Microsoft Word - 2012 STOP RTC Part A

STOP Program

Services  Training  Officers

 Prosecutors

2012 Report

Part A

2012 Report

Part A i

Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................ i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ v

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................... 3

Statutory Purpose Areas of the STOP Program ........................................................ 3

Allocation and Distribution of STOP Program Funds ............................................... 6

Eligibility Requirements ............................................................................................ 7

Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................... 8

Reporting Methods .................................................................................................. 9

STOP Program 2008: State-Reported Data and Distribution of Funds ...................... 11

Sources of Data ...................................................................................................... 11

How STOP Program Funds Were Distributed: STOP Administrators ..................... 11

How STOP Program Funds Were Used: Subgrantees ............................................. 12

Statutory Purpose Areas Addressed ...................................................................... 14

Types of Agencies Receiving STOP Program Funds ................................................ 15

Types of Victimization Addressed by Funded Projects .......................................... 16

Effectiveness of the STOP Program ............................................................................ 17

Coordinated Community Response ........................................................................ 17

Training ................................................................................................................... 22

Victim Services ....................................................................................................... 27

Underserved Populations ....................................................................................... 30

American Indians and Alaska Natives................................................................. 32

Victims/survivors with Disabilities and Older Victims/survivors ........................ 35

Victims/survivors Who Are Immigrants or Refugees ......................................... 38

Victims/survivors Who Live in Rural Areas ......................................................... 40

The Criminal Justice Response ............................................................................... 42

Law Enforcement................................................................................................ 43

Prosecution......................................................................................................... 50

Courts ................................................................................................................. 56

Probation Supervision ........................................................................................ 60

Sexual Assault ......................................................................................................... 63

Stalking ................................................................................................................... 71

Remaining Areas of Need ....................................................................................... 74

STOP Program Aggregate Accomplishments.............................................................. 84

Training ................................................................................................................... 85

Coordinated Community Response ........................................................................ 86

Policies .................................................................................................................... 8 8

Products.................................................................................................................. 88

Data Collection and Communication Systems ....................................................... 89

Specialized Units ..................................................................................................... 90

System Improvement ............................................................................................. 91

Victim Services ....................................................................................................... 92

S •T•O•P Program

ii Part A

Demographics of Victims/survivors Served ....................................................... 93

Types of Services Provided to Victims/survivors ............................................... 95

Protection Orders .................................................................................................. 96

Criminal Justice ...................................................................................................... 97

Law Enforcement ............................................................................................... 97

Prosecution ........................................................................................................ 98

Courts ................................................................................................................. 99

Probation ......................................................................................................... 100

Batterer Intervention Programs ....................................................................... 102

References ............................................................................................................... 103

Appendix A 2008 ...................................................................................................... 111

Appendix B 2008 ...................................................................................................... 119

List of Tables

Table 1. Number and distribution of STOP subgrant awards made in 2008 ............. 11

Table 2. Statutory purpose areas addressed with STOP Program funds in 2008 ...... 14

Table 3. Types of agencies receiving STOP Program funds in 2008 ........................... 15

Table 4. Types of victimization(s) addressed by STOP Program-funded projects in

2008 ..................................................................................................................... 16

Table 5. Community agencies/organizations with which subgrantees reported

having weekly or monthly meetings in 2008 ...................................................... 22

Table 6. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2008—selected professional

positions .............................................................................................................. 26

Table 7. Individuals receiving STOP Program-funded services in 2008 ..................... 28

Table 8. Disposition of probation violations by STOP Program-funded courts in 2008

............................................................................................................................. 60

Table 9. Disposition of probation violations by STOP Program-funded probation

departments in 2008 ........................................................................................... 63

Table 10. Full-time equivalent staff funded by STOP Program in 2008 ..................... 84

Table 11. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2008 ..................................... 85

Table 12. STOP Program-funded referrals/consultations/technical assistance to

community agencies in 2008 ............................................................................... 86

Table 13. Use of STOP Program funds to revise or implement policies or protocols in

2008 ..................................................................................................................... 88

Table 14. Use of STOP Program funds to develop or revise products for distribution

in 2008 ................................................................................................................. 89

Table 15. Use of STOP Program funds for data collection activities and/or

communication systems in 2008 ......................................................................... 89

Table 16. Most frequently reported purposes of data collection and/or

communication systems in 2008 ......................................................................... 90

Table 17. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for specialized unit

activities in 2008 .................................................................................................. 91

Table 18. Number of specialized units addressing type of victimization in 2008 ...... 91

Table 19. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for system

improvement activities in 2008 ........................................................................... 91

2012 Report

Part A iii

Table 20. Provision of victim services by STOP Program subgrantees in 2008, by level

of service and type of victimization ..................................................................... 92

Table 21. Victims/survivors receiving services from STOP Program subgrantees in

2008, by type of victimization ............................................................................. 93

Table 22. Most frequently reported reasons victims/survivors were not served or

were partially served by STOP Program subgrantees .......................................... 93

Table 23. Demographic characteristics of victims/survivors served by STOP Program

subgrantees in 2008 ............................................................................................. 94

Table 24. Relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program

funds in 2008 ....................................................................................................... 95

Table 25. Victim services provided by STOP Program subgrantees in 2008 .............. 95

Table 26. Protection orders granted with assistance of STOP Program-funded staff in

2008 ..................................................................................................................... 97

Table 28. Prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, and related cases by

STOP Program funded prosecutors in 2008 ........................................................ 99

Table 29. Disposition of violations of probation and other court orders by STOP

Program-funded courts in 2008 ......................................................................... 100

Table 30. Offender monitoring by STOP Program-funded probation staff in 2008, by

type and number of contacts ............................................................................. 101

Table 31. Disposition of probation violations for offenders supervised by STOP

Program-funded probation staff in 2008 ........................................................... 101

Table 32. Outcomes of participants in batterer intervention programs .................. 102

Table A1: Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated,

by category, by state: 2008 ................................................................................ 112

Table A1. Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated,

by category, by state: 2008 ................................................................................ 113

Table A2. Percentage distribution of STOP Program allocation, by type of

victimization, by state: 2008 .............................................................................. 114

Table A3. Amount and percent of victim services funds awarded to culturally

specific, community-based organizations (CSCBOs) by state, 2008 .................. 116

Table B1. Number of STOP Program awards reported by activities funded, by state:

2008 ................................................................................................................... 121

Table B2. Number of STOP Program subgrantees using funds for victim services and

victims/survivors seeking/receiving services, by state: 2008 ............................ 123

Table B3. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP

Program-funded services, by state: 2008 .......................................................... 125

Table B4. Number of individuals with disabilities/limited English proficiency/who are

immigrants/living in rural areas receiving STOP Program-funded services, by

state: 2008 ......................................................................................................... 128

Table B5. Victims/survivors’ relationships to offender for victims/survivors served

with STOP Program funds, by state: 2008 ......................................................... 130

2012 Report

Part A v

Acknowledgments

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) gratefully acknowledges the work of

the staff of the Violence Against Women Act’s Measuring Effectiveness Initiative at

the Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine (Muskie School);

the staff played a central role in the development of this report to Congress.

In addition, we wish to express our appreciation to the STOP (Services • Training •

Officers • Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP

Program) administrators and subgrantees who collected and reported the data on

which this report is based and who worked with the Muskie School to ensure the

accuracy of the data. OVW also thanks the administrators and subgrantees who

provided detailed narrative data about their STOP-funded activities and about the

impact of STOP Program funding on their states and communities. This information

has added significant depth and detail to this report, providing specific examples of

the STOP Program’s accomplishments on behalf of women who are

victims/survivors of violence.

Bea Hanson

Acting Director

Office on Violence Against Women

U.S. Department of Justice

2012 Report

STOP Program 1

Introduction

The STOP (Services • Training • Officers • Prosecutors) Program 2012 Report

submitted to fulfill a statutory requirement that the U.S. Attorney General provide a

biennial report to Congress on the STOP Program, including how funds were used

and an evaluation of the effectiveness of funded programs. Part A of this report is

based on data submitted by STOP administrators and STOP subgrantees and reflects

STOP awards made and STOP-funded activities during calendar year 2008.

The section titled “Background” (page 3) sets out the statutory origins and outlines

of the STOP Program—its goals, the allocation and distribution of STOP Program

funds, states’ eligibility, and reporting requirements and methods.

“STOP Program

2008: State-Reported Data and Distribution of Funds” (page 11) describes the

sources of the data and how funds were used during 2008—what types of agencies

and organizations received funding and the types of activities undertaken.

“Effectiveness of the STOP Programs” (page 17) describes key activities conducted

with STOP Program funds, discusses why they are important, and provides examples

of specific STOP-funded programs and initiatives taking part in those activities.

“STOP Program Aggregate Accomplishments” (page 84) presents the data reported

by subgrantees in more detail. Finally, Appendix A and Appendix B present data on

the numbers and amounts of awards in the mandated allocation categories (such as

victim services, law enforcement, prosecution, and courts) and the number and

characteristics of victims/survivors served on a state-by-state basis.

More extensive discussion of the prevalence of violence against women and what

research and practice have shown to be effective strategies for responding to

violence can be found in the 2012 Biennial Report to Congress on the Effectiveness

of Grant Programs under the Violence Against Women Act.

The STOP Report previous to this one, called the STOP Program 2010 Report, was based on 2007

STOP Program data and was submitted in response to the biennial reporting requirement for 2010; this

2012 report is based on 2008, 2009, and 2010 data and is submitted in response to the biennial

reporting requirement for 2012. Part A of this report is based on 2008 data only. Previously, STOP data

had been reported on an annual basis. Part A is the last time STOP data will be presented for 1 year

only. Part B of this report is based on 2009 and 2010 data, which represents the first time STOP data

has been reported biennially. Part B will thus bring this report into conformance with VAWA 2005,

which was amended to require biennial rather than annual reporting for the STOP Program.

Throughout this report, the word “state” is intended to refer to all recipients of STOP awards—i.e.,

the 50 states, the five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.

2012 Report

STOP Program 3

Background

Statutory Purpose Areas of the STOP Program

The STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program, also known as the STOP

Program, was authorized by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No. 103–322),

and reauthorized and amended by VAWA 2000 (Public Law No. 106–386) and VAWA

2005 (Public Law No. 109–162). The STOP Program, which funds states and

territories, promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the

criminal justice system’s response to violent crimes against women and increasing

the availability of victim services. The program encourages the development and

strengthening of effective law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim

services.

By statute, STOP Program funds may be used for the following purposes:

 Training law enforcement officers, judges, other court personnel, and

prosecutors to more effectively identify and respond to violent crimes

against women, including the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence,

and dating violence

 Developing, training, or expanding units of law enforcement officers, judges,

other court personnel, and prosecutors specifically targeting violent crimes

against women, including the crimes of sexual assault and domestic violence

 Developing and implementing more effective police, court, and prosecution

policies, protocols, orders, and services specifically devoted to preventing,

identifying, and responding to violent crimes against women, including the

crimes of sexual assault and domestic violence

 Developing, installing, or expanding data collection and communication

systems, including computerized systems, linking police, prosecutors, and

courts; or for the purpose of identifying and tracking arrests, protection

orders, violations of protection orders, prosecutions, and convictions for

violent crimes against women, including the crimes of sexual assault and

domestic violence

 Developing, enlarging, or strengthening victim services programs, including

sexual assault, domestic violence, and dating violence programs; developing

or improving delivery of victim services to underserved populations,

providing specialized domestic violence court advocates in courts where a

VAWA 2005 added three new purpose areas to the STOP Program, which are included as the last

three bullets in this list. In calendar year 2008, STOP subgrantees began reporting for the first time that

their activities addressed these new purpose areas. Prior to that, the reporting form did not allow

them to do so.

S •T•O•P Program

4 Part A

significant number of protection orders are granted, and increasing

reporting and reducing attrition rates for cases involving violent crimes

against women, including crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, and

dating violence

 Developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs addressing stalking

 Developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs addressing the needs and

circumstances of Indian tribes in dealing with violent crimes against women,

including the crimes of sexual assault and domestic violence

 Supporting formal and informal statewide, multidisciplinary efforts, to the

extent not supported by state funds, to coordinate the response of state

law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, victim services agencies,

and other state agencies and departments to violent crimes against women,

including the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, and dating

violence

 Training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel examiners in the

collection and preservation of evidence, analysis, prevention, and providing

expert testimony and treatment of trauma related to sexual assault

 Developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs to assist law

enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and others to address the needs and

circumstances of older and disabled women who are victims of domestic

violence or sexual assault, including recognizing, investigating, and

prosecuting instances of such violence or assault and targeting outreach and

support, counseling, and other victim services to such older and disabled

individuals

 Providing assistance to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in

immigration matters

 Maintaining core victim services and criminal justice initiatives, while

supporting complementary new initiatives and emergency services for

victims and their families

 Supporting the placement of special victim assistants (to be known as

“Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistants”) in local law enforcement agencies to

serve as liaisons between victims of domestic violence, dating violence,

sexual assault, and stalking and personnel in local law enforcement agencies

in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders

Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistants shall have expertise in domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and may undertake the following

activities:

 Notifying persons seeking enforcement of protection orders as to

what responses will be provided by the relevant law enforcement

agency

2012 Report

Part A 5

 Referring persons seeking enforcement of protection orders to

supplementary services (such as emergency shelter programs, hotlines, or

legal assistance services)

 Taking other appropriate action to assist or secure the safety of the person

seeking enforcement of a protection order

 To provide funding to law enforcement agencies, nonprofit

nongovernmental victim services providers, and State, tribal, territorial, and

local governments (which funding stream shall be known as the Crystal

Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program) to promote:

 The development and implementation of training for local domestic

violence victim service providers and to fund victim services personnel,

to be known as “Crystal Judson Victim Advocates,” to provide

supportive services and advocacy for victims of domestic violence

committed by law enforcement personnel

 The implementation of protocols within law enforcement agencies to

ensure consistent and effective responses to the commission of

domestic violence by personnel within such agencies (such as the model

policy promulgated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police

—Domestic Violence by Police Officers: A Policy of the IACP, Police

Response to Violence Against Women Project, July 2003)

 The development of such protocols in collaboration with state, tribal,

territorial, and local victim service providers and domestic violence

coalitions

The emphasis of the STOP Program continues to be on the implementation of

comprehensive strategies addressing violence against women that are sensitive to

the needs and safety of victims

and that hold offenders accountable for their

crimes. States carry out these strategies by forging lasting partnerships between the

criminal justice system and victim advocacy organizations and by encouraging

communities to look beyond traditional resources to new partners, such as faith-

based and community organizations, to respond more vigorously to sexual assault,

domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking crimes.

For fiscal year 2008, states were encouraged to develop and support projects to:

 Implement community-driven initiatives, utilizing faith-based and

community organizations to address the needs of underserved populations

In most instances this report’s use of the term “victim” is also intended to include “survivor,” as in

“victim/survivor.” Exceptions include certain statutory wording and other terms of art that refer only

to “victim”; in those instances, the original wording has not been changed. The word “victim” may also

sometimes appear without “survivor” to avoid awkward wording or to simplify displays of data.

S •T•O•P Program

6 Part A

as defined by VAWA, including people with disabilities and elder victims of

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking

 Address sexual assault and stalking through service expansion, development

and implementation of protocols, training for judges, other court personnel,

prosecutors, and law enforcement; and development of coordinated

community responses to violence against women

 Enhance or strengthen statewide collaboration efforts among law

enforcement, prosecution, nonprofit/nongovernmental victim service

providers, and courts in addressing violence against women

Allocation and Distribution of STOP Program

Funds

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)

administers the STOP Program according to a statutory formula. All states, including

the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, are eligible to apply for STOP

Program grants to address the crimes of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating

violence, and stalking. Funds are distributed to the states according to the following

formula: a base award of $600,000 is made to each state, and

remaining funds [are awarded] to each state in an amount that bears

the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds as the population of

the state bears to the population of all of the states that results from

a distribution among the states on the basis of each state’s population

in relation to the population of all states (not including populations of

Indian tribes) (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg–1(b)(5) and (6)).

Funds granted to the states are then subgranted to agencies and programs,

including state offices and agencies, state and local courts, units of local

government, tribal governments, and nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services

programs. Each state determines the process by which it awards subgrants.

STOP

Program awards may support up to 75 percent of the costs of all projects receiving

subgrants, including the cost of administering those subgrants; the remaining 25

percent of costs must be covered by nonfederal match sources.

The statute requires each state to distribute STOP Program funds as follows: 25

percent for law enforcement, 25 percent for prosecution; 30 percent for victim

services, of which at least 10 percent shall be distributed to culturally-specific,

The state official(s) designated to administer STOP Program formula funds will be referred to in this

report as the “STOP administrator(s).”

VAWA 2005, as amended, contains a new provision eliminating match in certain circumstances and

providing for waivers of match in other circumstances (42 U.S.C. section 13925(b)(1)). Data reported

by STOP subgrantees and presented in this report reflect activities supported by the required

nonfederal match sources.

2012 Report

Part A 7

community-based organizations; and 5 percent for state and local courts, including

juvenile courts. The use of the remaining 15 percent is discretionary, within

parameters defined by the statute (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg–1(c)(3)).

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible to receive STOP Program funds, states must meet all application

requirements and certify that they are in compliance with certain statutory

requirements of VAWA. First, the state’s laws, policies, and practices must not

require victims of domestic violence to incur costs related to prosecution; or victims

of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to incur costs related to obtaining

protection orders; and, second, the state must certify that a government entity

incurs the full out-of-pocket costs of forensic medical exams for sexual assault

victims (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg–(5)(a); 3796gg–(4)(a)).

A state application for STOP Program funding must include documentation from

prosecution, law enforcement, court, and victim services programs that

demonstrate the need for grant funds, how they intend to use the funds, the

expected results, and the demographic characteristics of the populations to be

served (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg-1(d)). VAWA 2005 added the requirement that

states provide documentation showing that

tribal, territorial, State or local prosecution, law enforcement, and

courts have consulted with tribal, territorial, State, or local victim

service programs during the course of developing their grant

applications in order to ensure that proposed services, activities, and

equipment acquisitions are designed to promote the safety,

confidentiality, and economic independence of victims of domestic

violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence (42U.S.C. section

3796gg-1(d)).

Within 120 days of receiving a STOP Program grant, states are required to submit

implementation plans describing their identified goals and how funds will be used to

accomplish these goals.

States that have previously submitted a 3-year plan must

certify how, or whether, the previous plan has changed. States are required to

consult with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs, including

domestic violence and sexual assault service programs, when developing their

implementation plans. States are strongly encouraged to include Indian tribal

governments in their planning processes.

The implementation plans describe how states will:

 Give priority to areas of varying geographic size with the greatest evidence

of need, based on the current availability of existing domestic violence and

Beginning in fiscal year 2003, OVW permitted states to satisfy the implementation plan requirement

by submitting 3-year implementation plans and annual updates.

S •T•O•P Program

8 Part A

sexual assault programs in the population, and geographic area to be served

in relation to the availability of such programs in other such populations and

geographic areas

 Determine the amount of subgrants based on the population and

geographic area to be served

 Distribute monies equitably on a geographic basis, including nonurban and

rural areas of varying geographic size

 Recognize and address the needs of underserved populations and ensure

that monies set aside to fund linguistically and culturally-specific services

and activities for underserved populations are distributed equitably among

those populations

State implementation plans also describe the involvement of victim services

providers and advocates, major shifts in direction; how the state’s approach to

violence against women will build on earlier efforts; how funds will be distributed to

law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim services categories; the types of

programs the grantee intends to support; whether funds will be directed to the

Crystal Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program; and how the success of grant-

funded activities will be evaluated.

Reporting Requirements

VAWA 1994 required that the Attorney General provide an annual report to

Congress on the STOP Program no later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal

year for which grants are made. Amendments made by VAWA 2005 required that

future reports be submitted no later than 1 month after the end of each even-

numbered fiscal year (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg–3(b)). The statute requires that the

report include the following information for each state receiving funds:

 the number of grants made and funds distributed

 a summary of the purposes for which those grants were provided and an

evaluation of their progress

 statistical summary of persons served, detailing the nature of victimization

and providing data on age, sex, relationship to the offender, geographic

distribution, race, ethnicity, language, disability, and the membership of

persons served in any underserved population

 an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs funded with STOP Program

monies (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–3(b))

In VAWA 2000, Congress broadened existing reporting provisions to require the

Attorney General to submit a biennial report to Congress on the effectiveness of

activities of VAWA-funded grant programs (Public Law No. 106–386, section 1003

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 3789p)). In response to this statutory mandate, and as part of

a broader effort to improve measurements of program performance, OVW worked

2012 Report

Part A 9

with the Violence Against Women Act’s Measuring Effectiveness Initiative at the

Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine (Muskie School) to

develop meaningful measures of program effectiveness and new progress report

forms for all VAWA grant programs administered by OVW, including the STOP

Program.

Measuring the effectiveness of the STOP Program and other VAWA-funded grant

programs is a uniquely challenging task. Between 1998 and 2003, states receiving

STOP Program funds were required to submit data in the Subgrant Award and

Performance Report (SAPR) reflecting how they and their subgrantees were using

these funds. However, OVW was interested in gathering information about all grant-

funded activities in a more uniform and comprehensive manner.

In late 2001 the Muskie School and OVW began developing progress report forms

for grantees to use to collect data and report on their activities and effectiveness.

This process was informed by extensive consultation with OVW grantees, experts in

the field, and OVW staff concerning the kinds of measures that would best reflect

the goals of the OVW grant programs and whether those goals were being achieved.

The report forms included measures identified in the collaborative process and

outcome measures identified by OVW as indicators of the effectiveness of the

funded programs for purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act of

1993.

The progress report forms were designed to satisfy OVW grantees’ semiannual

(discretionary grant programs) and annual (STOP Program) reporting requirements.

To the extent possible, given the goals and activities authorized under each of the

grant programs, uniform measures were chosen to permit the aggregation of data

and reporting across grant programs. In addition to generating data for the

monitoring of individual grantees’ activities, the report forms enabled OVW to

review the activities and achievements of entire grant programs, as well as the

aggregate achievements of numerous individual grant programs engaged in similar

activities. This new grantee reporting system contributes to better long-term trend

analysis, planning, and policy development. It also enhances OVW’s ability to report

to Congress in greater detail and depth about the programs funded by VAWA and

related legislation.

Reporting Methods

OVW finalized the STOP Program administrator and subgrantee report forms in

early 2005, and worked with Muskie School staff on revisions to the forms to reflect

VAWA 2005 changes. Throughout this period, the Muskie School has provided

ongoing, extensive training and technical assistance to state STOP administrators in

completing the forms.

Administrators submit annual STOP Administrators reports

Because of the large number of subgrantees (approximately 2,400), Muskie School staff provide the

STOP administrators with training and technical assistance with the understanding that the STOP

administrators will train their states’ subgrantees in how to complete the subgrantee progress

reporting form.

S •T•O•P Program

10 Part A

online through the Office of Justice Programs’ Grants Management System; STOP

Program subgrantees submit electronic versions of the annual progress report to

their state STOP administrators. Currently, states are required to submit both

reports to OVW by March 30 of each year.

2012 Report

11 Appendix A

STOP Program 2008: State-Reported Data

and Distribution of Funds

Sources of Data

This report is based on data submitted by 2,261 subgrantees from all 50 states, all 5

territories, and the District of Columbia, as well as data submitted by the 56 STOP

administrators, about the distribution and use of program funds during calendar

year 2008. Under a cooperative agreement with OVW, the Muskie School has

analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from two sources: subgrantees

completing the Annual Progress Report and grant administrators completing the

Annual STOP Administrators’ Report.

How STOP Program Funds Were Distributed:

STOP Administrators

The statute authorizing the STOP Program requires that each state distribute its

funds according to a specific formula: at least 25 percent each for law enforcement

and prosecution, 30 percent for victim services, of which at least 10 percent shall be

distributed to culturally-specific, community-based organizations; and 5 percent for

state and local courts (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg–1(c)(3)).

Table 1 shows the

number and distribution of subgrant awards for each of the allocation categories.

Table 1. Number and distribution of STOP subgrant awards made in 2008

Allocation category

Number of awards

to subgrantees

Total funding in

category ($)

Percentage of

total dollars

awarded

Courts

241 6,530,435 5

Law enforcement

960 28,572,253 24

Prosecution

837 28,273,921 23

Victim services

1,402 43,171,742 36

These two report forms replaced the Subgrant Award Performance Report forms (SAPRs) originally

administrators and subgrantees reported on their activities on the SAPRs from 1998 through 2003. The

data derived from the SAPRs formed the basis of the 2000, 2002, and 2004 STOP Program Reports.

This 2012 STOP Program Report is the fifth report to contain data generated from the Annual STOP

Administrators’ Report and the STOP subgrantee Annual Progress Report. The two forms can be found

at http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/stopformulaform.htm

STOP Program funds awarded for law enforcement and prosecution may be used to support victim

advocates and victim witness specialists in those agencies.

S •T•O•P Program

12 Part A

Table 1. Number and distribution of STOP subgrant awards made in 2008

Allocation category

Number of awards

to subgrantees

Total funding in

category ($)

Percentage of

total dollars

awarded

Administration

NA 6,164,901 5

Discretionary

239 8,184,560 7

Total

3,679 120,897,812 100

NA = not applicable

NOTE: Data are derived from the Annual STOP Administrators Reports. Information by award

category on a state-by-state basis is available in Appendix A. More specific information regarding

types of activities conducted with STOP Program funds, based on data from subgrantee Annual

Progress Reports, is available on a state-by-state basis in Appendix B.

VAWA 2005 requires states to apply at least 10 percent of the mandated 30 percent

they must award to victim services to culturally-specific, community-based

organizations in an effort to ensure

recognition and meaningful response to the needs of underserved

populations and ensure that monies set aside to fund linguistically and

culturally-specific services and activities for underserved populations are

distributed equitably among those populations (42 U.S.C. section 3796gg-

1(c)(3)).

In 2008, 53 states made 243 awards totaling $11,142,813

to culturally-specific

community-based organizations; this accounted for 25.8 percent of all funds

awarded for victim services.

How STOP Program Funds Were Used:

Subgrantees

The majority (95 percent) of the subgrantee agencies and organizations used STOP

Program monies to fund staff positions, most often professional positions providing

direct services to victims/survivors. When staff allocations are translated to full-time

equivalents (FTEs), staff providing direct services to victims/survivors represent

Examples of awards reported in this category include fatality review, forensic examination training,

training to victim services and criminal justice personnel in assisting victims/survivors from

underserved populations, support for new projects by tribal organizations, coordinated community

response (CCR), and batterer intervention programs (BIPs).

Detailed information regarding amounts of awards/percentages to culturally-specific, community-

based organizations on a state-by-state basis is available in Appendix A Table A3.

2012 Report

Part A 13

54 percent of the total STOP Program-funded FTEs.

By comparison, law

enforcement officers represent 9 percent of FTEs, and prosecutors represent 10

percent.

Another way of looking at the distribution of STOP Program funds is to consider the

percentage of subgrantees reporting that funds were used for specific categories of

activities.

Sixty-nine percent of subgrantees reported using funds to provide

services to victims/survivors, 46 percent to provide training, 21 percent to develop

or implement policies and/or to develop products, 13 percent for law enforcement

activities, 13 percent for prosecution activities, and 1 percent each for court and

probation activities.

In 2008, STOP Program funds were used to carry out the program’s fundamental

activities of offering victim services, providing training, and supporting law

enforcement and prosecutors.

Services: A total of more than 461,700 victims/survivors received services

supported by STOP Program funds (of more than 470,500 victims/survivors who

sought services). The majority were white (56 percent), female (91 percent), and

between the age of 25 and 59 (66 percent). Subgrantees also reported that 21

percent of the victims/survivors they served were black or African-American and 18

percent were Hispanic or Latino.

Twenty-six percent of the victims/survivors

served were reported as living in rural areas. Victims/survivors used victim advocacy

(214,400), crisis intervention (203,700), and criminal justice advocacy (149,100) in

greater numbers than any other services.

In addition, more than 278,300 hotline

calls were received from primary victims/survivors.

Training: From the inception of the STOP Program, states and their subgrantees

have recognized the critical need to educate first responders about violence against

women. The fact that well over one-quarter of all people trained with STOP Program

funds (more than 77,000 individuals) were law enforcement officers reflects the fact

that the grant program is fulfilling one of its primary and original purposes. Health

and mental health professionals comprised the next largest category, with more

These staff categories include victim advocates, victim/witness specialists, counselors, legal

advocates, and attorneys.

Some subgrantees receive funds to pay for a portion of a shelter advocate’s salary; others may

receive funding for a number of full-time advocates. This analysis considers only the number of

subgrantees that used their funds in these ways, regardless of the amount of STOP Program funding

they received. Because subgrantees often fund more than one category of activity, these percentages

will total more than 100 percent.

These percentages are based on the number of victims/survivors for whom race/ethnicity was

known. This may represent an undercounting of the true number of underserved because

race/ethnicity for nearly 10 percent of victims/survivors was reported as unknown for this reporting

period. Hotline services, for example, generally do not collect race/ethnicity information, as it could

prevent victims/survivors from seeking further help. Whenever collecting demographic information on

victims/survivors presents a barrier to service, could violate confidentiality, or jeopardize a victim’s

safety, service providers are advised not to collect it.

Victims/survivors were reported only once for each type of service received during the calendar

year.

S •T•O•P Program

14 Part A

than 24,000 trained. A total of more than 263,600 people were trained with STOP

Program funds in 2008.

Officers: Law enforcement agencies used STOP Program funds to respond to nearly

83,000 calls for assistance, to investigate more than 85,000 incidents of violence,

and to serve nearly 15,000 protection orders. STOP-funded officers arrested nearly

29,000 predominant aggressors and made fewer than 1,000 dual arrests.

Prosecutors: STOP Program-funded prosecutors disposed of approximately 113,700

cases, 76,000 (67 percent) of which resulted in convictions.

Statutory Purpose Areas Addressed

Subgrantees reported using STOP Program funds for 14 statutory purposes. Table 2

lists these purpose areas and reports the number of projects addressing each area

during calendar year 2008. Consistent with other reported data, the purpose area

most frequently addressed by subgrantees was victim services projects.

Table 2. Statutory purpose areas addressed with STOP Program funds in 2008

Purpose area

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Victim services projects 1,586 70

Training of law enforcement, judges, court

personnel, and prosecutors

801 35

Policies, protocols, orders, and services 547 24

Specialized units (law enforcement,

udges, court

personnel, prosecutors)

533 24

Support of statewide, coordinated community

responses

370 16

Assistance to victims in immigration matters 309 14

Stalking initiatives 291 13

Maintaining core victim services and criminal justice

initiatives

275 12

Development of data collection and communication

systems

234 10

Programs to assist older and disabled victims 222 10

Three additional purposes (see pages 3–5 for a complete listing of the statutory purpose areas)

authorized under VAWA 2005 were included on the revised STOP subgrantee reporting form and were

reported on for the first time in calendar year 2008.

2012 Report

Part A 15

Table 2. Statutory purpose areas addressed with STOP Program funds in 2008

Purpose area

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Training of sexual assault forensic medical personnel

examiners

146 6

Addressing the needs and circumstances of

American Indian tribes

73 3

Supporting the placement of special victim

assistants

35 2

Training, victim services, and protocols addressing

domestic violence committed by law enforcement

21 1

NOTE: Each subgrantee was able to select all purpose areas addressed by their STOP Program-

funded activities during calendar year 2008. Thus, the total number of purpose areas is greater

than the total number of subgrantees.

