SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL COVER SHEET EFFECTS OF SECOND RESPONDER PROGRAMS ON REPEAT INCIDENTS OF FAMILY ABUSE

Transcription

1 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL COVER SHEET EFFECTS OF SECOND RESPONDER PROGRAMS ON REPEAT INCIDENTS OF FAMILY ABUSE Robert C. Davis 1 and David Weisburd 2 February 25, RAND Corporation, 1200 S. Hayes St, Arlington, VA 22202, robert_davis@rand.org 2 Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University; University of Maryland, Dept. of Criminology and Criminal Justice, College Park, MD dweisburd@crim.umd.edu

2 Contents 1. Background for the Review.2 2. Objectives of the Review Methods 3.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in review Search strategy for identification of relevant studies Description of methods used in the component studies Criteria for determination of independent findings Details of study coding categories Statistical procedures and conventions Treatment of qualitative research Timeframe.8 5. Plans for Updating the Review 8 6. Statement Concerning Conflicts of Interest References Appendix A: Coding Sheets..11 1

3 1 Background for the Review It is no longer assumed that the initial patrol response to family violence incidents especially those incidents where no arrest is made -- is sufficient in and of itself to protect victims from recurrence of abuse. Experts have come to realize that effective solutions to family violence (including intimate partner abuse, abuse within families or households, and elder abuse) must involve efforts to educate victims about their options and connect them with counseling, relocation, civil legal assistance, and other services that can lessen dependence on the abuser. In recent years a number of programs have been developed in which social workers ( second responders ) visit homes in which family violence incidents were recently reported to the police in order to help them find long-term solutions to recurring abuse (e.g. see Dean, Lumb, Proctor, Klopovic, Hyatt, & Hamby, 2000; Mickish, 2002). While these programs rapidly gained in popularity in the United States, the evidence regarding their effectiveness is mixed. Although some research has indicated that second responder programs can prevent repeat victimization, the most rigorous studies have suggested that these programs may actually increase the odds of abuse recurring. Second responder programs are based on the premises that family violence often recurs and that victims are likely to be especially receptive to crime prevention opportunities immediately following victimization. That is, there is a "window of opportunity" during the first hours or days after a crime during which victims feel vulnerable and are willing to consider seriously behavioral and lifestyle changes (Davis & Smith, 1994; Anderson, Chenery, & Pease, 1995). In second response programs, a team, usually consisting of a police officer and a social worker, follow-up on the initial police response to a family violence complaint. The team provides the victim with information on services and legal options and (in some models) may warn those perpetrators present at the follow-up of the legal consequences of continued abuse. The purpose of working directly with the victims is to reduce the likelihood of a new offense by helping them to understand the cyclical nature of family violence, develop a safety plan, obtain a restraining order, increase their knowledge about legal rights and options, and provide shelter placement or other relocation assistance. A secondary aim of the intervention with victims may be to establish greater independence for victims through counseling, job training, public assistance, or other social service referrals. The purpose of conversations with abusers is to ensure that they understand that assaulting an intimate is criminal and that further abuse will result in (additional) sanctions. Some studies have suggested that second responder programs are effective in reducing subsequent family abuse (Jolin, et al., 1999; Greenspan, et. al, 2003). Both of these studies have interpretation difficulties. The Jolin, et al. study confounded the second response program with enhanced evidence collection by the police that led to a higher rate of filings, convictions, and sentences. In the Greenspan, et al. quasiexperimental design that compared experimental with control precincts, officers in the targeted precincts only summoned second responders in a small proportion of cases. Since we do not know the criteria that officers used in selecting cases for second responses, it is unclear whether the cases selected for the intervention were truly comparable to cases in the control precincts. 2

