DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03017
title: Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services for Battered Women in Detroit, 1998-1999
title: Archival Version

description: This study evaluated advocacy services offered to battered
 women in Detroit, Michigan, and examined other aspects of coordinated
 community responses to domestic violence by focusing on women named as
 victims in police reports. Advocacy was defined as those services
 provided to support victims during the legal process or to enhance
 their safety. For the Preliminary Complaint Reports Data (Part 1), a
 random sample of preliminary complaint reports (PCRs), completed by
 police officers after they responded to domestic violence calls, were
 gathered, resulting in a sample of 1,057 incidents and victims. For
 Victim Advocacy Contact Data (Part 2), researchers obtained data from
 advocates' files about the services they provided to the 1,057
 victims. For Case Disposition Data (Part 3), researchers conducted a
 computer search to determine the outcomes of the cases. They looked up
 each perpetrator from the list of 1,057 incidents, and determined
 whether there was a warrant for the focal incident, whether it turned
 into a prosecution, and the outcome. The Initial Victim Interview
 (Part 4) and Follow-Up Victim Interview Data (Part 5) were conducted
 from April 1998 to July 1999. During the same period that researchers
 were completing the second interviews, they also interviewed 23 women
 (Victim Comparison Group Interview Data, Part 6) from the list of
 1,057 whom they had been unable to reach during the first interviews.
 They compared these 23 women to the 63 who had second interviews to
 determine if there were any differences in use of services, or views
 toward or participation in prosecution. Variables in Part 1 focus on
 whether alcohol and abuse were involved, previous incidents, the
 suspect's psychological aggressions and physical assaults, if a weapon
 was used, if the victim was hurt, if property was damaged, if the
 victim sought medical attention, and the severity of physical abuse or
 injury. Variables in Part 2 provide information on the role of the
 advocate, methods of contact, types of referrals made, and services
 provided. Variables in Part 3 include the type of charge, outcome of
 resolved case, why the case was dismissed, if applicable, and if the
 suspect was sentenced to probation, costs, confinement, no contact
 with the victim, a batterer program, or community service. The
 initial, follow-up, and comparison group interviews (Parts 4-6) all
 collected similar information. Variables about the incident include
 how well the respondent remembered the incident, if police arrived
 promptly, if the respondent was advised to file charges, if police
 told the respondent that a counselor was available, and if the
 respondent's partner had been in jail since the incident. Variables
 concerning advocacy include whether the victim contacted advocates,
 and if advocates provided legal help and referrals. Legal system
 variables include whether the respondent felt pressured by anyone to
 drop charges or pursue charges, if the respondent received help for
 preliminary examination or trial, and if contact with the legal system
 helped the respondent. Variables about services include whether the
 respondent received assistance in temporary shelter, food/money
 resources, child care, employment, education, a lawyer for
 divorce/custody, support or self-help group, or a substance abuse
 treatment program. Variables concerning what happened in the previous
 six months cover the number of times the respondent had called police
 because of danger, left home because of a violent incident, partner
 had been arrested because of violence, and partner physically abused
 respondent. Variables about events that occurred while the respondent
 and abuser were separated include how often the partner harassed the
 respondent on the phone, wrote threatening letters, violated legal
 restrictions, refused to leave the respondent's home, failed to pay
 child support, and threatened to take the children. Demographic
 variables include respondent's race or ethnic background, education,
 marital status, number of children, number of children who lived with
 respondent, and employment status and income at the time of the
interviews.
description: Responding to the scarcity of published research
 about advocacy services for battered women, this study evaluated
 advocacy services offered to battered women in Detroit, Michigan, and
 examined other aspects of coordinated community responses to domestic
 violence by focusing on women named as victims in police reports.
 Advocacy was defined as those services provided to support victims
 during the legal process or to enhance their safety. The study sought
 to answer the following questions: (1) Is advocacy at the precinct
 and/or prosecutor's level associated with a higher rate of completed
 prosecution of batterers? (2) Is advocacy at the precinct and/or
 prosecutor's level associated with a higher rate of guilty findings
 against batterers (or pleas of guilty)? (3) Does advocacy at the
 precinct and/or prosecutor's level affect victims' reports of rates of
 subsequent violence as well as rates of police reports and arrests?