Types of Agencies Receiving STOP Program

Funds

Of all the types of agencies or organizations that received STOP Program funds,

domestic violence programs were the most frequently reported recipients. Dual

programs (e.g., programs that address both domestic violence and sexual assault)

were the next most frequently reported STOP Program funding recipients, followed

by law enforcement and prosecution agencies. Table 3 presents a complete list of

the types of organizations receiving funding, as reported by subgrantees.

Table 3. Types of agencies receiving STOP Program funds in 2008

Type of agency

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Domestic violence program 512 22.6

Dual program 444 19.6

Law enforcement 358 15.8

Prosecution 339 15.0

Sexual assault program 180 8.0

Advocacy organization 51 2.3

Unit of local government 42 1.9

Government agency 40 1.8

S •T•O•P Program

16 Part A

Table 3. Types of agencies receiving STOP Program funds in 2008

Type of agency

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Sexual assault state coalition 40 1.8

Court 38 1.7

Domestic violence state coalition 31 1.4

Probation, parole, or other correctional agency 27 1.2

Dual state coalition 21 .9

University/school 15 .7

Tribal domestic violence and/or sexual assault program 9 .4

Tribal government 5 .2

Tribal coalition 1 <.1

Other 108 4.7

NOTE: Of the organizations listed above, 40 reported that they were faith-based and 169 reported that

they were culturally-specific, community-based organizations.

Types of Victimization Addressed by Funded

Projects

In 2008, the percentage of projects focused solely on domestic violence/dating

violence was 33 percent, and the percentage addressing domestic violence/dating

violence and/or sexual assault or stalking was 54.6 percent (Table 4). The combined

percentage of projects focusing on sexual assault alone, stalking alone, or both

sexual assault and stalking was 12 percent.

Table 4. Types of victimization(s) addressed by STOP Program-funded projects in

2008

Type of victimization

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Domestic violence/dating violence only 754 33.3

Sexual assault only 252 11.1

Stalking only 7 .3

Domestic violence/dating violence and sexual

assault

322 14.2

Domestic violence/dating violence and stalking 84 3.7

Sexual assault and stalking 14 .6

2012 Report

Part A 17

Table 4. Types of victimization(s) addressed by STOP Program-funded projects in

2008

Type of victimization

Subgrantees (N =2,261)

Number Percent

Domestic violence/dating violence, sexual assault,

and stalking 828 36.6

Effectiveness of the STOP Program

This section describes the activities carried out with STOP Program funds, with a

focus on the specific areas listed in the statute. It discusses why the activities are

important and how they contribute to the goals of VAWA by improving victim safety

and increasing offender accountability. Program-wide accomplishments in these

areas are highlighted, as are specific STOP-funded projects that demonstrate

effective practices. (For a more detailed presentation of data reflecting the

aggregate activities of all STOP Program-funded projects, see “STOP Program

Aggregate Accomplishments,” page 84.)

Coordinated Community Response

Developing and/or participating in a coordinated community response (CCR) to

address violence against women is an essential and fundamental component of the

STOP Program and all other OVW-funded programs. A CCR brings together criminal

and civil justice personnel, victim advocates, social services program staff, and other

entities and professionals to create a multidisciplinary, integrated response that

holds offenders accountable for violent crimes against women and develops and

strengthens services to victims/survivors of these crimes. Research shows that

efforts to respond to violence against women are most effective when integrated as

part of a CCR (Shepard & Pence, 1999; Shepard, 1999). Research on batterer

intervention programs (BIPs) affiliated with coordinated legal systems suggests that

a coordinated community response involving BIPs, mandatory court reviews, and

strong community support for victims/survivors, may reduce recidivism of batterers

and improve victim safety and well-being (Gondolf, 2000). A Duluth, MN, study on a

project designed to enhance CCR through danger assessment and information-

sharing among criminal justice partners and advocates found lower recidivism rates

among offenders after the implementation of the project, when compared with

recidivism in a baseline period (Shepard, Falk, & Elliott, 2002).

A Georgia study examined the impact of a CCR on the criminal justice system

response in two counties, particularly the effect of the CCR intervention on legal

sanctions imposed on batterers. The CCR activities included participation on a

S •T•O•P Program

18 Part A

community task force on family violence, training task force members to implement

the CCR, implementation of a BIP, extensive training of law enforcement agencies in

each county, and a public awareness campaign. Researchers found statistically

significant changes in systemic responses post-CCR, such as increases in the number

of arrests in both counties and a higher prosecution rate in one county. Researchers

determined that more men were sentenced to probation and BIPs, and fewer

received a fine in the county that had increased its rate of prosecuting domestic

violence offenders. The total amount of fines did increase, but there were no

differences in the numbers of convicted offenders who received jail time or in the

amount of jail time (Salazar, Emshoff, Baker, & Crowley, 2007).

A reexamination of data from 10 CCR projects funded by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention identified several factors at individual CCR sites that were

associated with higher rates of victim/survivor contact with intimate partner

violence (IPV)

services. These factors included developing goals and selecting

priorities based on community needs, coordinating services, and disseminating

information on the prevalence of IPV in the community (Klevens, Baker, Shelley, &

Ingram, 2008).

Traditionally, CCR has referred to the criminal justice system and organizations

serving victims/survivors, but the concept of “community” may be expanded to

include employers, churches, community groups, families, social groups, and

neighbors.

The following subgrantees’ CCR efforts exemplify this broadening of the network of

agencies and community partners responding to violence against women:

“Intimate partner violence” and “domestic violence” are used interchangeably in this report to mean

violence that is committed by intimate partners.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The coordinated community response team continues to expand its membership.

Human resource staff from a local business now attend the CCR meetings and have

become aware of the dynamics of domestic violence and its effect on employees in

the workplace. As a result of this awareness, the business is revising its personnel

practices to accommodate victims of violence.

—Grant County Prosecutor's Office, Washington State

2012 Report

Part A 19

The statute authorizing the STOP Program specifically includes support for state-

level multidisciplinary efforts to coordinate the responses of justice systems, state

agencies, and victim services to violent crimes against women. This level of

multidisciplinary effort is exemplified in the implementation planning process that

takes place in every state. VAWA requires state administering agencies to involve

nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs—including domestic violence

and sexual assault service programs—when developing implementation plans.

Administering agencies also are strongly encouraged to involve Indian tribal

governments in the planning process. The creation of the STOP Program ensured a

broad distribution of funds among criminal justice agencies (law enforcement,

prosecution, courts, and probation) and victim services organizations.

Two STOP administrators describe the impact of STOP funding on coordination and

collaboration in responses to violence against women in their states:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Beyond providing necessary salary contributions to continue crucial services for

victims/survivors, the STOP Program funding has been instrumental in creating

and maintaining a strong collaborative relationship between STOP team agencies.

As a result of the mandated coordinating team meetings, a majority of projects

report more consistent responses to victims and enhanced cross-system problem

solving. For example, when one county first received funding, they were having

trouble trying to coordinate responses among the various law enforcement

agencies in their jurisdiction. The coordinating team developed county-wide

policies, which promoted more reliable and consistent responses for violence-

against-women cases. As a by-product of the policy development, the team

members began to grasp an understanding for the other components’ positions,

which evolved into a spirit of cooperativeness that was not present before.

—

TOP administrator, Pennsylvania

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The first call responders component of this grant has resulted in identifying local

agencies, businesses, and organizations that may be the first people that victims

have contact with. Through regular contacts, information, and training, the First

Call Responders have increased the safety net for victims. The annual Faith-Based

Breakfast is a good example of this component. It has grown every year and

referrals and requests for additional presentations have also increased. The

breakfast increased the help available for victims through networking. In order to

provide comprehensive services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault,

and stalking, the program works to enlist the cooperation of many agencies in the

community. . . . YWCA Sexual Assault Safe House has a good working relationship

with Castle Rock Medical Center in Green River, the District Court, the Western

Wyoming Community College extension in Green River, employment services, the

local clergy, and many businesses and organizations.

—

weetwater County YWCA Support and

afe House, Wyoming

S •T•O•P Program

20 Part A

CCR efforts on the community level often include sexual assault response teams

(SARTs) and domestic abuse or domestic violence response teams (DARTs or

DVRTs). SARTs, often organized around sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE)

programs, coordinate the efforts of medical providers, counselors, advocates, and

criminal justice agencies to improve the response to sexual assault

victims/survivors. Some SARTs have case-specific discussions, while others focus

more on systemic responses. SART programs have been found to greatly enhance

the quality of health care for women who have been sexually assaulted, upgrade the

quality of forensic evidence, improve law enforcement’s ability to collect

information and to file charges, and increase the likelihood of successful

prosecution (R. Campbell, Patterson, & Lichty, 2005; Crandall & Helitzer, 2003).

Though it does not describe itself as a SART, this subgrantee has used STOP Program

funds to build an exceptionally effective coordinated response to sexual assault in

its community:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

We are thrilled to be supported by these funds and have seen the results when

cases go to court and convictions are strong because the evidence, investigation,

and victim are supported by this multidisciplinary approach. We are proud to have

an upwards of 90 percent conviction rate on sexual assault cases in Erie County.

We know that the [cause] of this is the collaborative efforts of the Rape Crisis

Center, law enforcement, the medical community, and the district attorney's

office. We support each other’s role in the process of helping victims of rape and

sexual assault, and as [a] result we see victims become survivors, we see

perpetrators held accountable, and our community safety improves [with]

convictions [of] these offenders. We still have work to do, as do all communities,

but feel we have seen extensive improvement in the few years we have been

funded by the STOP funds.

—Suicide Prevention and Crisis Service, Inc., New York

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Coordinated community response has advanced system change work in Wisconsin.

Communities working in conjunction with consultants develop and carry out

strategic planning, develop work plans, and create change within the consensus . . .

process. The model has been extremely successful in building new teams and re-

vitalizing teams that have become stagnant. SART [Sexual Assault Response Team]

work is progressing in a similar manner.

— STOP administrator, Wisconsin

2012 Report

Part A 21

The collaborative nature and wide-ranging impact of STOP Program-funded SARTs

and DARTs are represented in the following example:

All STOP subgrantees are required to report on the frequency of their contact

with community partners, on a case- and victim-level as well as on a systems-

level. Significant numbers of subgrantees reported daily contact regarding

victims/survivors and/or cases with the following organizations: law

enforcement agencies (915, or 41 percent of all subgrantees reporting contact),

domestic violence organizations (877, or 39 percent), courts (737, or 33

percent), and prosecutors (572, or 25 percent).

These interactions may have

involved referrals (e.g., law enforcement referring a victim/survivor to a shelter

or a victim services agency, or to the court for a protection order) or

consultations between victim services and law enforcement (e.g., sharing

information on behalf of a victim/survivor about an offender’s actions or

whereabouts). Significant numbers of subgrantees also reported having daily or

weekly interactions with social services, health and mental health, legal

services, and sexual assault organizations.

In addition to collaborating with other organizations in their responses to specific

victims/survivors and specific crimes, subgrantees also work with community

partners on task forces and workgroups and in other meetings on local, regional,

and state levels. These groups often develop protocols that set out how participant

organizations or agencies will respond in a coordinated fashion to ensure victim

safety and offender accountability and remove barriers in the justice, victim

More complete data on CCR activities can be found in Table 12.

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

The Florida Council Against Sexual Violence (FCASV) has developed a sexual

assault response team/sexual assault interagency council (SART/SAIC) training

project that assists communities in developing a coordinated community

response to sexual assault crime in Florida. This STOP-funded project seeks a

multi-disciplinary approach to combating sexual assault crimes against teenage

girls and women. Victim advocates, SANE nurses, law enforcement, and

prosecution agencies work in collaboration to provide optimal services to sexual

assault victims, and to hold offenders accountable for crimes against women.

Through a strong collaborative partnership with law enforcement, FCASV has

been instrumental in establishing sexual assault response teams throughout

Florida, with a particular focus on rural populations. The STOP-funded projects

[give] rural communities the opportunity to develop a coordinated community

response to sexual assault crimes in rural areas, where response time is normally

slower due to demographics and personnel required to cover larger distances for

victim response.

—

TOP administrator

Florida

S •T•O•P Program

22 Part A

services, and other systems. Ideally, participants are decisionmakers, able to direct

the implementation of protocols and to promote coordination and collaboration

among their agencies. The data in Table 5 reflect the number of specific community

agencies and organizations with which STOP Program subgrantees met on a weekly

or monthly basis to address systems-level issues in 2008.

Table 5. Community agencies/organizations with which subgrantees reported having

weekly or monthly meetings in 2008

Agency/organization Number of subgrantees

Domestic violence organization 1,114

Law enforcement 1,069

Prosecutor’s office 908

Social service organization 800

Sexual assault organization 749

Health/mental health organization 737

NOTE: The table reflects only the most frequently reported types of organizations with which

STOP subgrantees had weekly or monthly contact.

Training

As communities have developed coordinated response initiatives, the need for

quality training and cross-training has become evident. The STOP Program, like

every other OVW grant program, supports training professionals to improve their

response to sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. The

statutory purpose areas for the STOP Program specifically set out training for

criminal justice personnel (law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other

court personnel), including those in specialized units, and sexual assault forensic

examiners. Funds for training may be distributed to organizations on the state or

local level.

2012 Report

Part A 23

In the following example, a STOP administrator describes how funds were used to

provide training to criminal justice and victim services professionals in Iowa:

After victim services, training is the most frequent activity conducted by STOP

Program subgrantees: 1,031 subgrantees (46 percent) used their STOP Program

funds to provide training. A total of 263,644 professionals were trained through the

STOP Program in 2008. Significantly, more than a quarter (29 percent) of those

trained with STOP Program funds were law enforcement officers. As first

responders, law enforcement officers play a critical role in keeping victims/survivors

safe and ensuring offender accountability. Ongoing training for law enforcement is

essential due to high rates of attrition, emerging knowledge about violence against

women, and as best practices develop and change over time.

Another example of the necessity for training arose from mandatory arrest policies

in some jurisdictions that resulted in dual arrests—i.e., the arrests of both victims

and batterers—and an increase in the number of women arrested. A New York City-

based study looked at these and other unintended consequences of its mandatory

arrest statute and found that “further training and better supervision is required for

responding officers to better implement the requirement of the [mandatory arrest]

law” (Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007). To avoid inappropriate arrests of

victims/survivors who have inflicted wounds on their violent partners in an attempt

to protect themselves, a former police officer, now a leading trainer on law

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

One unique and successful aspect of the structure of STOP-funded programs in

Iowa is the funding of several statewide programs that provide technical

assistance and training to subgrantees at the local level across the state. Four

examples of statewide STOP-funded programs are the Court Improvement

Project in the Iowa court administrator’s office, the STOP Program in the Iowa

Law Enforcement Academy, violence prevention coordinator in the Iowa

Department of Public Health, and the STOP Program-funded prosecutor in the

Iowa attorney general’s office. The Court Improvement Project has the capacity

to provide training to judges throughout the state and provide technical

assistance. The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy STOP Program provides

training to new law enforcement recruits at the Iowa Law Enforcement

Academy (ILEA), as well as training and technical assistance to local law

enforcement agencies throughout the state. The Violence Prevention

Coordinator in the Department of Public Health manages the Domestic Violence

Death Review and provides technical assistance and training to medical

personnel. The STOP Program-funded prosecutor at the Iowa attorney general’s

office prosecutes violence against women cases at the state level, as well as

providing training and technical assistance to local prosecution agencies. . . . All

law enforcement, prosecution, and victim service agencies across our state

benefit from having these positions available to provide training and technical

assistance. This allows the STOP funds utilized in our state to reach all agencies

instead of only a few. . . .

—

TOP administrator

Iowa

S •T•O•P Program

24 Part A

enforcement response to domestic violence, recommends that police officers

receive training on identifying defensive wounds, such as bite wounds to the chest

or arms. According to O’Dell, such training may result in a decrease in the number of

victims/survivors who are illegally arrested (O’Dell, 2008).

STOP Program funds also supported training for health and mental health

professionals. Research has documented the critical importance of training of

healthcare providers on domestic violence (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson et al.,

1998). These professionals become involved in the lives of victims/survivors at

critical times; therefore, it is important that they understand domestic violence and

sexual assault and provide appropriate treatment, support, and referral to other

services. Training also alerts health care professionals about certain actions that can

be harmful to victims/survivors (for example, engaging in marriage counseling with

a controlling batterer and a victim, blaming the victim/survivor for her injuries, or

recommending that the victim/survivor leave the batterer without understanding

the dangers that may present). These professionals may not be aware of or

recognize the tactics of intimidation and manipulation employed by batterers or the

increased danger victims/survivors face when attempting to leave or when newly

separated from abusive partners (Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000). Medical

personnel who have not received specialized training may also inadvertently

retraumatize rape and domestic violence victims.

Training health care providers in screening for and identifying domestic violence

among their patients is a critical step in improving safety for victims/survivors. One

study found that only 6 percent of physicians ask their patients about possible

domestic violence, even though 88 percent of them knew that they had female

patients who had experienced abuse (Elliott, Nerney, Jones, & Friedmann, 2002).

Another study measuring the attitudes and values of 752 health providers before

and after a 3-hour domestic violence training program found that after the training,

providers reported feeling they were better able to identify and assist

victims/survivors, they were more comfortable making referrals, and they saw a

greater role for themselves and the health care system in stopping domestic

violence (Hamberger et al., 2004). STOP Program subgrantees trained 24,172 health

and mental health professionals; this was the second highest specific category of

professionals trained in 2008.

This number combines the two reported categories of “health professionals” and “mental health

professionals” from the subgrantee reporting form.

2012 Report

Part A 25

The following subgrantees used STOP Program funds to train SANEs, emergency

medical staff, and other system-based and community-based partners to improve

the response to sexual assault:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed us to train and equip a cadre of forensic sexual assault

nurse examiners, or SANEs, many of whom have gone on to be certifed through

the grant by the International Association of Forensic Nurses. After three years,

these nurses have become a staple in investigation and prosecution in west

Tennessee. Identifying and corroborating evidence documented and collected

has skyrocketed. Many have now testified in court proceedings with great

results. Victims who have been examined by our SANE nurses are

overwhelmingly pleased with the professional manner in which they have been

treated. It has allowed us to train law enforcement and courts to work with the

SANE and the evidence they collect/document. It has allowed us to train law

enforcement in Jackson and throughout rural west Tennessee to better collect

and preserve potential identifying and corroborating evidence in sexual assault

investigations. It has allowed us to co-train and cross-train with victim advocates

and victim service providers to insure we each understand the other's role. It has

allowed us to build on the existing relationships that we have with victim

services to form comprehensive sexual assault response teams with other grant-

supported victim advocacy and victim legal services in our community. We

utilize this grant for training resources for our collaborative partners and nurses,

law enforcement, and advocacy from all over west Tennessee and often from

north Mississippi and middle Tennessee as well.

—

ackson Police De

artment

Tennessee

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP Program funding allows our SART to function as a team. Individual, separate

services could be provided to victims of sexual assault. It is, however, the funding

of the team coordinator position which supports cohesive and coordinated victim

services. Without this funding, disjointed and ineffective services would be

provided to victims of sexual assault. Trainings and current practice updates

would not be as accessible to the victim services providers without the

coordinator providing this information to team members. A sexual assault nurse

examiner (SANE) is the coordinator for the SART. As a SANE, the coordinator

provides current standards of practice and trainings to the other team SANEs and

medical staff in the hospital emergency trauma centers. Forty-hour SANE training

programs are also provided by the coordinator to nurses desiring to become

SANEs. Trained R.N.s and SART members provide an improved quality of care to

victims of sexual assault. Without STOP Program funding, these services would

not be provided.

—University of Iowa College of Nursing: Johnson County Sexual Assault

S •T•O•P Program

26 Part A

A study involving 134 victims/survivors who participated in 21 separate focus groups

found that because older victims/survivors of domestic violence often are socialized

to have generational and religious beliefs regarding marriage and its dissolution,

they are most inclined to discuss domestic abuse with clergy, if they choose to

discuss it at all (Beaulaurier, Seff, Newman, & Dunlop, 2007). Thus, clergy members

are in a critical position to respond to the needs of domestic violence

victims/survivors and refer them to appropriate support and services. While

participants reported that religious faith played an important role in their decisions

to stay in or leave abusive relationships, none said they were referred by their clergy

for social services related to the abuse or violence. This study illustrates the

importance of training clergy, pastoral counselors, and other faith-based

organization staff on the dynamics of domestic violence and on services and

resources available to older victims/survivors. More than 7,000 faith-based

organization staff received STOP Program-funded training during 2008.

Table 6. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2008—selected professional

positions

Position

People trained (N =263,644)

Number Percent

Law enforcement officers 77,529 29.4

Victim advocates (governmental and

nongovernmental) 26,858 10.2

Health/mental health professionals 24,172 9.2

Social service organization staff 13,154 5.0

Court personnel 9,626 3.7

Educators 8,107 3.1

Faith-based organization staff 7,341 2.8

Advocacy organization staff 6,582 2.5

Corrections personnel 5,890 2.2

Attorneys/law students/legal services 5,673 2.2

Sexual assault forensic examiner 5,034 1.9

NOTE: A number of categories above combine professional categories from the STOP Program

subgrantee reporting form: health/mental health professionals combines the two reported

categories of health and mental health professionals; victim advocates combines governmental

and nongovernmental victim advocates and victim assistants; nongovernmental advocacy staff

combines staff from advocacy, disability, elder, and immigrant organizations; and attorneys/law

students/ legal services staff combines the categories attorneys/law students and legal services

staff. For a complete listing of all individual categories of people trained as they appear on the

reporting form, see Table 11.

The non-specific category “multidisciplinary” technically had the second-highest number of people

reported as trained and is not included in Table 6; this category is chosen when subgrantees do not

know the specific professions of people who received training.

2012 Report

Part A 27

Victim Services

The authorizing statute for the STOP Program allows for the following victim

services activities to be conducted with STOP Program funds: developing, enlarging,

or strengthening victim services programs, including those that address the needs of

older and disabled women who are victims/survivors of domestic violence or sexual

assault; developing or improving delivery of victim services to underserved

populations; providing assistance to victims/survivors of domestic violence and

sexual assault in immigration matters; maintaining core victim services while

supporting emergency services for victims/survivors and their families, and funding

victim services personnel to provide supportive services and advocacy for

victims/survivors of domestic violence committed by law enforcement personnel.

Services for victims/survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence,

and stalking are the most frequently funded activities under the STOP Program.

Early studies of shelters for battered women found that the majority of victims

returned to their abusers after leaving the shelters. Victims who had resources such

as housing, childcare, transportation, and employment were less likely to reconcile

with batterers (Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1990). Subsequent studies of shelter

residents indicated that if they were connected to supportive services and

assistance, most did not return to their abusers and experienced less revictimization

(Andrew Klein, 2005).

It is essential that advocacy and other human services programs recognize the need

for a comprehensive response to the needs of victims/survivors. Research indicates

that women who work with advocates are more effective at accessing community

resources. Many victims require a variety of services that must be accessed through

several community agencies. Victims/survivors who receive comprehensive

advocacy and services are better able to achieve safety, autonomy, healing, and

economic security than women who do not receive such support and services

(Allen, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2004).

Services provided to a victim whose case is being prosecuted may influence that

victim’s participation in the criminal process. A study in a specialized municipal court

that examined 384 domestic violence cases found that a victim’s cooperation after

arrest, when combined with the services of a court advocate, strongly predicted the

victim’s cooperation at the point of case disposition (Camacho & Alarid, 2008).

See footnotes 3 and 17. The last two areas of victim services activities are included in the new

purpose areas authorized for the STOP Formula Program by VAWA 2005.

S •T•O•P Program

28 Part A

STOP Program subgrantees provided services to 461,734 victims/survivors in 2008.

Of those, 85.3 percent were victims of domestic violence or dating violence, 12.2

percent were victims of sexual assault, and 2.5 percent were victims of stalking.

These victims/survivors received a wide range of services, including victim/survivor

advocacy (assistance with obtaining services or resources, including material goods

and services, health care, education, finances, transportation, childcare,

employment, and housing), hotline calls, crisis intervention, legal advocacy

(assistance in navigating the criminal and/or civil legal systems), counseling and

support, and victim-witness notification regarding perpetrator release from custody

and information on all phases of the criminal case. Subgrantees also routinely

provided safety planning, referrals, and other information to victims/survivors as

needed.

Table 7. Individuals receiving STOP Program-funded services in 2008

Type of service Individuals served

Victim advocacy

214,359

Crisis intervention 203,701

Criminal justice advocacy 149,115

Civil legal advocacy

115,540

Counseling/support group 108,827

Civil legal assistance

24,875

NOTES: Each victim/survivor is reported only once in each category of service, regardless of the

number of times that service was provided to the victim/survivor during the reporting period.

Only the most frequently reported categories are presented; for a complete listing of categories

of services provided to victims/survivors, see Table 25.

Victim advocates and others providing STOP Program-funded services to

victims/survivors may be located in a nongovernmental community-based agency,

The overall number of victims/survivors served represents an unduplicated count; this means that

each victim/survivor is counted only once by each subgrantee, regardless of the number of times that

victim/survivor received services during calendar year 2008. Because victims/survivors can only be

counted once, they must be reported under only one primary victimization. It is not uncommon for

victims/survivors to experience more than one type of victimization (e.g., domestic violence and

stalking, or domestic violence and sexual assault), but that fact is not reflected in the reported

percentages of sexual assault, domestic violence/dating violence, and stalking victims/survivors served.

This number represents advocacy provided to victims/survivors by both governmental and

nongovernmental advocates. For the purposes of reporting victim services activities engaged in by

STOP subgrantees, advocacy services provided by victim assistants or advocates located in

governmental agencies are considered victim services; however, these victim services activities may

also be considered to fulfill the statutorily mandated percentage allocations for law enforcement,

prosecution, and state and local courts as reported by STOP administrators, and are not considered to

fulfill the statutorily mandated percentage allocations for victim services, which refers to nonprofit

victim services only. See page 6.

“Civil legal advocacy” is providing assistance to victims/survivors with civil legal issues and is generally

provided by a victim advocate or legal advocate.

“Civil legal assistance” is the provision of civil legal services by an attorney and/or paralegal.

2012 Report

Part A 29

law enforcement agency, prosecutor’s office, court, or medical or treatment facility,

as illustrated in the following subgrantee examples:

STOP Program subgrantees were able to use funds to expand and enhance services

to victims/survivors of sexual assault and human trafficking, as described in the

following examples:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

As a result of STOP Program funding, Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS) was

able to provide support and crisis intervention services to an increased number of

sexual assault victims seeking assistance. In addition, funding provided the ability to

enhance our paid and volunteer pool of individuals staffing our 24-hour hotline and

accompanying victims of sexual violence throughout the medical and criminal

justice systems.

—Sexual Assault Support Services, New Hampshire

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funds have supported an effective collaborative within the community.

Having the wide range of providers working together in the city's Domestic

Violence and Stalking Unit [DVU] has essentially created a one-stop location for

individuals victimized by an intimate partner. Victims of intimate partner violence

do not have to travel to another agency for a shelter—they can have this need met

while in the DVU office. Child Protective Services is also ready and available to

intervene and assist when the violence extends to children in the family. Law

enforcement has developed a greater appreciation and sensitivity to victim

services while advocates are less hostile toward law enforcement.

—Choices, Ohio

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The court advocate funded by STOP funds provides a critical service to victims in

the community. She attends all protective order hearings and provides safety

planning, advocacy, information, referrals, and support. Outcome measures are

used to determine the effectiveness of the services. [A total of] 373 victims were

provided assistance in filing for protective orders. Of those, 66 percent said they

felt getting a protective order would make them safer; 93 percent felt the advocate

provided valuable assistance and made the process easier; 51 percent said they felt

getting a protective order was a step towards leaving the abusive relationship.

—YWCA Enid, Oklahoma

S •T•O•P Program

30 Part A

Some agencies that provide victim services focus on culturally appropriate,

community-based and shelter-based services for victims/survivors of specific

ethnicities, as in the following example:

Underserved Populations

Violence against women affects all populations in all areas of the United States, but

some groups are more vulnerable and experience higher rates of violence than

others (Field & Caetano, 2004). These population groups include American

Indians/Alaska Natives, women living in rural areas, older adults, women who are

disabled, children and youth, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender;

people of color and other racial minorities, immigrants, and refugees.

Victims/survivors from these populations often face distinct challenges and barriers

to receiving assistance and support. Further, how these victims perceive and

manage their experiences with violence often reflect cultural and social norms,

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Prior to this grant, despite our efforts (including four fluent or proficient Spanish-

speaking legal staff to comprehensively serve Hispanic clients and service-seekers,

we had an average waiting list of four- to six-weeks long, and over the summer

months, alone, had to turn away 25 Hispanic service-seekers because we did not

have the capacity to meet their needs. With STOP funding, Tahirih was able to

hire a staff attorney solely dedicated to representing Hispanic clients and

conducting training and outreach to professionals working with Hispanic victims

to ensure that they are aware of the remedies available to battered immigrant

women. During 2008, the STOP attorney represented 36 Hispanic women,

allowing Tahirih to serve more Hispanic victims than ever before. In addition,

Tahirih was able to increase its overall caseload from 260 total cases litigated in

2007, to 303 cases in 2008—an increase of more than 16 percent. As our current

caseload indicates, we continue to experience a high demand for services in the

Hispanic community, and STOP's continued support is vital to our continuation of

services.

—The Tahirih Justice Center

Vir

inia

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

We are funded to provide comprehensive social services to survivors of human

trafficking. These services have identified victims, enabled them to report the

violence they experienced to law enforcement, facilitated multilevel safety

planning, and helped victims holistically repair their lives and heal from the

horrendous crimes they have suffered. Many victims received essential services

while remaining available to law enforcement to assist in the prosecution of their

traffickers. These funds have been essential and truly lifesaving for the victims we

have worked with.

—Urban Justice Center, New York

2012 Report

Part A 31

opportunities, and restrictions (D. W. Campbell, Sharps, Gary, Campbell, & Lopez,

2002).

VAWA and OVW require states to specify in their implementation planning process

how they will use STOP funds to address the needs of underserved

victims/survivors. The statutory purpose areas of the STOP Program include specific

references to the delivery of services to underserved populations,

addressing the

needs of American Indian tribes, addressing the needs of older and disabled

victims/survivors, and assisting victims/survivors in immigration matters.

The Minnesota STOP administrator summarizes that state’s efforts to address the

needs of underserved victims/survivors in this way:

Of all subgrantees providing services in 2008, 99 percent provided services to

victims/survivors in at least one of the underserved categories.

Subgrantees used

STOP Program funds to provide services to 9,575 victims/survivors who were

reported in the category American Indian and Alaska Native; 88,253

victims/survivors who were black or African-American; 74,415 victims/survivors who

were Hispanic or Latino; 7,945 victims/survivors who were Asian; 13,838

victims/survivors age 60 or older; 24,392 victims/survivors with disabilities; 37,462

victims/survivors with limited English proficiency; 23,171 victims/survivors who

VAWA 2005 at Section 40002(a)(32) defines “underserved populations” as including “populations

underserved because of geographic location, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations

underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age),

and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary

of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.”

It is not possible to report the overall percentage of victims/survivors receiving services from one or

more of the underserved populations because victim data were reported in the aggregate and

individual victims/survivors may be reported in a number of the underserved categories.

“Underserved” categories referred to include the following: people of races and ethnicities other than

white (in categories established by the Office of Management and Budget), individuals more than 60

years old, people with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, immigrants or refugees, and

those living in rural areas.