4 In contrast to the positive findings in these studies, a series of studies carried out in New York (Davis and Taylor, 1997; Davis and Medina, 2001) suggested a possible iatrogenic effect of a second response program. A pooled analysis conducted by Davis, et al (2006) reanalyzed data from three separate field experiments, each testing the same intervention on somewhat different populations. The pooled analyses consistently indicated that the interventions were associated with an increase in reporting of new abusive incidents not only to authorities (which could indicate simply greater confidence in the police), but also to research interviewers. The New York field tests suggested that second response programs might actually increase the likelihood of new abuse. A more recent field test completed in Redlands, CA found no effect of a second response program on new abuse (Davis, et al., 2007). 2 Objectives of the Review The purpose of the review is to compile and synthesize published and unpublished empirical studies of the effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family violence. In the review, we will address the following primary question: Do second responder programs reduce the likelihood of repeat incidents of family abuse? In addition, we will examine other effects of second responder programs, including do they increase the frequency with which family violence victims use services such as counseling, civil legal assistance programs, shelters, and so forth? Do second responder programs increase the confidence of victims in the police and satisfaction with police services? 3 Methods 3.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review The scope of this review is experimental and quasi-experimental with matched or otherwise equivalent comparison groups. We define criteria for inclusion as follows: 1. Studies must be evaluations of a second responder program. By second responder program, we mean a program operated by or in cooperation with a municipal law enforcement agency in which, in response to a family violence complaint, the police summon a family violence specialist or specialists to visit victims at their homes. These specialists may be victim advocates and/or specially trained police officers. The content of the contact may include information about the nature of family violence, safety planning, information about legal rights and services, shelter placement, relocation assistance, and referrals to social services. The interventions must be aimed primarily at reducing the likelihood of a repeat offense. Family violence complaints are defined as those involving intimate partners, family members, or persons cohabiting. We are not including those programs that contact victims only by mail or phone. 2. Studies must include an acceptable comparison group which did not receive a second response. The comparison group must consist of cases meeting the same criteria as treatment group cases (i.e. family violence complaints) and may be 3

5 from the same geographic area (e.g., police precinct) as the treatment group or from another geographic area identified as having similar case and demographic make-up The study must report on at least one measure of repeat family violence and/or abuse derived from police reports or surveys with victims. 4. Studies may come from any country, but a summary must be available in English to determine eligibility. 5. Studies may come from any time period, but we expect that none will be older than1980, when this type of intervention was first reported in the literature in England and the U.S. 3.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies We plan to employ a number of strategies in performing an exhaustive search for literature that meets the eligibility criteria defined above. First, we will perform a key word search as defined below on a variety of online databases. Second, we will review the bibliographies of all second responder studies that we find. Third, we will perform hand searches of leading journals in the field. 4 Third, we will search the DoJ Office of Violence Against Women website for a listing of federally-funded second responder programs and any evaluations conducted on those programs. Fourth, we will write to the second responder program contacts listed by VAWA to inquire if there had been any evaluations published or unpublished conducted on their program. We anticipate that this step will uncover studies that have never been published. Fifth, after finishing the above searches and reviewing the studies as described later, we will the list to key scholars knowledgeable about the criminal justice response to family violence. These scholars will be defined as those who received two or more NIJ awards on the response of the criminal justice system to family violence victims in the past ten years. Finally, we will consult with information specialists at the Rutgers University Criminal Justice Collection and Cambridge University Library throughout the review to adjust search strategies based on information gained to that point. We plan to search the following databases: 1. Criminal Justice Periodical Index 2. Criminal Justice Abstracts 3. National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) Abstracts 4. Sociological Abstracts 3 By similar case make-up, we mean that the distribution of types of offenses (eg., assault, harassment, violation of restraining order, etc. must be comparable between the intervention and control areas. By similar demographic make-up, we mean that the distribution of basic demographics available on police reports (victim and abuser age, gender, and race) and from census data (indicators of concentrated disadvantage) must be comparable between the intervention and control sites. 4 These journals will include: Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Violence and Victims, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, British Journal of Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, and Journal of Family Violence, Violence Against Women, Aggression and Violent Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. 4