 (4) Do victims who received advocacy assess their situation as more or
 less safe than victims who did not receive it? (5) How do victims view
advocacy and the criminal justice process related to the abuse?
description: For the Preliminary Complaint Reports Data (Part
 1), a random sample of preliminary complaint reports (PCRs) was
 gathered. A research assistant went weekly to the five precincts and
 collected copies of all the PCRs that officers set aside as "domestic
 violence incidents." She then sorted them and removed cases that did
 not meet the criteria of having an adult female victim meeting
 Michigan's definition of domestic violence. According to Michigan law,
 an incident is domestic violence when the perpetrator and victim are
 married, formerly married, live-together partners, formerly lived
 together, or have a child in common. Researchers had a quota of cases
 for each precinct, so if the research assistant had too many from a
 single precinct, she made a selection by counting them and selecting a
 case when her count matched the last two digits of a table of random
 numbers. This quota enabled the researchers to be certain to gather
 reports from all of the precincts throughout the data collection
 period rather than gathering all the reports researchers needed from
 one precinct in a short period of time. If the number of reports did
 not exceed the quota, researchers used all the domestic violence
 reports from the precinct for the week. A total of 1,057 cases were
 selected. The researchers continued to collect PCRs from the five
 precincts through March 1999 to look for additional reports pertaining
 to the 1,057 victims in the sample. The subsequent PCRs were coded
 according to whether the perpetrator was the same or different from
 the initial incident perpetrator. For Victim Advocacy Contact Data
 (Part 2), researchers obtained data from advocates' files about the
 services they provided to the 1,057 victims. During the planning
 stages of the proposal, the advocacy programs agreed to provide access
 to advocates' records about the numbers of face-to-face and telephone
 contacts they had with each victim as well as the types of services
 provided. However, as the data gathering began, researchers learned
 that some advocates did not keep methodical records on all of the
 services they delivered to each victim. Others were apparently
 unwilling to allow the researchers to have access to these data.
 Therefore, researchers devised a "contact form" for advocates to
 fill out after each in-person or phone contact with a victim. After
 the intake of PCRs was completed, researchers compiled a list of the
 1,057 names with the birth date or age of each victim. They then asked
 the police department advocates and legal advocates to check the name
 of each victim they served against this list and fill out a contact
 form for new contacts with women on the list. While advocates reported
 that they were following this procedure, it was impossible to know how
 consistently they were checking the list. For Case Disposition Data
 (Part 3), researchers created a prosecution outcome form and produced
 a copy for each case when the prosecutor's advocate's logbook
 indicated a warrant request. Researchers then asked the prosecutor's
 advocates to fill out a form for cases that were assigned to them on
 their intake days. Researchers collected a few completed forms, but
 the prosecutor's advocates did not fill out the forms for most of the
 cases that were completed. Therefore, researchers conducted a computer
 search for the outcomes of the cases. Researchers looked up each
 perpetrator from the list of 1,057 incidents, and determined whether
 there was a warrant for the focal incident, whether it turned into a
 prosecution, and the outcome. Although the computer search did not
 yield a report that was as detailed as the disposition forms that
 researchers gave the advocates, it did provide the outcome of the
 case, and it gave some information about why cases were dismissed.
