Process and outcome evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center

Full text

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the
Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
Prepared by
Lisa Growette Bostaph
Associate Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator
Principal Investigator
Department of Criminal Justice
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725-1955
208-426-3886
lisabostaph@boisestate.edu
Andrew Giacomazzi
Professor and Chair
Co-Principal Investigator
Department of Criminal Justice
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725-1955
208-426-4162
agiacom@boisestate.edu
Cynthia Sanders
Associate Professor and BSW Program Coordinator
Co-Principal Investigator
School of Social Work
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725-1940
208-426-1780
cynthiasanders@boisestate.edu
October 2011
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Boise State University students
Nikki Bodenstab, Patrick Brady, Bethany Brown, Suzann Kline, and Martie Mitchell.

1
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the
Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nampa Family Justice Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Client Demographic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nampa Family Justice Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Collaboration Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Methodology: Interviews with Agency Partners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Nampa Family Justice Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Client Survey and Focus Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Nampa Family Justice Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Criminal Justice System Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Nampa Family Justice Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Conclusions/Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Appendix A: Client Focus Group Question Guide... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Key Stakeholder Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Appendix C: Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

2
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the
Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Specific Services Requested During Intake (NFJC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Table 2: Specific Services Requested During Intake (DVSAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 3: Women’s Characteristics . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 4: Service/Resource Needs and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the
Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
Introduction
1
In April of 2007, the Nampa Family Justice Center (NFJC) contracted with
researchers at Boise State University to conduct a process and outcome evaluation
which included a population study. During 2007, the research team collected data on
clients using the services of the NFJC and conducted interviews with directors and line
staff of partnering agencies. Results of those analyses were detailed in two reports
produced for the Nampa Family Justice Center. In order to measure ongoing changes
within the NFJC and the criminal justice system, NFJC and its stakeholders
incorporated periodic outcome and process evaluations in their strategic planning.
Due to the President’s Initiative (Abt Associates, 2005), the co-location of
domestic violence services has become quite popular. According to the National Family
Justice Center Alliance’s website, 76 FJCs currently operate in the United States with
another 10 existing internationally (NFJCA, 2009). However, little research has been
conducted examining the relative costs and benefits of the co-location approach
compared to the traditional coordinated community response model. Towards this end,
the research team approached both the Nampa Family Justice Center and the Domestic
Violence Intervention Program in Idaho Falls about doing a comprehensive evaluation
of two community-based approaches to combatting domestic violence with the Idaho
Falls program being the representative for the latter approach. In the fall of 2010, the
College of Social Science & Public Affairs released an open solicitation for research
1
Portions of this report are taken from earlier NFJC evaluations, Giacomazzi, Hannah, and Bostaph (2008) and
Bostaph, Giacomazzi, and Hannah (2008).

4
projects. Both sites agreed to participate, the proposal was submitted, and ultimately
funded.
The evaluation model developed for the Nampa Family Justice Center was used
in the current study. This model offers a comprehensive examination of the both
processes and outcomes (both offender and victim). One change was made to the
model with the addition of client focus groups at each site. Due to the low number of exit
surveys included in the sample case files and the non-existence of exit surveys at the
traditional CCR site, the client focus groups served as an alternative measure of client
satisfaction. The research team has determined that this model provides the best
avenue through which examination of the following goals can be met:
(1) the extent of collaboration among agency partners in each approach;
(2) the extent to which the services provided by both approaches can be
considered comprehensive;
(3) efforts to increase victim access to services;
(4) the extent of formal coordination of victim services; and
(5) efforts to increase offender accountability through criminal justice system
intervention (Giacomazzi, Hannah, & Bostaph, 2008).
After a description of both sites, the report is divided into chapters focused on
each aspect of the evaluation with specific methodologies and results discussed for
both sites. A conclusion offering broad conclusions and recommendations is provided at
the end of the report.
Nampa Family Justice Center
In 2002, the Nampa Police Department recorded 354 incidents of domestic
violence and 154 incidents of child abuse. During 2002, the local shelter reported
serving 198 adults and 327 children, including assisting victims in obtaining 405 orders
for protection. In a state where 50 percent of the homicides in 2002 were domestic