6 5. Social Science Abstracts (SocialSciAbs) 6. Social Science Citation Index 7. Dissertation Abstracts 8. National Institute of Justice 9. British Home Office 10. Australian Criminology Database (CINCH) 11. Government Publications Office, Monthly Catalog (GPO Monthly) 12. C2 SPECTR (The Campbell Collaboration Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register) 13. PsychInfo 14. Google 15. Google Scholar 16. Academic Search Premier 17. Web of Knowledge The following keywords will be used to search the databases listed above (in all cases where police is listed we would also use policing): 1. Second responder program 2. Coordinated community response 3. Police OR law enforcement AND repeat domestic violence OR repeat family violence 4. Police OR law enforcement AND crisis intervention OR domestic violence OR family violence 5. Police OR law enforcement AND domestic violence advocates 6. Police OR law enforcement AND battered wom*n 7. Police OR law enforcement AND intervention 8. Police OR law enforcement AND response team 9. Police OR law enforcement AND home visitation 10. Police OR law enforcement AND social services Several strategies will be used to obtain full-text versions of the studies found through searches of the various abstract databases listed above. First, we will attempt to obtain full-text on-line versions through the University of Maryland or Rutgers NCCD Collection library research ports. When electronic versions are not available, we will use print versions of journals available at one of the libraries or through inter-library loans. If the text of an article cannot be obtained through library sources, we will contact the author(s) of the article and/or the agency that funded the research to try to get a copy of the full-text version of the study. 3.3 Description of methods used in the component studies The studies included in this review will contain methodologies which test for differences between treatment and comparison groups once or several times after administration of the treatment. The unit of analysis will be households within specified 5

7 geographical areas that report family violence incidents to the police. At least five studies have used random assignment of households to treatments. We expect to find others that compare treatment groups to households that did not receive a second response where the method of assignment to treatments is not well specified. Included studies must include at least one measure of new abuse following the intervention. These measures can include police reports or arrests of new offenses committed by the perpetrator either against the same victim or against any victim. Information about new offenses is typically obtained from police, prosecutor, and/or court files. Information about new offenses may also be derived from surveys of victims. Reports of new abuse made to the police are somewhat ambiguous as an outcome measure: An increase in reports may indicate an increase in abuse or may mean no change in abuse, but greater confidence in the police as a result of the second responder intervention. Therefore, studies that include reports of new abuse obtained from victim surveys will be especially valuable since this is a less ambiguous measure of new abuse. Other non-primary outcomes such as awareness or use of services for family violence victims, satisfaction with the police response, and/or willingness to report future family violence incidents may be included in victim surveys and reported in the studies. These measures will not be incorporated in separate meta-analyses from the primary analysis of repeat incidents of family abuse. 3.4 Criteria for determination of independent findings We know that some studies will include multiple primary outcomes. Most studies will have both measures based on criminal justice files and victim surveys. Based on our knowledge of extant studies, we anticipate that the intervention effect size, and even direction, will differ for the two types of measures. Therefore, we plan to analyze reoffending based on official data and re-offending based on victim surveys separately. We also will encounter studies that have measured re-offending at different time periods post-intervention. To avoid problems regarding statistical dependence of outcomes, we will calculate for such studies a single effect size averaging the maximum, moderate/median effect size and minimum effect sizes from measures taken at different time periods. 3.5 Details of study coding categories All eligible studies will be coded (see coding protocol attached in Appendix A) on a variety of criteria (including details related to them) including: a. Reference information (title, authors, publication etc.) b. Nature of description of selection of site, problems etc. c. Nature and selection of treatment group d. Nature and description of selection of comparison group e. Sample size f. Methodological type (randomized experiment or quasi-experiment) g. A description of the second response intervention h. Coverage (number of households targeted that actually received a home visit; alternative intervention for subjects not seen in person) 6

