Evaluation of the Stop Formula Grants to Combat Violence against Women : The Violence against Women Act of 1994, 2000 Report

By Burt, Martha R.

Book Id: WPLBN0000660235
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 26.91 MB
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	Evaluation of the Stop Formula Grants to Combat Violence against Women : The Violence against Women Act of 1994, 2000 Report
Author:	Burt, Martha R.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Law., Law & economy, Litigation and arbitration
Collections:	Law Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Department of Justice


Citation APA MLA Chicago R. Bur, B. M. (n.d.). Evaluation of the Stop Formula Grants to Combat Violence against Women : The Violence against Women Act of 1994, 2000 Report. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Legal Reference Publication

Excerpt
Acknowledgements: This report could not have been written without assistance from a number of sources. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Justice and our project monitor, Bernard Auchter. We also thank Angela Moore Parmley of NIJ and Catherine Pierce, Kim Cross Galvan, Ursula Barrett, and the staff of the Violence Against Women Office. We are very grateful for the guidance offered by members of our advisory panel: Alana Bowman, Gail Burns-Smith, Barbara Hart, Meredith Hofford, Joan Kuriansky, Leni Marin, Elaine Nugent, Mimi Rose, Joe Ryan, Nancy Turner, and Joan Weiss. Their expertise made significant contributions to our work. We met or interviewed well over 400 people during the course of our telephone surveys and site visits to 16 states, including state STOP grant administrators, STOP sub grantees, advocates, service providers, law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, judges, and many others. We deeply appreciate their willingness to share their experiences and insights with us. The accuracy of all descriptions of STOP-funded projects identified by project name in this report has been verified with project staff, and their permission has been granted to include their program?s name in this report. Barbara Smith and Bonnie Katz helped greatly by.

Table of Contents
Contents .. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evaluation of the STOP Program Prior to This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 An Overview of the 2000 Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 STOP SUBGRANT AWARDS ...................................... 5 Proportion of Awards Accounted for in the SAPRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SubgrantAwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Distribution of Funds Across Law Enforcement, Prosecution. and Victim Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Distribution of Funds Across Types of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Distribution of Funds Across Legislative Purpose Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Estimating the Number of Projects from SAPR Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 IMPACT OF STOP SUBGRANTS .................................. 13 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Subgrant Statistics Documenting Changes from Before STOP to the Present . . . 14 Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Victimservices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Subgrantee Perceptions of Impact from the 1999 Underserved Survey . . . . . . . . 19 Perceptions of Impact from Site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 DEVELOPING A COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Legislative and Administrative Support for Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Defining a Coordinated Community Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Levels of CCR Reported on the 1999 Underserved Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Work with Law Enforcement and Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Agencies with Which Underserved Programs Have the Most or the Most Meaningfulcontact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 WeakLinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Nature of Joint Work Between Underserved Programs and Their PrimaryAgencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Findings from Site Visits on CCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lack of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36