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Except for one grantee, STOP victim services funding was awarded to rural

programs. Several of these are community of color programs serving their

community (Native American and migrant Hispanic), while the other programs

serve a broad range of rural domestic violence and sexual assault victims, including

diverse communities of color. Rural Minnesota has become increasingly more

diverse in the past seven years, with pockets of Somali, Hmong, Hispanic, African

American, and Southeast Asian populations spread throughout rural areas. The

one urban grantee (based in St. Paul) works with women escaping prostitution.

This program is staffed primarily from the African-American community and serves

women from various communities of color, locally and from around the world,

including sexually trafficked victims from Africa and Asia.

—

TOP administrator, Minnesota

S •T•O•P Program

32 Part A

were immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers; and 119,685 victims/survivors in

rural areas.

In addition to providing direct services, subgrantees used STOP Program funds for

training, products (e.g., brochures, manuals, training curriculums, and training

materials), and the development and implementation of policies addressing issues

specific to the needs of underserved victims/survivors. Training was provided to

5,888 staff members of advocacy organizations for older, disabled, and immigrant

populations. These nongovernmental, community-based groups are often in the

best position to reach specific underserved populations and assist with referrals to

appropriate services and agencies.

Training on issues specific to underserved populations was provided by 767

subgrantees—74 percent of all subgrantees that reported using STOP funds for

training. Similarly, 264 subgrantees—56 percent of subgrantees using STOP funds

for policy development—established and/or implemented policies on appropriate

responses to underserved populations in victim services, the criminal justice system,

and health care. Taken together, the use of STOP Program funds in these areas

demonstrates the commitment of states and their subgrantees to better understand

the particular challenges faced by victims/survivors in underserved populations and

to improve state and subgrantee responses to the needs of these victims.

American Indians and Alaska Natives

American Indian and Alaska Native women report higher rates of victimization than

women from any other ethnic or racial background (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002;

Rennison, 2001; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The National Crime Victimization Survey

(Rennison, 2001) revealed that the rate of domestic violence among American

Indian women is much higher (23.2 per 1,000) than rates among black (11.2), white

(8.1), and Asian women (1.9).

For sexual assault, the average annual rate is 3.5 times higher for Indians than for

non-Indians (Greenfield & Smith, 1999). American Indian and Alaska Native women

also are more likely to suffer physical injuries in addition to the sexual assault (50

percent) when compared with non-Native women (30 percent) (Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000).

The National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey found that 17 percent of

American Indian and Alaska Native women are stalked during their lifetimes,

compared with 8.2 percent of white women, 6.5 percent of African-American

women, and 4.5 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander women (R. K. Lee, Sanders

Thompson, & Mechanic, 2002). Complicating efforts to protect these

victims/survivors is the fact that many live in isolated communities and may not

have access to telephones, transportation, or emergency services. In addition,

For more detailed demographic information on victims/survivors served by all states, see Table 23;

for demographic information on victims/survivors served by individual states see Tables B3 and B4 in

Appendix B.

2012 Report

Part A 33

criminal justice resources and legal assistance often are limited in these

communities.

A STOP administrator describes the impact of funding to the American Indian

community:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The Rhode Island (RI) Indian Council did not have any domestic violence program

in place prior to this grant funding. This program has allowed the agency to

develop a program by working with other agencies that have existing programs in

place. With the Native community, there is a tremendous mistrust of non-Native

people. This project has allowed for the development of staff who are Native

Americans to be able to speak with victims of domestic violence. It has also

allowed the RI Indian Council to compile statistics on the frequency, amount, and

nature of domestic violence within our community. All these activities have

proven invaluable in the agency's drive to identify victims of domestic violence, as

well as working to strengthen laws on the issue. By doing these in a cultural way, it

has opened doors for many Native people to come to the sessions we conduct and

seek assistance.

—Rhode Island Indian Council, Inc.

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

[The] American Indian Women Domestic Violence Assistance Program . . . targets

Native American women in California by implementing culturally sensitive

projects aimed at addressing and impacting the issues of domestic violence in

the Native American community. Three agencies receive funding to provide

cultural competency training and community outreach, advocacy services,

counseling, assistance with restraining orders, and emergency shelter services to

victims. The program received $333,250 in [STOP] 2008 funding during the

reporting period. . . .American Indian sexual assault and domestic violence

victims in California are severely underserved due to the lack of conveniently

located or culturally sensitive services. The victims lack information regarding the

dynamics of sexual assault and domestic violence, and in some cases, there are

weak linkages between tribal communities and non-tribal criminal justice and

victim service systems. This program funds four agencies to develop and

implement projects aimed at addressing and impacting the issues of sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking among American Indian

women. Projects provide outreach services and training regarding the dynamics

of sexual assault and domestic violence to victims. They may also provide direct

services through licensed therapists or refer victims to service providers.

—STOP administrator, California

S •T•O•P Program

34 Part A

Fifteen subgrantees receiving STOP Program funding identified themselves as tribal

sexual assault and/or domestic violence programs, tribal coalitions, or tribal

governments.

Sixty-seven subgrantees reported that their projects specifically

addressed tribal populations and cited approximately 205 unique nations, tribes,

and bands they served or intended to serve. American Indian or Alaska Native

individuals made up 2.3 percent of those served with STOP Program funds in 2008,

with 9,575 victims/survivors receiving services. Training on issues specific to

victims/survivors who are American Indian or Alaska Native was provided by 149

subgrantees, and approximately 1,174 tribal government/tribal government agency

staff members were trained with STOP funds.

The Grants to Tribal Governments Program provides funding to tribal governments and agencies and

is separate from the STOP Program. Activities supported by that grant program are reported in the

2010 and 2012 biennial reports.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Having the safe home open in the community has allowed victims to have a choice

to stay on the island. The victim does not have to leave her family and friends, and,

thus, can retain her safety net and her support system. Staying on the island gives

victims the opportunity to access food, housing, medical, employment, and other

options locally rather than in a busy and unknown urban hub.

—Tribal Government of St. Paul Island, Alaska

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed us to try the model of having village advocates in two

Alaska (AK) Native Villages to see if we could assist victims more readily by having

a local person working with us towards that end. We know that it is important to

work with the villages and help them come up with their own solutions —we are

primarily informational and [provide] awareness resources. The village advocates

are a liaison between the outreach coordinator and the community so the

outreach coordinator can be more productive when she travels to those villages

and have a local person assist with the timing and location of trainings and

events. The village advocate also facilitates a regular women's gathering so that

women gain trust, support each other, and learn more about interpersonal

violence in a safe manner. This funding has also supported travel to and from the

villages for both staff and victims. Victims are offered one-way travel to shelter if

they feel they need to leave for safety reasons. Staff travel out of the villages for

training and into the villages to train the community.

—

itkans Against Family Violence, Alaska

2012 Report

Part A 35

Victims/survivors with Disabilities and Older

Victims/survivors

Over 306 million Americans live with a wide array of physical, cognitive, and

emotional disabilities (U.S. Departmen of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2011).

Victimization rates for women with disabilities are far greater than for those who

are not disabled, suggesting that offenders specifically target the most vulnerable.

According to the Committee on Law and Justice (2001), studies show that 39

percent to 85 percent of women with disabilities experience some type of physical

or emotional abuse at the hands of an intimate partner or caregiver. A study of

5,326 women revealed that the 26 percent of women who reported having some

type of disability were more than four times as likely to have been sexually

assaulted within the past year as were women without disabilities (Martin et al.,

2006). Examination of data from the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS) Survey, which included 356,112 male and female subjects, revealed

that disabled females were nearly 3 times more likely to be threatened by violence,

2.5 times more likely to be physically abused, and more than 12 times more likely to

experience unwanted sex when compared with all other populations (D. L. Smith,

2008).

Few studies have been conducted examining the prevalence of violence against

women with disabilities. Violence and abuse of women with disabilities and D/deaf

women may be more severe, of longer duration, and inflicted by multiple

perpetrators, and may occur in settings atypical for other victims/survivors (for

example, group homes, hospitals, and institutions). Women with disabilities and

D/deaf women frequently have greater challenges accessing the legal system,

advocacy, services, and community support, than other victims/survivors (N. Nosek

& Hughes, 2006).

Women with disabilities face additional barriers that may seriously interfere with, or

take away, their ability to leave a violent relationship. When caretakers abusing

women with disabilities are intimate partners, parents, or other family members,

separation from these caretakers may seriously endanger a woman’s health and

well-being.

Disability service providers and advocates often fail to address violence against

women with disabilities (Elman, 2005). Historically, these advocates lack the

experience and training necessary to understand and effectively deal with the

vulnerabilities to abuse in disability-specific contexts (M. A. Nosek, Foley, Hughes, &

Howland, 2001).

S •T•O•P Program

36 Part A

Subgrantees from Arkansas and Utah discuss the critical nature of the advocacy they

provide to victims/survivors who are D/deaf or hard of hearing and

victims/survivors who have disabilities, and the importance of having advocates

who are informed both about the barriers these victims face and in dealing with

domestic violence and sexual assault:

Approximately 25 percent of persons older than age 65 have been victims of

physical, sexual, or psychological violence, and more than half of those have

experienced more than one type of violence (Bonomi et al., 2007). Studies of elder

sexual abuse suggest that most victimizers are family members (Ramsey-Klawsnik,

1991; Teaster, Roberto, Duke, & Kim, 2001). These studies agree that nearly all

reported perpetrators were male and most victims were female. Only a handful of

studies have been conducted examining the relationship between older women and

intimate partner violence, but the studies that do suggest that violence against

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

[The] STOP Program has provided support for victims by having trained advocates

accompany Deaf and hard-of-hearing victims to safe shelter, legal services, medical

help, obtaining protective orders, and help applying to public assistance. Often

Deaf and hard-of-hearing victims will not seek help due to language and technical

barriers when accessing services. Advocate accompaniment has been a critical part

of victims who are Deaf and hard of hearing in receiving appropriate and equal

services. All of the advocates (volunteer or paid) are fluent in American Sign

Language and receive 50 hours of domestic violence training by provided by STOP

funds.

—Sego Lily Center for the Abused Deaf, Utah

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Our project's intent has been to utilize the co-advocacy model as a method of

victim services. This model utilizes staff from the two fields (victim services and

disability) in order to provide the best possible services to a victim of crime who

has a disability. It relies on the skills of both professionals and the support of the

agencies at which they are employed. This effort often includes both support to

the person with a disability who is a victim, and training, technical assistance, and

support for the staff from the other program involved in service delivery. The

philosophies of the independent living movement for people with disabilities and

the DV/SA [domestic violence/sexual assault] survivor movement are relatively

aligned and compatible. Each assigns self-determination to the survivor and

acknowledges the survivor is the expert [in] their personal situation. The co-

advocacy model helps to educate about these similarities. Sometimes this co-

advocacy is done in person, and sometimes it is done through technical

assistance calls from domestic violence or sexual assault advocates.

—University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Partners for Inclusive

Communities

2012 Report

Part A 37

older women by intimate partners is a significant issue and is often overlooked. In

one study, only 3 percent of responding older women indicated that they had ever

been asked about physical or sexual violence by their health care providers (Bonomi

et al., 2007). According to the National Center on Elder Abuse (2005), data suggest

that only 1 in 14 incidents of physical or sexual violence comes to the attention of

authorities; victims of these incidents also are less likely to receive services.

Often, women in later life who are victims of violence are encouraged to seek out or

are referred to adult protective services (APS) (Paranjape, Tucker, Mckenzie-Mack,

Thompson, & Kaslow, 2007). Once a woman is in the APS system, it is highly unlikely

that she will be referred to a domestic violence program for appropriate services or

that the incident will be reported to law enforcement (Otto & Quinn, 2007).

Historically, domestic violence and sexual assault agencies have overlooked older

women, who often have distinct and special needs. They may not be employed,

they may be receiving public assistance and/or Social Security benefits, and they

may be dependent on family members for their care. Social service and criminal

justice agencies have failed to develop responses tailored to the needs of older

victims/survivors. Battered women’s shelters may not be able to accommodate

older victims/survivors. These limitations require that STOP-funded programs find

creative ways to increase awareness of elder abuse, identify and provide services to

older victims/survivors, and develop effective collaborations with criminal justice

and social services agencies to improve their communities’ response to older

victims/survivors, as demonstrated by the following:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Montgomery County’s STOP grant for underserved elderly victims has enhanced a

consistent, cross-system referral policy among community-based organizations

and criminal justice agencies. The referral policy was created to ensure elderly

can access a range of services regardless of which agency they initially contact. To

achieve this end, the project trained Meals on Wheels volunteers on the signs of

abuse and safety planning, promoted public awareness through posters at post

offices and hair salons, developed promotional announcements prior to the start

of movie matinees to help elderly victims identify the signs of abuse and obtain

service information, developed a system where protection from abuse orders can

be obtained via teleconferencing/Web-conferencing to assist victims who are

hospitalized due to their victimizations, explored alternative communication

forums for victims who are physically unable to travel to access services (e.g.,

website chat rooms, Internet cafes, and telephone-based support groups), and

hosted a workshop titled “Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Assault and Abuse

Against the Elderly.”

—STOP administrator, Pennsylvania

S •T•O•P Program

38 Part A

Because of the distinct challenges and barriers faced by victims/survivors with

disabilities and older victims/survivors, it is critical to direct funding to programs

that will focus their efforts on responding to their needs, as the STOP Program does.

Fifteen percent (298) of all subgrantees reported that their programs assisted

criminal justice agencies and others in addressing the needs of older and disabled

victims/survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault. Overall, STOP subgrantees

reported providing victim services to 24,392 victims/survivors with disabilities and

13,838 victims/survivors over the age of 60—5.3 percent and 3.4 percent,

respectively, of all victims served.

STOP Program subgrantees provided training

and developed or implemented policies designed to improve the appropriateness

and effectiveness of the criminal justice system’s response and the provision of

services to older and disabled victims/survivors. Training that addressed issues

specific to these victims/survivors was provided by 447 subgrantees to other

professionals; those professionals included 4,078 staff members of disability and

elder advocacy organizations. Policies addressing the needs of victims/survivors who

are elderly or have disabilities were developed or implemented by 169 subgrantees.

Victims/survivors Who Are Immigrants or Refugees

Language barriers, isolation, immigration status, and traditional values increase the

vulnerability to abuse of immigrant women and intensify their need to rely

significantly on their abusers (Bhuyan, Mell, Senturia, Sullivan, & Shiu-Thornton,

2005). Lack of education and job skills necessary for working in the United States

Because data are collected at the program level and not at the victim level, it is not known how

many of these victims/survivors were both disabled and over the age of 60. The highest age category

on the reporting form is 60+; the next lower category is age 25–59.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed the Jennings County Council on Domestic Violence to

create an outreach program geared specifically to persons age 50 years and

older. We have been able to meet with elderly clients in their own setting such

as church groups, the senior center, senior housing, and civic clubs where they

can disclose their situations in a nonthreatening environment. We can assure

confidentiality so victims feel comfortable opening up to our staff and volunteers

about their situations. The monthly, and sometimes weekly, lunches at the

Senior Resource Center have allowed our staff direct access to victims who

otherwise would not seek services because of fear, lack of information, or

mistrust. With STOP funding we have been able to educate hospital personnel,

probation, churches, and women's groups about our services. We have been

able to assure victims they are not alone, not "crazy", do not deserve the

violence, [and that] it is not their fault [and] there is help, to reduce their shame.

We have encouraged the 55 persons who disclosed abuse to report it. Staff

designed individual safety plans for each victim. We have increased awareness

about elder abuse in the community, brought the problem out into the light for

discussion, and educated the public about the need to identify victims, advocate

for them, and support them through whatever process they choose to get safe.

—Jennings County Council on Domestic Violence, Indiana

2012 Report

Part A 39

may deepen that isolation and dependency. Immigrant women, especially those

who are undocumented, may be afraid to seek help following victimization. They

may not know what their rights are and that services to help exist. Domestic

violence is thought to be even more prevalent and severe among immigrant women

than among U.S. citizens (Anderson, 1993; Raj & Silverman, 2002). Homicide data

from New York City revealed that immigrant women were disproportionately

represented among female victims of intimate partner homicides (Frye, Hoselin,

Waltermaurer, Blaney, & Wilt, 2005).

Women refugees arrive from home countries where they have been victims of war,

genocide, gang rape by military personnel or combatants, starvation, religious

persecution, stalking, and intimate partner violence (Ganeshpanchan, 2005)

(Runner, Yoshihama, & Novick, 2009). Victimization by intimate partners, racist, or

faith-intolerant neighbors, detention personnel, and others is not uncommon for

refugee women. Few service providers and legal system have the knowledge and

skills to assist these victims/survivors (Runner et al., 2009).

Subgrantees maximize the value of limited STOP Program funds by increasing the

knowledge and capacity of their communities to respond and provide services to

immigrant and refugee victims/survivors:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP Program funding has partially funded a full-time staff attorney dedicated to

meeting the needs of immigrant victims of domestic violence and crime. We have

increased the availability of services, information, and training to victims, as well as

to shelter services, domestic violence organizations, mental health providers,

prosecutors, public defenders, law guardians, and court personnel. Domestic

violence programming has become an integral part of the work that we do with

undocumented immigrants. We have created a space in New Jersey for domestic

violence professionals to find answers to questions on complicated immigration

issues and a responsive referral source for victims to obtain quality legal

consultations and representation where needed.

—American Friends Service Committee, New Jersey

S •T•O•P Program

40 Part A

VAWA 2000 attempted to remove barriers for victims/survivors seeking help by

including assistance in immigration matters among the purpose areas authorized by

the STOP Program. Subgrantees reported serving 23,171 victims/survivors who were

immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers; these victims represent 5 percent of all

victims served. Training on issues specific to these victims/survivors was provided by

315 subgrantees. This training is critical because the social, cultural, and legal issues

these victims/survivors face are complex, and the consequences of reporting

domestic violence incidents are often more serious for them than for other

victims/survivors. Subgrantees also used STOP Program funds to provide language

services specifically designed to remove barriers to accessing critical services and

effectively dealing with the criminal justice system. These services were provided by

137 STOP Program subgrantees and included interpreters, language lines, and the

translation of forms, documents, and informational materials into languages other

than English. Subgrantees used STOP Program funds to develop, translate, and

distribute at least 364 unique products in 22 different languages.

Victims/survivors Who Live in Rural Areas

While national data suggest that women in urban areas are victimized at higher

rates than women in rural areas (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006) two studies

found that sexual assault rates were higher in some rural counties (Lewis, 2003;

Ruback & Ménard, 2001). Rates of reporting victimization, however, were higher in

urban counties (Ruback & Ménard, 2001). Research also indicates that women in

rural areas report higher levels of stalking and violence and are more likely to

experience a partner isolating them from family or friends and limiting their access

to money (Logan, Shannon, & Walker, 2005).

Cultural factors such as patriarchal attitudes, lack of anonymity, fear of familial

disapproval, and an ethic of self-reliance may prevent women living in rural areas

from seeking safety (Eastman, Bunch, Williams, & Carawan, 2007; Grama, 2000;

Hunnicutt, 2007; M. R. Lee & Stevenson, 2006; Lewis, 2003). Geographic isolation

For a listing of the specific languages in which these materials were developed or translated, see

page 89, the Products section of “STOP Aggregate Accomplishments.”

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

As a result of this funding, our agency has been able to expand our service

offerings to the limited English-proficient population in our service area through

trainings, collaborations, and cooperative agreements with bilingual counselors to

provide individual counseling; educational institutions to provide free English

classes that include childcare and transportation to victims/survivors, and social

service agencies to identify and minimize cultural barriers within their systems.

Our agency strongly advocates for victim’s/survivor’s rights with regard to

immigration issues and works cooperatively with regional immigration consultants,

attorneys, and agencies to assist our participants with VAWA self-petitions and U-

visa applications and certifications.

—Georgia Mountain Women's Center, Georgia

2012 Report

Part A 41

combined with inadequate transportation and lack of telephone service make

leaving a batterer, particularly in the midst of a crisis, nearly impossible (Grama,

2000). Victims/survivors seeking services in rural communities may find that

medical, legal, and social services are limited or nonexistent (Eastman et al., 2007;

Grama, 2000; Logan, Walker, Cole, Ratliff, & Leukefeld, 2003).

The use of firearms against women seems to be more prevalent in rural

communities than in urban communities (Grama, 2000). The percentage of all

homicides involving intimate partners is higher in rural than in urban areas (Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 2006; Gallup-Black, 2005).

The following subgrantees discuss how they have used STOP Program funds to

address the unique and critical needs of victims/survivors in rural areas:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Our service area is huge (approximately the size of the state of Ohio) with no

connecting roads, 33 widely scattered villages—many of which have fewer than

100 people, and only a third have any resident law enforcement. As a result,

victims of violence living in small isolated villages do not utilize the court system

for protection orders. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to get a PO [protection

order] when you may have to wait for days for a state trooper to fly into the

village to serve it, only to fly right back out again, leaving you without protection

and the offender with a piece of paper in their hand. Instead, we have to develop

and maintain alternative measures for gaining safety for victims. This is one of the

reasons that village-based advocates are so critical—they are effective in

organizing and informing providers, elders, traditional councils, and other village

leaders so that they have the tools to craft effective, village-specific interventions

and responses for victims of violence.

—Safe & Fear-Free Environment, Inc., Alaska

S •T•O•P Program

42 Part A

STOP Program funds were used to provide services to 119,685 victims/survivors

who were reported as residing in rural areas (including reservations and Indian

country) during 2008; this represents more than a quarter of all victims/survivors

served. Training in issues specific to victims/survivors who live in rural areas was

provided by 451 subgrantees (44 percent of those using funds for training).

The Criminal Justice Response

The STOP Program statute says that STOP funds may be used to develop, train, or

increase the number of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other

court personnel that focus on violent crimes against women, including the crimes of

domestic violence and sexual assault. These usually are considered specialized units

in law enforcement and prosecution, and specialized domestic violence courts or

dockets in the judicial system. A total of 533 STOP subgrantees (24 percent of all

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Our STOP program subgrant allows us to provide supervised visitation and

exchange services to our county and area residents. This type of program is very

important as it provides a safe, secure environment to exchange children.

Safeguards are in place to minimize the opportunity of a perpetrator to continue to

harass and threaten his victim when she is ordered to provide their children for

visitation. Such services also protect the children (secondary victims) by minimizing

parental discord that occurs around visits and exchanges. As the only program of

its kind in this rural area, it is extremely important to continue funding and offering

this service for the safety of domestic violence victims and their children.

—Athens County Commissioners, Ohio

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

VARN/DVVAP [Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevadans/Domestic Violence

Victim’s Assistance Project] is currently the only legal aid program in most, if not

all of Nevada's rural counties, providing free, comprehensive civil legal services to

DV[domestic violence] victims. We know from firsthand experience that without

our services there would be no assistance of this type in these remote areas.

Consequently, VARN/DVVAP is overwhelmed with requests for help for victims of

domestic violence. As with many rural states, the lack of funding resources and

absence of programs such as VARN's means fewer victims are receiving essential

and often lifesaving services. VARN is acutely aware of the severity of the unmet

legal needs of families living with violence, and it is DVVAP's goal and sole

purpose to help fill this need. As a result of STOP program funding, DVVAP has

been able to continue providing civil legal aid services to victims of domestic

violence, enabling them to gain freedom from the physical, mental, and

emotional abuse of their abuser, thereby providing protection and a renewed

sense of hope for productive lives.

—Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevadans (VARN), Nevada

2012 Report

Part A 43

subgrantees) reported using funds to support specialized units of law

enforcement/officers, judges, other court personnel, and prosecutors specifically

dedicated to violent crimes against women. The statute further authorizes funds to

be used to develop and implement more effective police, court, and prosecution

policies specifically addressing violent crimes against women, including domestic

violence and sexual assault. A total of 547 STOP subgrantees (24 percent) reported

using funds for this purpose. Finally, funds may be used for data and communication

systems that link police, prosecutors, and courts to assist them with identifying and

tracking arrests, protection orders, violations of protection orders, prosecutions,

and convictions for violent crimes against women. STOP funds were used for that

purpose by 234 subgrantees (10 percent).

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies are charged with identifying and arresting the

perpetrators of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

VAWA also anticipates that law enforcement professionals will act to safeguard

victims. The manner in which officers and agencies carry out these duties

profoundly influences their success or failure in responding to violence against

women. Success can be measured both by reduction in recidivism rates and by

victim/survivor satisfaction with the assistance provided. One study found that for

women experiencing intimate partner sexual assault, contact with the justice

system, whether from police or a protection order, was associated with a reduction

in the risk of reassault of up to 70 percent (McFarlane & Malecha, 2005). Victims

who find police contact to be positive are more likely to call police again should

violence recur (Buzawa, Hotaling, Klein, & Byrne, 1999; Davis & Maxwell, 2002;

Davis & Taylor, 1997; Friday, Lord, Exum, & Hartman, 2006).

Specialized Units

The availability of physical evidence is often crucial to the successful disposition of

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases. Specialized

police domestic violence units have been shown to collect evidence in a much

higher percentage of cases than traditional patrol units (Friday et al., 2006).

Evidence collected by specialized units is also more likely to be useful for

prosecution (Townsend, Hunt, Kuck, & Baxter, 2005), leading to higher rates of

prosecution, conviction, and sentencing (Jolin, Feyerherm, Fountain, & Friedman,

1998).

Specialized law enforcement units may consist of just one dedicated staff person,

but can nonetheless have a significant impact on victim safety and offender

accountability. STOP funds provided to the following subgrantees have been used

for specialized detectives and law enforcement officers who share their knowledge

with others in their departments and engage in victim-centered policing:

S •T•O•P Program

44 Part A

The following subgrantees discuss the importance of STOP funding in ensuring that

law enforcement officers have specific training in responding to domestic violence

and sexual assault incidents and in improving evidence collection:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

By having a specialized law enforcement officer that devotes his full attention to

domestic violence, we have been able to slow the progression of domestic violence

in Stone County. Victims of domestic violence know that they have resources

available to them and someone to speak for them in their time of need.

—Stone County Sheriff, Arizona

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The entire department has a greater understanding of the issues since we have

established the domestic violence unit. The fact we now have domestic violence

investigation kit bags with cameras, domestic violence forms, and victim support

materials, most likely would not have happened without the grant. The

department's attitude has improved toward providing services, and most

importantly, referral services to the advocate who takes over when the policing

portion would normally end. The domestic violence unit is also a source of pride for

the unit workers.

—New Britain Police De

artment, Connecticut

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Currently the STOP grant funds only the detective. Victims have benefited by

having a detective assigned to these types of cases because that detective has

become very familiar with how the cases should be handled and is able to share his

or her expertise with the entire sheriff's department as well as with other local law

enforcement agencies that call for advice on how to handle their own cases. During

2007 and 2008, with STOP grant funding, the SCSO (Saline County Sheriff’s Office)

Domestic Violence Unit has continued to work closely with the prosecuting

attorney's office and the judges. The unit also works closely with all of the smaller

police agencies within Saline County.

—

aline County Sheriff, Arkansas

2012 Report

Part A 45

Police/Advocate Response

Law enforcement responses that involve officers and victim advocates often provide

the best outcomes for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence,

or stalking. These teams respond to incidents together, providing support to victims

at the scene and follow-up in the days after an incident. A study in New Haven, CT,

compared the outcomes of a police/advocate team response to the standard law

enforcement response to domestic violence (a single visit from police officers at the

time of the incident). Researchers found that in the 12 months following an initial

domestic violence call, only 20 percent of the victims who received a follow-up visit

from a police officer and an advocate needed repeat police intervention for further

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The training was developed through a conjunction of rape crisis programs and law

enforcement, and designed to prepare law enforcement officers to better respond

to victims of sexual assault, titled "Sexual Violence: Building a Strong Case from

the First Response." The STOP grant project director served as co-trainer with

local police trainers to provide training to veteran police officers as part of the in-

service trainings of the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee. Over

100 officers participated in this training during 2008. This training program has

enabled us to connect more directly with law enforcement and has resulted in an

upsurge of the number of sexual assaults being brought to the attention of the

still informal sexual assault response team. It is now a matter of course that a

person reporting a sexual assault is brought to the hospital and a SANE nurse, an

Independence House advocate, and law enforcement all come together to provide

and encourage the victim to utilize all the services available.

—Inde

endence House

Inc.

Massachusetts

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed our agency to take the lead in providing needed

training to law enforcement in our area. We would never have the resources to

do this without grant funding. We have also been able to reach out to rural and

tribal agencies to provide training they may not otherwise be able to get due to

lack of training funds. In Nevada, rural agencies have some real challenges in

investigating and enforcing cases related to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Those agencies have huge jurisdictions, covering hundreds of miles. They have

few resources and usually do not have the luxury of having two officers available

to respond to calls. Backup could be an hour away. At our 2008 training, we

received this note on the back of an evaluation form: "Three of my officers who

attended (ranging from 3 to 15 years experience) all came up and volunteered to

me on break that they lucked out this year because the sections of training

covered this year were very interesting and held their attention.”

—Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of

University Police Services

S •T•O•P Program

46 Part A

domestic violence, compared to more than 40 percent of the victims who received

the standard law enforcement response (Casey et al., 2007).

STOP subgrantees are also engaging in this practice with success:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Before we received STOP Program funding, we could not site a domestic

violence/sexual assault counselor advocate within our police department to

provide more immediate intervention and help after police respond to a call

relating to domestic violence. Often, the victim will feel she has no options and is

pressured to return to a dangerous situation. With STOP Program funding, we now

have a part-time civilian advocate from our local domestic violence/sexual assault

agency working in our department and with our officers to provide immediate

follow-up to victims to provide support and information and advocacy to help them

escape and be safe.

—Pittsfield Police Department, Massachusetts

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The funds have allowed the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) Newton Area

to operate a Specialized Domestic Abuse Response Team. The team is comprised of

detectives and a community-based advocate who respond to the scene of

incidents. The detectives are able to conduct more comprehensive investigations

(evidence collection, report-writing, etc.). In addition, the funds allow the LAPD to

contract with a community-based organization that provides an array of critical

services, including crisis intervention, counseling, emergency assistance, and

referrals. The community-based organization helps relieve the apprehension of

victims and encourages victims to cooperate with law enforcement.

—City of Los Angeles, California

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed crisis response advocates to provide on-scene services

with law enforcement to sexual assault and domestic violence victims. Prior to the

STOP grant funding, Amberly's Place was not open, and crisis response services did

not exist in Yuma County. . . . As a result of the STOP grant, victims have access to

a crisis response advocate on-scene 24/7. Due to the large turnover rate in law

enforcement, new officers are responding to domestic violence calls with limited

training and experience on the dynamics of domestic violence and the cycle of

abuse. The on-scene crisis response advocate is available to guide the officer

through the cycle of abuse as well as identifying the primary aggressor.