8 i. Source of outcome measures (official records; victim surveys) j. Statistical test(s) used k. Reports of statistical significance (if any) l. Effect size/power (if any) m. Conclusions drawn by the authors Rob Davis (one of the authors of this review) and a research assistant will independently code each eligible study. Where there are discrepancies, Dr. Weisburd will review the study and consult with Mr. Davis regarding the final coding decision. 3.6 Statistical procedures and conventions Meta-analytic procedures will be used to combine data from studies. For eligible studies, with enough data present, effect sizes will be calculated using the standardized measures of effect sizes as suggested in the meta-analytic literature (e.g. see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). Mean effect sizes will be computed across studies and we will use a correction such as the inverse variance weight for computing the associated standard error. Though we will examine the Q statistic and the I Square statistic to assess heterogeneity of effect sizes across studies, we assume at the outset that effect size is a fixed factor in our analysis. Our assumption develops from the fact that the studies examined are looking at relatively homogeneous treatments. Nonetheless, if we find that studies vary more widely in treatment than our initial assumption and the Q statistic or I Square statistic warrants an assumption of heterogeneity we would use random effects models in our analyses. As studies included in our review often use multiple measures of effect size it is difficult to report an overall effect size for the studies included. For example, most studies report both official recidivism and outcomes from self report interviews. We think it important to assess each of these factors independently since they reflect independent constructs. A more difficult problem will emerge if we have multiple measures within a single domain (e.g. multiple follow up periods) or multiple measures of a single domain (e.g. self reports on different levels of violence). While we would try to report effect sizes for specific measurement during specific intervals, we recognize that some collapsing of categories would occur for parsimony. We would describe carefully such approaches and try to describe any variability within comparisons. We also hope to examine contextual or moderating features of second responder programs. We think it important to assess the differential effects of second response programs across different types of victim populations (e.g., intimate partner abuse, family abuse, elder abuse), types of incidents(e.g., all reported incidents of abuse versus only cases that result in an arrest), and study quality (comparability of treatment and control groups, proportion of targeted households where contact was actually made, length of interaction with victim, lack of confounding second responder intervention with other interventions, etc.). To assess this we will use the analog to the ANOVA method of moderator analysis (see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001) for categorical moderator variables and meta-analytic regression analysis for continuous moderator variables or analyses 7

9 involving multiple moderators. At the same time, we recognize that such analyses will be dependent on the number of studies that are available for inclusion in the meta-analysis. If we have a sufficient number of studies, we will conduct separate analyses on studies using experimental designs and those using quasi-experimental designs; on outcomes based on official measures of cases involving the same victim vs. any victim; and on outcomes based on official measures vs.outcomes based on victim survey measures. Finally, publication bias is a concern in every meta analysis. As such, we will use traditional methods to test for the sensitivity of the findings to publication bias in the experimental and quasi-experimental studies. These methods will include a comparison of the mean effect size for published and unpublished studies and a trim-and-fill analysis. 3.7 Treatment of qualitative research Qualitative studies will not be included in the current review. 4. Timeframe The review process will adhere to the following schedule: Search for published and unpublished studies November 2006 Relevance assessments December 2006 Coding of eligible studies January 2007 Statistical analysis February-March 2007 Preparation of report April-May 2007 Submission of completed report June Plans for Updating the Review The authors expect to update the review every five years. 6. Statement Concerning Conflicts of Interest Rob Davis has conducted four evaluations of second responder programs, three in New York City and one in Redlands, CA. He has published two papers based on his research in Criminology and Journal of Experimental Criminology. The former paper concludes that second response program had no effect on repeat abuse, but increased victims confidence in the police and their willingness to report future family violence incidents. The latter paper suggests that second response programs are not effective in reducing repeat incidents of family abuse and may actually increase the likelihood of continued abuse. Professor Weisburd has been co-principal investigator in two evaluations of second response programs through the Police Foundation. One study conducted in Richmond, 8