5
violence-related, the issue of violence against women was seen as paramount
(Bostaph, Giacomazzi, & Hannah, 2008). In 2004, the City of Nampa, along with a local
domestic violence shelter and legal aid organization, submitted a grant application
under the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative. According to the grant application,
the following areas were to be addressed by the Nampa Family Justice Center:
(1) expand current projects involving police, prosecutors, and non-profit victim
advocacy groups regarding the investigation and prosecution of domestic
violence;
(2) “centralize and coordinate” criminal justice system response to domestic
violence;
(3) increase communication between criminal justice and family agencies through
coordination of multiple computer tracking systems;
(4) offer treatment, counseling, and other assistive services to domestic violence,
dating violence, and child abuse victims; and
(6) establish and/or expand legal assistance for domestic and dating violence,
stalking, and sexual violence victims (NFJC Grant Application 2004:1).
At the time of the grant application, the partnerships had already been
established, a building had already been purchased (due to a Community Development
Block Grant from the city), and funding had been secured for remodeling to fit the needs
of a justice center. Funds were requested from the President’s Family Justice Center
Initiative to support “communication infrastructure, furnishings, data integration between
the partners” and appropriate development of the project (NFJC Grant Application
2004:3). In 2006, the NFJC was awarded a President’s Family Justice Center Initiative
grant part of which was used to fund the director’s and intake person’s salaries. A part-
time volunteer coordinator was also hired using monies from a state grant.
The full-time on-site partners include the Nampa Police Department (five
detectives and a victim/witness coordinator), Nampa City Prosecutor (and victim witness
coordinator), Health & Welfare workers (for child protection services), legal aid

6
employees, shelter staff, and representatives from the local migrant council. Part-time
on-site partners include Easter Seals/Goodwill, Catholic Charities Immigration Services,
county prosecutor’s office, non-denominational clergy, a forensic interviewer for child
abuse, self-reliance workers (Health & Welfare food stamp program), and assistance
with orders for protection. Partnerships also exist with two of the local medical
centers/hospitals for CARES and SART examinations (NFJC Director, personal
communication). Representatives from many of these partner agencies also comprise
the Board of Directors, in addition to survivor and community representation.
Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Center
The DVSAC originally began as a sole domestic violence program in 1978,
named the Domestic Violence Intervention Center (DVSAC). In 2006, the Domestic
Violence Intervention Center and the Rape Crisis Center of Eastern Idaho merged to
form the current Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center (Idaho Falls Chamber of
Commerce, n.d.). The DVSAC is a non-profit organization which serves both victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violent crimes, as well as domestic
violence offenders through its state approved, 52-week batterer treatment program.
Multiple services (all free of charge) are offered through the Center, such as a 24-hour
crisis line, emergency shelter, criminal and civil court advocacy, assistance with both
civil protection orders and crime victim compensation claims, educational classes, and
individual counseling. As with many domestic violence programs, they offer survivor
support groups. However, the DVSAC also offers a support group specifically for
survivors who are remaining in the relationship with their abuser, a group that often falls

7
through the cracks in terms of survivor services (Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Center website, 2011).
The DVSAC’s goals and activities are developed and implemented through the
following mission statement:
To help society overcome the stigma associated with domestic violence
and sexual assault. To educate, rehabilitate and support victims of all
violent crimes and to prevent such crimes as being recognized as a
general part of society but rather a crime that can be prevented by a
society that takes a stand against such crimes by demanding stricter
sentences for offenders, more public education/resources as well as more
services available to the youth affected by these crimes. Together as a
community we can change the way violent crimes are viewed and
tolerated (DVSAC website, 2011).
Towards this end, the DVSAC works with other community-based and criminal justice
system agencies to provide a more victim-centered approach through a coordinated
community response model.
The next section will begin the four-part evaluation study of these two sites,
beginning with demographic and service analyses of NFJC and DVSAC.