—Yuma Family Advocacy Coalition d/b/a Amberly’s Place, Arizona

2012 Report

Part A 47

Spectrum of Law Enforcement Responsibilities

A law enforcement officer’s responsibilities begin with the initial response to the

sexual assault, domestic violence, or stalking call. The officer engages in a

continuum of activities to ensure victim safety: making arrests of the predominant

aggressor at incident scenes, referring the victim to services, fully investigating cases

to enhance effective prosecution, serving protection orders on offenders,

conducting periodic safety checks on the victim, and making arrests for violations of

bail conditions and protection orders. States are providing STOP Program funding to

law enforcement agencies that are engaging in these activities. The following

subgrantees have focused their responses on effective service and enforcement of

protection orders, safety checks, and providing victims with information about

community resources:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP funding has provided the county with the ability to serve all emergency

protective orders in a fast and efficient manner. Prior to this funding, nearly 70

percent of the county's orders were not served in an appropriate time frame, if

served at all. By providing funding for an officer whose sole purpose is to serve

these orders throughout the county, the 70 percent number has been decreased

to 20 percent. For the victim, having these orders served in a timely manner

alleviates some of the stress of waiting and wondering if the order will ever be

served. Because this may be the first time that a victim has entered into the

criminal justice system, it also establishes the opportunity to build a rapport with

law enforcement and enables officers to provide referrals for additional service, if

the victim should request. In addition to providing the victim with the comfort of

knowing that an order has been served in a reasonable time frame, this funding

has also assisted in preventing the court system from being backlogged with

unserved orders.

—City of Williamsburg, Kentucky

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The OVW advocate works closely with law enforcement and has developed a

protocol that whenever law enforcement responds to a domestic or sexual violence

call, the Avenues advocate is notified. We have seen this program continue to grow

over the years that we have had STOP funding. This project is providing women

with an advocate who assists them in completing and filing orders of protection,

attends criminal and civil court hearings, provides transportation to court, social

services, and other appointments, and assists them in finding safe, adequate, and

affordable housing.

—Avenues, Inc., Missouri

S •T•O•P Program

48 Part A

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

With STOP Program funding, Lexington County has been consistent and aggressive

with enforcement of no contact orders. The CDV [criminal domestic violence]

investigator has been able to monitor defendants under the no contact bond

violation. We have program coordination for monitoring weekend jail defendants.

In the past, there was no way to track those who were sentenced to weekend jail

time. The STOP funding has also provided funds to train the CDV investigator for

technology surveillance. Intensive enforcement has resulted in more guilty pleas

which has resulted in greater judicial efficiency. Fewer cases are pending as jury

trial requests.

—Lexington County Sheriff’s Office, South Carolina

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Officers arrived at the residence of the victim and discussed safety plans with her.

Officers also provided information relating to services available in the community.

In addition, officers inquired from the victim if any violations of conditions of

release or of protection from abuse orders had occurred. If the victim disclosed

that contact had been made, then the officers completed an affidavit for an arrest

warrant if the perpetrator was not located and arrested. Before leaving the area,

the officers also interviewed neighbors and other community members to

determine if the abuser had been in the area. If, during the investigation, it is

determined that a violation of a court order had occurred, then they followed the

protocol of arresting the individual. When applicable, in addition to follow-up

with the victims, officers made contact with the perpetrator and conducted

random searches of his person, residence, and/or vehicle for bail prohibitions,

such as alcohol/drugs and dangerous weapons. If a violation was discovered, the

perpetrator was arrested for the violation(s).

—Bidde

Police De

artment, Maine

2012 Report

Part A 49

STOP Program funds also are used to provide training, develop consistent policies

and protocols, and participate in CCR activities:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

By designating a DVSA [domestic violence/sexual assault] detective to review all

cases that are DVSA-related, it ensures that reports of domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking contain the necessary components. If a report is lacking,

the detective can obtain the necessary information and fully investigate the

crime reported, and also use the instance as an opportunity to educate and

retrain officers on the policies and procedures of law enforcement. Funding has

also allowed for training and collaboration, so that law enforcement officers and

other important community members can be knowledgeable about domestic

violence, sexual assault, stalking, trauma, and victimology, and respond to these

issues appropriately and effectively. Collaboration with the local homeless

shelters and social service agencies provides an increase in opportunity for

cross-referrals, support, and coordination of services. Providing a coordinated,

compassionate, and appropriate response for victims of domestic violence,

sexual assault, and stalking increases the chances of offender accountability.

Victims can feel safer coming forward in reporting crimes, obtaining services,

and following through with the criminal justice system. Victims that have taken

advantage of the services available in Petaluma's DVSA unit and Petaluma's

larger community response often state that they feel better equipped to move

on with their lives and provide a safer environment for their children. By

providing these services, we help victims break the cycle of violence.

—City of Petaluma

California

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP Program funding has given Oregon State Police/Law Enforcement Data

Systems the ability to do research with each county throughout Oregon to

determine: what process and forms each county is using for protection orders so

that we can increase consistency of process and forms, what understanding does

each county have regarding how to fill out the protection order forms and how to

enter the information into the Law Enforcement Data System, what options the

victim has when they fill out protection orders, how courts interpret the different

types of relief that the victim is asking for in the protection order and the Oregon

statutes that support such relief, how law enforcement interprets the type of

relief ordered by the judge in a protection order, and how to support that relief.

Without STOP Program funding, we would have never had the ability to do the

needed research to determine where we are as a state for the above mentioned

areas, as well as developing protocols, procedures, processes, and gathering best

practices to come up with solutions to the issues and to help build consistency in

processes and practices.

—Oregon State Police, Law Enforcement Data Systems

S •T•O•P Program

50 Part A

During calendar year 2008, 298 subgrantees (13 percent of all subgrantees

reporting) used STOP Program funds for activities that were conducted by law

enforcement personnel with a total of 246 FTEs.

Law enforcement officers funded

under the STOP Program in 2008 received 82,708 calls for assistance from sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking victims/survivors. They

responded and prepared incident reports in 85,609 cases, investigated 88,216 cases,

made 28,883 arrests of predominant aggressors and 997 dual arrests, and referred

36,426 cases to prosecutors. Officers funded by the STOP Program served 14,849

protection/restraining orders, arrested offenders for 3,604 violations of protection

orders, and enforced 7,854 warrants.

In addition to traditional law enforcement activities, subgrantees also engaged in

activities designed to improve law enforcement response and arrests of offenders:

284 used funds to develop, expand, or train specialized law enforcement units; 666

provided training on law enforcement response and 322 specifically addressed

identifying and arresting the predominant aggressor in training; 102 developed

and/or implemented policies that addressed identification of the primary aggressor;

and 67 developed or implemented pro-arrest policies.

Prosecution

Prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking

presents many challenges. Funding from OVW has been instrumental in addressing

these challenges by improving knowledge and providing needed resources to

prosecution offices across the country. Prosecutions of crimes against women too

often fail without thorough police investigation and detailed reports, expertise on

violence against women, staff members to supplement the information provided by

law enforcement, reasonable caseloads, technology to enhance investigations and

the presentation of evidence, resources to employ experts for evidence analysis,

and expert testimony.

Prosecutors without the proper knowledge may fail to identify stalking and intimate

partner sexual assault and may not devise specialized policies to guide prosecution

of violence against women (Miller & Nugent, 2002). Without the necessary

resources, prosecutors often charge offenders with misdemeanors because felony

trials are labor- and cost-intensive (Miller & Nugent, 2002). Without an adequate

staff to prosecute violations of conditions on sentences, in either judicial monitoring

or probation revocation proceedings, prosecutors do not vigorously prepare nor do

they seek serious sanctions (Friday et al., 2006).

For more detailed information on the types and numbers of law enforcement activities reported, see

page 97, section on “Law Enforcement”.

Subgrantees may receive funds for specifically designated law enforcement activities and might not

engage in the other activities referred to here. For example, a subgrantee may have received STOP

Program funding to support a dedicated domestic violence detective whose only activity was to

investigate cases; that subgrantee would not report on calls received or incidents responded to, unless

those activities were also supported by the STOP Program.

2012 Report

Part A 51

Specialized Prosecution

Jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence prosecution programs generally

have the highest rates of successful prosecution (B. Smith, Davis, Nickles, & Davies,

2001), largely because of prosecutors’ commitment to proceed. An Ohio court study

found that the amount of time prosecutors spent with victims/survivors preparing a

case was positively associated with successful prosecution. The same study also

found that high prosecution caseloads were negatively associated with successful

outcomes (Belknap et al., 2000).

Studies that looked at specialized prosecution units in Cook County (Chicago) and in

Milwaukee found dramatic differences in conviction rates between specialized and

non-specialized prosecution: Cook County’s specialized unit obtained a conviction

rate of 71 percent compared with a rate of 50 percent obtained by the rest of the

office for domestic violence cases (Hartley & Frohmann, 2003). In Milwaukee, the

specialized unit increased felony convictions by five times (Harrell, Schaffer,

DeStefano, & Castro, 2006).

While victims/survivors most commonly reported fear of retaliation as a barrier to

their participation in prosecution, a three-state study found that the fear was

reduced with specialized prosecution, increased victim advocacy, and specialized

domestic violence courts (Harrell, Castro, Newmark, & Visher, 2007). Prosecutors’

offices that adopt specialized policies and practices to deal with intimate partner

abusers are more sensitive to victims/survivors’ needs; as a result, fewer families in

the jurisdiction suffer from family or intimate partner violence (Dugan, Nagin, &

Rosenfeld, 2003).

In the following examples, prosecution agencies used STOP funds for specialized

prosecutors who review, assess, and make charging decisions; prosecute cases

effectively, consistently, and promptly; develop and implement protocols; spend

time with victims/survivors; and assist and train other prosecutors:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP Program has allowed one prosecutor to devote an ample amount of

time to all domestic violence, sexual assaults, and related cases. This has allowed

them to assist in complex felony domestic violence cases district-wide, be an

available resource to assist at trials or offer advice to the district's other eleven

deputy prosecutors, deal with initial misdemeanor domestic violence citizen

complaints, make decisions about case filings, meet with victims, coordinate with

victim assistance offices, provide follow-up communications to victims, and

educate law enforcement personnel. Without the STOP Program, victims and

domestic violence and sexual assault cases would be underserved and would not

receive the specialized prosecution and time that they demand.

—13th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Arizona

S •T•O•P Program

52 Part A

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP Program funding has allowed prosecutors and law enforcement to work

together to protect the victims of domestic violence. Funds for the specialized unit

have enabled two prosecutors to review all domestic violence cases for criteria that

suggests the defendant will reoffend, thus, targeting that defendant by providing

information to law enforcement. In turn, officers can provide surveillance on the

victim's place of work, business, or home. The prosecutors are able to meet in-

depth with victims, forming a bond that is necessary to ensure successful

prosecution and future safety for the victim.

—Office of the State Attorney, 18th Judicial Circuit, Florida

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Grant funding has afforded the STOP-funded prosecutor the means to put a

sufficient amount of time and energy into case preparation and victim services. In

addition to the limited caseload, attorneys in specialized grant-funded units, such

as STOP, enjoy the benefit of gaining particular insight and expertise in highly

complicated cases. The ability to gain familiarity with complex procedures like

sexual assault examinations, DNA analysis, and victim interaction all contribute to

successful prosecution. Further, the STOP-funded prosecutor benefits with

constant contact and resulting close relationships with peace officers, advocates,

service providers, and medical professionals. This, in turn, results in much more

efficient communication, investigation, preparation, and prosecution. Finally,

tracking data on arrests, charges, prosecution, and convictions are all much easier

when cases involving sexual assault or other violence against women are handled

by one attorney, and the stats are entered, compiled, and preserved by one IT

[information technology] expert.

—County of Yolo, California

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Without Stop Program funding, we would not have a three-quarter time VAW

[violence against women] prosecutor focusing on violent crimes against women

and services to these victims would be greatly diminished. The funding allows us

to set the bar higher; it allows us to take these cases to trial. It allows us to create

policies and protocols for law enforcement, enhancing their ability to do a

thorough investigation. Strong investigation is crucial to the outcome of these

cases. If we have a strong case with strong evidence, the less likely we will go to

trial. This, in turn, makes it easier on the victim. [The] bottom line is STOP funding

allows us to do our jobs better. Before funding, these crimes rarely went to trial,

offenders had minimum consequences, and the victim did not receive the quality

of services that we have in our office today. Victims and defendants alike know

that we are here to do our job and we take it seriously. STOP funding has helped

make that possible.

—Kossuth County Attorney's Office, Iowa

2012 Report

Part A 53

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Prior to receiving STOP funding, the Porter County Prosecutor's Office had not

been able to dedicate personnel to learning the intricacies of domestic violence

cases. This lack of understanding prevented the prosecutors from appropriately

addressing the issues of power and control that are the cornerstones of domestic

crimes. Now, over a period of 14 years, the office has become a forerunner in the

region regarding holding defendants accountable for their actions. Attorneys in

neighboring counties routinely comment that "if the client's case had been filed in

the next county, he would have been walking out the door as soon as he was

booked." We take great pride in knowing that our police officers receive up-to-

date training on domestic violence laws, report-writing, and testifying, and that all

of that training leads to great, solid cases. Additionally, the funding allows us to

maintain a DV [domestic violence] unit where there are two prosecutors that

specifically handle the vertical prosecution of these cases.

—Porter County Prosecutor's Office, Indiana

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP funding allows the Platte County Prosecutor's Office to increase

successful prosecutions of domestic violence cases through prompt case

review and consistent implementation of the flexible "no drop" policy.

With the addition of the domestic violence prosecutor, the office is able to

timely prosecute all viable reported domestic abuse cases to final

disposition, either by trial or through a guilty plea. Prompt case review

means the domestic violence prosecutor promptly reviews all submitted

cases involving domestic violence within 48 hours. Action is taken on the

file within 24 hours for suspects held in custody. In cases where a suspect is

not held in custody, the domestic violence prosecutor or victim advocate

attempts to contact the victim within 24 hours of the receipt of the report

and action is taken within 48 hours of speaking with the victim. The

consistent application of the flexible "no drop" policy sends a clear

message to both abusers and victims that the criminal justice system takes

domestic violence against women seriously.

—Platte County, Missouri

S •T•O•P Program

54 Part A

Vertical Prosecution

Vertical prosecution allows the victim/survivor and one consistent prosecutor the

opportunity to work together throughout the life of the case. Cook County (Chicago)

victims/survivors reported higher satisfaction with the specialized domestic violence

prosecution unit—which featured specially trained prosecutors, vertical

prosecution, and its own victim advocates—than with the prosecutors who handled

domestic violence cases outside the unit. Domestic violence unit victims/survivors

also were more likely to appear in court; 75 percent of victims appeared, compared

to just 25 percent in non-unit domestic violence cases. This unit also obtained a

higher domestic violence conviction rate—71 percent—compared with 50 percent

for the rest of the office (Hartley & Frohmann, 2003).

Vertical prosecution is practiced in numerous STOP Program-funded prosecution

offices:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Centralizing the tracking and prosecution of domestic violence-related cases has

allowed the expansion and effectiveness of victims' services, has affected more

thorough investigations, more expedient sharing of information by agencies, and a

clearer awareness of needs to be addressed. Coordination of prosecutors, police,

victims' services, and judges assists in rendering both more effective decisions and

better addressing victims' needs. This grant has allowed the district attorney's

office to assist in training of police and prosecutors, identifying victims services

needs, and [help] with policy implementation. . . Both prosecutorial decisions and

sentencing recommendations are more effective

—Marion County Commission, Alabama

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Kern County is both one of the largest counties in California and a rapidly growing

County, as well, in terms of population and its related issues. With just under half

the population living outside the Bakersfield Metropolitan area, many people are

served by seven separate courts. As a result of this geographic spread, about one-

third of the felony domestic violence and sexual assault cases originate in these

branch courts. They are usually investigated by smaller police agencies and

frequently need more investigative work after filing. Resident branch court

deputies, pressured by daily felony and misdemeanor caseloads, find it simply

impossible to devote the necessary time to properly prepare these important

cases and effectively serve the traumatized and often reluctant victims. The STOP

program funding has allowed the Kern County District Attorney's Office to devote

a deputy district attorney to vertically prosecute these cases in the branch courts,

thus promoting countywide uniformity in sentencing and providing assistance to

victims needing services through the victim witness coordinator that works with

the assigned deputy DA [district attorney].

—Count

Kern

Cali

ornia

2012 Report

Part A 55

Prosecutors funded under the STOP Program received 163,364 cases of sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking for charging consideration

in 2008, and accepted, on average, 75 percent of those cases for prosecution. STOP

Program-funded prosecution offices showed a dismissal rate of 34 percent for

domestic violence misdemeanors.

This percentage is based on the number of dismissals compared to all other dispositions.

Subgrantees were instructed to report only on the disposition of the original case (which is

characterized by the most serious offense), not on the dispositions of lesser charges or counts pled to

by the offender. For more information on the dispositions of cases, see Table 29.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP program funding has allowed vertical prosecution to occur. Without

funding, this office would have to split its domestic violence and sexual assault

caseload between 10 different prosecutors and 5 different judges with already

overburdened dockets. This was done in the past, and it led to many dismissals,

no bills, and not guilty verdicts. With a vertical prosecutor or prosecutors, who

only deal with domestic violence and sexual assault cases, our office can put

someone in charge of tracking, prosecuting, and convicting just those cases. This

has led to increased numbers of successful prosecutions, less recidivism of

offenders, and more satisfied victims. During this reporting period, we served

over 295 female victims, and prosecuted 158 new domestic violence charges,

including 10 homicides, more than a 10 percent increase over the last year, 25

new stalking charges, and 94 new sexual assault charges, at least a 10 percent

increase over the past year. Without program funding, this office would not be

able to keep track of domestic violence and sexual assault cases with such fervor.

With the funding, fewer cases fall by the wayside, fewer cases fall through the

cracks, and most cases are made better instead of worse with time and

investigation.

—Board of Mahoning County Commissioners, Ohio

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

This funding enables us to continue to have two vertical prosecution teams for all

domestic violence and intimate partner sexual assault cases. The current funding

supports a bilingual advocate and prosecutor who work as a team. A vertical

prosecution team consists of one advocate and one prosecutor who follow their

caseload from the date a defendant is arraigned through trial or disposition.

Vertical prosecution has been a successful tool in keeping victims informed and

willing to continue with prosecution, and increases safety. Because the same team

of advocate and prosecutor handle the entire case, victims are not re-victimized by

having to tell their personal stories each time they come to court to a different

staff member. They also know who specifically is handling their case and have

direct contact for any questions.

—Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, Massachusetts

S •T•O•P Program

56 Part A

During calendar year 2008, 292 subgrantees used STOP Program funds for

prosecution activities carried out by prosecutors with a total of 267 FTEs. STOP

funds were used to develop, expand, or train specialized prosecution units by 290

subgrantees. Overall, subgrantees took the following steps to improve prosecution:

390 provided training on prosecution response, 93 developed and/or implemented

policies that addressed victim-witness notification, and 72 addressed policy

development and/or implementation regarding protection order violations. The low

dismissal rate in STOP Program-funded prosecution agencies may reflect the impact

of specialized prosecutors gaining training to develop and implement strategic

policies that result in increased offender accountability.

Courts

Successful and effective prosecution of domestic violence is augmented in

jurisdictions where courts have consolidated domestic violence calendars and more

intensive supervision of defendants preconviction and post-conviction. A study of

106 jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence courts found that 70 percent

shared the following practices and processes essential to effective management of

specialized courts: 1) effective management of domestic violence cases,

coordinating all of the cases involving the relevant parties, and integrating requisite

information for the court; 2) specialized intake and court staffing for domestic

violence cases; 3) improved victim access, expedited hearings, and assistance for

victims/survivors by court staff, often assisted by related, specialized, vertical

domestic violence prosecution units; 4) court processes to ensure victims/survivors’

safety, from court metal detectors and separate waiting rooms to specialized orders

and victim referrals; 5) increased court monitoring and enforcement of batterer

compliance with court orders, often exercised by related specialized probation

supervision units; 6) consideration of children involved in domestic violence; and 7)

enhanced domestic violence training for judges (Keilitz, 2004).

In some jurisdictions, judges have been at the forefront in establishing special

coordinating councils for sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and

stalking cases. In an increasing number of jurisdictions, judges have used their

administrative role to create specialized domestic violence courts and court dockets

with the goals of enhanced coordination, more consistent intervention to protect

victims/survivors, and increased offender accountability. Integrated domestic

violence courts have also been instituted; these take jurisdiction over criminal,

protection order, and select family proceedings (e.g., custody cases) involving the

same offender and victim/survivor, so that the same judge presides over all the

cases involving the offender and victim/survivor. Specialized domestic violence

criminal courts and integrated domestic violence courts typically have specialized

intake units, victim-witness advocates, specialized calendars, and intense judicial

monitoring of offenders (A. Klein, 2004).

With STOP Program funding for a specialized domestic violence criminal court, this

subgrantee was not only able to dispose of cases more quickly, but also to mobilize

its system and community partners to improve the overall response to domestic

violence:

2012 Report

Part A 57

To help courts more effectively manage their domestic violence docket and monitor

the compliance of offenders with court-ordered conditions, STOP funds may be

used for coordinators, case managers, or monitors as in the following examples:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

[Before] receiving this funding, there was no [staff] position to ensure the

compliance of those offenders that were court-ordered in Family Court to have a

domestic violence assessment and follow through with treatment

recommendations. This task was left to the victims, which placed them in danger

and added to their victimization. In most cases, noncompliant offenders were

never reported and, therefore, didn't face any consequences for not following the

orders of the court. Having the court monitor track compliance has brought

numerous offenders before the court that may never have been detected, making

victims feel as though their orders are valid in the eyes of the court.

—Office of the Fayette County Sheriff, Kentucky

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed the continued availability of the domestic violence court

docket. This docket has been beneficial in providing a higher rate of offender

accountability within Seminole County which, in turn, increases the rate of victim

safety. Due to weekly monitoring of offenders by the domestic violence coordinator

and coordination with the courts on a more regular basis, accountability has

increased and recidivism rates have deceased for participating offenders.

—Family Resource Center, Oklahoma

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed our judicial district to create a specialized domestic

violence court that efficiently manages case delay for domestic violence cases.

Prior to the creation of this court in 1996, domestic violence cases were mixed in

with all criminal cases and were subject to case delays of several months for final

disposition of a case. Now, cases are generally disposed of within 6 to 16 weeks,

depending on whether a trial was requested. Also, in the creation of the

specialized court, services were created through our prosecutor's office and the

local shelter to meet with victims and assign an advocate to each case. Probation

services also created a specialized bond supervision program that is still in place

today, although no longer funded by STOP funds. In addition our CCR, known as

COMVAC, continues to meet and is active in our community in the prevention and

reduction of domestic violence and child maltreatment. The STOP funds have

supported the domestic violence court, which, in turn, coordinates with the many

community players who provide services to victims and perpetrators of domestic

violence.

—10th Judicial District Domestic Vio

ence Pro

ram

Kansas

S •T•O•P Program

58 Part A

STOP funds have been used for domestic violence court liaisons, court-based

advocates, and resource coordinators

whose roles are multifaceted and can be

critical to the success of the specialized court, the coordinated community response,

and victim safety and offender accountability:

These staff may be employed directly by the court or by coalitions or victim services agencies, or may

be working under a contract between the court and another agency.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP funding for [the] Domestic Violence Court has helped to create a

standard for the court system as an agent of change in the community. Policy is

driven by victims’ needs. There have been many successful collaborations. This

has created an environment of cooperation, which allows for open discussion

about policy. The domestic violence coordinator is a resource to the court system,

local law enforcement, nonprofit agencies and attorneys. Many collaborative

activities continue with the community such as training for the local bar

association and law enforcement. Overall the Domestic Violence Court is well

respected by the court community and continues to create successful

collaborations on behalf of victims.

—Rutherford County Domestic Violence Court, Tennessee

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP Program funding allows for advocacy in both the civil and criminal

courts. This is [particularly] important in assisting victims transitioning from the

criminal court to the civil court process. Often, when a case is dissolved and the

victim is still fearful, the victim can pursue a temporary restraining order in the civil

court. This funding allows the process to be seamless for the victim. It is an

immediate response to a critical need, ensuring safety on several levels. It has

been noted in other courts that victims fail to follow through with the civil process

because they are scared and intimidated by the process. In Hartford, the advocate

is also in the position of having immediate access to the criminal case. This assists

in facilitating the coordinated community response in the Hartford area.

—Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Prior to receiving this funding, the court did not monitor any compliance with any

provisions of protection orders unless the victim filed a motion with the court

alleging noncompliance. Now, we are able to monitor every respondent who was

ordered for an evaluation by a Domestic Violence Coordinating Council-certified

agency without relying on the victim.

—Family Court of the State of Delaware

2012 Report

Part A 59

Some states use STOP Program funding to provide training to the judiciary, as in the

following example:

Funds were used for specialized courts or court activities addressing sexual assault,

domestic violence, and stalking by 16 STOP subgrantees; 9 of these subgrantees

used funds for judicial monitoring activities of convicted offenders, holding an

average of 1.6 hearings per offender for 2,820 offenders during calendar year 2008.

These courts held offenders accountable by imposing sanctions for violations of

probation conditions and other court orders, as shown in Table 8.

As illustrated in Table 8 below, for offenders who violated conditions of probation

and whose violations were disposed of in STOP-funded courts, revocation (partial or

full) of probation represented 41 percent of the total dispositions of those violations

in 2008.

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

The 5 percent court allocation has been a tremendous benefit to the judiciary. It has

allowed specialized training on violence against women issues, including sensitivity

training on the critical issues of violence against women crimes.

—

TOP administrator

West Virginia

S •T•O•P Program

60 Part A

Table 8. Disposition of probation violations by STOP Program-funded courts in 2008

2008 (N = 1,948)

Type of Disposition Number Percent

Verbal/written warning 497 26

Partial/full revocation of probation 817 42

Conditions added 235 12

Fine 70 4

No action taken 329 17

NOTE: N is the total number of dispositions reported. One offender may have received more than

one disposition per violation and had multiple violations in the same 12-month period.

Probation Supervision

Probation supervision offers the criminal justice system alternatives to incarcerating

offenders. The primary role of the probation officer is to monitor offenders’

compliance with court-ordered conditions. Probation and parole departments have

devised policies and practices to respond to the heightened scrutiny and more

nuanced sentencing by courts in responding to sexual assault, domestic violence,

stalking, and dating violence. Following the example of police, prosecutors, and

courts, probation departments funded under the STOP Program have adopted

specialized caseloads for monitoring offenders. Many of these specialized probation

officers engage in more intensive supervision of their probationers, including

unscheduled home visits and curfew checks, as well as random drug and alcohol

screening. Many require attendance at batterer intervention programs (BIPs) or sex

offender treatment programs, while providing outreach and support to

victims/survivors.

Research on the effectiveness of probation supervision in domestic violence cases

suggests there are several essential ingredients for effective probation supervision

of perpetrators. One is victim-focused supervision. A primary goal of the supervision

must be victim/survivor protection, with victim/survivor restitution as a secondary

goal. To achieve both, periodic probation officer contact and communication with

victims/survivors is essential. This ongoing outreach to victims requires a shift away

from traditional approaches to probation, which tend to focus on the offender, not

the victim/survivor (A. Klein & Crowe, 2008; A. Klein, Wilson, Crowe, & DeMichele,

2005). Officers should also monitor compliance with state and federal firearms

prohibitions (Crowe et al., 2009; A. Klein, 2006).

A study of Rhode Island’s Department of Corrections/Probation and Parole found

that a specialized probation supervision unit for individuals convicted of domestic

violence significantly reduced the risk of reabuse and rearrest among low-risk

offenders, and increased victim satisfaction, when compared with non-specialized

supervision (A. Klein et al., 2005).

2012 Report

Part A 61

Another critical practice is strict monitoring of all probationary conditions,

particularly attendance at and satisfactory compliance with assigned BIPs. BIPs,

especially those embedded in a criminal justice response system that mandates

participation and imposes swift sanctions for noncompliance, appear to deescalate

reassault and other abuse (Gondolf, 2004). Abusers who are unwilling or unable to

complete these programs are significantly more likely to reabuse than those who

complete them (Gordon & Moriarty, 2003; Puffett & Gavin, 2004). By tightly

monitoring offenders’ participation in BIPs, probation officers can bring

noncompliant abusers back to court for probation modification or revocation before

they reoffend.

Some California subgrantees have incorporated elements of effective probation

practice, including the following:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP Program funding has continued to allow the Merced County Probation

Department to fund a probation officer position that provides intensive supervision

services to domestic violence offenders. The probation officer continues to work

closely with the victims and children by referring them to services within the

community. The probation officer continues to oversee a case load of 40 adult

felony offenders. The probation officer works an alternative work schedule which

includes working evenings and weekends. The funding has allowed the officer to

work nights and work overtime when deemed necessary in order to provide

intensive supervision services to his clients.

—Merced County Probation Department, California

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

OVW funding has allowed the department to assign one senior probation officer

and one deputy probation officer to intensively supervise caseloads of no more

than 30 probationers convicted of domestic violence offenses. These small

caseloads allow the probation officer the opportunity to make frequent home and

victim contacts, as well as, to immediately arrest a probationer who violates his

conditions of probation. The funding further allows the caseloads to remain

continuously covered and provides a continuity of staffing. Additionally, staff

assigned have received extensive domestic violence training and have been able to

develop an excellent working relationship with other law enforcement agencies,

the district attorney, and the judge.

—Moreno Valley & Riverside Anti-Violence Against Women, California

S •T•O•P Program

62 Part A

A subgrantee from Nebraska has overseen a dramatic increase in the scope of their

probation supervision programming as a result of STOP Program funding:

The following subgrantees used STOP Program funds for intensive supervision of

offenders while maintaining contact with victims to ensure accountability and victim

safety:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The creation of a victim services agent has allowed the Department of Correction,

the largest law enforcement agency in the state, to provide direct services to

victims. This project indirectly impacts offender accountability by keeping victims

involved in offender supervision and has changed our "offender-focused"

supervision philosophy. The victim services agent project serves victims whose

offender is under probation and parole supervision for domestic violence, stalking,

and sexual assault. The project has highlighted the importance of keeping victims

informed about probationer compliance, sentencing, bail, and release information.

—Department of Correction, Community Corrections, Delaware

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP Program has allowed us to contact all victims of domestic violence at

both the pre-sentence level and the supervision level, thus, increasing the

accountability of the offenders and providing a safe environment for the victims to

speak, to be heard, and to report any subsequent violence. Prior to this funding, all

of the victims were contacted, but in some instances, the victim could not reveal

the entire history of violence. As [a] result of this funding, there were renewed

alliances with referral agencies and a spirit of greater cooperation among us to

serve the victim. Data was kept on all victims contacted, where they were referred

to, and the satisfaction of the victim in regard to the services provided. Without

funding, this specific data would not be documented.

—Cit

Cleveland Munici

al Court Probation De

artment, Ohio

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

When we started we had fewer than 10 offenders on probation and no one in a

batterer intervention program [BIP]. For the past several years we have had 150-

plus offenders in batterer intervention programs and developed a Spanish-language

BIP as well. Similarly, enhanced advocacy and advocacy in the adult probation

department would not be possible.

—Lancaster County, Nebraska

2012 Report

Part A 63

As illustrated in Table 9 below, when offenders supervised by STOP Program-funded

probation officers failed to comply with court-ordered conditions, revocation

(partial or full) of probation represented 60 percent of the total dispositions of their

violations in 2008.

Table 9. Disposition of probation violations by STOP Program-funded probation

departments in 2008

Total Violations

2008 (N = 1,891)

Type of Disposition Number Percent

Verbal/written warning 156 8

Partial/full revocation of probation 1,140 60

Conditions added 260 14

Fine 85 4

No action taken 250 13

NOTE: N is the total number of violations. One offender may have received more than one

disposition per violation and had multiple violations in the same 12-month period.