10 VA concluded that the second response program reduced repeat abuse while the latter concluded that the program had no effect on repeat abuse. The reviewers do not have any specific career investment or personal or professional bias in outcomes that would lead either to support of the program or opposition to it. Moreover, the authors will include the raw data for the study as an Appendix to the final report so that other scholars can assess coding and replicate analyses. 9

11 7. References Anderson, D., Chenery, S. & Pease, K. (1995). Biting back, tackling repeat burglary and car crime (Crime Detection & Prevention Series Paper 58). London: Home Office. Davis, R.C. & Medina, J. (2001). Results from an elder abuse prevention experiment In New York City. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Davis, R.C. & Smith, B. (1994). Teaching victims crime prevention skills: Can individuals lower their risk of crime? Criminal Justice Review, 19, Davis, R.C., Weisburd, D., & Hamilton, E.E. (2001). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A randomized field test of a second responder program in Redlands, CA. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Davis, R.C. & Taylor, B. (1997). Evaluating a proactive police response to domestic violence: The results of a randomized experiment. Criminology, 35, Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C. & Taylor, B. (2006). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: Analysis of data from three field experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, Dean, C. W., Lumb, R., Proctor, K., Klopovic, J., Hyatt, A. & Hamby, R. (2000). Social Work and Police Partnership: A Summons to the Village Strategies and Effective Practices. (A Report of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Governor s Crime Commission. Greenspan, R., Weisburd, D., Lane, E., Ready, J., Crossen-Powell, S., & Booth, W.C. (2003). The Richmond/Police Foundation domestic violence partnership. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1999). Beyond arrest: The Portland, Oregon domestic violence experiment final report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Mickish, J. E. (2002). Domestic Violence. pp in B. D. Byers & J. E. Hendricks (Eds.), Crisis Intervention in Criminal Justice/Social Services, Third Edition. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas 10

12 Appendix A: SECOND RESPONDER META ANALYSIS CODING SHEETS I. ELIGIBILITY CHECK SHEET 1. Document ID: 2. First author last name: 3. Study Title: 4. Journal Name, Volume and Issue: 5. Document ID: 6. Coder s Initials 7. Date eligibility determined: 8. A study must meet the following criteria in order to be eligible. Answer each question with a yes or a no a. Study is an evaluation of a second responder program, that is a program operated by or in cooperation with a municipal law enforcement agency that attempts to visit the homes of victims following the initial police response to a family violence incident. b. Study includes a comparison group which did not receive a second response. c. The study reports on at least one measure of repeat family violence crimes and/or abuse derived from police reports or surveys with victims.. d. The study is written in English. If the study does not meet the criteria above, answer the following question: a. The study is a review article that is relevant to this project (e.g. may have references to other studies that are useful, may have pertinent background information) 9. Eligibility status: Eligible Not eligible Relevant review 11

13 Notes: II. CODING PROTOCAL Reference Information 1. Document ID: 2. Study author(s): 3. Study title: 4a. Publication type: 1. Book 2. Book chapter 3. Journal article (peer reviewed) 4. Thesis or doctoral dissertation 5. Government report (state/local) 6. Government report (federal) 7. Police department report 8. Technical report 9. Conference paper 10. Other (specify) 4b. Specify (Other) 5. Publication date (year): 6a. Journal Name: 6b. Journal Volume: 6c. Journal Issue: 7. Date range of research (when research was conducted): Start: Finish: 8. Source of funding for study: 9. Country of publication: 12

14 10. Date coded: 11. Coder s Initials: Describing the Sample 12. What types of incidents were eligible? (Select all that apply) 1. Intimate partner cases 2. Family abuse cases 3. Elder abuse cases 4. Other (specify) 12b. Specify (Other) 13. What kinds of criminal charges were eligible? (Select all that apply) 1. Assault 2. Harassment 3. Menacing 4. Violation of restraining order 5. Other (specify) 13b. Specify (Other) 14. What type police responses were eligible? 1. Cases in which an arrest was made 2. Cases in which crime complaints were filed 3. Any report, founded or unfounded 4. Other (specify) 14b. Specify (Other) 15. Other than the factors described in 12-14, describe any restrictions on selecting cases for the sample: Is there reason to think that the sample is not representative of all DV complaints within the jurisdiction studied? 13

