{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "restricted public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This study was undertaken to evaluate Alexandria,\r\nVirginia's Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), which is a\r\ncoordinated community response to domestic violence. Specifically,\r\nthe goals of the study were (1) to determine the effectiveness of\r\nDVIP, (2) to compare victims' perceptions of program satisfaction and\r\nother program elements between the Alexandria Domestic Violence\r\nIntervention Program and domestic violence victim support services in\r\nVirginia Beach, Virginia, (3) to examine the factors related to\r\nabusers who repeatedly abuse their victims, and (4) to report the\r\nfindings of attitudinal surveys of the Alexandria police department\r\nregarding the mandatory arrest policy. Data were collected from four\r\nsources. The first two sources of data were surveys conducted via\r\ntelephone interviews with females living in either Alexandria,\r\nVirginia (Part 1), or Virginia Beach, Virginia (Part 2), who were\r\nvictims of domestic violence assault incidents in which the police had\r\nbeen contacted. These surveys were designed to describe the services\r\nthat the women had received, their satisfaction with those services,\r\nand their experience with subsequent abuse. For Part 3 (Alexandria\r\nRepeat Offender Data), administrative records from the Alexandria\r\nCriminal Justice Information System (CJIS) were examined in order to\r\nidentify and examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly\r\nabused their victims. The fourth source of data was a survey\r\ndistributed to police officers in Alexandria (Part 4, Alexandria\r\nPolice Officer Survey Data) and was developed to assess police\r\nofficers' attitudes regarding the domestic violence arrest policy in\r\nAlexandria. In four rounds of interviews for Part 1 and three rounds\r\nof interviews for Part 2, victims answered questions regarding the\r\nlocation where the domestic violence incident occurred and if the\r\npolice were involved, their perceptions of the helpfulness of the\r\npolice, prosecutor, domestic violence programs, hotlines, and\r\nshelters, their relationship to the abuser, their living arrangements\r\nat the time of each interview, and whether a protective order was\r\nobtained. Also gathered was information on the types of abuse and\r\ninjuries sustained by the victim, whether she sought medical care for\r\nthe injuries, whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the\r\nincident(s), whether the victim had been physically abused or\r\nthreatened, yelled at, had personal property destroyed, or was made to\r\nfeel unsafe by the abuser, if any other programs or persons provided\r\nhelp to the victim and how helpful these additional services were, and\r\nwhether a judge ordered services for the victim or abuser. After the\r\ninitial interviews, in subsequent rounds victims were asked if they\r\nhad had any contact with the abuser since the last interview, if they\r\nhad experienced any major life changes, if their situation had\r\nimproved or gotten worse and if so how, and what types of assistance\r\nor programs would have helped improve their situation. Demographic\r\nvariables for Part 3 include offenders' race, sex, age at first\r\ncriminal nondomestic violence charge, and age at first domestic\r\nviolence charge. Other variables include charge number, type,\r\ninitiator, disposition, and sentence of nondomestic violence charges,\r\nas well as the conditions of the sentences, imposed days, months, and\r\nyears, effective days, months, and years, type of domestic violence\r\ncase, victim's relationship to offender, victim's age, sex, and race,\r\nwhether alcohol or drugs were involved, if children were present at\r\nthe domestic violence incident, the assault method used by the\r\noffender, and the severity of the assault. For Part 4, police officers\r\nwere asked whether they knew what a domestic violent incident was,\r\nwhether arresting without a warrant was considered good policy,\r\nwhether they were in favor of domestic violence policy as a police\r\nresponse, whether they thought domestic violence policy was an\r\neffective deterrent, whether officers should have discretion to\r\narrest, and how much discretion was used to handle domestic violence\r\ncalls. The number and percent of domestic violence arrests made in the\r\nprevious year, percent of domestic violence calls that involved mutual\r\ncombat, and the number of years each respondent worked with the\r\nAlexandria, Virginia, police department are included in the file.\r\nDemographic variables for Part 4 include the age and gender of each\r\nrespondent.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02858.v2", "title": "Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence in Alexandria, Virginia, 1990-1998"}], "identifier": "3489", "issued": "2001-08-06T00:00:00", "keyword": ["arrest procedures", "battered women", "domestic violence", "intervention", "police departments", "program evaluation", "recidivists", "victim services", "victims"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-07-13T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "rights": "These data are restricted due to the increased risk of violation of confidentiality of respondent and subject data.", "title": "Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence in Alexandria, Virginia, 1990-1998"}