National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002

Specifically, the process evaluation was to consist of a review of all grantees in the program through visits to each site. Prior to the evaluation's start, the research team established an advisory board to aid in designing the methodology. This board was composed of six individuals, including a researcher who had done work in the area of violence against women on campuses, a student, a university police chief, a sexual assault services coordinator from a university, and a director of student judicial services. Because of the large number of sites in the program, the research team was limited in the extent to which a thorough process evaluation could be conducted. At the request of NIJ, the research staff made only one trip to each site to collect administrative records data and conduct interviews relating to project activities. There were not enough funds to make subsequent trips to sites to judge their progress over time. Moreover, it was not possible to do follow-up telephone calls thereby maintaining contact with grantees on their implementation efforts. In short, the process evaluation depended on a snapshot view of the campuses at the time of the site visit. Each visit typically lasted two to three days, during which as many as a dozen interviews might take place. Interviewees usually included the project director, on-campus advocate, campus law enforcement, judicial affairs personnel, education coordinator, women's center, community partners, dean of students, representatives from student organizations, and project evaluator. Project directors frequently prepared large packets of information on their institutions and their project activities for the research staff. It was common for interviewees to provide documentation of their role in the project, or summary information on their office/organization. From the interviews, the research team typically collected copies of progress reports sent to VAWO, summary sheets of campus demographics, student handbooks, training manuals for advocates and disciplinary board members, and copies of all orientation materials as well as other educational curriculum materials, newspaper articles relating to the project, relevant police orders, crime statistics, and summary advocacy statistics. Other items collected across the campuses ranged from copies of all advertising materials (mailers, posters, mugs, t-shirts, magnets, buttons) to videos of major project presentations. To facilitate the visits, the research team developed several protocols to allow for structured interviews. The protocols provided for consistent data collection across the campuses. After conducting a visit, the research staff prepared a site report, usually 20 to 25 pages in length, which represented a process evaluation report for a particular grantee/site. These reports were sent to the project directors at the sites for their review. The research staff made appropriate changes to the reports as a result of these reviews and then submitted them to NIJ as a deliverable product from the evaluation. Part 1 data consist of basic information about each grantee's campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2 were collected using a Partnership Survey, which was a supplement to the site visit observations. The purpose of the survey, which was administered to grant project staff, was to document perceptions of project participants about program collaboration. From the 35-item questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items grouped into three categories: those regarding the partnership, the project, and individual participation. Respondents were also invited to provide comments on any survey item. The survey questionnaire was made available for downloading to all project directors through the Institute of Law and Justice's Web site. Copies were also distributed at site visit interviews. Respondents were given the option of mailing or faxing their completed surveys. A total of 247 surveys were received, representing 33 of the 38 campuses.具体而言，本次过程评估拟通过走访所有项目站点，对项目内所有受资助方开展评审工作。 评估启动前，研究团队组建了咨询委员会以协助设计研究方法。该委员会由6名成员组成，分别为一名深耕校园暴力侵害女性行为研究领域的学者、一名学生、一名大学警务主管、一名高校性侵犯服务协调员，以及一名学生司法事务部门主管。 由于本项目涉及的站点数量较多，研究团队开展全面过程评估的能力受到限制。应美国国家司法研究所（National Institute of Justice，NIJ）的要求，研究人员仅对每个站点进行了一次走访，以收集行政记录数据并开展与项目活动相关的访谈。研究团队没有足够经费开展后续回访，以追踪各站点随时间推移的项目进展情况；此外，也无法通过后续电话联络跟进受资助方的项目实施工作。 简言之，本次过程评估仅能获取站点走访当日的校园断面快照式信息。单次走访通常持续2至3天，期间可开展至多12人次的访谈。受访对象通常包括项目负责人、校园维权专员、校园执法人员、司法事务工作人员、教育协调员、妇女中心代表、社区合作伙伴、学生事务主任、学生组织代表以及项目评估员。 项目负责人通常会为研究人员准备大量关于其所在机构及项目活动的资料包。受访对象也常会提供其在项目中所负责工作的证明文件，或是其所在办公室/机构的概况信息。通过访谈，研究团队通常会收集以下材料副本：提交给暴力侵害妇女办公室（Violence Against Women Office，VAWO）的进度报告、校园人口统计概况表、学生手册、针对维权专员及纪律委员会成员的培训手册、所有入职培训材料及其他教育课程材料、与项目相关的报刊报道、相关警务指令、犯罪统计数据以及维权服务概况统计数据。各站点收集的其他材料则涵盖各类宣传物料（宣传传单、海报、马克杯、T恤、冰箱贴、徽章）的副本，以及重大项目展示活动的录像。 为保障走访工作顺利开展，研究团队制定了多项评估规程以开展结构化访谈，确保各站点的数据收集工作保持一致性。走访结束后，研究人员会撰写站点评估报告，通常时长为20至25页，作为对应受资助方/站点的过程评估报告。这些报告将发送至各站点的项目负责人进行审核，研究人员会根据反馈对报告进行相应修改，最终提交给NIJ作为本次评估的交付成果。 第一部分数据包含各受资助方所在校园的基础信息，以及各站点提供的暴力侵害女性防治项目与服务详情。第二部分数据通过合作伙伴调查问卷收集，该问卷作为站点走访观察的补充工具，面向受资助项目的工作人员发放，旨在记录项目参与者对项目合作情况的认知评价。这份35题的问卷采用五点计分量表，要求受访者对分为三类的条目表明同意或不同意的程度，三类条目分别涉及合作关系、项目本身以及个人参与度。同时邀请受访者对任意问卷条目提供补充评论。 研究团队通过法律与司法研究所（Institute of Law and Justice）的网站向所有项目负责人开放问卷下载渠道，同时在站点走访访谈现场发放纸质问卷。受访者可选择通过邮寄或传真的方式提交完成的问卷。本次调查共回收有效问卷247份，覆盖38个校园中的33个。