Dccrcasc usc of violcnl 

physical and vcrbal punishment 

1. Zero instances of violcncc 

during 30 miii obscrvalion 

2. Decrcasc parcnlal slrcss 

(Parenting Stress lndcx - 

prc-post nicasurc) 

Dcvclop syslcmalic obscrvatioii 

plan with Jciiuifcr. 

t 

Iticrcisc knowlcdgc aboiil 

violcnt lrcc parcnhg and 

discipliiic 

I. 8/10 corrcct rcsponscs OII 

quiz on dcaliiig with typical 

scenarios 

3- 

Pnrciitiiig Clmsscs 

(1’h;uc 11) I 

t 

IIICIC~ISC PcrcciiIiigc 01’ 

gods acliicvctl 

(Numbcr of coinplc~cd 

goals /iiuinbcr if 

idcntificd goals 

1. Dccrciisc slrcss 

iisS0ci;iIcd wiili bciiig 

iii slicllcr 

2. Iricrcasc rclaxalion 

3. liicrcasc positivc 

~liouglits rcgardiiig 

shcllcr 

t 1-1-7 I’iid ivitlii a I Coil iiscl i ti 1: 

(Sue illid l’;1lIy) 

I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX D: 

Goal Attainment Scales and Counseling Questionnaire 

for Battered Women’s Shelter 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women's Shelter 

Observation Scales for Family Interactions 

r 

SCALE A-TTAINMENT 

LEVELS 

-2 

Most unfavorabk I outcome 

Goal $1 : Parent will use appropriate disciplinary techniques with children. 

Parent hits child or makes verbal threats to hit child. 

-1 

Less than expected level 

Parent nags, makes threats, and shows no follow through with alternative 

disciplinary techniques 

SUCCeSS 

- 

~ 

+2 

Most favorable outcome 

0 

Expected level of 

Parent consistently uses time-out, loss of privilege, or redirection strategies 

as appropriate. 

Parent attempts to use appropriate disciplinary techniques but misses key 

steps, loses calm, etc. 

success I I 

I +l 

More tnzn expected 

success 

Parent uses appropriate disciplinary techniques well but not consistently or 

needs more practice to perfect the techniques 

Note: This scale measures the way in which the caregiver responds to the child's "bad" behavior. 

Appropriate discipline is making rules and enforcing them with the correct use of time-out, loss cf 

privilege, or redirection and which avoids the use of derogatory statements. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women's Shelter 

SCALE ATTAINMENT 

LEVELS 

-2 

Most unfavorable 

outcome 

Observation Scales for Family Interactions 

When the caregiver interacts with the child, none of the interaction is 

positive (i.e., never interacts positively). 

Goal $2: Parent will demonstrate positive interaction with child(ren). 

1 :ess than expected level 

success 

When the caregiver interacts with the child, 25% of the interaction is 

positive (i.e., rarely interacts positiveiy). 

More than expected 1 success 

1 level of 

When the caregiver interacts with the child, 75% of the interaction is 

positive (i.e., often interacts positively). 

When the caregiver interacts with the child, 50% of the interaction is 

positive (i.e., sometimes interacts positively). 

+2 

Most favorable outcome 

~ 

Parent consistently engages in positive interactions with child such as 

listening, touching, using pet names, affectionate facial expressions, eye 

contact, etc. (Le., parent always interacts positively). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women's Shelter 

Observation Scales for Family Interactions 

I- Less than expected level 

O 

Expected levd of 

s?Iscess 

God $3: Parent appropriately praises child. 

Czregiver uses correct praise 25% of the time when child exhibits good 

behavior (Le., praise is used but rarely). 

Caregiver uses correct praise 50% of the time when child exhibits good 

behavior (i.e., praise is sometimes used). 

SCALE ATTAINMENT 

LEVELS 

+2 

Most favorable outcome 

-2 

Most unfavorable 

outcome 

Caregiver uses correct praise 100% of the time when child exhibits good 

behavior (Le., praise is always used). 

Csregiver never praises or acknowledges good behavior. 

Mxe than expected 

success 

Caregiver uses correct praise 75% of the time when child exhibits good 

behavior (Le., praise is often used). 

Note: Praise is defined as a verbal statement which acknowledges the child's accomplishments, 

contributions to the household or family, good behavior, etc. and which is delivered immediately 

without a zap or "but ..." tacked onto the praise. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women's Shelter 

Less thzn expected level 

0 

Expected level of 

success 

I: I success 

Observation Scales for Family Interactions 

Child's Goal $1: Expressing Feelings 

Child is rarely (25% of the time) willing to talk about their feelings pertaining 

to the family violence and the related events when given the opportunity; 

child usually holds back. 

Child is sometimes (50% of the time) willing to talk about their feelings 

pertaining to the family violence and the related events when given the 

opportunity; child sometimes holds back. 

SCALE ATTAINMENT 

LEVELS 

+1 

More than expected 

succ2ss 

+2 

Most favorable outcome 

-2 

Most unfavorable 

ou tcom 3 

Child is often (75% of the time) willing to talk about their feelings pertaining 

to the family violence and the related events when given the opportunity; 

child does not usually hold back. 