During 2008, STOP Program-funded probation staff supervised a total of 4,907

offenders and made a total of 62,732 contacts with those offenders. The majority of

these contacts—58 percent—were face-to-face, 28 percent were by telephone, and

14 percent were unscheduled surveillance. These agencies disposed of 1,891

probation violations, of which 1,140 (60 percent) resulted in partial or full

revocation of probation. STOP Program-funded probation agencies also had a total

of 5,524 contacts with 1,922 victims/survivors during 2008. Regular contact provides

an opportunity to inform victims/survivors about services available in the

community and lets them know that the criminal justice system is continuing to hold

the offender accountable.

Sexual Assault

According to the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey, more than

300,000 women and 90,000 men are raped annually, and these rates have shown

little variation over the past few decades. The survey reported that nearly 18 million

women and 3 million men experienced a sexual assault during their lifetime.

The overwhelming majority of dispositions of violations were reported under “Other conditions of

probation or parole.” These high numbers could include technical violations (e.g., use of alcohol or

controlled substances, failure to report) or they could also indicate the subgrantees’ inability to report

dispositions in the specific categories on the reporting form. Those categories are for the following

violations: protection order, new criminal behavior, failure to attend batterer intervention program, or

failure to attend other mandated treatment. For more detail on dispositions for these specific

categories for both courts and probation departments, see Tables 29 and 31 in Aggregate

Accomplishments.

S •T•O•P Program

64 Part A

Epidemiological data suggest that at least 17 percent of women will be sexually

assaulted in their lifetime. According to the survey, only one in five women reported

their victimization to the police; of those reported assaults, only 37 percent were

prosecuted (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

VAWA permits STOP-funded programs to fund the training of sexual assault forensic

medical personnel examiners in the following areas: the treatment of trauma

related to sexual assault; the collection, preservation, and analysis of evidence; and

providing expert testimony. In addition, STOP Program subgrantees provide training

to increase the understanding of the intersection of domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. Subgrantees have developed and implemented policies that

led to better responses and improved services for victims/survivors of sexual assault

and stalking.

The specialized training of medical personnel is designed not only to improve the

quality of the examination and of the evidence collected, but also to provide

victims/survivors of sexual trauma with compassionate treatment during the

examination process. This training is vital to ensure that victims/survivors obtain

competent medical care and follow-up services in a manner that supports their

immediate needs and long-term healing. Training on the collection of forensic

evidence during the examination is critical to holding offenders accountable in the

criminal justice process. Historically, victims/survivors of sexual assault were often

retraumatized by their experiences in hospitals. Triage usually left them waiting

hours for forensic exams. Physicians often were untrained in forensic

evidence collection and not inclined to become involved in a procedure that could

require them to appear in court. This lack of training compromised the ability of the

criminal justice system to successfully prosecute perpetrators. In sexual assault

nurse examiner (SANE) programs, trained nurse examiners provide prompt,

sensitive, supportive, and compassionate care; the nurses also follow forensic

protocols, ensuring the highest quality evidence is collected.

Programs that include SANEs and sexual assault response teams (SARTs) greatly

enhance the quality of health care provided to women who have been sexually

assaulted and to improve the quality of forensic evidence. They also enhance law

enforcement’s ability to collect information and to file charges, thus increasing the

likelihood of successful prosecution (R. Campbell, Bybee, Ford, & Patterson, 2008; R.

Campbell et al., 2005; Crandall & Helitzer, 2003).

2012 Report

Part A 65

The following subgrantees used funds for SANE coordinators and reported on the

impact of STOP funding in their communities:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The STOP funding has also allowed for development of a Grant County SART and

related multidisciplinary training and protocols. Rape cases now have the benefit

of local expert witnesses [who are] able to explain to a jury why a sexual assault

victim will not necessarily have [an] injury from the assault. This is certainly

common knowledge among those who have dealt with sexual assault cases, but

juries have a hard time understanding this fact. Having locally-trained SANEs has

aided in investigations, as the investigations can proceed more expediently and

we have medically-trained eyes helping guide the collection of evidence—during

the rape examination, as well as at the crime scene, or elsewhere. Essentially,

STOP funding has made the prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assault

cases more effective, thus leading to safer victims and offenders who are held

more accountable.

—Grant County Prosecutor's Office, Indiana

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed the MCSATC [Madison County Sexual Assault Treatment

Center] to maintain the integrity of the 24/7 on-call status of sexual assault nurse

examiners (SANEs). These specially trained registered nurses respond and provide

immediate comprehensive medical forensic examination to victims who have been

acutely sexually assaulted. The SANEs are also responsible for activating a

multidisciplinary team of professionals on behalf of the victim and her specific

needs. Because of STOP funding, SANEs are able to address the needs of the victim

in an immediate, comprehensive fashion thereby expediting the entire

investigation process. STOP funding has also allowed the MCSATC to reach out to

law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and healthcare providers in surrounding

rural counties where limited victim services are available and offer 24-hour

availability of forensic medical services to victims of these rural communities.

—Communit

Hos

ital Anderson

Indiana

S •T•O•P Program

66 Part A

The following subgrantee used STOP funds to provide essential training on sexual

assault:

The following subgrantee has used STOP funds to ensure a seamless continuum of

accessible, high-quality services for sexual assault victims/survivors:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed the Collins Center to offer a comprehensive continuum

of services for victims from one location—24-hour hotline, hospital and court

accompaniment, crisis counseling, group support, [and] systems advocacy. This

provides stability and consistency for victims and their families throughout the

entire process following a sexual assault. Funding has also allowed us to increase

community collaboration, training, and partnerships to better respond to victims

through investigations and prosecution of sexual assault. The agency has been

able [to] run more quality and consistent support groups for female victims with a

high retention rate throughout the year and has also been able to provide crisis

counseling and long-term mental health referrals for those victims who are

underinsured or uninsured and would not be able to get services elsewhere.

—The Collins Center (formerly Citizens Against Sexual Assault—CASA), Virginia

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed Foundation for Rape Information and Services (FRIS) to

expand programs and services and to further increase our collaborative efforts

with partners from a wide variety of disciplines. Prior to this funding, FRIS

coordinated no mutlidisciplinary training on sexual assault or stalking and

coordinated no statewide disciplinary collaboratives on these issues. During this

funding period alone we have coordinated or assisted in coordinating 14 training

[sessions]. All were either statewide or regional. The annual symposium reached

198 professionals. Following the changes to the West Virginia statute on stalking,

we were able to disseminate information through a radio interview and press

releases. Our collaborations with SANEs and the college campuses will have a far-

reaching impact including the establishment of SART and SANE programs and an

online training module for campus resident assistants. SART training has been

conducted in four counties, and technical assistance and information has been

provided to others seeking to develop a SART in their community. This funding

has enabled us to provide training, technical assistance, and resources on stalking

and sexual assault to hundreds of professionals in the state.

—West Vir

inia Foundation

or Ra

e In

ormation and Services

2012 Report

Part A 67

This Massachusetts subgrantee is taking a comprehensive approach in its support of

young women who have been victims of sexual exploitation:

This subgrantee in California is using STOP funds to help victims/survivors of

sexual assault make their way through the criminal justice system and to provide

them with counseling and advocacy:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The funding of the project has afforded our agency the opportunity to provide a

continuum of care to victims of sexual violence. Without the funding, the victims

would not have the same quality of supportive services necessary for them to

navigate through the criminal justice system and move forward in their healing

after the sexual assault. Advocates provide follow-up services to victims which

include crisis intervention counseling for victims and significant others, support for

victims and significant others through the maze of the criminal justice process,

interviews with law enforcement, accompaniment and advocacy during the

collection of forensic evidence, the judicial process, in-person counseling,

emergency housing, and referrals to other supportive services.

—Community Violence Solutions (Marin County), California

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP Program funds helped to provide advocacy for young women, [who are]

victims of sexual exploitation. Over a period of time, that has enabled some

women not only to exit out of the sex trade but to enter college and go beyond

just surviving. STOP funds have helped to provide support over [the] years —

especially for young women who have no biological family or positive support

systems while transitioning to adulthood, already burdened with challenges.

More than half of the young women we worked with over the past year fit into

this category. Without STOP funding, these young women would not have

received the kind of services needed to be successful in life, as they were at a

higher risk for incarceration and continued sexual and physical victimization.

Assisting young women out of the sex trade, and having an opportunity to

transition safely into adulthood to become healthy, stable, and productive young

women produces substantial social benefits and reduces the potential substantial

costs over time if these young women do not succeed. For example, incarceration

and substance abuse produce many unforeseen costs; therefore, without options

and a way out [of] it, young women most often then turn to substances and/or

cycle through the court systems as they get older.

—Kim’s Project, Massachusetts

S •T•O•P Program

68 Part A

A subgrantee in Georgia provided services to sexual assault victims/survivors in a

rural area where there were no such services before STOP funding:

In Wisconsin, a STOP subgrantee used funds to support counseling services,

including culturally-specific services, for victims/survivors with few options because

of their rural location and lack of financial resources:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

New Day Shelter (NDS) has been able to offer services of two masters-level

therapists and a Native American counselor to victims of domestic violence

and/or sexual assault/abuse because of OVW funding. The masters-level

therapists provide expanded and extended individual therapy and supportive

therapeutic services to victims of sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse who

are uninsured or underinsured, and, therefore, unable to receive these services

elsewhere. In the rural area we live in, there are very few therapists, [and] the

ones that there are have long waiting lists, and many clients do not have the

funds to pursue this treatment even if there were the availability of services. NDS

also offers two support groups, facilitated by the masters-level therapists, to

victims, focused on sexual assault issues that include women with severe and

persistent mental health issues. To our knowledge, there is no other service in

the area that offers a group experience to clients with these issues and with

severe and persistent mental health problems. The continuity of the therapists'

longevity at NDS has benefited the clients who need long-term individual therapy

and involvement in a group to continue or at least maintain their healing.

—New Day Shelter, Wisconsin

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Prior to receiving this crucial funding, there were no services of this kind offered

in our rural mountain area. Since our beginning in the program the funding has

provided vital services to our underserved rural areas for victims of sexual assault,

rape and adult survivors [of child sexual abuse]. Services have an everlasting

effect on the victims. FAITH [Fight Abuse in the Home] serves by enabling

advocates to provide guidance through the legal system, court and hospital

accompaniment, counseling, and crisis intervention services. The vital funding has

also allowed advocates to work and collaborate with other service providers, law

enforcement, and other agencies to provide a teamwork approach to the issues

that surround rape and sexual assault. Services provided through our agency have

also proven to be an essential tool in assisting adult survivors to overcome the

abuse they have suffered either as a child or in other unfortunate ways. FAITH

guides and empowers victims by assisting and supporting them in all aspects,

which would not be available to them if necessary funding was not in place.

—F.A.I.T.H. in Rabun County, Inc., Georgia

2012 Report

Part A 69

Subgrantees also use STOP funds for prosecutors devoted exclusively to the prosecution

of sexual assault cases. The work of prosecuting cases and ensuring that the

victim/survivor is informed, empowered, and has access to services goes hand in hand, as

illustrated in the following examples:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

The project advocate meets with the victim before the case is reviewed for

criminal charges in the district attorney's office. Following the successful model

developed over the years, the advocate and the assigned assistant district

attorney will stay with the case from start to finish so that the victim will have

the same advocacy and legal team throughout the prosecution. The advocate

provides crisis counseling and emotional support to the victims, educates victims

about the steps in the criminal prosecution, prepares victims to testify in court

and accompanies them to all court proceedings, stays in contact with victims to

provide emotional support and keeps them apprised of the progress of the case,

makes appropriate referrals for victims to outside agencies and resources,

advocates for victims with the assigned assistant district attorney and ensures

victims have the opportunity to confer with the prosecutor on their case, makes

victims aware of crime victim compensation and assists them in completing

required forms, assists victims in securing rights and remedies from other

agencies, such as intervening with employers and insurance companies on behalf

of victims; and helps victims complete forms which allows them to know the

whereabouts of their perpetrators (sex offender registry) and when he/she is

released from prison.

—Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, Wisconsin

S •T•O•P Program

70 Part A

More than 220 sexual assault organizations—180 local programs, and 40 state

sexual assault coalitions

—received STOP Program funds. Sexual assault

victims/survivors comprised 12 percent of all victims/survivors served with program

funds in 2008. Although it is impossible to know the specific types of services

provided to sexual assault survivors, subgrantees did report that victims/survivors

were accompanied to the hospital. Those hospital visits often are for forensic exams

for sexual assault victims/survivors. In addition to providing services to sexual

assault victims, 684 subgrantees—66 percent of those using funds—provided

training on topics related specifically to sexual assault: sexual assault dynamics,

services, statutes and codes, and forensic examination. STOP Program-funded

In addition, subgrantees also reported that 444 dual (meaning that they address both domestic

violence and sexual assault) programs, 9 tribal dual programs and 21 dual state coalitions received

STOP Program funds in 2008.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

We continue to believe a major accomplishment in our County (due to OVW

funding) is the streamlining [of] many of the cases, especially domestic violence

and sexual assault cases. The victim only deals with one prosecutor, one victim

advocate, and one detective throughout the entire criminal justice process (no

matter how short that dealing is). We have found that through modifications to

our SART team and its response to sexual assault, the victim is receiving more

services in a "wraparound" approach. Because of the SART changes, victims are

given the opportunity to meet with the prosecutor, and we have found that the

vast majority of the sexual assault victims will talk with the prosecutor and

discuss the ramifications of prosecution. No sexual assault victim is forced to

cooperate with an investigation or meet with the prosecutor—the decision to

pursue a criminal case is left in the victim's hands. There have been a number

of sexual assault victims that have chosen to NOT pursue criminal cases, the

[STOP-funded] prosecutor supports their decisions and wants to make sure

they are working toward getting healthy. On the other hand, we have had a

few cases where the victim did NOT want to participate in an investigation until

weeks or months later; then they have wanted a prosecution to take place and

once again, the prosecutor is supportive of that. Most importantly, STOP

funding has allowed our [STOP-funded] prosecutor the ability to spend quality

time with victims and find out their needs and emotional health. This has been

extremely important to our sexual assault victims as they have been

traumatized and are working through difficult trust issues. Further, the STOP

funding has allowed our prosecutor to actively participate in multidisciplinary

team efforts for sexual assault to not only review cases, discuss evidence, [and]

train others, but to also work toward systemic changes in the area of sexual

assault against women—this is especially important as we have a major

university in our community.

—Cache County Attorney's Office, Utah

2012 Report

Part A 71

prosecutors disposed of 4,854 sexual assault cases during 2008; an average of 75.5

percent of those cases resulted in convictions.

One of the statutory goals of the STOP Program is the training of sexual assault

forensic medical personnel examiners; 9 percent (199) of all subgrantees reported

using STOP funds for SANE training. STOP Program funds also were used to support

42 FTE SANE staff positions. In addition, in terms of the program’s broader impact,

funds supported training for 5,034 SANEs.

Stalking

Although the general public may be most familiar with stalking by strangers, the

majority of stalking is actually perpetrated by partners or former partners of the

stalking victims, or people known to the victim. More than half of all stalking cases

emerge from romantic relationships, and more than 80 percent of stalkers are

reportedly known to their victims (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). An analysis of 175

studies on stalking revealed that almost one-fourth of women have experienced

stalking and the average length of time a person is stalked is 2 years (Spitzberg &

Cupach, 2007). The National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey found that 59

percent of women who reported being stalked were stalked by their current or

former intimate partners. Of those, 81 percent also were physically assaulted by

that partner, and 31 percent were sexually assaulted by that partner (Tjaden &

Thoennes, 1998).

The NVAW Survey also found that half of all stalking victims

report the stalking to the police, and that a quarter of those reported cases resulted

in arrests.

The danger of stalking often has been underestimated. Stalking has been associated

with a range of serious consequences for victims/survivors, including increased risk

of violence, injury, and homicide (Logan, Shannon, Cole, & Swanberg, 2007; Roberts,

2005). A study using a nonrandom sample of more than 1,000 North American

stalkers found that nearly a third had assaulted their victims. (Mohandie, Meloy,

McGowan, & Williams, 2006). A 10-city study of female abuse victims and female

victims of attempted or actual homicide committed by their intimate partners found

a strong association between stalking and subsequent lethality or near-lethality. It

found that stalking, when combined with a history of physical assault by a former or

estranged partner, places women at greater danger of becoming victims of

attempted or actual homicide by intimate partners. It also found that women who

reported that they were being followed or spied on by a partner had more than a

This rate includes deferred adjudications. For purposes of comparison, the average conviction rate

(also including deferred adjudications) for domestic violence misdemeanors was 64 percent, and for

domestic violence felonies the rate was 71 percent.

The co-incidence of physical assault, sexual assault, and stalking may explain in part the low

percentage of stalking victims (2.2 percent) reported as being served with STOP Program funds.

Subgrantees are instructed to report an unduplicated count of victims/survivors and to select only one

primary victimization for each victim/survivor served during each calendar year. It is safe to assume

that a significant number of domestic violence and sexual assault victims/survivors also were victims of

stalking, even though they were not reported as stalking victims on the STOP Annual Progress Report

form.

S •T•O•P Program

72 Part A

twofold increase in the risk of becoming a homicide victim (McFarlane, Abeita, &

Watson, 2002).

It appears that women who are stalked after obtaining a protective order are at

particularly high risk for violence, notwithstanding other variables including the

presence of minor children, prior abuse, and the length of relationship. A study

found, for example, that women who were stalked after the orders were issued

were 4 to 5 times more likely to experience physical abuse, severe physical violence,

and injury, as well as almost 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than

other women with orders (Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006). Intimate

stalkers are persistent and more likely to recidivate than non-intimate stalkers

(Logan & Walker, 2009). Intimate stalkers also may be the least deterred by criminal

justice intervention (Mohandie et al., 2006).

The dynamics of stalking and strategies employed by offenders call for specialized

training in how best to identify the crime, how to involve the victim/survivor and

others in collecting evidence necessary to prosecute the crime, and how to keep the

stalking victim/survivor safe, as well as closely coordinating responses among

criminal justice agencies and community partners.

The New Mexico Department of Corrections used STOP funding to provide

statewide training on stalking to criminal justice professionals:

A Virginia subgrantee educated victims/survivors on stalking, trained staff and

volunteers, and developed a stalking brochure used in law enforcement

training:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

Prior to the STOP grant funding, the Corrections Department did not have the

financial resources to provide statewide training to corrections staff about

stalking, supervision of stalkers, and assisting the victims of stalking. The STOP

funding has allowed the New Mexico Corrections Department to provide the first

statewide stalking training to corrections staff, state probation and parole

officers, federal probation, tribal probation, metropolitan court probation, D.A.'s

[district attorney’s] office victim advocates, New Mexico Attorney General Office

victim advocates, state/tribal/local law enforcement, judges, and [staff members

of] other state and non-profit agencies. The stalking training provided gave the

participants the tools to learn about the dynamics of stalking, the importance of

the supervision of stalking offenders, tribal codes and stalking, assisting stalking

victims, and assisting the underserved populations. Additionally, the STOP

Program funding has given the corrections department the opportunity to

collaborate with other agencies. This collaboration has led to the development of

ongoing collaboration with these agencies. The corrections department is very

grateful to have received the STOP funding.

—New Mexico Corrections De

artment

2012 Report

Part A 73

A major issue in stalking is the use of technology. The Pennsylvania Coalition

Against Domestic Violence and the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and

Sexual Violence used STOP funding to provide training to address this problem:

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funding has allowed the coalition to broaden our Training and Technical

Assistance Project to include a component on technology. As the Internet

continues to grow, social networking sites become more popular and a global

positioning systems (GPS) become more commonplace. It is imperative that

advocates learn how to assist victims/survivors who may have perpetrators

stalking them through the use of these technologies. Coalition staff has been able

to attend weeklong training hosted by the National Network to End Domestic

Violence (NNEDV) Safety Net Project to take part in a train-the-trainer module

developed for advocates. This module trains our staff on important safety planning

needs regarding technology and information access that we can then share with

advocates across the state.

—Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP funds allow PCADV [Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence] to

provide training on stalking and technology at the statewide and local levels. Last

year, PCADV helped to develop and present a joint Tech Safety and Stalking

Conference for law enforcement and victim and DV [domestic violence] advocates.

In addition, PCADV was able to provide some training on the local level to county

STOP teams. Requests for training on tech safety and stalking continue as public

awareness increases and more incidents are reported.

—Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

This year STOP [funding] has helped make it possible to increase our assistance to

stalking victims and to potential stalking victims. Many more victims who leave

shelters know what to do if their abusers start stalking them. They know how to

report the incidents, document, and safety plan. They know the importance of

working with the police and insisting that the police take them seriously, do a

report, and tell the stalker to stay away from them. The number of requests for

presentations on stalking has increased this year. New in 2008, the Virginia Sexual

& Domestic Violence Action Alliance has made it mandatory that all new

volunteers and new staff members receive information on stalking before they

start working with victims or start their jobs. Six volunteers and staff were trained

in stalking the third quarter of 2008. [The] criminal justice coordinator developed

and designed a new stalking brochure for victims. This brochure has been used at

law enforcement trainings at the Regional Police Academy, Winchester Police

Department, and in court.

—The Laurel Center, Vir

inia

S •T•O•P Program

74 Part A

A California subgrantee used STOP funds to educate the public about stalking:

STOP Program funds were used to develop, enlarge, or strengthen programs that

address stalking by 291, or 13 percent, of subgrantees in 2008. Prosecution offices

funded under the STOP Program disposed of 1,448 stalking cases in 2008; 71

percent of those cases resulted in conviction.

Training on stalking issues was

provided by 541 subgrantees (53 percent of those using funds for training). Training

topics included an overview of stalking and information about the dynamics of

stalking, available services, and relevant statutes and codes.

Remaining Areas of Need

STOP administrators are asked to report on the most significant areas of unmet

need of victims/survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and

stalking, and offender accountability in their states. In their reports for 2008, the

administrators regularly cited the following as remaining unmet needs:

 Training of criminal justice partners, especially the judiciary

 Economic challenges faced by victims/survivors

 Transportation and services for geographically isolated victims/survivors

 Services for underserved populations

 Legal representation for victims/survivors

 Organizational capacity development

Specific areas cited by STOP administrators included the need for increased training

of criminal justice personnel, and judges in particular, on the issues of sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. STOP administrators

discussed the need for better understanding of protection orders by all criminal

justice professionals, from law enforcement officers to judges. STOP administrators

also cited a lack of consistency in court practices and outcomes for victims/survivors

in their states, a problem that may retraumatize victims and discourage further

participation in the justice system:

This rate includes deferred adjudications.

SUBGRANTEE PERSPECTIVE

STOP Program funds have allowed the Alameda County DA [district attorney] to

enhance public awareness around issues of stalking and threat management, which

has resulted in the increase in reporting of stalking cases, an increase in the

successful prosecution of cases and better coordination of convicted stalkers.

—County of Alameda, California

2012 Report

Part A 75

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Training court officials in DV [domestic violence issues] is absolutely necessary for

the effective use of batterer intervention programs. [With increased] understanding

[by court officials] in the dynamics of manipulation, perpetrators of violence are

held to the requirements of the program more consistently.

—STOP administrator, North Carolina

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Ohio projects report frustration with what appears to be a lack of consistent

protocols among law enforcement and the judicial system regarding the arrest and

accountability standards for perpetrators. Similarly, while many judges are

knowledgeable about the far-reaching implications of partner and family violence

and comply with recommendations for best practices when working with victims

and sentencing offenders, still others lack the training and insight needed in order

to understand their role in the process. Their refusal to administer the best

practice laws, as written by the legislature, subsequently has the potential to do

greater harm than good, and many inadvertently re-victimize already traumatized

victims.

— STOP administrator, Ohio

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Ultimately, it is judges who set the precedent for offender accountability, through

issuing protective orders, utilizing consistent sentencing guidelines, providing

follow-up on offenders ordered into batterer intervention programs, refusing to

use anger management as a diversion, and by encouraging trials to occur, [even]

absent victim cooperation and participation. Judges also set the stage for victim

safety during court appearances by using or not using, appropriate methods for

victims to give testimony without the offender's presence. Training is crucial, and

to date, there are limited numbers of judges who voluntarily participate in

continued domestic violence training, encourage law enforcement and

prosecutors to advocate for trials, and fewer who support trials without the

victim’s active participation and testimony.

—

TOP administrator

Florida

S •T•O•P Program

76 Part A

The subject of economic challenges faced by victims/survivors was a recurring area

of remaining need cited by STOP administrators. Inadequate or the lack of

temporary and transitional housing, transportation, job training, and employment

opportunities represent significant obstacles to leaving abusive relationships. These

challenges are magnified for victims/survivors in rural areas:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

For the abused women that OVW dollars serve, separation and divorce from their

batterers most times results in a dramatic decrease in their standard of living. As

victims flee abusive situations, the need for affordable housing becomes

imminent. For these reasons, post-shelter transitional housing, affordable, private

and/or public housing alternatives, and securing a living wage income are several

critical issues that pose great need for Ohio. As well, the complexities presented

by victims of domestic violence do not end when a survivor exits emergency

shelter. The immediate crisis, or the precipitant for the initial intervention, may

well be resolved when one leaves; however, this departure marks only the first

step toward a survivor’s long journey to achieve a safe, healthy, and violence-free

life. . . . In Ohio, while most counties have core shelter services in place to meet

the needs of victims of domestic violence, few have the financial freedom to

provide the supportive services, such as employment assistance, transportation,

childcare, and transitional housing that make it possible for survivors to obtain

employment and sustain long-term housing.

—

TOP administrator

Ohio

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Too often, a victim’s negative experience with one system will influence her

willingness to access those systems again. Victims may report abuse to the police

only to have that used against her in future child protective services proceedings

for failure to protect her children from witnessing abuse. The complexities of the

many systems that victims encounter make policy development that much more

difficult to ensure that the well-intentioned goal of one program does not

negatively impact the safety of survivors.

—STOP administrator, Michigan

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

A significant number of grantees identified training on the appropriate issuance and

enforcement of protective orders as a continuing need across the commonwealth.

From magistrates to law enforcement, and judges to prosecutors, it is clear that

individuals within the justice system need even more training on when a protective

order shall be issued, who can violate a protective order—a respondent—and who

cannot—a petitioner, and [the potential for] increased situational lethality, as it

relates to the violation of a protective order.

—STOP administrator, Virginia

2012 Report

Part A 77

Programs serving victims/survivors in rural areas face a combination of economic

and geographic difficulties. STOP administrators highlighted shelter and transitional

housing needs, transportation, and access to SANEs as remaining areas of need for

these victims/survivors:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Alabama has fewer shelter beds than most of its neighboring states and many rural

counties are served by, at best, a circuit-riding advocate supported by TANF funds.

There is a desperate need for additional domestic violence services, especially in

the rural areas of southern Alabama and the extreme eastern border of the state.

There is also a desperate need for the development of more non-shelter services,

particularly targeting underserved populations.

—STOP administrator, Alabama

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Many women remain or go back to abusive relationships in order to maintain

healthcare coverage for their children. State level policy changes must be made to

Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program to allow domestic

violence victims access to insurance for their children.

—

TOP administrator

Kansas

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Though victims actively participate in processes necessary to secure housing, there

are few affordable opportunities. As a result, victims are requesting shelter stay

extensions. A tension exists for programs in trying to support these women's efforts

to stay safe while, at the same time, providing immediate safety for victims just

beginning their escape.

—STOP administrator, Alaska

S •T•O•P Program

78 Part A

STOP administrators consistently noted the need for culturally and linguistically

appropriate responses across the spectrum of victims/survivors’ needs and

experiences. Commonly cited were the need for more multilingual advocates, police

officers, and court personnel, particularly in areas with significant immigrant and

refugee populations. Some STOP administrators also mentioned the need for

mental health and substance abuse expertise:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Rural areas are still in need of resources to address barriers due to limited

transportation, language, staffing resources, and cultural differences. There are

fewer medical facilities, nearly no access to SANE services and response times are

longer for law enforcement in rural areas.

—STOP administrator, Washington

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Accessing underserved communities, especially [in] rural and illiterate pockets in our

state, remains an issue. The understaffed and overworked NGOs [nongovernmental

organizations] cannot cover their target communities with basic services, much less

expend the time and resources to perform outreach.

—

TOP administrator

South Carolina

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Nevada still lacks some basic services in many areas of the state. Specifically,

certified sexual assault nurse examiners are currently only conducting exams in

Las Vegas and Reno. That leaves 90 percent (geographically) of the state without

sexual assault forensic exam services. Victims must travel hundreds of miles to

obtain these necessary exams. Shelter and transitional housing is limited or

nonexistent, especially in rural Nevada. Many victims are forced to return to their

abusers because no other options are available. This is especially true due to the

fact that transportation services are unavailable to much of rural Nevada. We

have recently learned that the commercial bus services have reduced the

numbers of stops available across Nevada (both east/west and north/south). In

many cases, the buses no longer stop in some communities. Alternatively, if the

bus is full, any other scheduled stops along the route are cancelled. Because of

this, bus tickets are often not an option even if a victim has family outside the

area that is willing to take her in.

—STOP administrator, Nevada

2012 Report

Part A 79

STOP administrators frequently mentioned the need for increased services to sexual

assault victims, training of stakeholders on sexual assault, better access to forensic

medical exams, experienced legal representation and counseling services for

victims/survivors of sexual assault, and sex-offender management:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

[When] non-Spanish speaking officers attempt to take police reports from Hispanic

victims and, due to the language barriers, information can often times be

misinterpreted. [We] need law enforcement training on cultural diversity.

Paperwork is not provided in the victims' primary language. . . . [There is a] lack of

adequate resources for victims struggling with substance abuse and alcoholism.

Domestic violence shelters cannot house them as we are not licensed to shelter

individuals [who are] detoxing and [we] do not have medical staff to serve their

needs. Substance abuse/detox facilities cannot provide a confidential location for

victims in high-risk situations. . . . Lack of housing options for undocumented

victims with severe mental health issues [is an unmet need].

—STOP administrator, Utah

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

There seems to be a great need in our community for the increased availability of

Spanish and Arabic language resources and interpreters. To be able to reach more

of the victims and support professionals in the community, there is a need to

conduct more outreach and have advocates more visible in the community to

ensure that victims are aware of community services and how to access them.

—STOP administrator, Michigan

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Most programs in Virginia are at capacity in terms of funding levels for staff who

serve survivors who can speak English. Now, these same programs are seeing a

growing, increasingly desperate need for advocates and translators in court who

speak Spanish and/or any number of Asian languages. What programs [staff

members] have learned is that having a brochure translated is helpful, but having

trained, bilingual, bicultural staff is essential to provide culturally appropriate

services. Even with one additional STOP-funded project in this area in 2008,

Virginia is beyond capacity. As Virginia’s immigrant populations continue to grow

and federal funding continues to shrink, the need for culturally-relevant and

sensitive services will only become more urgent.

—STOP administrator, Virginia

S •T•O•P Program

80 Part A

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Evidence-gathering and documentation in DV [domestic violence] cases, especially

in light of changing constitutional and evidentiary standards, remain a persistent

need. With regard to sexual assault, investigation and prosecution of drug- and

alcohol-facilitated sexual assault remain a need.

—STOP administrator, Michigan

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Additional funding is necessary to increase needed services to sexual assault

victims, and to increase community education about the reality of the issue of

sexual assault. . . . California’s Sex Offender Management Board, chaired by the

Executive Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, recently

issued a report identifying gaps in California’s practices related to adult sexual

offender management. These gaps include increased assistance for victims, the

number and geographic distribution of sex offenders, sex offender recidivism,

investigation and supervision of sex offenders; housing of sex offenders, offender

treatment programs, and sex offender registration and notification. Legislation

has been continuously introduced by the State Legislature to improve offender

accountability and victim safety.