15 16. Characteristics of victims in the sample (enter N/I for not included) a. Average age b. Gender 1. Percent female % 2. Percent male % c. Education 1. High school grad % 2. Did not graduate high school % d. Currently employed 1. Employed full time % 2. Employed part-time % 3. Not employed % e. Residence type 1. Own home % 2. Rent % 3. Public housing % 17. Characteristics of perpetrators in the sample (enter N/I for not included) a. Average age b. Gender 1. Percent female % 2. Percent male % c. Education 1. High school grad % 2. Did not graduate high school % d. Currently employed 1. Employed full time % 2. Employed part-time % 3. Not employed % e. Residence type 1. Own home % 2. Rent % 3. Public housing % Describing the Response 18. What did home visits consist of? (Select all that apply) 1. Assess victim s current situation and history of abuse in relationship 2. Develop safety plan with victim 3. Discuss nature of abuse 4. Assess victim needs 5. Provide information and referrals to service programs 14

16 6. Interact with abuser 7. Other 18b. Specify (Other) 19. Who was involved in the implementation of the response? (Select all that apply) 1. Domestic/family violence police officer 2. Police victim caseworker 3. Prosecutor victim caseworker 4. Independent victim advocate 5. Other (specify) 19b. Specify (Other) 20. How long after the incident was reported was the second response attempted? 1. Within 24 hours 2. Within several days of incident 3. More than several days after incident 4. Other (specify) 20b. Specify (Other) 21. Is information provided on the average length of visits? 1. No 2. Yes Average length: 22. Was the visit unannounced, or was there an attempt made to call the victim first? 1. Visits were typically unannounced 2. Phone contact attempted prior to visit 3. Other (specify) 23. Is information available on how often perpetrators were present during visit? 1. No 2. Yes % of cases: 23b. Specify (Other) 24. Did the second response program exist prior to the evaluation, or was program implemented in conjunction with the evaluation? 1. Program implemented in conjunction with evaluation 2. Program existed prior to evaluation For how long? 25. Does study indicate that author(s) had a relationship with the program prior to the evaluation? 1. No indication of prior relationship 15

17 2. Paper indicates prior relationship (describe: ) Implementation of Response 26. In what proportion of targeted households did the second responders establish faceto-face contact with the victim? % 27. If face-to-face contact could not be established, what did the intervention consist of (e.g., literature or letter left; phone call): Location of the intervention 28. Country where study was conducted: 29. City (and state/province, if applicable) where study was conducted: The following questions refer to the area receiving treatment: 30. Geographic area receiving treatment: 1. Micro place (street segments/blocks)/ public housing development 2. Neighborhood/police beat 3. Police district/precinct 4. Entire city 5. Other (specify) 30b. Specify (Other) 31. What is the exact geographic area receiving treatment? The following refer to the area not receiving treatment (applicable if there is a separate control group in the study) 32. Was comparison group drawn from different geographic area than treatment group? 1. No ==> Skip to Q Yes 16

18 33a. Geographic area NOT receiving treatment: 1. Micro place (street segments/blocks)/public housing development 2. Neighborhood/police beat 3. Police district/precinct 4. Entire city 5. Other (specify) 6. N/A (no control area) 33b. Specify (Other) 34. What is the exact geographic area not receiving treatment? Confounding interventions 35. Was the second response treatment confounded with any other interventions (e.g., enhanced evidence collection or prosecution)? Describe: Methodology/Research design: 36. Type of study: 1. Randomized experiment ==> 36a. How were cases randomized? 36b. What was the rate and cause of experimental misassignments? 36c. Were misassignments analyzed as assigned or as treated? 1. Analyzed as assigned 2. Analyzed as treated 2. Nonequivalent control group (quasi-experimental) ==> 30d. How were control cases selected? 1. Matched cases (method of matching: ) 2. According to objective case criteria (specify: ) 17

