DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03814.v1
title: National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002
title: Version 1

description: This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the
 Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus
 Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice
 under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding
 from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was
 comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in
 1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information
 about each campus and the violence against women programs and services
 available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from
 questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented
 perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and
 collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college
 or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service
providers).
description: This study was undertaken as a process evaluation
 of 1999 and 2000 grantees participating in the Grants to Combat
 Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was
 conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the
 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence
 Against Women Office (VAWO). The research team sought (1) to provide a
 national program- level process evaluation of the Campus Program, and
 (2) to inform policies and practices that address violence against
 women on campuses and ensure victim safety and offender
 accountability. The research team proposed a process evaluation aimed
 at describing the process of program planning, implementation, and
 problem resolution. The premise of the VAWO Campus Program was that
 colleges and universities had the ability to educate and shape the
 values, attitudes, and behaviors of young men and women toward the
 issue of violence against women. In 1994 Congress passed the Violence
 Against Women Act to improve the criminal justice system's response to
 the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. The
 need to address the victimization of college women was supported by
 research indicating that college women were at a greater risk of rape
 and other forms of sexual assault than women of comparable age in the
 general population. In 1998 VAWO received funds for the Campus
 Program, which recognized that within the college and university
 environment, educational programming on violence against women, victim
 assistance resources, reporting and investigative processes,
 disciplinary policies, and other factors can have a significant
 influence on women's safety and on whether victims step forward to
 seek assistance and report these crimes. Federal Fiscal Year 1999 was
 the first year in which colleges and universities received funding
 under the Campus Program. The Campus Program grantees varied
 geographically, by size, and by other demographic characteristics, and
 included both public and private institutions. The size of the student
 bodies ranged from approximately 800 to more than 50,000. VAWO's grant
 application package for the Campus Program outlined three minimum
 requirements that all 38 projects were required to address. First, all
 projects were expected to create a coordinated community response to
 violence against women on campus and were encouraged to form
 partnerships with at least one non-profit, non-governmental victim
 service provider. Second, grantees were to establish a mandatory
 prevention and education program for all incoming students, working in
 collaboration with campus and community-based victim advocacy
 organizations. The program was to include information about dating
 violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Third, grantees were required
 to train campus police to respond effectively in sexual assault,
 domestic violence, and stalking cases. An additional requirement was
 added for fiscal 2000 grantees, which called for training of judicial
board members.
description: Specifically, the process evaluation was to
 consist of a review of all grantees in the program through visits to
 each site. Prior to the evaluation's start, the research team
 established an advisory board to aid in designing the methodology.
 This board was composed of six individuals, including a researcher who
 had done work in the area of violence against women on campuses, a
 student, a university police chief, a sexual assault services
 coordinator from a university, and a director of student judicial
 services. Because of the large number of sites in the program, the
 research team was limited in the extent to which a thorough process
 evaluation could be conducted. At the request of NIJ, the research
 staff made only one trip to each site to collect administrative
 records data and conduct interviews relating to project activities.
 There were not enough funds to make subsequent trips to sites to judge
 their progress over time. Moreover, it was not possible to do
 follow-up telephone calls thereby maintaining contact with grantees on
 their implementation efforts. In short, the process evaluation
 depended on a snapshot view of the campuses at the time of the site
 visit. Each visit typically lasted two to three days, during which as
 many as a dozen interviews might take place. Interviewees usually
 included the project director, on-campus advocate, campus law
 enforcement, judicial affairs personnel, education coordinator,
 women's center, community partners, dean of students, representatives
 from student organizations, and project evaluator. Project directors
 frequently prepared large packets of information on their institutions
 and their project activities for the research staff. It was common for
 interviewees to provide documentation of their role in the project, or
 summary information on their office/organization. From the interviews,
 the research team typically collected copies of progress reports sent
 to VAWO, summary sheets of campus demographics, student handbooks,
 training manuals for advocates and disciplinary board members, and
 copies of all orientation materials as well as other educational
 curriculum materials, newspaper articles relating to the project,
 relevant police orders, crime statistics, and summary advocacy
 statistics. Other items collected across the campuses ranged from
 copies of all advertising materials (mailers, posters, mugs, t-shirts,
 magnets, buttons) to videos of major project presentations. To
 facilitate the visits, the research team developed several protocols
 to allow for structured interviews. The protocols provided for
 consistent data collection across the campuses. After conducting a
 visit, the research staff prepared a site report, usually 20 to 25
 pages in length, which represented a process evaluation report for a
 particular grantee/site. These reports were sent to the project
 directors at the sites for their review. The research staff made
 appropriate changes to the reports as a result of these reviews and
 then submitted them to NIJ as a deliverable product from the
 evaluation. Part 1 data consist of basic information about each
 grantee's campus and the violence against women programs and services
 available at each site. Data for Part 2 were collected using a
 Partnership Survey, which was a supplement to the site visit
 observations. The purpose of the survey, which was administered to
 grant project staff, was to document perceptions of project
 participants about program collaboration. From the 35-item
 questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point
 scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items grouped
 into three categories: those regarding the partnership, the project,
 and individual participation. Respondents were also invited to provide
 comments on any survey item. The survey questionnaire was made
 available for downloading to all project directors through the
 Institute of Law and Justice's Web site. Copies were also distributed
 at site visit interviews. Respondents were given the option of mailing
 or faxing their completed surveys. A total of 247 surveys were
received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.
