Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Volume 4: Findings Report on Survey Methodology

• NCJ Number: 219385
• Author(s): Adele Harrell; Jennifer Castro
• Date Published: June 2007
• Length: 68 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1999-WT-VX-K005
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Award: Eval. of a Multi-Site Demon. for Enhanced Judicial Oversight

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