19 3. Based on possibly unbiased variable (e.g., time of day, precinct) 4. Selected by staff conducting intervention using subjective criteria 5. Treatment refusers or drop-outs 6. Other (Specify: ) 37. If more than one treatment or comparison group used, describe nature of each: Treatment groups Comparison groups 38. Were efforts made to determine similarity in case, victim, and/or perpetrator criteria between treatment and comparison groups? 1. No 2. Yes 31a. What were the results? 39. Did researchers believe any baseline differences biased study results? If so, in what direction? Outcomes reported 40. Which outcome measures are reported in the study? Same victim as Any original incident victim 1. New family violence incident reports to the police 2. New family violence arrests 3. New arrests for any offense 4. New abuse (from victim survey) 4. Satisfaction with police response (from victim survey) 5. Willingness to report future incidents (from victim survey) 4. Awareness/use of victim services (from victim survey) 40b. Specify (other) 18

20 NOTE: COMPLETE ITEMS FOR EACH OUTCOME MEASURE REPORTED (AND FOR EACH SET OF CONTROL-TREATMENT COMPARISONS, IF MORE THAN ONE CONTROL OR TREATMENT GROUP) 41. If victim surveys were used, what was response rate? % 42. Did the researcher assess the quality of the data collected? 1. Yes 2. No 43. Did the researcher(s) express any concerns over the quality of the data? 1. Yes 2. No 43b. If yes, explain 19

21 Effect size/reports of statistical significance Dependent Measure Descriptors Sample size 44. What is the total sample size in the analysis? 45. What is the total sample size of the treatment group (group that receives the response)? 46. What is the total sample size of the control group? 47. Did the analysis include all cases assigned to treatment or only those with whom face-to-face contact was established by the home visit team? 1. All cases assigned to treatment 2. Only cases where victim was home at time of visit Effect Size Data 48. Raw difference favors (i.e. shows more success for): 1. Treatment group 2. Control group 3. Neither (exactly equal) 9. Cannot tell (or statistically insignificant report only) 49. Did a test of statistical significance indicate statistically significant differences between the control and treatment groups? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can t tell 4. N/A (no testing completed) 50. Was a standardized effect size reported? 1. Yes 2. No 51. If yes, what was the effect size? 52. If yes, page number where effect size data is found 53. If no, is there data available to calculate an effect size? 1. Yes 2. No 20

22 54. Type of data effect size can be calculated from: 1. Means and standard deviations 2. t-value or F-value 3. Chi-square (df=1) 4. Frequencies or proportions (dichotomous) 5. Frequencies or proportions (polychotomous) 6. Other (specify) 54b. Specify (other) Means and Standard Deviations 55a. Treatment group mean. 55b. Control group mean. 56a. Treatment group standard deviation. 56b. Control group standard deviation. Proportions or frequencies 57a. n of treatment group with a successful outcome. 57b. n of control group with a successful outcome. 58a. Proportion of treatment group with a successful outcome. 58b. Proportion of control group with a successful outcome. Significance Tests 59a. t-value 59b. F-value 59c. Chi-square value (df=1) Calculated Effect Size 60. Effect size Conclusions made by the author(s) 61. Conclusion about the impact of the intervention? 1. The authors conclude abuse declined 2. The authors conclude abuse did not decline 21

23 3. Unclear/no conclusion stated by authors 62. Did the author(s) conclude that the second responder intervention was beneficial? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can t tell 63. Did the author(s) conclude there a relationship between the treatment and a reduction in abuse? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Can t tell 64. Additional notes about conclusions: 22