{"@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": "In 1996 the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) began an\r\nevaluation of the law enforcement and prosecution components of the\r\n\"STOP Violence Against Women\" grant program authorized by the Violence\r\nAgainst Women Act of 1994. This data collection constitutes one\r\ncomponent of the evaluation. The researchers chose to evaluate two\r\nspecialized units and two multi-agency team projects in order to study\r\nthe local impact of STOP on victim safety and offender\r\naccountability. The two specialized units reflected typical STOP\r\nfunding, with money being used for the addition of one or two\r\ndedicated professionals in each community. The Dane County, Wisconsin,\r\nSheriff's Office used STOP funds to support the salaries of two\r\ndomestic violence detectives. This project was evaluated through\r\nsurveys of domestic violence victims served by the Dane County\r\nSheriff's Office (Part 1). In Stark County, Ohio, the Office of the\r\nProsecutor used STOP funds to support the salary of a designated\r\nfelony domestic violence prosecutor. The Stark County project was\r\nevaluated by tracking domestic violence cases filed with the\r\nprosecutor's office. The case tracking system included only cases\r\ninvolving intimate partner violence, with a male offender and female\r\nvictim. All domestic violence felons from 1996 were tracked from\r\narrest to disposition and sentence (Part 2). This pre-grant group of\r\nfelons was compared with a sample of cases from 1999 (Part 3). In\r\nHillsborough County, New Hampshire, a comprehensive evaluation\r\nstrategy was used to assess the impact of the use of STOP funds on\r\ndomestic violence cases. First, a sample of 1996 pre-grant and 1999\r\npost-grant domestic violence cases was tracked from arrest to\r\ndisposition for both regular domestic violence cases (Part 4) and also\r\nfor dual arrest cases (Part 5). Second, a content analysis of police\r\nincident reports from pre- and post-grant periods was carried out to\r\ngauge any changes in report writing (Part 6). Finally, interviews were\r\nconducted with victims to document their experiences with the criminal\r\njustice system, and to better understand the factors that contribute\r\nto victim safety and well-being (Part 7). In Jackson County, Missouri,\r\nevaluation methods included reviews of prosecutor case files and\r\ntracking all sex crimes referred to the Jackson County Prosecutor's\r\nOffice over both pre-grant and post-grant periods (Part 8). The\r\nevaluation also included personal interviews with female victims (Part\r\n9). Variables in Part 1 (Dane County Victim Survey Data) describe the\r\nrelationship of the victim and offender, injuries sustained, who\r\ncalled the police and when, how the police responded to the victim and\r\nthe situation, how the detective contacted the victim, and services\r\nprovided by the detective. Part 2 (1996 Stark County Case Tracking\r\nData), Part 3 (1999 Stark County Case Tracking Data), Part 4\r\n(Hillsborough County Regular Case Tracking Data), Part 5 (Hillsborough\r\nCounty Dual Arrest Case Tracking Data), and Part 8 (Jackson County\r\nCase Tracking Data) include variables on substance abuse by victim\r\nand offender, use of weapons, law enforcement response, primary arrest\r\noffense, whether children were present, injuries sustained, indictment\r\ncharge, pre-sentence investigation, victim impact statement, arrest\r\nand trial dates, disposition, sentence, and court costs. Demographic\r\nvariables include the age, sex, and ethnicity of the victim and the\r\noffender. Variables in Part 6 (Hillsborough County Police Report\r\nData) provide information on whether there was an existing protective\r\norder, whether the victim was interviewed separately, severity of\r\ninjuries, seizure of weapons, witnesses present, involvement of\r\nchildren, and demeanor of suspect and victim. In Part 7 (Hillsborough\r\nCounty Victim Interview Data) variables focus on whether victims had\r\nprior experience with the court, type of physical abuse experienced,\r\ninjuries from abuse, support from relatives, friends, neighbors,\r\ndoctor, religious community, or police, assistance from police,\r\nsatisfaction with police response, expectations about case outcome,\r\nwhy the victim dropped the charges, contact with the prosecutor,\r\ncriminal justice advocate, and judge, and the outcome of the\r\ncase. Demographic variables include age, race, number of children, and\r\noccupation. Variables in Part 9 (Jackson County Victim Interview Data)\r\nrelate to when victims were sexually assaulted, if they knew the\r\nperpetrator, who was contacted to help, victims' opinions about police\r\nand detectives who responded to the case, contact with the prosecutor\r\nand victim's advocate, and aspects of the medical\r\nexamination. Demographic variables include age, race, and marital\r\nstatus.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03252.v1", "title": "Impact Evaluation of Stop Violence Against Women Grants in Dane County, Wisconsin, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Jackson County, Missouri, and Stark County, Ohio, 1996-2000"}], "identifier": "3355", "issued": "2001-12-14T00:00:00", "keyword": ["battered women", "case processing", "disposition (legal)", "domestic violence", "police response", "program evaluation", "prosecuting attorneys", "victim services", "victims"], "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}}, "rights": "These data are restricted due to the increased risk of violation of confidentiality of respondent and subject data.", "title": "Impact Evaluation of Stop Violence Against Women Grants in Dane County, Wisconsin, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Jackson County, Missouri, and Stark County, Ohio, 1996-2000"}