8
Client Demographic Analysis
Nampa Family Justice Center
In the initial 2008 evaluation of the NFJC, we created a baseline population of
clients during the two-month time period of October and November 2006. For the 2011
evaluation, we followed the same procedure and pulled intake forms for all clients
during the April-May 2008 time period. A total of 70 clients completed an initial intake
and an aggregate description of them is provided below. It is these cases that were also
used in the outcome portion of the evaluation and tracked through the criminal justice
system. Those results are discussed in chapter 4 of this report.
Overall Population
The average age was 32 years, although the mean was skewed by the overall
distribution of ages which tracked younger (73% of clients were between 18 and 37
years of age). This was relatively unchanged from 2008. There was a wide range of
ages among clients, from 18 to 67 years. Compared to 2008, the proportion of female
clients increased slightly. Of those reporting their gender, 93% were female (up from
89.7%, n=104) and 7% were male. During this evaluation cycle, we were able to identify
52% of the offenders through other data sources (police and prosecution records).
Continuing the gendered nature of domestic violence and remaining the static from
2008, 93% of clients’ offenders were male. Over half of the clients were separated or
divorced (54%, n=35) and 35% (n=24) were married, leaving very few single clients
(n=6). This was a shift from 2008 where single was the second most frequently reported
marital status (32%, n=37) and only two percent was the difference between married
(29%, n=33) and separated/divorced (combined 31%, n=36).

9
Household Characteristics
Overall, 69% (n=48) of clients had at least one child, slightly more than 2008
(63.8%, n=74). Of those with children, 38% (n=18) reported having two children which
was also the average, although the number of children in the household ranged from
one to five. Four percent (n=3) of clients reported being pregnant at the time of intake
which was less than 2008 (7.8%, n=9). As would be expected and consistent with 2008,
the vast majority of clients were residents of Nampa (83%, n=57) with the remaining
clients residing outside of Canyon County (10%, n=7), Caldwell (4%, n=3), and in other
areas of Canyon County (3%, n=2).
Reported household size ranged from one to six with an average of three
individuals living in clients’ homes. However, there was a sizable proportion of clients
who did not answer this question (40%, n=28). A better response rate was present for
information on client income level (74%, n=52). There was a wide range of reported
incomes, from $12,100 to $53,500. While the average reported income was $22,376,
the most frequent answer was $12,100. The difference lies in the wide distribution with
a few high incomes elevating the average higher than would be expected. Even with a
better response rate than 2008 (74% vs. 55%), the income findings remain relatively
consistent. Using the current federal designation for poverty based on household size,
47% (n=16 of 34) of clients reporting both household size and income information lived
at or below the poverty line.
None of the clients reported a military affiliation.

10
Race and Ethnicity
Approximately 86% (n=60) of clients provided information on their ethnicity with
18% (n=11) self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic
2
. This is a significant decrease from
2008 (36%, n=42) but is more consistent with recent census data. This is in line with
U.S. Census data which shows the Hispanic population in Nampa at 18% in 2000 and
23% in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Requested interpreter services decreased
from 2008 (n=8) with only one client requesting this service in 2011.
Of the 58 clients who reported their race (83%), 53 clients, or 91%, identified as
White. The remaining clients identified as Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, or
Other.
Disabilities
Only 9% of clients (n=6) self-identified as having a disability. However, what is
interesting about self-identification is that it does not always capture everyone in a given
group. Six clients reported having a hearing impairment, but only three self-identified as
having a disability. Similarly, one individual reported a mental disability but did not self-
identify in the disability group. There is, as well, some overlap across disabilities as two
clients reported having more than one disability. This is unchanged from 2008 (n=5).
Services Utilized
The services utilized by the baseline client population are found on Table 1 (see
Appendix C).
The most requested service during the study period was the Nampa Prosecuting
Attorney or Victim Witness Coordinator (34%, n=24) which may be a reflection of the
2
Bostaph (2010) reported the Latino client population at NFJC during this same time period at 90 percent. During
this analysis, a coding error was discovered in the 2010 report, thus producing the difference in percentages.

11
increased prosecutorial involvement in the NFJC (see outcomes chapter). The lower
proportion of clients requesting services of law enforcement may also be the result of
increased reporting to police so that at least half have already had contact with law
enforcement prior to intake at NFJC (see outcomes chapter). Fewer clients also
requested to meet with the Canyon County Prosecutor or Victim Witness Coordinator,
however this, too, is probably due to the lower number of felony intakes during the study
period. Compared to 2008, the top four most requested services remained the same
with some changes in rankings. Some agencies had no requests for services during the
study period: clergy, military liaison, substance abuse treatment, and Casey Family
Programs.
Discussion of NFJC Client Population
Overall, there was little change from 2008 to 2011 in the demographics and
services requested by clients coming to the NFJC. Since the population of cases was
smaller for the 2011 time period compared to 2008, changes in raw numbers were
minimal. However, due to that smaller population, concentrations among specific
characteristics increased. The 2011 client population was more female, separated or
divorced, and non-Hispanic than the 2008 population. More evaluations will be needed
in order to discern a pattern in any of the demographic variables. At this point, both
2008 and 2011 data can be seen as only snapshots in time rather than trends. Towards
that end, it may be helpful to include the client population analysis in the bi-annual
evaluation with system outcomes rather than the every five years for the full evaluation.