description: Variables for Part 1 include whether an institution
 was public or private, located in an urban, suburban, or rural area,
 the number of students comprising the student population, whether
 students were residential or commuters, the year of the grant award,
 award amount, level of programming at the time of the award, whether
 there were campus police special units, conduct code for stalking,
 coordinated community response, relationship violence counseling, a
 Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), sexual assault counseling, court
 accompaniment, hospital accompaniment, shelter services, legal
 advocacy services, hot-lines, language interpreters, and if campus
 police had any of the following training: sexual assault sensitivity
 training, domestic violence sensitivity training, stalking sensitivity
 training, sexual assault procedural training, and domestic violence
 training. Other variables include type of coordinated community
 response and educational programming, and the year violence against
 women services began on campus. Variables for Part 2 include whether a
 respondent was a university employee, whether respondents agreed or
 disagreed that the partnership would remain in place once federal
 funding was gone, if the partners in the project worked well together,
 were vested in the project, had common goals, were open to outside
 ideas or suggestions, had the victims' needs in mind, and if the
 partners perceived a shared responsibility for the success of the
 joint projects and activities. Respondents also offered their opinions
 on if relevant information was shared in a timely fashion, if there
 were barriers to effective communication, if information was shared
 with the public, if the partnership had realistic, obtainable, and
 measurable goals, if the partnership was on track for meeting goals,
 if the project had the potential to improve the safety or well-being
 of victims, if victims were encouraged to report victimization, if
 violence against women had increased since the inception of the
 project, if the project improved victim advocacy services on campus,
 if the project considered cultural, racial, and ethnic differences
 when planning projects and activities, and whether the project was
considered a success.
description: Response Rates: Part 1: inap. For Part 2, an average of 11
 surveys were returned from each campus, the median return rate was
 smaller (7 surveys per campus). The range of returned surveys included
as few as 1 and as many as 16 surveys.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used in Part 2.
description: All 38 grantee project sites were targeted for inclusion
 in the sample for Part 1. Three project sites (Jamestown College,
 Tulane University, and University of Connecticut) represented
 consortiums. The Jamestown College and Tulane University projects
 involved more than one university participating in grant activities,
 although coordination of the grants took place on their respective
 campuses. The Jamestown College consortium included five other
 campuses: the University of North Dakota, North Dakota State College
 of Science, Lake Region State College, Mayville State University, and
 Fort Berthold Community College, a tribal institution. Tulane's
 consortium included Southern University at New Orleans and the
 University of New Orleans. The third consortium project was
 administered by the University of Connecticut, which implemented the
 project on its main campus first, and at the time of the evaluation
 only represented one institution. The Jamestown College and Tulane
 University sites were not included in the final sample, resulting in
 36 grantee project sites. For Part 2, all project staff (either
 employees of the college/university or employees of one of the
 community partners) who were present during the site visit were
 targeted for inclusion in the sample. A total of 247 surveys were
received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Site Comparison Data
DS2: Partnership Survey Data
description: Grantees representing the 38 project sites comprising the
 Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program in 1999 and
2000. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instrument are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.