—STOP administrator, California

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Several local shelter programs report difficulty in maintaining nursing staff at their

local hospitals that are trained to gather forensic evidence in cases involving adult

sexual assault. Many hospitals find it difficult to allocate limited resources to a non-

medical purpose.

—STOP administrator, Alaska

2012 Report

Part A 81

Increased access to legal services is a necessity for many victims/survivors. STOP

administrators discussed the need for a range of legal services, including

representation in divorce, child custody, protection order, and immigration

proceedings. More information about available legal resources and access to free or

reduced-fee advocacy in the court process is also needed:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

There is a need for increased funding for local domestic violence/sexual assault

programs to fully staff their rural outreach and legal advocacy positions. Cuts in

funding for Alaska Legal Services Corporation at the state and federal level have

severely limited domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking victims’ access to

legal representation. This leaves the OVW-funded Legal Advocacy Project as the

only resource for finding attorneys for victims.

—

TOP administrator

Alaska

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

The CNMI [Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands] has established a

solid response to domestic violence as well as having an exceptional awareness

program—with informational materials being printed and distributed on a regular

basis. The same amount, if not more, of [the] concentration should be focused on

a response to victims of sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. We lack

some programs that can adequately respond to such victims, such as SANE

programs or even counselors who specialize in these fields. Of course, this is in

regard to victim/survivor safety; we want to make sure that victims are properly

treated. Being that the victims have been traumatized, there is a possibility that

the victim's mental stability will be compromised; we want to make sure that the

victims are safe and taken care of. We are hoping within in the next couple of

years, we will be able to establish a SART team, as well as be able to respond to

victims of these needs.

—

TOP administrator

Northern Mariana Islands

S •T•O•P Program

82 Part A

Finally, STOP administrators expressed a need for increasing the capacity of

organizations that receive STOP funding. Programs serving victims of sexual assault,

domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking need to stabilize and grow if they

are to meet the changing and challenging needs of victims/survivors and their

communities. Uncertain financial and political support threatens the effectiveness

of these organizations. STOP administrators discussed the organizations’ needs to

attract and retain experienced staff, provide ongoing training, address staff

turnover, and to create and support specialized units in the criminal justice system:

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Programs find it difficult to retain experienced staff for the wages they are able to

pay. Individuals will go to work at a program, get training, and then move into

higher-paying jobs at other service agencies. This is particularly true for programs

in communities where the employee pool is small and the number of service

agencies is high. Local programs also report difficulty in paying for increased fixed

costs. Increased costs for utilities, heating oil, health insurance premiums, and

workers' compensation continue to encroach on funds that could be used for

programming. Funders for basic operational costs are few and far between.

—STOP administrator, Alaska

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

The most significant area of remaining need is providing legal representation and

advocacy for victims of violence against women. The Court Watch Project,

conducted by the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, confirmed that an

unrepresented victim is less likely to receive a final restraining (protection) order

when the offender is represented by legal counsel. This has been identified as a

priority since New Jersey first received STOP funds and remains a critical need.

Efforts continue to expand pro bono projects and legal advocacy programs with

six grants awarded to law schools and nonprofit organizations this reporting

period. In New Jersey, most domestic violence matters are handled in municipal

court where the victims are likely to seek relief. Unfortunately, there are few

services or advocacy [programs] for victims in these courts. To address this need,

a pilot project was initiated to support municipal court programs in two counties.

These programs provided advocacy for victims through court accompaniment,

assistance, and referrals. The programs have been successful, but there are no

other available funds to continue these two programs or to expand services and

programs to other counties.

—

TOP administrator

New Jerse

2012 Report

Part A 83

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

Unfortunately, because of budget restrictions we are not able to hire as many

advocates as we would like to so that the advocate's caseload could be lighter, thus

allowing them to have more frequent and meaningful time with victims. This is

especially true with regard to the Law Enforcement Advocate program. If we could

have more of those special advocates working with police and victim service

agencies, victims would be better served and police would be better educated.

—STOP administrator, Rhode Island

ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVE

The creation of police, prosecution, and court specialized divisions is a high priority

for ACADV [Alabama Coalitions Against Domestic Violence], the STOP administrator,

the chief justice of Alabama, and the Council on Violence Against Women. All agree

that police, prosecutors, and courts that focus on domestic violence are essential.

The limiting factor is funding for officers, prosecutors, and court staff. The creation

of targeted criminal justice intervention [programs] is a huge area of unmet need.

—STOP administrator, Alabama

S •T•O•P Program

84 Part A

STOP Program Aggregate Accomplishments

This section presents aggregate data reflecting the activities and accomplishments

funded by the STOP Program in all states, all five U.S. territories, and the District of

Columbia.

STOP Program staff provide training and victim services and engage in law

enforcement, prosecution, court, and probation activities to increase victim safety

and offender accountability.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for staff: 2,143 (95 percent of all

subgrantees)

Table 10. Full-time equivalent staff funded by STOP Program in 2008

Staf

Number Percent

All staff 2,757 100

Victim advocate (nongovernmental) 822 29.8

Program coordinator 325 11.8

Prosecutor 267 9.7

Law enforcement officer 246 8.9

Counselor 183 6.6

Victim assistant (governmental) 159 5.8

Legal advocate 151 5.5

Support staff 140 5.1

Administrator 106 3.8

Attorney 96 3.5

Investigator (prosecution-based) 55 2.0

Trainer 50 1.8

Sexual assault nurse examiner/sexual

assault forensic examiner (SANE/SAFE)

42 1.5

Paralegal 34 1.2

Probation officer/offender monitor 32 1.1

Court personnel 21 .8

Information technology staff 6 .2

Translator/interpreter 2 .1

Other 20 .7

2012 Report

Part A 85

Training

STOP Program subgrantees provide training to professionals on issues relating to

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking to improve their

response to victims/survivors and to increase offender accountability. These

professionals include law enforcement officers, health and mental health providers,

domestic violence and sexual assault program staff, staff in social services and

advocacy organizations, prosecutors, and court personnel.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for training: 1,031 (46 percent of all

subgrantees)

 Total number of people trained: 263,644

 Total number of training events: 12,571

Table 11. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2008

People trained Number Percent

All people trained 263,644 100

Law enforcement officers 77,529 29.4

Multidisciplinary 35,473 13.5

Victim advocates 23,439 8.9

Health professionals 17,922 6.8

Volunteers 14,190 5.4

Social service organization staff 13,154 5.0

Court personnel 9,626 3.7

Educators 8,107 3.1

Faith-based organization staff 7,341 2.8

Advocacy organization staff 6,582 2.5

Mental health professionals 6,250 2.4

Corrections personnel 5,890 2.2

Attorneys/law students 5,673 2.2

Sexual assault nurse examiners/sexual assault

forensic examiners

5,034 1.9

Government agency staff 5,025 1.9

Prosecutors 4,928 1.9

Victim assistants 3,419 1.3

Elder organization staff 2,728 1.0

Immigrant organization staff 1,810 .7

Legal services staff 1,410 .5

S •T•O•P Program

86 Part A

Table 11. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2008

People trained Number Percent

Disability organization staff 1,350 .5

Tribal government/Tribal government agency

staff

1,174 .4

Military command staff 1,117 .4

Substance abuse organization staff 1,073 .4

Batterer intervention program staff 949 .4

Translators/interpreters 397 .2

Sex offender treatment providers 349 .1

Supervised visitation and exchange center

staff

159 .1

Other 1,546 .6

The most common topics of training events were overviews of sexual assault,

domestic violence, and stalking; advocate response, safety planning for

victims/survivors, law enforcement response, confidentiality, domestic violence

statutes/codes, and protection orders.

Coordinated Community Response

STOP administrators engage in an inclusive and collaborative planning process to

improve their state’s responses to victims/survivors of sexual assault, domestic

violence, dating violence, and stalking. STOP Program subgrantees closely interact

with other community agencies or organizations; these CCR activities include

providing and receiving victim/survivor referrals, engaging in consultation, providing

technical assistance, and/or attending meetings with other agencies or

organizations.

Table 12. STOP Program-funded referrals/consultations/technical assistance to

community agencies in 2008

Agency/organization

Victim/survivor referrals,

consultations,

technical assistance Meetings

Daily Weekly Monthly Weekly Monthly Quarterly

Advocacy

organization

59 137 282 16 244 202

Batterer intervention

program

136 285 388 86 389 269

2012 Report

Part A 87

Table 12. STOP Program-funded referrals/consultations/technical assistance to

community agencies in 2008

Agency/organization

Victim/survivor referrals,

consultations,

technical assistance Meetings

Daily Weekly Monthly Weekly Monthly Quarterly

Corrections

167 376 480 71 523 355

Court

737 602 270 207 508 371

Domestic violence

organization

877 529 322 324 790 437

Educational

institution/

organization

58 218 400 37 275 241

Faith-based

organization

68 266 511 22 296 322

Government agency

283 444 376 52 390 305

Health/mental

health organization

293 664 528 69 668 379

Law enforcement

915 619 268 301 768 431

Legal organization

334 506 416 66 424 320

Prosecutor‘s office

572 580 372 283 625 383

Sex offender

management/sex

offender treatment

11 36 138 14 103 97

Sexual assault

organization

355 422 440 170 579 385

Social service

organization

472 629 361 109 691 354

Tribal

government/tribal

government agency

14 53 153 8 82 90

Other

31 56 36 17 92 38

S •T•O•P Program

88 Part A

Policies

STOP Program subgrantees develop and implement policies and procedures

specifically directed at more effectively preventing, identifying, and responding to

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for policies/protocols: 471 (21 percent

of all subgrantees)

Products

STOP Program subgrantees develop and/or revise a variety of products for

distribution, including brochures, manuals, and training curriculums and materials.

The products are designed to provide standardized information to professionals,

community agencies/organizations, and victims/survivors of sexual assault,

domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for products: 484 (21 percent of all

subgrantees)

Table 13. Use of STOP Program funds to revise or implement policies or protocols in

2008

Policy/protocol

Subgrantees using funds (N = 471)

Number Percent

Appropriate response to underserved

populations

196 41.6

Providing information to victims/survivors

about victim services

175 37.2

Confidentiality

167 35.5

Informing victims about crime victims’

compensation and victim impact statements

159 33.8

Mandatory training

139 29.5

Sexual assault response and protocols

120 25.5

Appropriate response to victims/survivors

who are elderly or have disabilities

115 24.4

NOTE:

Only topics of policies reported by the highest number of subgrantees are presented.

Total number of subgrantees addressing specific policy topics is higher than subgrantees using

funds for policies, since subgrantees report on all topics that apply.

2012 Report

Part A 89

Table 14. Use of STOP Program funds to develop or revise products for distribution in

2008

Product

Number developed or

revised

Number used or

distributed

All products 1,705 2,287,152

Brochures 544 1,213,423

Manuals 173 53,112

Training curriculums 273 22,125

Training materials 350 70,760

Other 365 927,732

STOP Program subgrantees developed, revised, distributed, and/or translated

products in the following 22 languages:

Arabic

ASL (American Sign

Language)

Bengali

Bosnian

Braille

Burmese

Chamorro

Chinese

Creole

French

Gujarati

Hindi

Japanese

Khmer

Korean

Marathi

Polish

Portuguese

Russian

Spanish

Urdu

Vietnamese

Data Collection and Communication Systems

STOP Program subgrantees develop, install, or expand data collection and

communication systems relating to sexual assault, domestic violence, dating

violence, and stalking against women. These systems link police, prosecution, and

the courts for the purposes of identifying and tracking arrests, protection orders,

violations of protection orders, prosecutions, and convictions.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for data collection and communication

systems:

273 (12 percent of all subgrantees)

Table 15. Use of STOP Program funds for data collection activities and/or

communication systems in 2008

Subgrantees using funds (N = 273)

Activity Number Percent

Manage data collection and communication 153 56.0

Share information with other community 115 42.1

S •T•O•P Program

90 Part A

Table 15. Use of STOP Program funds for data collection activities and/or

communication systems in 2008

Subgrantees using funds (N = 273)

Activity Number Percent

partners

Expand existing data collection/communication

systems

104 38.1

Purchase computers/other equipment 76 27.8

Develop new data collection/communication

systems

56 20.5

NOTE: Total number of subgrantees reporting data collection activities is higher than

subgrantees using funds for data collection, since subgrantees report on all activities that apply.

Table 16. Most frequently reported purposes of data collection and/or

communication systems in 2008

Purpose Subgrantees reporting

Case management 147

Arrests/charges 129

Protection orders 120

Evaluation/outcome measures 112

Incident reports 111

Violations of protection orders 106

Specialized Units

STOP Program subgrantees develop, train, and/or expand specialized units of law

enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges (or other court staff), and probation

officers who are specifically responsible for handling sexual assault, domestic

violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for specialized units: 529 (23 percent of

all subgrantees)

2012 Report

Part A 91

Table 17. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for specialized unit

activities in 2008

Activity

Law

enforcement Prosecution Court

Probation/

parole

Develop a new unit 8 8 1 1

Support, expand, or

coordinate an existing

unit

266 276 22 30

Train a specialized unit 41 31 4 6

Other 5 2 1 1

Table 18. Number of specialized units addressing type of victimization in 2008

Law

enforcement Prosecution Court

Probation/

parole

Sexual assault 170 187 20 15

Domestic violence/dating

violence

265 267 28 35

Stalking 158 183 17 18

System Improvement

To respond more effectively to the needs of victims/survivors of sexual assault,

domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, STOP Program subgrantees engage

in system improvement activities, including convening meetings between tribal and

nontribal entities, making language lines available, translating forms and

documents, and making facilities safer.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for system improvement: 248 (11

percent of all subgrantees)

Table 19. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for system improvement

activities in 2008

Activity

Victim

services

Law

enforcement Prosecution Court

Probation

/ parole

Evaluation

86 38 29 21 14

Interpreters

75 20 15 20 2

Language lines

18 4 3 1 0

Meetings between

tribal and non-

tribal entities

19 7 6 4 5

S •T•O•P Program

92 Part A

Table 19. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for system improvement

activities in 2008

Activity

Victim

services

Law

enforcement Prosecution Court

Probation

/ parole

Safety audits

26 9 9 9 8

Security personnel

or equipment

12 12 5 4 2

Translation of

forms and

documents

86 17 13 11 4

Other

24 12 11 9 7

Victim Services

During the 12-month reporting period, a total of 1,570 subgrantees (69 percent of

all subgrantees) used funds for victim services. STOP Program subgrantees provided

services to 461,734 victims/survivors (98 percent of those seeking services) to help

them become and remain safe from violence; only 2 percent of victims/survivors

seeking services from funded programs did not receive services from those

programs. (See Tables 20, 21 and 22 for information on the level of service

provided, the types of victims/survivors served, and the reasons victims/survivors

were partially served or not served by subgrantees in 2008.)

 Number of subgrantees using funds for victim services: 1,570 (69 percent of

all subgrantees)

Table 20. Provision of victim services by STOP Program subgrantees in 2008, by level

of service and type of victimization

Level of

service

All victims

Domestic

violence /

dating violence

victims

Sexual assault

victims

Stalking

victims

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All seeking

services

470,538 100 401,129 100 57,585 100 11,824 100

Not served 8,804 1.9 7,125 1.8 1,479 2.6 200 1.7

Served 442,324 94.0 376,758 93.9 54,226 94.2 11,340 95.9

Partially

Served

19,410 4.1 17,246 4.3 1,880 3.3 284 2.4

NOTE: Partially served victims/survivors received some but not all of the services they sought

through STOP Program-funded programs. Some of these victims/survivors may have received other

requested services from other agencies.

2012 Report

Part A 93

Table 21. Victims/survivors receiving services from STOP Program subgrantees in

2008, by type of victimization

Type of victimization

Victims/survivors served

Number Percent

All victimizations 461,734 100

Domestic violence/dating

violence

394,004 85.3

Sexual assault 56,106 12.2

Stalking 11,624 2.5

Table 22. Most frequently reported reasons victims/survivors were not served or

were partially served by STOP Program subgrantees

Reason Subgrantees reporting

Program reached capacity 170

Did not meet eligibility or statutory requirements 166

Services not appropriate for victim/survivor 160

Conflict of interest 123

Services inappropriate or inadequate for victims/survivors

with mental health issues

122

Program rules not acceptable to victim/survivor 116

Transportation 107

Services inappropriate or inadequate for victims/survivors

with substance abuse issues

100

Program unable to provide service due to limited

resources/priority setting

Demographics of Victims/survivors Served

Of the more than 461,734 victims/survivors served during the 12-month reporting

period and for whom demographic information was reported, the majority were

white (56 percent), female (91 percent), and age 25–59 (66 percent).

Although STOP subgrantees do not report a reason for not serving or for partially serving individual

victim/survivors, they do report reasons for not serving or partially serving victims/survivors in general

by checking all reasons that apply.

S •T•O•P Program

94 Part A

Table 23. Demographic characteristics of victims/survivors served by STOP Program

subgrantees in 2008

Characteristic

Victims/survivors receiving services

Number Percent

Race/ethnicity

American Indian/Alaska Native 9,575 2.3

Asian 7,945 1.9

Black/African American 88,253 21.3

Hispanic/Latino 74,415 18.0

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 4,032 1.0

White 232,001 56.0

Unknown 47,344 NA

Gender

Female 403,722 91.3

Male 38,404 8.7

Unknown 19,608 NA

Age

–

17 23,220 5.6

–

24 101,826 24.7

–

59 273,327 66.3

60+ 13,838 3.4

Unknown 49,523 NA

Other demographics

People with disabilities 24,392 5.3

People with limited English proficiency 37,462 8.1

Immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers 23,171 5.0

People who live in rural areas 119,685 25.9

NA = not applicable

NOTE: Percentages for race/ethnicity, gender, and age are based on the number of

victims/survivors for whom the information was known. STOP Program subgrantees provided

services to 461,734 victims. Because victims/survivors may have identified with more than one

race/ethnicity, the total number reported in race/ethnicity may be higher than the total number

of victims/survivors served.

2012 Report

Part A 95

Table 24. Relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program

funds in 2008

Relationship to

offender

Domestic violence

/ dating violence Sexual assault Stalking

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Current/former

spouse or intimate

partner

272,393 75.5 11,247 22.8 7,443 56.5

Other family or

household member

34,111 9.5 11,209 22.7 705 5.4

Dating relationship 49,135 13.6 5,536 11.2 2,331 17.7

Acquaintance 4,210 1.2 15,309 31.0 2,249 17.1

Stranger 755 .2 6,093 12.3 445 3.4

Unknown 39,855 NA 11,354 NA 1,982 NA

Total 360,604 100 49,394 100 13,173 100

NA = not applicable

NOTES: The percentages in each victimization category are based on the total number of known

relationships to offender reported in that category. Because victims/survivors may have been

abused by more than one offender and may have experienced more than one type of

victimization, the number of reported relationships in any one victimization category may be

higher than the total number of victims/survivors reported as served for that victimization.

Types of Services Provided to Victims/survivors

STOP Program subgrantees provide an array of services to victims/survivors of

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. These services

include victim advocacy (actions designed to help the victim/survivor obtain needed

resources or services, such as material goods and resources, health care, education,

finances, transportation, childcare, employment, and housing), crisis intervention,

counseling/support groups, and legal advocacy (assistance navigating the criminal

and/or civil legal systems). Victim advocacy was the service most frequently

provided by STOP Program subgrantees. In addition to the services listed in Table

25, STOP Program subgrantees routinely provide safety planning, referrals, and

information to victims/survivors as needed.

Table 25. Victim services provided by STOP Program subgrantees in 2008

Type of service

Victims/survivors served

(N = 461,734)

Number Percent

Victim advocacy 214,359 46.4

Crisis intervention 203,701 44.1

Criminal justice advocacy 149,115 32.3

S •T•O•P Program

96 Part A

Table 25. Victim services provided by STOP Program subgrantees in 2008

Type of service

Victims/survivors served

(N = 461,734)

Number Percent

Civil legal advocacy 115,540 25.0

Counseling/support group 108,827 23.6

Civil legal assistance 24,875 5.4

Transportation 22,358 4.8

Hospital response 14,979 3.2

Language services 11,422 2.5

Forensic exam 7,471 1.6

Other 2,639 .6

NOTE: Detail does not add to the total number of victims/survivors because an individual

victim/survivor may have been reported as receiving more than one type of service.

Number of victims/survivors receiving shelter services:

 19,878 victims/survivors and 17,807 family members received a total of

719,389 emergency shelter bed nights

 1,194 victims/survivors and 1,468 family members received a total of

174,742 transitional housing bed nights

Total number of hotline calls:

 From victims/survivors: 278,377

 From all callers, including, victims/survivors: 496,805

Number of victim-witness notification/outreach activities:

209,511

Protection Orders

The STOP Program funds activities that provide support to victims/survivors seeking

protection orders, including providing advocacy in the courtroom, increasing police

enforcement of protection order violations, and training advocates and judges on

the effectiveness and use of orders. STOP Program subgrantees, whether they are

providing victim services or engaging in criminal justice activities, are in a position to

provide assistance to victims/survivors in the protection order process. In 2008,

STOP Program-funded victim services, law enforcement, and prosecution staff

assisted domestic violence victims/survivors in obtaining more than 182,659

temporary and final protection orders.

2012 Report

Part A 97

Table 26. Protection orders granted with assistance of STOP Program-funded staff in

2008

Provider Total Temporary Final

All providers 182,659 108,801 73,858

Victim services

staff

131,010 76,305 54,705

Law enforcement 25,238 16,946 8,292

Prosecution 26,411 15,550 10,861

Close to half (490) of all subgrantees using funds for training addressed the issue of

protection order enforcement, and 162 developed or implemented policies and

protocols relating to protection orders. These policies addressed the issues of

protection order enforcement, immediate access to protection orders, violation of

protection orders, full faith and credit, and mutual restraining orders. STOP Program

subgrantees also used funds for data collection and communication systems for

tracking and sharing information about protection orders; 120 subgrantees reported

this, making it the third most frequently reported purpose for these systems.

Criminal Justice

The STOP Program promotes a coordinated community approach that includes law

enforcement, prosecution, courts, probation, victim services, and public and private

community resources. Criminal justice data in this report reflect only those activities

supported with STOP Program funds.

Law Enforcement

The response and attitude of law enforcement officers can significantly influence

whether victims/survivors report sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence,

or stalking offenses, and whether appropriate evidence is collected to enable

prosecutors to bring successful cases. Arrest, accompanied by a thorough

investigation and meaningful sanctions, demonstrates to offenders that they have

committed a serious crime and communicates to victims/survivors that they do not

have to endure an offender’s abuse.

Table 27 summarizes STOP Program-funded law enforcement activities during 2008.

The most frequently reported activities were case investigations and incident

reports.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for law enforcement: 298 (13 percent of

all subgrantees)

S •T•O•P Program

98 Part A

Table 27. Law enforcement activities provided with STOP Program funds in 2008

Activity

Sexual

assault

Domestic

violence/dating

violence

Stalking

Total

activities

Cases/incidents investigated 6,491 79,780 1,945 88,216

Incident reports 5,628 78,288 1,693 85,609

Calls for assistance 6,932 72,422 3,354 82,708

Referrals of cases to prosecutor 2,244 33,461 721 36,426

Arrests 1,495 26,802 586 28,883

Protection/ex parte/temporary

restraining orders served

829 13,626 394 14,849

Enforcement of warrants 350 7,320 184 7,854

Arrests for violation of protection

order

85 3,396 123 3,604

Forensic medical evidence 1,454 NA NA 1,454

Arrests for violation of bail bond 131 1,017 36 1,184

Dual arrests NA 997 NA 997

Referrals of federal firearms

charges to federal prosecutor

1 42 1 44

NA = not applicable

NOTE: Subgrantees may receive funds for specifically designated law enforcement activities and

might not engage in the other activities referred to in this table. For example, a subgrantee may

receive STOP Program funding to support a dedicated domestic violence detective whose only

activity is to investigate cases; that subgrantee would not report on arrests or incidents reports

unless those activities were also supported by STOP Program funds.

Prosecution

Prosecution of offenders varies by state, although city or county officials in

municipal or district courts usually handle misdemeanor offenses, and county

prosecutors in superior courts generally handle felony offenses. After police arrest a

suspect, it is usually up to the prosecutor to decide whether to charge the offender

and prosecute the case.

Table 28 presents data on STOP Program-funded prosecutions of sexual assault,

domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases during 2008.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for prosecution: 292 (13 percent of all

subgrantees)

2012 Report

Part A 99

Table 28. Prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence, and related cases by STOP

Program funded prosecutors in 2008

Case

Cases

disposed of

Dispositions resulting in

convictions

Number Percent

All cases 113,683 76,040 66.9

Misdemeanor domestic violence 69,978 44,486 63.6

Felony domestic violence 16,612 11,579 69.7

Violation of protection order 9,361 6,900 73.7

Domestic violence ordinance 5,989 3,693 61.7

Violation of probation/parole 3,513 3,323 94.6

Felony sexual assault 3,108 2,235 71.9

NOTE: Four tribal grantees referred 77 cases to a federal or state entity for prosecution. Detail

does not add to total number of cases because not all categories of cases are shown.

Courts

Judges have two distinct roles in responding to violence against women—

administrative and magisterial. In their administrative role, judges are responsible

for making courthouses safer and user-friendly for victims/survivors of sexual

assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. In their magisterial role,

they can be critical in holding offenders accountable and ensuring the safety of

victims. Although frequently judges are ratifying plea agreements, they set the

parameters as to what types of sentences they will accept, including whether they

will allow diversion and deferred sentences. Courts monitor offenders to review

progress and compliance with court orders.

Of the 16 courts (or court-based programs) that received STOP funding to conduct

court activities,

9 used STOP Program funds to conduct review hearings on

offenders’ compliance with conditions of probation and other court-ordered

conditions:

 2,820 offenders were monitored

 4,616 individual judicial review hearings were held

Although 38 courts received STOP funding in 2008, only 16 of those courts used funds specifically for

court activities. Other activities court subgrantees engaged in with STOP funding included training,

CCR, policies, products, data/communication systems, security, and interpreters/translators/language

lines.

S •T•O•P Program

100 Part A

The data in Table 29 reflect the consequences imposed by STOP Program-funded

courts for violations of probation and other court orders in 2008. Overall, 41 percent

of these violations resulted in partial or full revocation of probation.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for court: 16 (1 percent of all subgrantees)

Table 29. Disposition of violations of probation and other court orders by STOP Program-funded

courts in 2008

Verbal/written

warning

Partial/full

revocation of

probation

Conditions

added Fine

No action

taken

Violation

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Protection

order

(N = 881)

441 50.1 138 15.7 5 .6 0 0 297 34

New criminal

behavior

(N = 101)

0 0 28 27.7 73 72.3 0 0 0 0

Failure to

attend BIP

(N = 188)

0 0 101 53.7 87 46.3 0 0 0 0

Other (N = 746) 52 7.0 522 70.0 70 9.4 70 9.4 32 4

NOTE: N is the number of dispositions reported for each category of violation. One offender may have

received more than one disposition per violation and may have had multiple violations in the same 12-month

period. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Probation

Probation officers monitor offenders to review progress and compliance with court

orders. They may meet with offenders in person, by telephone, or via unscheduled

surveillance. If a probationer violates any terms of the probation, the officer has the

power to return the probationer to court for a violation hearing, which could result

in a verbal reprimand or warning, a fine, additional conditions, or revocation of

probation. As arrests of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and

stalking offenders have increased, probation and parole officers have adopted

policies and practices specifically targeted to offenders who commit violent crimes

against women.

The total number of continuing and new offenders supervised by STOP-funded

probation staff during 2008 was 4,907; of those, 4,723 were being supervised for

domestic violence or dating violence offenses, 175 for sexual assault offenses, and 9

for stalking offenses. These offenders received a total of 62,732 contacts, as shown

The category “Failure to attend mandated offender treatment (does not include BIP)” was not

included in Table 29 because of a low N (32); 87.5 percent of the dispositions for this violation category

were partial or full revocation.

2012 Report

Part A 101

in Table 30. In addition to offender monitoring, probation officers also contact

victims/survivors as an additional strategy to increase victim safety. A total of 1,922

victims/survivors received 5,524 contacts from probation officers funded under the

STOP Program during 2008.

 Number of subgrantees using funds for probation: 22 (1 percent of all

subgrantees)

Table 30. Offender monitoring by STOP Program-funded probation staff in 2008, by

type and number of contacts

Type of contact Number of offenders Number of contacts

Face-to-face 3,816 36,176

Telephone 2,503 17,464

Unscheduled surveillance 2,254 9,092

 Offenders completing probation without violations: 508 (53 percent of those

completing probation)

 Offenders completing probation with violations: 459 (47 percent)

The data in Table 31 reflect the dispositions of probation violations for offenders

supervised by STOP Program-funded probation staff in 2008. Offenders received

partial or full revocation of their probation for violations of protection orders (67.6

percent), failure to attend batterer intervention programs (67.4 percent), failure to

attend mandated offender treatment, not including BIPs (57.8 percent), or new

criminal behavior (60.8 percent).

Table 31. Disposition of probation violations for offenders supervised by STOP Program-

funded probation staff in 2008

Verbal/written

warning

Partial/full

revocation of

probation

Conditions

added Fine

No action

taken

Violation

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Protection order

(N = 102)

2 2.0 69 67.6 16 15.7 0 0 15 14.7

New criminal

behavior

(N = 403)

9 2.2 245 60.8 27 6.7 22 5.5 100 24.8

Failure to attend

BIP (N = 405)

18 4.4 273 67.4 93 23.0 21 5.2 0 0

Failure to attend

offender treat-

ment (N = 265)

28 10.5 153 57.8 37 14.0 19 7.2 0 0

S •T•O•P Program

102 Part A

Table 31. Disposition of probation violations for offenders supervised by STOP Program-

funded probation staff in 2008

Verbal/written

warning

Partial/full

revocation of

probation

Conditions

added Fine

No action

taken

Violation

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Other (N = 716) 99 13.8 400 55.9 87 12.2 23 3.2 107 14.9

NOTE: N is the number of dispositions reported for each category of violation. One offender may have

received more than one disposition per violation and may have had multiple violations in the same 12-

month period. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Batterer Intervention Programs

 Number of individual subgrantees using STOP Program funds for batterer

intervention programs (BIPs):

17 (1 percent of all subgrantees)

 Total number of offenders in BIPs: 2,066

 Number of continuing offenders from last reporting period: 742

 Number of offenders entering during current reporting period: 1,324

Table 32. Outcomes of participants in batterer intervention programs

Type of contact Number of offenders

Completed program 665

Terminated from program 556

Returned to program after termination 107

2012 Report

Part A 103

References

Allen, N. E., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M. (2004). Battered women’s multitude of

needs: Evidence supporting the need for comprehensive advocacy. Violence

Against Women, 10(9), 1015–1035. doi:10.1177/1077801204267658

Anderson, M. (1993). A license to abuse: The impact of conditional status on female

immigrants. Yale Law Journal, 102, 1401–1430.

Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L. R., Newman, F. L., & Dunlop, B. (2007). External barriers to

help seeking for older women who experience intimate partner violence.

Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 747–755. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9122-y

Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000).