Child is always willing to talk about their feelings pertaining to the family 

violence and the related events when given the opportunity; child does not 

hold back. 

Child refuses to talk about family violence, related events, and their 

reactions to it. 

Note: The scale measures the extent to which the child is willing to discuss feelings about things like the 

violence events, their parents, moving, having to change schools, etc. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Battered Women's Shelter 

Observation Scales for Family Interactions 

L 

Child Goal K2: Expressing Anger 

I 

1 

LEVELS 

-2 

Most unfavorable 

outcome 

-1 

Less than expected level 

of success 

-~ 

Child hurts or attempts to hurt someone by destroying property, throwing 

things, etc. or verbally hurts someone by yelling, name calling, or using 

inappropriate verbal expressions or derogatory remarks. Child's anger is 

clearly "out of controll" 

lo 

Expected level of 

success 

Child displays temper tantrums or other forms of semi-controlled anger 

(e.g., angrily drawing, stomping feet, yelling or swearing that is not directed 

at someone, etc.). Child's anger is somewhat controlled. 

I +1 

More than expicted 

success 

+2 

Most favorable outcome 

Child is able to discuss anger and what has caused it; there is no physical 

display of anger. Child's anger is expressed in a controlled manner. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
P 

APPENDIX E: Police Questionnaire 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Akron- Battered Women’s Shelter 

Thz following questions will help US get ofsense of how you feel about being in shelter 

and the services avaiIable. Please answer based on how you feel today. There are no 

right or wrong answers and your responses will in no way affect your stay here. This is 

intended to assist US in helping you through your process. 

1. I can count on the counseling staff here to help me. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 3, 3 4 9 

2. I can count on the other women here to help me. 

Strongly Agree Agree . Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

’. I will ask for help. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree StrongIy Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

4. I; was 2 good decision to come to shelter. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

5. I fceI 2s though I have no control over my life. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

6. I m fiee to m&e decisions for myself. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

7. It is Ok to seek out professional help. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 3 3 c A n 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
8. It is important to have fiienddfamily that understand domestic violence and wiI1 

support me. 

Srrongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 a 3 4 9 

9. I am a good mother for bringing my chiId/children here. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t ‘Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

10. I am not the cause of the abuse that brought me here. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree StrongIy Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

11. I am not ashamed that others know of my abuse. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 2 3 4 9 

12. The \\ray I responded to the abuse was the best I could do for me. 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know 

1 a 3. 4 9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
District Number 

Police Responses to Processing Domestic Violence Cases 

This questionnaire is part of the evaluation of The Domestic Violence Pilot 

Project. It will be used to measure the effectiveness of the project from the perspective 

of the police officers. Your responses to the questionnaire will be completely 

anonymous. We realize that there are a lot of differences from one domestic violence 

czse to another. We would like you to think more generally about all the domestic 

violence cases to which you have responded in the past six months as you respond to 

each item on the questionnaire. Thank you for your help and cooperation. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree 

It is a waste of time to prosecute domestic SA A D SD 

violence cases. 

Domestic violence cases are likely to result in SA A D SD 

a conviction. 

I feel sympathetic toward the victim of SA A D SD 

domestic violence. 

Many of the victims in domestic violence cases SA A D SD 

are over-reacting to the situation. 

I think it is often the victim's fault when SA A D SD 

domestic violence occurs. 

Prosecution should proceed in domestic SA A D SD 

violencz cases even if the victim is uninvolved 

or uncooperative. 

Prosecution rewards the officer's hard work in SA A D SD 

domestic violence cases. 

The prosecutor's office is cooperating with SA A D SD 

police on domestic violence cases. 

I feel like I can be part of the process in SA A D SD 

prosecuting domestic violence cases. 

10. I am willing to talk with the prosecutor and SA A D SD 

discuss the domestic violence cases with 

which I am involved. 

1 1. I think that domestic violence calls are SA A D SD 

emotionally draining for officers. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
12. I feel that I get good support from my SA A 

supervisors for investigating domestic violence 

cases. 

D SD 

13. The justice system is responsive to my SA A D SD 

interventions in domestic violence cases. 

14. I usually find out the result of domestic SA A D SD 

violence cases I investigate. 

15. I consider domestic violence less serious SA A D SD 

when drugs or alcohol are involved. 

16. Domestic violence is a private, family matter SA A D SD 

and police should not be involved. 

17. Repeat calls to the same household for SA A D SD 

domestic violence are a waste of police time. 

18. Victims often contribute to domestic violence. SA A D SD 

19. Resorting to domestic violence can be an SA A D SD 

understandable response to life stresses. 

20. Where would you place domestic violence cases on the scale below in terms of the 

seriousness of the crime? Place an X on the scale to indicate your response. 

Questions for Second district Officers only: 

21. I am more likely to provide more detail in my SA A D SD 

reports since the supplemental report was 

initiated. 

22. I think the new supplemental reports are SA A D SD 

helpful in investigating domestic violence 

cases. 

23. I do not like the new supplemental reports. SA A D SD 

24. It is easier to investigate and respond to SA A D SD 

domestic violence cases than it was one year 

ago. 

25. I seek out the prosecutor for domestic violence SA A D SD 

cases to discuss the case. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.