12
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center
As with the initial 2008 evaluation of the NFJC, for this study we created a
baseline population of clients for DVSAC during the two-month time period of April-May
2008. A total of 75 clients completed an initial intake and an aggregate description of
them is provided below. There were some differences in type of data collected between
the two sites, thus there are differences in the analyses reported in this section. It is
these cases that were also used in the outcome portion of the evaluation and tracked
through the criminal justice system. Those results are discussed in chapter 4 of this
report.
Overall Population
Data on client age could not be analyzed due to the high proportion of missing
cases on this factor. The overwhelming majority of intakes did not provide client age
(87%, n=65). Of those reporting their gender, 92% (n=69) were female and 8% (n=6)
were male. Unlike the NFJC, the DVSAC collects data on victims’ offenders. This made
the process of tracking offenders (see outcomes chapter) much easier and allowed for
some additional analyses. As has been demonstrated across much of domestic
violence research, 91% (n=68) of intakes were comprised of female victims with male
offenders. Forty-four percent (n=30) of the clients were currently married or cohabitating
with the offender, while 7% (n=5) were currently dating the offender. Former
spouses/cohabitants and boyfriends/girlfriends comprised 30% (n=21) of the client
population during the study period. This left 11% (n=7) in a relative, sibling, or
parent/guardian relationship with the offender.

13
Household Characteristics
No data was available on household size or income. However, 65% (n=49) of
clients reported having children with a range from 1 to 5 children. If clients with only
adult children (defined as 18 years of age and older) are removed, 59% (n=44) had
children under the age of 18.
The DVSAC collects two forms of household data not available in the NFJC
analysis: education and employment. Most of the clients reported having some high
school education (61%, n=43) with the next highest category reporting high school
graduation (28%, n=20). The smallest proportions appeared at both ends of the
distribution as 3% (n=2) had only an elementary school education and 9% (n=6)
reported a college degree. While the NFJC collects income data, DVSAC collects
employment data. The analysis resulted in the highest frequencies being reported at
both ends of the spectrum: 49% (n=36) of clients were unemployed and 27% (n=20)
were employed on a full-time basis. The remaining clients were divided among those
employed on a part-time basis (15%, n=11), other (3%, n=2), and employed, SSI
income, retired, and dual income all with one client each (1%).
Race and Ethnicity
Race and ethnicity data were not available from the client intake records.
Disabilities
Disability data was not available from the client intake records.
Services Utilized
The services utilized by the baseline client population are found on Table 2 (See
Appendix C.)

14
During the two month study period, safety planning (16%, n=12) was the most
requested service during intake. However, the DVSAC also records whether a safety
plan was completed (as opposed to only requested) with 5 of the 12 clients completing
a plan (42%). For each of these services, large proportions of cases were missing
information (83%-98%). It may be that missing information indicates no request (which
would be our default understanding), but there was one additional variable that may
help to explain the missing data. Under a more general factor of Seeking Services, 32%
(n=24) requested financial assistance. There was no individual place in the intake to
make this request (it was an open ended question), but in comparison to the services in
Table 2, it was the most requested service or assistance. However, even in this open
ended question, 49% (n=37) of intakes were missing data. There were no requests for
counseling services during April-May 2008.
In addition, the DVSAC tracks who is referring clients to their program. By far, the
most frequent referral source is law enforcement (36%, n=24) followed by a family friend
(20%, n=13). Other mentioned sources of referrals were lawyers, probation, mental
health professionals, and self-referrals.
Victimization Characteristics
The DVSAC collects additional information on victimization characteristics not
found in NFJC intakes. Clients were asked if they had experienced a prior abusive
incident with the offender. The majority of clients (77%, n=50) had been previously
victimized by the offender. Almost one-third (n=14) of these clients reported being
victimized on a weekly basis by the offender with 27% (n=12) reporting 2-3 prior
incidents and 13% (n=6) reporting abusive incidents every six months. The remaining