Factors related to domestic violence court dispositions in a large urban area:

The role of victim/witness reluctance and other variables (No. NCJ 184232).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bhuyan, R., Mell, M., Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2005). “Women

must endure according to their karma”: Cambodian immigrant women talk

about domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(8), 902–921.

doi:10.1177/0886260505277675

Bonomi, A., Anderson, M., Reid, R., Carrell, D., Fishman, P., Rivara, F., & Thompson,

R. (2007). Intimate partner violence in older women. The Gerontologist,

47(1), 34–41.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2005

statistical tables: National Crime Victimization Survey (No. NCJ 215244).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Buzawa, E. S., Hotaling, G. T., Klein, A., & Byrne, J. (1999). Response to domestic

violence in a pro-active court setting (No. NCJ 181427). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Camacho, C. M., & Alarid, L. F. (2008). The significance of the victim advocate for

domestic violence victims in municipal court. Violence and Victims, 23(3),

288–300. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.288

Campbell, D. W., Sharps, P. W., Gary, F., Campbell, J., & Lopez, L. M. (2002). Intimate

partner violence in African American women. Online Journal of Issues in

Nursing, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/

Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Ford, J., & Patterson, D. (2008). Systems change analysis of

SANE programs: Identifying the mediating mechanisms of criminal justice

system impact (No. NCJ 226497). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/226497.pdf

2012 Report

104 References

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The effectiveness of Sexual Assault

Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs: A review of psychological, medical, legal,

and community outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(4), 313–329.

doi:10.1177/1524838005280328

Casey, R., Berkman, M., Stover, C. S., Gill, K., Durso, S., & Marans, S. (2007).

Preliminary results of a police-advocate home-visit intervention project for

victims of domestic violence. Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6(1), 39–49.

doi:10.1300/J513v06n01_04

Committee on Law and Justice. (2001). Crime victims with developmental

disabilities: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Research

Council.

Crandall, C. S., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse

Examiner (SANE) program (No. NCJ 203276). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Crowe, A., Sydney, L., DeMichele, M., Keilitz, S., Neal, C., Frohman, S., … Thomas, M.

(2009). Community corrections response to domestic violence: Guidelines for

practice. Lexington, KY: American Probation & Parole Association.

Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2002). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A

reanalysis of data from three field tests (No. NCJ 200608). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Davis, R., & Taylor, B. (1997). A proactive response to family violence: The results of

a randomized experiment. Criminology, 35(2), 307–333. doi:10.1111/j.1745-

9125.1997.tb00878.x

Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Do domestic violence services save

lives? National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 20–25.

Eastman, B. J., Bunch, S. G., Williams, A. H., & Carawan, L. W. (2007). Exploring the

perceptions of domestic violence service providers in rural localities.

Violence Against Women, 13(7), 700–716. doi:10.1177/1077801207302047

Elliott, L., Nerney, M., Jones, T., & Friedmann, P. (2002). Barriers to screening for

domestic violence. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(2), 112–116.

doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10233.x

Elman, R. A. (2005). Confronting the sexual abuse of women with disabilities.

VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from

http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_SVDisability.pdf

Field, C. A., & Caetano, R. (2004). Ethnic differences in intimate partner violence in

the U.S. general population: The role of alcohol use and socioeconomic

status. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 303–317.

doi:10.1177/1524838004269488

2012 Report

Part A 105

Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationship

does not end the violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former

partners. Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1363–1383.

doi:10.1177/10778010022183695

Friday, P. C., Lord, V. B., Exum, M. L., & Hartman, J. L. (2006). Evaluating the impact

of a specialized domestic violence police unit (No. NCJ 215916). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Frye, V., Haviland, M., & Rajah, V. (2007). Dual arrest and other unintended

consequences of mandatory arrest in New York City: A brief report. Journal

of Family Violence, 22(6), 397–405. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9094-y

Frye, V., Hoselin, V., Waltermaurer, E., Blaney, S., & Wilt, S. (2005). Femicide in New

York City 1990 to 1999. Homicide Studies, 9(3), 204–228.

doi:10.1177/1088767904274226

Gallup-Black, A. (2005). Twenty years of rural and urban trends in family and

intimate partner homicide: Does place matter? Homicide Studies, 9(2), 149–

173. doi:10.1177/1088767904274158

Ganeshpanchan, Z. (2005). Domestic and gender based violence among refugees

and internally displaced women. Retrieved from

http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/GaneshpanchanDomesticVi

olenceIDPS.pdf

Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Mandatory court review and batterer program compliance.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), 428–437.

doi:10.1177/088626000015004006

Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task

showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior,

9(6), 605–631.

Gondolf, E. W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, J. (1990). The help-seeking behavior of

battered women: An analysis of 6,000 shelter interviews. In E. Viano (Ed.),

The Victimology Handbook: Research Findings, Treatment and Public Policy

(pp. 113–127). New York, NY: Garland Publishing Company.

Gordon, J. A., & Moriarty, L. J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer

treatment on domestic violence recidivism: The Chesterfield County

experience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 118–134.

doi:10.1177/0093854802239166

Grama, J. L. (2000). Women forgotten: Difficulties faced by rural victims of domestic

violence. American Journal of Family Law, 14(3), 173–189.

Greenfield, L. A., & Smith, S. K. (1999). American Indians and crime (No. NCJ

173386). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from

http://nara-wayback-

001.us.archive.org/peth04/20041031201856/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

/pub/pdf/aic.pdf

2012 Report

106 References

Hamberger, L. K., Guse, C., Boerger, J., Minsky, D., Pape, D., & Folsom, C. (2004).

Evaluation of a health care provider training program to identify and help

partner violence victims. Journal of Family Violence, 19(1), 1–11.

doi:10.1023/B:JOFV.0000011578.37769.c4

Harrell, A., Castro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final report on the evaluation

of the judicial oversight demonstration: Executive summary. Washington,

DC: Urban Institute.

Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C., & Castro, J. (2006). The evaluation of

Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight Demonstration, final research report.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Hartley, C. C., & Frohmann, L. (2003). Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

evaluation of a specialized domestic violence court, revised executive

summary (No. NCJ 202944). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice.

Hunnicutt, G. (2007). Female status and infant and child homicide victimization in

rural and urban counties in the U.S. Gender Issues, 24(3), 35–50.

doi:10.1007/s12147-007-9046-0

Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond arrest: The

Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, final report (No. NCJ

179968). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice.

Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of domestic violence case management in the courts:

A national survey (No. NCJ 199724). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Klein, A. (2004). The criminal justice response to domestic violence. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Klein, A. (2006). Enforcing domestic violence firearm prohibitions, a report on

promising practices. Washington, DC: Office on Violence Against Women &

National Center on Full Faith and Credit.

Klein, A., & Crowe, A. (2008). Findings from an outcome examination of Rhode

Island’s specialized domestic violence probation supervision program: Do

specialized supervision programs of batterers reduce reabuse? Violence

Against Women, 14(2), 226–246. doi:10.1177/1077801207312633

Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An evaluation of Rhode

Island’s specialized supervision of domestic violence probationers. Waltham,

MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole

Association.

Klein, Andrew. (2005). Rhode Island domestic violence shelter and advocacy services:

An assessment. Sudbury, MA: Advocates for Human Potential, Inc. Retrieved

from http://www.rijustice.ri.gov/sac/Reports/Final%20ShelterEval%209-20-

05.pdf

2012 Report

Part A 107

Klevens, J., Baker, C. K., Shelley, G. A., & Ingram, E. M. (2008). Exploring the links

between components of coordinated community responses and their

impact on contact with intimate partner violence services. Violence Against

Women, 14(3), 346–358. doi:10.1177/1077801207313968

Lee, M. R., & Stevenson, G. D. (2006). Gender-specific homicide offending in rural

areas. Homicide Studies, 10(1), 55–73. doi:10.1177/1088767905283640

Lee, R. K., Sanders Thompson, V. L., & Mechanic, M. B. (2002). Intimate partner

violence and women of color: A call for innovations. American Journal of

Public Health, 92(4), 530–534.

Lewis, S. H. (2003). Unspoken crimes: Sexual assault in rural America. Enola, PA:

National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Retrieved from

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Booklets_Uns

poken-Crimes-Sexual-Assault-in-Rural-America%20.pdf

Logan, T., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Swanberg, J. (2007). Partner stalking and

implications for women’s employment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

22(3), 268–291. doi:10.1177/0886260506295380

Logan, T., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2005). Protective orders in rural and urban

areas: A multiple perspective study. Violence Against Women, 11(7), 876–

911. doi:10.1177/1077801205276985

Logan, T., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. (2006). Protective orders:

Questions and conundrums. Trauma, 7, 174–205.

doi:10.1177/1524838006288930

Logan, T., & Walker, R. (2009). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and

perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 675–

692. doi:10.1177/0886260508317186

Logan, T., Walker, R., Cole, J., Ratliff, S., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Qualitative

differences among rural and urban intimate violence victimization

experiences and consequences: A pilot study. Journal of Family Violence,

18(2), 83–92.

Luna-Firebaugh, E. M., Lobo, S., Hailer, J., Barragan, D., Mortensen, M., & Pearson,

D. (2002). Impact evaluation of STOP grant program for reducing violence

against women among Indian tribes, final report (No. NCJRS 195174) (p.

320). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/195174.pdf

Martin, S. L., Ray, N., Sotres-Alvares, D., Kupper, L., Moracco, K., Dickens, P., …

Gizlice, Z. (2006). Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities.

Violence Against Women, 12(9), 823–837. doi:10.1177/1077801206292672

McFarlane, J., Abeita, J., & Watson, K. (2002). Intimate partner stalking and

femicide: Urgent implications for women’s safety. Behavioral Sciences & the

Law, 20(1-2), 51–68. doi:10.1002/bsl.477

2012 Report

108 References

McFarlane, J., & Malecha, A. (2005). Sexual assault among intimates: Frequency,

consequences and treatments (No. NCJRS 211678). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Miller, N., & Nugent, H. (2002). Stalking laws and implementation practices: A

national review for policymakers and practitioners. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota

Center Against Violence and Abuse.

Mohandie, K., Meloy, J. R., McGowan, M. G., & Williams, J. (2006). The RECON

typology of stalking: Reliability and validity based upon a large sample of

North American stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1), 147–155.

doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00030.x

National Center on Elder Abuse. (2005). Fact sheet: Elder abuse prevalence and

incidence. Washington, DC.

Nosek, M. A., Foley, C. C., Hughes, R. B., & Howland, C. A. (2001). Vulnerabilities for

abuse among women with disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 19(3), 177–

189.

Nosek, N., & Hughes, R. (2006). Violence against women with disabilities, Fact sheet

#1: Findings from Studies 1992-2002. Houston, TX: Baylor College of

Medicine, Center for Research on Women with Disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www.bcm.edu/crowd/index.cfm?pmid=1409#pers

O’Dell, A. (2008). Why do police arrest victims of domestic violence? The need for

comprehensive training and investigative protocols. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma, 15(3), 53–73. doi:10.1080/10926770802097210

Otto, J., & Quinn, K. (2007). Barriers to and promising practices for collaboration

between adult protective services and domestic violence programs.

Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse. Retrieved from

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/BarrierstoPromisingPrac

tices.pdf

Paranjape, A., Tucker, A., Mckenzie-Mack, L., Thompson, N., & Kaslow, N. (2007).

Family violence and associated help-seeking behavior among older African

American women. Patient Education and Counseling, 68(2), 167–172.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.019

Puffett, N. K., & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of program outcome and recidivism at

the Bronx misdemeanor domestic violence court. New York, NY: Center for

Court Innovation.

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of

culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence.

Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367–398. doi:10.1177/10778010222183107

Ramsey-Klawsnik, H. (1991). Elder sexual abuse: Preliminary findings. Journal of

Elder Abuse and Neglect, 3(3), 73–90. doi:10.1300/J084v03n03_04

Rennison, C. (2001). Violent victimization and race, 1993-98 (No. NCJ 176354).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

2012 Report

Part A 109

Roberts, K. A. (2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former

romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against

Women, 11(1), 89–114. doi:10.1177/1077801204271096

Ruback, R. B., & Ménard, K. S. (2001). Rural-Urban differences in sexual victimization

and reporting: Analyses using UCR and crisis center data. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 28(2), 131–155. doi:10.1177/0093854801028002001

Runner, M., Yoshihama, M., & Novick, S. (2009). Intimate partner violence in

immigrant and refugee communities: Challenges, promising practices and

recommendations. Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved from

http://www.endabuse.org/userfiles/file/ImmigrantWomen/IPV_Report_Ma

rch_2009.pdf

Salazar, L. F., Emshoff, J. G., Baker, C. K., & Crowley, T. (2007). Examining the

behavior of a system: An outcome evaluation of a coordinated community

response to domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22(7), 631–641.

doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9116-9

Shepard, M. (1999). Evaluating coordinated community responses to domestic

violence. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center

on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Retrieved from http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_ccr.pdf

Shepard, M., Falk, D., & Elliott, B. (2002). Enhancing coordinated community

responses to reduce recidivism in cases of domestic violence. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 17(5), 551–569. doi:10.1177/0886260502017005005

Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1999). An introduction: Developing a coordinated

community response. In E. Pence & M. Shepard (Eds.), Coordinating

Community Responses to Domestic Violence: Lessons from Duluth and

Beyond (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L., & Davies, H. (2001). An evaluation of efforts to

implement no-drop policies: Two central values in conflict, final report (No.

NCJ 187772). Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships

from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Sexuality and Disability,

26(1), 15–28. doi:10.1007/s11195-007-9064-6

Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of

the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64–86.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001

Teaster, P. B., Roberto, K. A., Duke, J. O., & Kim, M. (2001). Sexual abuse of older

adults: Preliminary findings of cases in Virginia. Journal of Elder Abuse and

Neglect, 12(3&4), 1–16. doi:10.1300/J084v12n03_01

Thompson, R., Meyer, B. A., Smith-DiJuilio, K., Caplow, M. P., Maiuro, R. D.,

Thompson, D. C., … Rivara, F. P. (1998). A training program to improve

domestic violence identification and management in primary care:

Preliminary results. Violence and Victims, 13(4), 395–410.

2012 Report

110 References

Thompson, R., Rivara, F., Thompson, D., Barlow, W., Sugg, N., Maiuro, R., &

Rubanowice, D. (2000). Identification and management of domestic

violence: A randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

19(4), 253–263. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00231-2

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National

Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and

consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National

Violence Against Women Survey (No. NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf

Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Baxter, C. (2005). Law enforcement response to

domestic violence calls for service (No. NCJ 215915). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/215915.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2011). Statistical abstract of

the United States: 2012 (131st Edition). Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

S •T•O•P Program

Appendix A 2008

2012 Report

112 Appendix A

Table A1: Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated, by category, by state: 2008

Number of subgrantee awards Amount allocated to subgrantees ($)

Total VS LE PRO CRT DISC VS LE PRO CRT DISC Total ADM

Alabama

66 38 12 14 2 0 873,045 632,435 698,530 179,327 863,939 3,247,276 403,297

Alaska

15 9 2 2 2 0 189,143 89,491 190,508 34,200 0 503,342 41,379

American Samoa

14 8 2 2 2 0 476,151 303,841 303,841 23,082 0 1,106,915

Arizona

25 16 4 3 2 0 951,678 315,667 303,462 190,321 0 1,761,128 220,240

Arkansas

44 5 13 18 - 8 295,769 229,983 403,353 0 218,858 1,147,963

California

107 32 51 18 3 3 3,523,570 2,847,335 2,352,271 1,049,859 980,144 10,753,179

1,238,552

Colorado

117 66 18 21 4 8 1,325,545 866,139 866,403 174,914 231,551 3,464,552

Connecticut

9 4 2 1 2 0 534,497 195,098 352,735 109,944 0 1,192,274

Delaware

15 7 5 1 2 0 348,600 193,667 193,667 80,407 0 816,341 40,772

District of Columbia

8 3 1 1 1 2 204,165 83,225 168,054 33,611 126,446 615,501 26,924

Florida

127 36 38 50 3 0 2,105,688 1,382,778 1,297,156 226,303 0 5,011,925 278,157

Georgia

54 27 13 12 2 0 1,236,365 632,015 626,081 127,719 0 2,622,180

148,309

Guam

15 8 2 2 2 1 173,702 144,752 144,752 28,950 86,852 579,008 51,551

Hawaii

18 2 7 6 1 2 94,197 227,872 333,083 44,342 86,530 786,024

48,938

Idaho

16 5 3 4 1 3 268,361 223,635 223,636 44,727 134,180 894,539

Illinois

34 18 7 5 4 0 2,773,679 990,369 908,655 199,144 0 4,871,847

156,516

Indiana

76 41 10 23 2 0 965,128 390,326 696,860 89,140 0 2,141,454

120,087

Iowa

78 27 34 12 2 3 506,806 346,613 330,887 67,441 88,784 1,340,531

Kansas

33 12 6 9 4 2 442,968 272,258 303,155 100,487 84,651 1,203,519

59,503

Kentucky

42 13 9 12 4 4 631,224 444,152 414,454 140,639 254,105 1,884,574

97,006

Louisiana

69 24 27 13 5 0 326,463 397,166 300,814 171,696 0 1,196,139

341,657

Maine

26 11 8 7 - 0 323,333 231,103 167,357 0 0 721,793

72,832

Maryland

101 43 19 15 5 19 543,065 385,223 438,011 110,109 274,194 1,750,602

155,678

Massachusetts

72 31 29 8 1 3 683,236 586,193 545,480 106,418 319,256 2,240,583

Michigan

372 92 94 94 92 0 1,337,441 795,574 850,028 174,351 0 3,157,394

171,653

Minnesota

56 7 19 17 9 4 496,631 899,017 503,550 241,213 216,000 2,356,411

99,490

Mississippi

47 21 16 10 - 0 552,499 435,312 454,378 0 0 1,442,189

Missouri

59 32 12 8 6 1 856,082 500,566 530,566 185,869 46,268 2,119,351

103,582

Data in Table A1 are based on annual reports submitted by STOP administrators and reflect awards to subgrantees during calendar year 2008.

S •T•O•P Program

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part A 113

Table A1. Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated, by category, by state: 2008

Number of subgrantee awards Amount allocated to subgrantees ($)

Total VS LE PRO CRT DISC VS LE PRO CRT DISC Total ADM

Montana 22 10 3 5 1 3 276,697 175,518 188,203 40,000 33,315 713,733

92,674

Nebraska 51 11 12 13 4 11 275,241 257,714 255,592 59,825 147,355 995,727

80,000

Nevada 48 20 7 13 4 4 443,374 193,623 312,573 56,460 87,000 1,093,030

80,064

New Hampshire 25 11 5 8 1 0 353,627 261,803 257,948 50,000 0 923,378

54,845

New Jersey 58 25 14 17 1 1 1,060,589 790,866 772,919 126,191 60,000 2,810,565 0

New Mexico 45 21 16 2 3 3 330,125 254,625 14,921 53,220 108,777 761,668 0

New York 131 58 35 33 1 4 2,156,990 1,319,995 1,347,512 257,125 235,174 5,316,796

80,064

N. Mariana Islands 14 2 6 4 2 0 335,724 279,769 335,725 55,954 0 1,007,172

124,341

North Carolina 29 8 8 4 3 6 573,483 701,758 564,954 121,746 702,401 2,664,342

415,886

North Dakota 173 43 43 37 12 38 614,823 383,965 391,290 68,955 48,453 1,507,486

47,260

Ohio 118 36 28 26 8 20 1,101,010 910,643 602,473 175,161 310,753 3,100,040

Oklahoma 37 13 7 7 4 6 390,246 231,380 354,534 68,360 201,085 1,245,605

221,623

Oregon 59 38 9 9 3 0 641,867 460,626 418,329 131,914 0 1,652,736 0

Pennsylvania 288 98 94 94 2 0 1,725,929 866,394 866,394 185,548 0 3,644,265 0

Puerto Rico 24 15 2 2 2 3 559,563 498,655 336,734 51,637 101,151 1,547,740

175,083

Rhode Island 25 6 13 1 1 4 448,478 134,152 195,509 39,101 235,420 1,052,660

71,175

South Carolina 44 20 11 7 3 3 617,274 503,082 476,295 112,497 131,823 1,840,971

176,994

South Dakota 34 25 2 5 1 1 241,664 249,257 198,470 57,026 79,439 825,856

30,508

Tennessee 54 20 9 10 2 13 626,991 412,959 526,440 98,678 339,016 2,004,084

218,085

Texas 91 46 18 23 1 3 2,907,527 1,288,936 1,739,707 250,000 487,550 6,673,720

Utah 68 29 15 11 4 9 428,541 355,758 314,265 82,940 174,825 1,356,329

28,821

Vermont 32 11 9 11 1 0 321,079 207,450 249,846 38,245 0 816,620 0

Virgin Islands 16 7 4 2 1 2 295,972 367,935 294,650 29,748 40,000 1,028,305

136,729

Virginia 86 35 18 15 5 13 718,507 527,607 509,263 112,147 292,783 2,160,307

186,897

Washington 169 62 55 50 1 1 922,769 671,068 674,193 102,453 50,000 2,420,483

West Virginia 56 17 18 16 1 4 351,826 263,709 294,884 49,290 94,818 1,054,527

74,200

Wisconsin 56 26 15 11 4 0 929,890 540,372 556,803 114,001 0 2,141,066 0

Wyoming 111 51 21 13 2 24 482,905 420,829 321,768 8,000 211,664 1,445,166

73,593

TOTAL 3,679 1,402 960 837 241 239 43,171,742 28,572,253 28,273,921 6,530,435 8,184,560 114,732,911

6,164,901

2012 Report

114 Appendix A

Table A2. Percentage distribution of STOP Program allocation, by type of

victimization, by state: 2008

State

Sexual

assault

Domestic

violence

Stalking Total

Alabama 30 70 0 100

Alaska 22 73 5 100

American Samoa 50 50 0 100

Arizona 10 88 2 100

Arkansas 13 86 1 100

California 10 85 5 100

Colorado 42 56 2 100

Connecticut 37 63 0 100

Delaware 25 70 5 100

District of Columbia 42 58 0 100

Florida 21 77 2 100

Georgia 29 67 4 100

Guam 37 37 26 100

Hawaii 35 60 5 100

Idaho 35 55 10 100

Illinois 50 50 0 100

Indiana 45 50 5 100

Iowa 29 68 3 100

Kansas 16 79 5 100

Kentucky 20 77 3 100

Louisiana 31 50 19 100

Maine 42 58 0 100

Maryland 21 77 2 100

Massachusetts 20 78 2 100

Michigan 20 73 7 100

Minnesota 45 50 5 100

Mississippi 45 45 10 100

Missouri 18 80 2 100

Montana 13 78 9 100

Nebraska 13 84 3 100

Nevada 19 76 5 100

New Hampshire 25 65 10 100

New Jersey 40 60 0 100

New Mexico 38 52 10 100

New York 29 69 2 100

No.Mariana Islands 5 95 0 100

North Carolina 28 61 11 100

North Dakota 37 62 1 100

Ohio 1 99 0 100

Oklahoma 19 75 6 100

Oregon 25 75 0 100

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 115

Table A2. Percentage distribution of STOP Program allocation, by type of

victimization, by state: 2008

State

Sexual

assault

Domestic

violence

Stalking Total

Pennsylvania 35 60 5 100

Puerto Rico 10 88 2 100

Rhode Island 30 66 4 100

South Carolina 45 45 10 100

South Dakota 9 88 3 100

Tennessee 9 88 3 100

Texas 21 76 3 100

Utah 18 77 5 100

Vermont 20 75 5 100

Virgin Islands 16 81 3 100

Virginia 19 79 2 100

Washington 25 70 5 100

West Virginia 15 75 10 100

Wisconsin 55 43 2 100

Wyoming 14 74 12 100

2012 Report

116 Appendix A

Table A3. Amount and percent of victim services funds awarded to culturally specific,

community-based organizations (CSCBOs) by state, 2008

State

2008

Amounts awarded

to victim services

Amount of victim

services awards to

CSCBOs

Percent of victim

services funds to

CSCBOs

Alabama 873,045 280,000 32.1

Alaska 189,143 76,480 40.4

American Samoa 476,151 476,151 100

Arizona 951,678 34,988 3.7

Arkansas 295,769 54,154 18.3

California 3,523,570 1,144,419 32.5

Colorado 1,325,545 180,588 13.6

Connecticut 534,497 0 0

Delaware 348,600 46,073 13.2

District of Columbia

204,165 118,000 57.8

Florida 2,105,688 57,656 2.7

Georgia 1,236,365 364,665 29.5

Guam 173,702 173,702 100

Hawaii 163,880 156,130 95.3

Idaho 268,361 42,822 16.0

Illinois 2,773,679 2,121,040 76.5

Indiana 965,128 127,444 13.2

Iowa 506,806 43,135 8.5

Kansas 442,968 39,257 8.9

Kentucky 631,224 167,319 26.5

Louisiana 326,463 45,356 13.9

Maine 323,333 32,000 9.9

Maryland 543,065 278,788 51.3

Massachusetts 683,236 130,000 19.0

Michigan 1,337,441 95,000 7.1

Minnesota 496,631 140,000 28.2

Mississippi 552,499 39,050 7.1

Missouri 856,082 56,118 6.6

Montana 276,697 28,000 10.1

Nebraska 275,241 0 0

Nevada 443,374 35,300 8.0

New Hampshire 353,627 30,000 8.5

New Jersey 1,060,589 133,480 12.6

The STOP administrators in Connecticut, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Nebraska did not report

awards to culturally-specific, community-based organizations.

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 117

Table A3. Amount and percent of victim services funds awarded to culturally specific,

community-based organizations (CSCBOs) by state, 2008

State

2008

Amounts awarded

to victim services

Amount of victim

services awards to

CSCBOs

Percent of victim

services funds to

CSCBOs

New Mexico 330,125 110,458 33.5

New York 2,156,990 256,909 11.9

N. Mariana Islands 335,724 0 0

North Carolina 573,483 79,952 13.9

North Dakota 614,823 41,374 6.7

Ohio 1,101,010 13,440 1.2

Oklahoma 390,246 24,257 6.2

Oregon 641,867 63,967 10.0

Pennsylvania 1,725,929 122,321 7.1

Puerto Rico 559,563 200,740 35.9

Rhode Island 448,478 23,443 5.2

South Carolina 617,274 76,807 12.4

South Dakota 241,664 33,693 13.9

Tennessee 626,991 89,317 14.2

Texas 2,907,527 2,310,738 79.5

Utah 428,541 60,519 14.1

Vermont 321,079 22,727 7.1

Virgin Islands 295,972 295,972 100

Virginia 718,507 71,340 9.9

Washington 922,769 73,176 7.9

West Virginia 351,826 29,574 8.4

Wisconsin 929,890 375,322 40.4

Wyoming 482,905 19,652 4.1

TOTAL

43,171,742

11,142,813

25.8

Appendix B 2008

2012 Report

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 121

Table B1. Number of STOP Program awards reported by activities funded, by state: 2008

State Staff Training Policies Products

Data

collection

and

communi

cation

systems

Specialized

units

System

improve

ment

Victim

services

Law

enforcem

ent

Prosecuti

Courts

Probation

and

parole

BIP

Alabama

20 6 4 4 4 7 4 14 6 6 0 0 0

Alaska

23 16 7 4 5 1 5 17 1 0 0 0 0

American Samoa

5 6 2 0 6 1 6 5 1 1 0 0 0

Arizona

23 12 6 3 1 4 2 18 2 3 1 2 0

Arkansas

21 3 2 2 0 14 1 11 8 3 0 0 0

California

167 69 17 19 5 41 7 130 18 15 0 7 0

Colorado

59 34 15 12 5 7 4 52 0 5 0 0 0

Connecticut

8 2 2 1 1 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 1

Delaware

15 7 3 4 7 6 1 12 0 1 1 1 0

District of Columbia

10 7 5 3 1 1 1 6 0 1 1 0 0

Florida

42 8 6 9 2 19 4 25 11 13 1 0 0

Georgia

51 27 17 17 6 14 14 33 7 6 0 0 0

Guam

9 6 0 4 1 2 2 5 1 0 0 0 0

Hawaii

12 10 2 3 2 9 4 5 2 1 0 0 0

Idaho

14 9 6 3 1 2 1 13 0 0 0 0 1

Illinois

13 9 1 3 1 4 1 22 5 5 0 4 0

Indiana

64 32 17 19 8 20 8 42 6 19 0 0 0

Iowa

63 30 13 6 10 31 6 25 25 10 0 0 0

Kansas

22 13 6 6 3 6 5 13 1 5 1 0 0

Kentucky

30 9 4 4 0 8 1 21 7 3 1 0 0

Louisiana

72 17 7 5 10 25 1 46 18 11 2 0 0

Maine

21 11 7 6 8 6 5 13 5 2 0 0 0

Maryland

59 23 19 5 7 14 9 42 4 3 0 0 0

Massachusetts

64 33 8 17 6 8 6 57 3 3 0 0 0

Michigan

48 29 12 8 10 8 7 46 2 4 0 0 0

Minnesota

29 20 16 8 5 2 9 10 1 1 0 0 0

Mississippi

37 2 1 1 0 0 0 21 10 6 0 0 0

Missouri

59 15 9 9 2 17 1 40 12 7 1 0 1

2012 Report

122 Appendix B

Table B1. Number of STOP Program awards reported by activities funded, by state: 2008

State Staff Training Policies Products

Data

collection

and

communi

cation

systems

Specialized

units

System

improve

ment

Victim

services

Law

enforcem

ent

Prosecuti

Courts

Probation

and

parole

BIP

Montana

21 13 0 3 1 2 1 13 3 1 0 0 0

Nebraska

13 9 9 3 1 4 3 10 3 3 0 1 5

Nevada

29 12 9 7 3 5 3 27 0 1 0 0 0

New Hampshire

21 15 5 8 3 7 3 12 3 6 0 0 0

New Jersey

51 37 20 27 9 3 11 42 0 0 0 0 0

New Mexico

30 11 7 7 5 4 4 16 0 2 0 0 0

New York

111 67 40 42 21 27 14 90 11 18 1 3 2

North Carolina

6 4 3 2 2 3 1 4 2 0 1 0 0

North Dakota

35 11 9 1 8 3 4 31 1 0 0 0 2

Northern Mariana

Islands 3 4 2 1 1 3 0 4 3 1 1 0 0

Ohio

89 34 17 12 13 31 10 66 17 12 0 0 0

Oklahoma

28 14 6 7 5 11 3 13 5 5 0 3 0

Oregon

56 18 5 9 2 2 8 50 0 2 0 0 0

Pennsylvania

50 42 26 19 7 29 7 45 27 35 0 0 0

Puerto Rico

11 4 1 2 1 2 0 9 1 1 0 0 0

Rhode Island

9 6 2 3 3 0 2 7 0 1 0 0 0

South Carolina

26 15 3 11 4 5 1 16 3 4 1 0 1

South Dakota

32 9 5 5 3 3 4 29 0 5 0 0 1

Tennessee

45 24 10 12 5 8 3 30 4 6 1 0 0

Texas

99 49 20 15 12 32 11 71 14 16 2 0 0

Utah

39 22 11 14 2 5 6 33 2 2 0 0 0

Vermont

8 8 4 1 0 7 1 8 4 5 0 0 0

Virgin Islands

7 4 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 2

Virginia

86 60 17 63 17 23 9 59 12 9 0 1 0

Washington

86 33 2 5 19 13 9 66 10 8 0 0 0

West Virginia

20 9 6 5 2 3 0 12 12 9 0 0 1

Wisconsin

31 20 12 9 4 8 9 13 3 4 0 0 0

Wyoming

41 12 6 3 3 3 6 41 0 1 0 0 0

TOTAL

2,143 1,031 471 484 273 529 248 1,570 298 292 16 22 17

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 123

Table B2. Number of STOP Program subgrantees using funds for victim services and victims/survivors seeking/receiving services, by state: 2008