 Therefore, researchers were able to categorize cases according to
 whether they were dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of a
 complaining witness. The Initial Victim Interview (Part 4) and
 Follow-Up Victim Interview (Part 5) were conducted from April 1998 to
 July 1999. Before the initial interview, a passive consent (refusal)
 form was used in precincts by domestic violence counselors and by the
 prosecutor's advocates. Advocates were asked to describe the study
 when they met with the victims. They explained the survey and had
 women sign the refusal form if they were unwilling to be contacted for
 the survey. Two questionnaires, one for the initial telephone
 interview and the other for the follow-up, were developed. At the
 beginning of each interview, interviewers read the consent form to the
 respondents and informed them of potential risks and benefits. Victims
 were contacted again three months after the first interview to make
 sure they were still at the same telephone number and to ask them to
 notify the interviewers if their number changed. For the six-month
 interviews, all of the women who were reached at three months were
 called, except the few who had refused further contact. Researchers
 also attempted to contact women who were initially interviewed but
 could not be reached with the three-month call. During the same period
 that researchers were completing the second interviews, they also
 interviewed 23 women (Victim Comparison Group Interview, Part 6) from
 the list of 1,057 whom they had been unable to reach during the first
 interviews. They compared these 23 women to the 63 who had second
 interviews to determine if there were any differences in use of
services, or views toward or participation in prosecution.
description: Variables in Part 1 focus on whether alcohol and
 abuse were involved, previous incidents, the suspect's psychological
 aggressions and physical assaults, if a weapon was used, if the victim
 was hurt, if property was damaged, if the victim sought medical
 attention, and the severity of physical abuse or injury. Variables in
 Part 2 provide information on the role of the advocate, methods of
 contact, types of referrals made, and services provided. Variables in
 Part 3 include the type of charge, outcome of resolved case, why the
 case was dismissed, if applicable, and if the suspect was sentenced to
 probation, costs, confinement, no contact with the victim, a batterer
 program, or community service. The initial, follow-up, and comparison
 group interviews (Parts 4-6) all collected similar information.
 Variables about the incident include how well the respondent
 remembered the incident, if police arrived promptly, if the respondent
 was advised to file charges, if police told the respondent that a
 counselor was available, and if the respondent's partner had been in
 jail since the incident. Variables concerning advocacy include whether
 the victim contacted advocates, and if advocates provided legal help
 and referrals. Legal system variables include whether the respondent
 felt pressured by anyone to drop charges or pursue charges, if the
 respondent received help for preliminary examination or trial, and if
 contact with the legal system helped the respondent. Variables about
 services include whether the respondent received assistance in
 temporary shelter, food/money resources, child care, employment,
 education, a lawyer for divorce/custody, support or self-help group,
 or a substance abuse treatment program. Variables concerning what
 happened in the previous six months cover the number of times the
 respondent had called police because of danger, left home because of a
 violent incident, partner had been arrested because of violence, and
 partner physically abused respondent. Variables about events that
 occurred while the respondent and abuser were separated include how
 often the partner harassed the respondent on the phone, wrote
 threatening letters, violated legal restrictions, refused to leave the
 respondent's home, failed to pay child support, and threatened to take
 the children. Demographic variables include respondent's race or
 ethnic background, education, marital status, number of children
 respondent had, number of children who lived with respondent, and
employment status and income at the time of the interviews.
description: Response Rates: Initial interview: 242 initial interviews were
 completed from the list of 1,057 selected from the PCRs, which was a
 response rate of 22.8 percent. One hundred and ninety of the phone
 numbers were disconnected, and 182 were numbers for homes with no
 resident females or where the victim listed on the PCR denied that
 the incident had happened. Eighty-one women refused to be
 interviewed. Three-month follow-up: Out of 242 women who were
 interviewed initially, phone interviewers were able to reach 153
 women for the three-month follow-up. They were able to make an
 appointment for the six-month interview with 126 of them. During the
 three-month calls, nine women refused to be contacted for the
 six-month interview. At 18 of the numbers, interviewers were told
 that the respondent was not there or it was the wrong locale. Of the
 remainder of the telephone numbers, 62 were not in service. Six-month
 interview: 63 interviews were completed. There were 67 telephone
 numbers that were not in service. Twenty-four women refused the
 second interview, 34 were the wrong locale or no respondent, and
 three claimed to be ineligible or that there was no incident that
occurred on the PCR date.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Preliminary Complaint Reports Data
DS2: Victim Advocacy Contact Data
DS3: Case Disposition Data
DS4: Initial Victim Interview Data
DS5: Follow-Up Victim Interview Data
DS6: Victim Comparison Group Interview Data
description: Women named as domestic violence victims in police
incident reports in Detroit, Michigan.