15
clients who had been previously victimized by the offender reported frequencies of (in
rank order) monthly, once, daily, yearly, and more than five years ago.
The most frequent form of primary victimization reported by clients at intake was
physical acts of domestic violence (50%, n=33) followed by some form of child abuse
(21%, n=14) and emotional acts of domestic violence (14%, n=9). Unspecified forms of
domestic violence, stalking, theft, and property damage round out the remaining forms
of primary victimization (15%, n=10). Secondary forms of victimization reported by
clients during the study period included emotional acts of domestic violence (57%,
n=19), child abuse (15%, n=5), physical acts of domestic violence (9%, n=3),
unspecified acts of domestic violence and sexual assault (6% and n=2 each), all forms
of domestic violence and stalking (3% and n=1 each). Finally, tertiary forms of
victimization included emotional acts of domestic violence (27%, n=6), sexual assault
and stalking (23% and n=5 each), physical acts of domestic violence (9%, n=2), and
emotional acts of child abuse, theft, attempted homicide, and an unspecified violence
act (5% and n=1 each). Not all clients reported multiple forms of victimization; in fact,
only half of clients reporting a primary victimization also reported a secondary
victimization (n=66 vs. n=33) and only one-third reported a tertiary victimization (n=66
vs. n=22). However, 33% (n=22) of clients did report at least three forms of victimization
at intake.
Discussion of DVSAC Client Population
During April-May 2008, the demographics of the client population entering
DVSAC for intake were concentrated among females, spouses/cohabitants, individuals
with children, people with minimal education, and those who were unemployed. Though

16
few specific services were requested at intake, safety planning was the most often
recorded request and over half were referred to the DVSAC by either law enforcement
or a family friend. There is an interesting side note to the large percentage of referrals
coming from law enforcement. While 36% of clients were referred to DVSAC by law
enforcement, as discussed in chapter 4 on outcomes, only 20% reported the crime to
police as measured by the existence of a police report. Data was not available to
explain the reason for this discrepancy but it may be worth further study in order to
increase both numbers.
The existence of victimization characteristics in the intake data was a welcomed
surprise to the research team as this type of data is usually only available in a
prevalence study. The results support much of what we know about domestic violence.
For most clients, this was not the first incident with the offender; it was after repeated
behaviors that they sought out services. The frequency of the abusive behavior was
concentrated among the clients at vastly different points: weekly and 2-3 times. And,
multiple forms of victimization were not uncommon with half reporting two forms and on
third reporting at least three forms of victimization.
That being said, other data was not available, primarily age, race/ethnicity, and
disability information. And, with all of the data, these results only offer a picture of the
DVSAC client population at one point in time. Either a longer study period (data over an
entire year, possibly) or more evaluations would be needed to conclude that these
results were a long term reflection of the clients coming to DVSAC.
The next section will discuss the process evaluation of partner collaboration at
both sites.

17
Collaboration Analysis
Methodology: Interviews with Agency Partners
Interviews with representative agency directors and line staff from the Nampa
(Idaho) Family Justice Center (NFJC) and Idaho Falls (Idaho) Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault Center (DVSAC) were conducted in the Spring 2011 to address the
following: (1) the extent of collaboration among agency partners from the respective
centers; (2) the extent to which the services provided by each center can be considered
comprehensive; (3) motivations and incentives for participating agencies; (4) the extent
of goal realization and obstacles to achieving goals; and (5) communication and
information flow among partner agencies.
Our method of data collection to address these research questions was the use
of face-to-face key informant interviews with a representative sample of agency
personnel and center staff at both sites. At times, agency directors were interviewed,
and at other times, line staff was interviewed. A standardized data collection tool was
developed in a collaborative effort between Boise State University, the NFJC, and the
DVSAC. Interviews were conducted by Dr. Andrew Giacomazzi and Graduate Assistant
Patrick Brady, Department of Criminal Justice, Boise State University.
In all, fifteen interviews were conducted at the NFJC. Interviewees represented
the following agencies: legal aid, law enforcement (2), prosecution (2), Valley Crisis,
victim witness coordinators (2), NFJC staff (3), child protection, and health/medical care
(2). Likewise, eleven interviews were conducted at the DVSAC. Interviewees
represented the following agencies: legal aid, law enforcement (2), Help Inc., CASA,
probation and parole, Family Crisis Center, DVSAC staff (3), Harris, and Haven

