{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "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 had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs\r\n of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were\r\n available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to\r\n assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the\r\n population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization\r\n and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime\r\n characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to\r\n satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend\r\n improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to\r\n identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five\r\n different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000\r\n violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60\r\n homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1,\r\n Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the\r\n initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2,\r\n Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what\r\n type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether\r\n they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship\r\n to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents\r\n for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any,\r\n contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents\r\n were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the\r\n time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the\r\n overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the\r\n time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction\r\n regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling\r\n their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of\r\n financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state,\r\n local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to\r\n them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the\r\n physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic\r\n variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment\r\n status, and type of job of each violent crime\r\n victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and\r\n highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case\r\n files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each\r\n initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident\r\n characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail\r\n booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The\r\n variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors,\r\n and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected,\r\n and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3\r\n also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the\r\n victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These\r\n services included counseling, explanation of medical and police\r\n procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing,\r\n psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court\r\n processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the\r\n incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims\r\n and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and\r\n sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are\r\n also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each\r\n suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were\r\n gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the\r\n three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis\r\n Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis\r\n and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness\r\n Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of\r\n the original questions was administered one year later to members of\r\n the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention\r\n Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services,\r\n Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey\r\n Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to\r\n provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the\r\n goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the\r\n types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours\r\n of training required, and the topics covered in the\r\n training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the\r\n specific types of services they provided to\r\n victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of\r\n variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions\r\n encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law\r\n enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the\r\n ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each\r\n respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the\r\n agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral\r\n agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service\r\n Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as\r\n Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement\r\n agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the\r\n type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service\r\n (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide\r\n survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral\r\n procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals,\r\n paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team,\r\n the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness\r\n Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service\r\n provider organization, as well as which California counties they\r\n serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services\r\n and asked if they provided any of those services to\r\n victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job\r\n placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to\r\n court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g.,\r\n employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the\r\n ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was\r\n distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido,\r\n San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement\r\n Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their\r\n familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the\r\n program, the extent to which they used or referred others to\r\n intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not\r\n calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various\r\n intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at\r\n crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to\r\n victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency\r\nof each law enforcement respondent.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02789.v1", "title": "Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994"}], "identifier": "3476", "issued": "2000-08-04T00:00:00", "keyword": ["arrest records", "case processing", "coping", "criminal justice system", "crisis intervention", "demographic characteristics", "needs assessment", "psychological wellbeing", "victim services", "victimization", "victims", "violent crime"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "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}}, "title": "Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994"}