skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 219385   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Volume 4: Findings Report on Survey Methodology
Author(s): Adele Harrell ; Jennifer Castro
Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
United States of America

Atlantic Research and Consulting
United States of America

Wayne State University Ctr for Urban Studies
United States of America
Date Published: 06/2007
Page Count: 68
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 1999-WT-VX-K005
Sale Source: The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF 
Dataset: DATASET 1
Type: Program/Project Evaluation
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report provides a detailed description of the methods used to conduct the surveys of victims and offenders for the federally supported evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD).
Abstract: The evaluation used a quasi-experimental design that compared victims and offenders in eligible intimate partner violence (IPV) criminal cases in the Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) sites to similar victims and offenders in comparison jurisdictions. Evaluation data included agency records and in-person interviews with victims and offenders approximately 2 months after case disposition or sentencing and again 9 months later. Atlantic Research and Consulting (Atlantic) conducted the in-person interviews in Massachusetts. The Center for Urban Studies (CUS) at Wayne State University conducted the in-person interviews in Michigan. Criminal IPV cases were compared in two JOD sites, Dorchester, MA and Washtenaw County, MI to similar cases in Lowell, MA and Ingham County, MI. Court records in each site were reviewed to identify eligible cases. Victims and offenders in eligible cases were recruited for interviews independently. Respondents completed the interviews on laptop computers, assisted as needed by the interviewer. The initial interview was preceded by obtaining written informed consent to study participation and collecting information. Most interviews were completed in the home, courthouse, or survey offices. At the end of each interview, respondents were given $50 in cash and completed a voucher for documentation. To increase the likelihood of locating respondents for the follow-up interview, interim contacting procedures were developed. Interviewers were given 7 weeks to complete an interview or close the case. Tables
Main Term(s): Domestic assault prevention
Index Term(s): Testing and measurement ; Program evaluation ; Public safety coordination ; Research methods ; Evaluation techniques ; Prosecution ; Evaluation measures ; Victim services ; Program implementation ; Intervention ; Court reform ; Domestic assault ; Victim attitudes ; Judicial system development ; Risk management ; Victim program evaluation ; Offender attitudes
Note: For additional information see NCJ-219382-384 and 386.
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=241177

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.