Evaluation of Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus

• NCJ Number: 201306
• Author(s): Cheron Dupree; Tom McEwen; Deborah Spence; Russell Wolff
• Date Published: June 2003
• Length: 158 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2000-WA-VX-0001
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation

Annotation

This report provides results of an evaluation of the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), funded by the National Institute of Justice’s Violence Against Women Office.

Abstract

College and university campus environments are recognized as a valuable location for influencing the way men and women perceive violence against women and for offering victim assistance and other resources that can have a significant effect on a woman’s safety. As such, in fiscal year 1999, colleges and universities were eligible for funding under the Campus Program. This report details the evaluation of the Campus Program, which involved 38 grant projects from 1999 and 2000. Chapter 1 presents an executive summary of the evaluation project and the Campus Program. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the Campus Grant Program, including the minimum requirements of individual programming, and an overview of Campus Program grantees. Chapter 3 describes the structures and organizations of the colleges and universities participating in the evaluation study. Campus grantee recipients varied by geographic location, size, and other demographic characteristics, and included public and private schools. Chapter 4 explains the research methodology, which included site visits and interviews with project staff. Chapter 5 discusses the various ways in which campuses implemented the Campus Program, describing various projects and educational programs funded with the grant monies. Chapter 6 describes some of the programming challenges uncovered during the evaluation. The snapshot view of the projects funded under the Campus Program revealed that, in general, grantees were effective in implementing planned programming, with many far exceeding minimum grant requirements. However, some problems were uncovered, including underreporting and limited resources to continue the program after the Campus Program funding ended. Finally, chapter 7 offers a review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which include greater staff training and mandatory education for incoming students.