Subgrantees Victims/survivors seeking services Victims receiving services

State

Subgrants

using funds for

victim services

Total Served

Partially

served

Not

served

Total

Domestic

violence

Sexual

assault

Stalking

Alabama 20 14 5,851 5,778 73 - 5,851 5,471 296 84

Alaska 25 17 1,971 1,797 30 144 1,827 1,493 278 56

American Samoa 7 5 1,216 1,216 - - 1,216 1,003 213 -

Arizona 23 18 5,621 5,082 445 94 5,527 5,251 236 40

Arkansas 21 11 4,711 4,505 205 1 4,710 3,485 905 320

California 175 130 24,060 21,009 2,336 715 23,345 18,478 4,610 257

Colorado 60 52 16,088 15,192 332 564 15,524 13,083 2,247 194

Connecticut 8 5 5,201 5,201 - - 5,201 4,763 438 -

Delaware 22 12 3,742 3,653 89 - 3,742 3,372 349 21

District of Columbia 10 6 1,559 826 64 669 890 725 160 5

Florida 42 25 18,878 17,615 1,081 182 18,696 16,905 1,501 290

Georgia 52 33 12,281 11,683 400 198 12,083 6,568 5,098 417

Guam 9 5 877 815 47 15 862 595 227 40

Hawaii 20 5 2,540 2,535 5 - 2,540 2,538 1 1

Idaho 15 13 2,835 2,463 26 346 2,489 2,204 210 75

Illinois 27 22 15,542 15,191 149 202 15,340 13,676 1,658 6

Indiana 66 42 11,621 10,877 541 203 11,418 10,329 901 188

Iowa 66 25 5,505 5,243 202 60 5,445 4,738 662 45

Kansas 22 13 6,196 6,189 7 - 6,196 5,737 288 171

Kentucky 30 21 8,081 7,980 60 41 8,040 7,622 379 39

Louisiana 81 46 22,161 21,725 317 119 22,042 18,998 2,849 195

Maine 28 13 2,634 1,888 596 150 2,484 2,180 295 9

Maryland 64 42 9,785 8,677 939 169 9,616 8,715 750 151

Massachusetts 64 57 12,024 10,639 1,281 104 11,920 10,805 1,047 68

Michigan 48 46 16,453 16,074 177 202 16,251 13,422 1,456 1,373

Minnesota 30 10 1,837 1,574 259 4 1,833 1,047 718 68

Mississippi 37 21 6,131 5,632 278 221 5,910 5,121 716 73

Missouri 59 40 11,906 10,831 838 237 11,669 9,519 1,239 911

Montana 22 13 2,844 2,844 - - 2,844 2,169 386 289

Nebraska 13 10 4,305 4,182 115 8 4,297 3,667 421 209

Nevada 32 27 6,908 6,521 267 120 6,788 5,501 569 718

2012 Report

124 Appendix B

Table B2. Number of STOP Program subgrantees using funds for victim services and victims/survivors seeking/receiving services, by state: 2008

Subgrantees Victims/survivors seeking services Victims receiving services

State

Subgrants

using funds for

victim services

Total Served

Partially

served

Not

served

Total

Domestic

violence

Sexual

assault

Stalking

New Hampshire 23 12 2,151 1,982 72 97 2,054 1,502 404 148

New Jersey 53 42 13,402 12,982 199 221 13,181 12,102 1,077 2

New Mexico 32 16 1,617 1,586 8 23 1,594 1,460 132 2

New York 111 90 28,147 24,216 2,714 1,217 26,930 23,412 3,414 104

North Carolina 7 4 2,340 2,337 3 - 2,340 2,225 15 100

North Dakota 40 31 1,586 1,556 25 5 1,581 1,322 244 15

Northern Mariana

Islands 7 4 285 285 - - 285 249 36 -

Ohio 90 66 27,428 26,717 570 141 27,287 24,753 1,761 773

Oklahoma 29 13 2,565 2,474 89 2 2,563 1,866 602 95

Oregon 56 50 7,706 7,404 214 88 7,618 6,144 1,300 174

Pennsylvania 50 45 21,175 20,192 611 372 20,803 16,425 4,021 357

Puerto Rico 12 9 4,849 4,848 1 - 4,849 4,773 22 54

Rhode Island 10 7 7,289 7,224 65 - 7,289 6,956 318 15

South Carolina 28 16 5,648 5,347 193 108 5,540 5,055 393 92

South Dakota 32 29 7,197 7,131 54 12 7,185 5,338 605 1,242

Tennessee 45 30 4,793 4,714 47 32 4,761 4,254 408 99

Texas 104 71 31,207 29,587 1,250 370 30,837 27,350 3,003 484

Utah 41 33 11,266 9,452 803 1,011 10,255 8,863 945 447

Vermont 9 8 2,592 2,587 5 - 2,592 1,984 575 33

Virgin Islands 8 4 493 491 - 2 491 461 16 14

Virginia 86 59 15,316 14,039 998 279 15,037 13,094 1,738 205

Washington 91 66 5,056 5,047 6 3 5,053 4,590 427 36

West Virginia 22 12 4,543 4,393 148 2 4,541 4,144 271 126

Wisconsin 35 13 5,750 5,545 165 40 5,710 2,738 2,845 127

Wyoming 42 41 4,773 4,751 11 11 4,762 3,764 431 567

TOTAL 2,261 1,570 470,538 442,324 19,410 8,804 461,734 394,004 56,106 11,624

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 125

Table B3. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP Program-funded services, by state: 2008

Race/ethnicity Gender Age

State

Black/African

American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian/

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic/

Latino

White

Unknown

Female

Male

Unknown

13–17

18–24

25–29

60+

Unknown

Alabama 2,042 19 21 8 194 3,397 246 4,865 354 632 146 985 3,285 145 1,290

Alaska 42 1,090 86 44 149 400 30 1,671 150 6 181 352 1,143 50 101

American

Samoa 0 - 0 1,216 0 - 0 1,020 93 103 172 395 396 150 103

Arizona 278 296 46 16 2,560 1,922 409 4,912 605 10 205 945 3,510 304 563

Arkansas 1,683 7 29 1 101 2,770 119 3,836 759 115 527 1,125 2,804 125 129

California 2,768 663 556 236 6,136 4,687 8,327 14,781 2,049 6,515 1,239 4,194 9,629 382 7,901

Colorado 724 358 130 29 3,963 7,810 2,545 13,466 1,650 408 1,208 2,733 7,566 446 3,571

Connecticut 1,672 2 23 2 1,998 1,374 130 4,199 981 21 268 1,155 3,535 166 77

Delaware 903 11 28 1 422 2,252 125 3,391 303 48 127 636 2,583 100 296

District of

Columbia 386 - 9 - 365 61 69 845 44 1 25 238 507 21 99

Florida 4,120 28 148 40 3,061 9,441 1,865 15,544 2,435 717 457 4,165 12,141 561 1,372

Georgia 3,534 8 295 3 1,195 4,408 2,685 8,671 1,199 2,213 1,372 2,393 4,772 392 3,154

Guam 8 1 124 659 4 41 25 710 138 14 246 188 378 21 29

Hawaii 2 1 54 99 7 42 2,335 2,540 - 0 1 75 115 6 2,343

Idaho 26 59 21 - 540 1,760 109 2,270 184 35 227 651 1,453 140 18

Illinois 5,330 64 210 487 2,719 6,144 715 14,344 952 44 898 3,915 9,780 326 421

Indiana 2,436 35 103 9 1,250 6,749 867 10,759 629 30 678 2,903 6,717 358 762

Iowa 545 90 34 28 1,219 3,406 176 5,065 346 34 266 1,320 3,327 65 467

Kansas 940 57 68 11 990 3,473 657 5,157 852 187 141 1,567 3,117 446 925

Kentucky 1,166 43 40 4 391 6,151 245 7,292 722 26 401 1,884 5,153 212 390

Louisiana 7,431 56 97 97 312 9,563 4,570 16,041 1,751 4,250 1,159 4,463 10,982 444 4,994

Maine 88 17 16 5 49 2,212 97 2,347 137 0 248 561 1,567 60 48

Maryland 3,514 13 94 12 1,459 3,911 743 8,671 934 11 164 2,541 6,171 297 443

2012 Report

126 Appendix B

Table B3. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP Program-funded services, by state: 2008

Race/ethnicity Gender Age

State

Black/African

American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian/

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic/

Latino

White

Unknown

Female

Male

Unknown

13–17

18–24

25–29

60+

Unknown

Massachusetts 1,309 22 367 69 3,152 6,329 836 10,944 848 128 623 2,489 8,151 448 209

Michigan 4,950 132 58 95 727 9,378 1,001 14,885 1,025 341 733 3,259 10,900 388 971

Minnesota 156 652 13 198 228 448 138 1,675 98 60 188 531 922 55 137

Mississippi 2,275 68 136 132 106 2,256 937 5,021 224 665 475 1,311 2,753 409 962

Missouri 2,983 47 66 20 351 7,540 712 11,061 605 3 304 2,583 7,586 292 904

Montana 40 518 58 10 48 2,041 129 2,582 262 - 223 1,220 1,366 29 6

Nebraska 255 121 34 12 568 2,920 387 3,888 364 45 453 1,227 2,300 57 260

Nevada 561 212 132 76 1,965 3,502 340 5,818 801 169 331 1,500 4,164 260 533

New

Hampshire 102 5 31 - 125 1,648 149 1,339 663 52 196 504 1,184 62 108

New Jersey 3,014 21 533 19 2,620 6,263 716 11,855 1,111 215 362 2,508 8,702 697 912

New Mexico 15 95 7 - 1,215 233 29 1,470 114 10 64 270 1,190 37 33

New York 6,229 229 1,025 55 4,020 13,956 1,614 24,242 2,557 131 1,871 5,301 15,423 1,114 3,221

North Carolina 743 1 42 11 155 696 692 2,046 276 18 26 387 1,105 116 706

North Dakota 41 372 10 3 60 994 106 1,457 114 10 84 463 959 32 43

N. Mariana

Islands - - 85 197 - 3 - 250 35 - 10 59 206 7 3

Ohio 6,945 27 157 143 969 15,191 3,899 25,627 1,407 253 893 6,436 16,969 452 2,537

Oklahoma 255 274 21 25 250 1,730 64 2,395 138 30 182 526 1,735 75 45

Oregon 140 206 73 31 1,162 5,158 852 6,780 668 170 312 1,457 5,157 229 463

Pennsylvania 2,913 30 318 66 1,914 13,677 1,885 19,782 966 55 775 4,637 12,921 931 1,539

Puerto Rico 1 - - - 4,796 52 - 4,715 134 - 86 1,087 3,349 148 179

Rhode Island 746 46 78 - 987 4,911 521 6,257 847 185 431 3,039 3,482 297 40

South Carolina 1,537 18 26 1 229 3,193 537 5,112 426 2 79 1,006 3,979 84 392

South Dakota 157 2,560 79 7 109 4,151 148 6,070 1,062 53 389 1,421 5,021 149 205

Tennessee 902 23 26 21 362 3,372 81 4,527 224 10 97 965 3,517 93 89

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 127

Table B3. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP Program-funded services, by state: 2008

Race/ethnicity Gender Age

State

Black/African

American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Asian

Native

Hawaiian/

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic/

Latino

White

Unknown

Female

Male

Unknown

13–17

18–24

25–29

60+

Unknown

Texas 6,447 139 329 15 12,728 9,907 1,490 27,351 2,589 897 1,168 7,681 20,096 667 1,225

Utah 244 248 141 78 2,293 6,609 654 9,592 648 15 574 2,527 6,604 218 332

Vermont 25 17 8 4 23 1,513 1,007 2,371 202 19 170 497 1,037 44 844

Virgin Islands 312 1 2 10 136 30 - 383 108 - 166 115 206 4 -

Virginia 4,100 45 339 33 1,254 8,610 695 13,251 1,449 337 555 3,185 9,943 443 911

Washington 261 188 178 91 1,053 3,282 - 5,053 - - 54 1,425 3,359 214 1

West Virginia 249 7 9 5 23 4,056 192 4,125 371 45 271 724 2,420 110 1,016

Wisconsin 626 133 1,304 6 1,167 2,148 331 5,096 426 188 443 944 2,881 250 1,192

Wyoming 82 200 28 30 536 3,795 110 4,305 375 82 276 1,158 3,109 210 9

TOTAL 88,253 9,575 7,945 4,470 74,415 231,566 47,341

403,722 38,404 19,608 23,220 101,826 273,327 13,838 49,523

2012 Report

128 Appendix B

Table B4. Number of individuals with disabilities/limited English proficiency/who are immigrants/living in

rural areas receiving STOP Program-funded services, by state: 2008

State Disabled

Limited English

proficiency

Immigrants/refugees/

asylum seekers

Live in rural

areas

Alabama

152 86 22 1,627

Alaska

225 235 122 1,438

American Samoa

0 0 0 0

Arizona

255 1,165 451 1,999

Arkansas

80 35 9 818

California

862 1,736 418 1,708

Colorado

1,072 1,555 803 5,961

Connecticut

233 572 36 116

Delaware

118 245 182 1,288

District of Columbia

54 421 392 0

Florida

267 2,275 1,958 2,052

Georgia

263 898 1,028 3,367

Guam

0 3 0 77

Hawaii

12 31 21 146

Idaho

218 331 266 1,646

Illinois

1,383 1,863 65 1,930

Indiana

521 997 681 2,422

Iowa

229 976 968 3,925

Kansas

178 839 256 2,358

Kentucky

559 426 386 3,729

Louisiana

1,874 211 79 8,353

Maine

247 88 63 1,708

Maryland

343 1,215 792 2,633

Massachusetts

921 1,909 906 915

Michigan

873 261 40 3,536

Minnesota

113 119 122 990

Mississippi

145 45 20 1,240

Missouri

948 283 189 5,225

Montana

462 0 6 0

Nebraska

223 301 413 1,711

Nevada

299 1,298 772 1,993

New Hampshire

103 76 61 193

New Jersey

408 1,377 710 262

New Mexico

115 654 674 882

New York

1,443 2,401 2,503 5,590

North Carolina

174 114 75 15

North Dakota

159 15 9 669

Northern Mariana

Islands

5 27 42 73

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 129

Table B4. Number of individuals with disabilities/limited English proficiency/who are immigrants/living in

rural areas receiving STOP Program-funded services, by state: 2008

State Disabled

Limited English

proficiency

Immigrants/refugees/

asylum seekers

Live in rural

areas

Ohio

1,213 610 306 5,542

Oklahoma

107 153 112 1,478

Oregon

464 860 509 3,916

Pennsylvania

1,862 984 579 6,886

Puerto Rico

159 3 210 663

Rhode Island

10 356 30 0

South Carolina

182 186 69 3,043

South Dakota

310 57 17 2,859

Tennessee

467 279 297 2,023

Texas

1,213 4,091 2,194 5,978

Utah

389 1,627 1,149 2,770

Vermont

233 13 11 1,809

Virgin Islands

3 83 61 52

Virginia

779 870 630 4,062

Washington

389 323 120 1,758

West Virginia

409 46 9 1,719

Wisconsin

307 1,675 1,266 570

Wyoming

360 163 62 1,962

TOTAL

24,392 37,462 23,171 119,685

2012 Report

130 Appendix B

Table B5. Victims/survivors’ relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program funds, by state:

2008

State

Current

former

spouse or

intimate

partner

Other family

or household

member

Dating Acquaintance Stranger

Relationship

unknown

Alabama

2,941 552 521 182 111 1,573

Alaska

1,285 322 81 135 22 54

American Samoa

244 284 206 263 219 -

Arizona

4,000 822 397 147 71 267

Arkansas

2,509 1,178 560 82 34 396

California

15,985 889 1,976 1,588 725 2,301

Colorado

9,719 1,230 1,636 631 186 2,341

Connecticut

3,169 1,027 620 171 46 168

Delaware

3,018 220 21 147 47 328

District of Columbia

707 18 37 66 8 58

Florida

11,533 1,641 1,048 333 92 4,261

Georgia

5,334 1,298 1,177 1,453 471 2,713

Guam

380 136 57 207 40 42

Hawaii

228 1 15 - - 2,296

Idaho

2,191 568 625 257 116 47

Illinois

7,551 1,643 4,873 533 252 685

Indiana

8,203 763 1,823 465 131 460

Iowa

4,127 404 461 302 69 202

Kansas

4,767 395 343 151 49 548

Kentucky

4,929 1,094 1,397 92 34 558

Louisiana

9,377 2,367 2,730 844 277 7,429

Maine

1,992 131 229 95 16 92

Maryland

7,193 291 1,088 254 76 759

Massachusetts

6,705 1,477 3,396 210 88 479

Michigan

11,643 803 3,024 1,005 159 885

Minnesota

826 360 82 237 214 117

Mississippi

3,796 664 774 334 63 314

Missouri

7,517 1,181 1,514 896 258 873

Montana

2,109 366 27 212 80 110

Nebraska

1,958 584 900 145 50 660

Nevada

4,277 828 1,088 320 139 367

New Hampshire

1,115 300 322 233 33 80

New Jersey

8,420 1,007 2,426 278 169 1,014

New Mexico

1,254 75 98 94 30 44

New York

16,500 3,379 3,907 1,457 588 1,537

North Carolina

292 77 404 33 71 1,470

S •T•O•P Program

Part A 131

Table B5. Victims/survivors’ relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program funds, by state:

2008

State

Current

former

spouse or

intimate

partner

Other family

or household

member

Dating Acquaintance Stranger

Relationship

unknown

North Dakota

1,144 138 90 149 26 40

N. Mariana Islands

196 46 11 2 30 -

Ohio

18,648 2,169 1,993 957 246 3,848

Oklahoma

1,881 509 509 310 293 301

Oregon

4,971 701 571 362 95 1,047

Pennsylvania

14,024 2,676 2,155 1,435 441 810

Puerto Rico

4,916 4 52 45 10 51

Rhode Island

1,498 328 202 210 42 5,056

South Carolina

4,604 196 578 145 28 83

South Dakota

4,021 459 663 212 31 2,168

Tennessee

3,505 544 584 138 65 94

Texas

21,649 4,172 4,044 1,168 233 1,652

Utah

7,409 1,069 911 544 126 370

Vermont

1,803 211 267 158 47 285

Virgin Islands

353 112 14 8 3 1

Virginia

10,974 1,637 1,312 638 195 701

Washington

3,658 618 588 145 39 6

West Virginia

2,769 614 982 166 18 118

Wisconsin

2,572 970 868 697 201 647

Wyoming

2,694 477 725 427 90 385

TOTAL

291,083 46,025 57,002 21,768 7,293 53,191

STOP Program

Services  Training  Officers

 Prosecutors

2012 Report

Part B

2012 Report

Part B i

Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................ i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ v

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................... 2

Statutory Purpose Areas of the STOP Program ........................................................ 2

Allocation and Distribution of STOP Program Funds ............................................... 6

Eligibility Requirements ............................................................................................ 6

Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................... 8

Reporting Methods .................................................................................................. 9

STOP Program 2009 and 2010: State-Reported Data and Distribution of Funds ...... 11

Sources of Data ...................................................................................................... 11

How STOP Program Funds Were Distributed: STOP Administrators ..................... 11

How STOP Program Funds Were Used: Subgrantees ............................................. 13

Statutory Purpose Areas Addressed ...................................................................... 14

Types of Agencies Receiving STOP Program Funds ................................................ 15

Types of Victimization Addressed by Funded Projects .......................................... 16

Effectiveness of the STOP Program ............................................................................ 19

Coordinated Community Response ........................................................................ 19

Training ................................................................................................................... 26

Victim Services ....................................................................................................... 33

Underserved Populations ....................................................................................... 37

American Indians and Alaska Natives................................................................. 40

Victims/survivors with Disabilities and Older Victims/survivors ........................ 43

Victims/survivors Who Are Immigrants or Refugees ......................................... 47

Victims/survivors Who Live in Rural Areas ......................................................... 49

The Criminal Justice Response ............................................................................... 52

Law Enforcement................................................................................................ 52

Prosecution......................................................................................................... 58

Courts ................................................................................................................. 62

Probation Supervision ........................................................................................ 65

Sexual Assault ......................................................................................................... 69

Stalking ................................................................................................................... 75

Remaining Areas of Need ....................................................................................... 80

STOP Program Aggregate Accomplishments.............................................................. 87

Training ................................................................................................................... 88

Coordinated Community Response ........................................................................ 89

Policies .................................................................................................................... 9 1

Products.................................................................................................................. 92

Data Collection and Communication Systems ....................................................... 93

Specialized Units ..................................................................................................... 94

System Improvement ............................................................................................. 95

Victim Services ....................................................................................................... 96

Demographics of Victims/survivors Served ....................................................... 98

S •T•O•P Program

ii Part B

Types of Services Provided to Victims/survivors ............................................. 100

Protection Orders ................................................................................................ 101

Criminal Justice .................................................................................................... 102

Law Enforcement ............................................................................................. 102

Prosecution ...................................................................................................... 104

Courts ............................................................................................................... 105

Probation ......................................................................................................... 107

Batterer Intervention Program ........................................................................ 109

References ............................................................................................................... 111

Appendix A 2009 ...................................................................................................... 125

Appendix B 2009 ...................................................................................................... 133

Appendix A 2010 ...................................................................................................... 145

Appendix B 2010 ...................................................................................................... 153

List of Tables

Table 1a. Number and distribution of STOP subgrant awards made in 2009 ............. 11

Allocation category ...................................................................................................... 11

Table 1b. Number and distribution of STOP subgrant awards made in 2010 ............. 12

Table 2. Statutory purpose areas addressed with STOP Program funds in 2009 and

2010 ....................................................................................................................... 15

Table 3. Types of agencies receiving STOP Program funds in 2009 and 2010 ............. 16

Table 4. Types of victimization(s) addressed by STOP Program-funded projects in

2009 and 2010 ....................................................................................................... 17

Table 5. Community agencies/organizations with which subgrantees reported

having weekly or monthly meetings in 2009 and 2010 ........................................ 26

Table 6. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2009 and 2010—selected

professional positions ........................................................................................... 32

Table 7. Victims/survivors receiving STOP Program-funded services in 2009 and 201035

Table 8. Disposition of violations of probation and other court orders in STOP

Program-funded courts in 2009 and 2010 ............................................................ 65

Table 9. Disposition of probation violations by STOP Program-funded probation

departments in 2009 and 2010 ............................................................................. 69

Table 10. Full-time equivalent staff funded by STOP Program in 2009 and 2010 ....... 87

Table 11. People trained with STOP Program funds in 2009 and 2010 ....................... 88

Table 12a. STOP Program-funded referrals/consultations/technical assistance to and

meetings with community agencies in 2009 ......................................................... 89

Table 12b. STOP Program-funded referrals/consultations/technical assistance to and

meetings with community agencies in 2010 ......................................................... 90

Table 13a. Use of STOP Program funds to revise or implement policies or protocols

in 2009 ................................................................................................................... 91

Table 13b. Use of STOP Program funds to revise or implement policies or protocols

in 2010 ................................................................................................................... 92

Table 14. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for data collection

activities and/or communication systems in 2009 and 2010 ............................... 93

2012 Report

Part B iii

Table 15. Most frequently reported purposes of data collection and/or

communication systems in 2009 and 2010 ........................................................... 94

Table 16a. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for specialized unit

activities in 2009 .................................................................................................... 94

Table 16b. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for specialized unit

activities in 2010 .................................................................................................... 94

Table 17a. Number of specialized units addressing type of victimization in 2009 ...... 95

Table 17b. Number of specialized units addressing type of victimization in 2010 ...... 95

Table 18a. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for system

improvement activities in 2009 ............................................................................. 95

Table 18b. Subgrantees reporting use of STOP Program funds for system

improvement activities in 2010 ............................................................................. 96

Table 19a. Provision of victim services by STOP Program subgrantees in 2009, by

level of service and type of victimization .............................................................. 96

Table 19b. Provision of victim services by STOP Program subgrantees in 2010, by

level of service and type of victimization .............................................................. 97

Table 20. Victims/survivors receiving services from STOP Program subgrantees in

2009 and 2010, by type of victimization ............................................................... 97

Table 21. Most frequently reported reasons victims/survivors were not served or

were partially served by STOP Program subgrantees ............................................ 98

Table 22. Demographic characteristics of victims/survivors served by STOP Program

subgrantees in 2009 and 2010 ............................................................................... 98

Table 23a. Relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program

funds in 2009 ......................................................................................................... 99

Table 23b. Relationships to offender for victims/survivors served with STOP Program

funds in 2010 ....................................................................................................... 100

Table 24. Victim services provided by STOP Program subgrantees in 2009 and 2010100

Table 25. Protection orders granted with assistance of STOP Program-funded staff in

2009 and 2010 ..................................................................................................... 102

Table 26a. Law enforcement activities provided with STOP Program funds in 2009 103

Table 26b. Law enforcement activities provided with STOP Program funds in 2010 103

Table 27. Prosecution of sexual assault, domestic violence / dating violence, stalking

and related cases by STOP Program-funded prosecutors in 2009 and 2010 ...... 104

Table 28a. Disposition of violations of probation and other court orders by STOP

Program-funded courts in 2009 ........................................................................... 106

Table 28b. Disposition of violations of probation and other court orders by STOP

Program-funded courts in 2010 ........................................................................... 106

Table 29. Offender monitoring by STOP Program-funded probation staff in 2009 and

2010, by type and number of contacts ................................................................ 107

Table 30a. Disposition of probation violations for offenders supervised by STOP

Program-funded probation staff in 2009 ............................................................. 108

Table 30b. Disposition of probation violations for offenders supervised by STOP

Program-funded probation staff in 2010 ............................................................. 108

Table 31. Outcomes of offenders in STOP-funded BIP programs in 2009 and 2010 109

Table A1a: Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated,

by category, by state: 2009 .................................................................................. 126

Table A2a. Percentage distribution of STOP Program allocation, by type of

victimization, by sta

te: 2009 ................................................................................ 129

S •T•O•P Program

iv Part B

Table A3a. Amount and percent of victim services funds awarded to culturally

specific community-based organizations (CSCBO) by state, 2009 and 2010 ..... 131

Table B1a. Number of STOP Program awards reported by activities funded, by state:

2009 ..................................................................................................................... 134

Table B2a. Number of STOP Program subgrantees using funds for victim services and

victims seeking/receiving services, by state: 2009 .............................................. 136

Table B3a. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP

Program-funded services, by state: 2009 ............................................................ 138

Table B4a. Number of individuals with disabilities/limited English proficiency/who

are immigrants/living in rural areas receiving STOP Program-funded services, by

state: 2009 ........................................................................................................... 141

Table B5a. Victim's relationship to offender for victims served with STOP Program

funds, by state: 2009 ........................................................................................... 143

Table A1b: Number of STOP Program awards to subgrantees and amounts allocated,

by category, by state: 2010 ................................................................................. 146

Table A2b. Percentage distribution of STOP Program allocation, by type of

victimization, by state: 2010 ............................................................................... 149

Table A3b. Amount and percent of victim services funds awarded to culturally

specific community-based organizations (CSCBO) by state, 2009 and 2010 ...... 151

Table B1b. Number of STOP Program awards reported by activities funded, by state:

2010 ..................................................................................................................... 155

Table B2b. Number of STOP Program subgrantees using funds for victim services and

victims/survivors seeking/receiving services, by state: 2010 ............................. 157

Table B3b. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age of victims/survivors receiving STOP

Program-funded services, by state: 2010 ............................................................ 159

Table B4b. Number of individuals with disabilities/limited English proficiency/who

are immigrants/living in rural areas receiving STOP Program-funded services, by

state: 2010 ........................................................................................................... 162

Table B5b. Victims/survivors’ relationships to offender for victims/survivors served

with STOP Program funds, by state: 2010 ........................................................... 164

2012 Report

Part B v

Acknowledgments

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) gratefully acknowledges the work of

the staff of the Violence Against Women Act Measuring Effectiveness Initiative at

the Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine (Muskie School);

the staff played a central role in the development of this report to Congress.

In addition, we wish to express our appreciation to the STOP (Services • Training •

Officers • Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP

Program) administrators and subgrantees who collected and reported the data on

which this report is based and who worked with the Muskie School to ensure the

accuracy of the data. OVW also thanks the administrators and subgrantees who

provided detailed narrative data about their STOP Program-funded activities and

about the impact of STOP Program funding on their states and communities. This

information has added significant depth and detail to this report, providing specific

examples of the STOP Program’s accomplishments on behalf of women who are

victims/survivors of violence.

Bea Hanson

Acting Director

Office on Violence Against Women

U.S. Department of Justice

2012 Report

Part B 1

Introduction

The STOP (Services • Training • Officers • Prosecutors) Program 2012 Report

submitted in response to the statutory requirement that the U.S. Attorney General

provide a biennial report to Congress on the STOP Program, including how funds

were used and an evaluation of the effectiveness of funded programs. Part B of this

Report is based on data submitted by STOP administrators and STOP subgrantees

reflecting STOP awards made and STOP Program-funded activities engaged in during

calendar years 2009 and 2010.

The section entitled “Background” (page 2) sets out the statutory origins and

outlines of the STOP Program—the Program’s goals, the allocation and distribution

of STOP Program funds, and states’ eligibility, reporting requirements, and reporting

methods.

“STOP Program 2009 and 2010: State-Reported Data and Distribution of

Funds” (page 11) describes the sources of the data and how funds were used during

calendar years 2009 and 2010—what types of agencies and organizations received

funding and the types of activities in which they engaged. “Effectiveness of the STOP

Programs” (page 19) describes key activities carried out with STOP Program funds,

discusses why they are important, and provides examples of specific STOP Program-

funded programs and initiatives engaging in those activities. “STOP Program

Aggregate Accomplishments” (page 87) presents the data reported by subgrantees

in greater detail. Finally, Appendix A and Appendix B present data on the number

and amounts of awards in the mandated allocation categories (i.e., victim services,

law enforcement, prosecution, and courts), culturally-specific awards, allocations by

victimization, and the number and characteristics of victims/survivors served on a

state-by-state basis.

More extensive discussion of the prevalence of violence against women and what

research and practice have shown to be effective strategies for responding to the

violence can be found in the 2012 Biennial Report to Congress on the Effectiveness

of Grant Programs Under the Violence Against Women Act (2012 Biennial Report).

The STOP report previous to this one, called the STOP Program 2010 Report, was based on 2007 STOP

Program data, which is reported annually, and was submitted in response to the biennial reporting

requirement for 2010; this 2012 report is based on 2008, 2009, and 2010 data and is submitted in

response to the biennial reporting requirement for 2012. Part A of this report is based on 2008 data

only. Part B of the report is based on 2009 and 2010 data, which will bring STOP Program reporting into

timely conformance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 2005 requirement for biennial

reporting on the effectiveness of all grant programs, including the STOP Program. Previous STOP

Program reports can be found at http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/ovwrptcongress.htm. The

STOP Program 2014 Report, based on 2011 and 2012 data, will also be timely and in compliance with

those reporting requirements.

During this time period, data have also been collected from grantees that received additional funding

from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This report does not include data from

STOP grantees funded under ARRA. That data will be addressed at the completion of these awards.

Throughout this report, the word “state” is intended to refer to all recipients of STOP awards—i.e.,

the 50 states, the 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.

S •T•O•P Program

2 Part B