18
Homeless Shelter. While the interviews conducted at both sites do not represent an
exhaustive list of all agency partners in Nampa and Idaho Falls, it certainly equates to a
representative list of agency partners at both sites.
Nampa Family Justice Center
Collaboration
The collective experiences of those interviewed suggest that collaboration, within
which communication and coordination are embedded, tends to work because it
facilitates a “team” culture. As such, interviewees were quick to point out that
collaboration is a most effective way to deal with the problems of domestic and dating
violence, child abuse, and sexual violence. Additionally, according to our respondents,
collaboration results in better and more effective services to victims. Found below are
representative responses to the question, “In your opinion, is collaboration the most
effective way to serve victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse?”
included the following:
“Working together is much better than working apart. The victims get what
they need.”
“Everyone is on the same page at the same time. Everyone has a lot of
training and experience, and everyone works so well together.”
“Communication is huge along with respect for other disciplines, and we
have that here.”
“With our working relationships, the victims only have to tell their stories
once. The fewer times a victim has to tell the story, the easier it is for
them.”
“Anytime you can get a bunch of agencies to work together on cases,
regardless of the situation, it’s a victory.”

19
Collaboration and Working Together as a Team
We also were interested in whether individuals within the NFJC were working
well together as a team. In other words, it is one thing to say that collaboration is an
effective way to deal with the needs of victims, but quite another to actually realize this
practice. When we first broached this issue with NFJC interviewees in 2008, various
responses were given. While many of the interviews in 2008 felt that they were working
together as a team, several agency directors told us they did not know enough about
this issue to answer the questions. Line staff in 2008, while generally providing positive
responses, were less willing to state that agency partners were working well together
when it came to sexual assault and child abuse cases.
In 2011, interviewees (agency directors and line staff alike) were less likely to
qualify their statements about working together as a team. In fact, all respondents felt
as though agency partners were working well together, and therefore demonstrating
collaboration on an ongoing basis. Representative responses to our “working together
as a team” question included the following:
“From my perspective, we work very well.”
“The key is, ‘do agencies work well together?’ There used to be issues
with former prosecutors. The new prosecutors out here do an awesome
job with domestic violence cases.”
“We work together well. We have all gone to conferences together. We
see other agencies at other FJC’s where the partners do not get along.”
“We do really well together. We form ad hoc committees where different
partners come together to problem solve. We handle these together on a
case-by-case basis.”
“Everyone works well together as a whole and each agency works really
well on their own individually. Everyone has a passion to serve victims.”

20
“There are no turf wars. Information is shared and the best needs of the
client are considered.”
“It’s a very positive environment.”
In all, given the relatively short time that the NFJC has been in operation, it is
surprising to see that so many co-located service providers perceive themselves as part
of a collaborative, team effort to assist victims, given the difficulties of true collaborative
behavior in other, similar endeavors. Only one respondent qualified his/her statement
regarding “working together”. This individual noted that while agency partners
collaborate to help victims, more can be done among the partners when it comes to
working together to “solve problems”.
Collaboration and NFJC Goals
Interviewees’ understanding of the goals of the NFJC was an additional area of
study. Our thinking here was that a common understanding of NFJC goals would be a
first step in working in a collaborative fashion. The mission of the NFJC is “to co-locate
professionals serving victims of family violence under one roof, enhancing agency
coordination and collaboration which ultimately will improve victim services, increase
victim safety and abuser accountability” (Nampa Family Justice Center).
All 15 respondents provided a description of the NFJC that covered at least one
part of the mission. As such, interviewees were quick to point out that the NFJC uses a
co-location of vital service agencies concept, that it provides a one-stop shop concept
for victims, and that it provides effective services for victims of domestic violence, child
abuse and sexual assault. Representative responses are presented below:
“We provide collaborative, collocated services for victims of sexual
assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.”

21
“The FJC was established to co-locate services for victims of family
violence. They come here and have everything that they could need in
one building so they aren’t running around town.”
“We provide wrap-around services to victims of domestic violence and
sexual assault.”
“We serve victims. We make sure that they are given the right resources
all under one roof and meet with advocates from the agencies. This
makes it more comfortable for victims to receive services.”
“We provide a host of services to victims. Children or families in trouble
can come to one place to get services.”
As can be seen from the above comments, respondents in 2011 tended to
emphasize the NFJC’s co-location of services to victims, and noted the variety of
services offered as well as the convenience the one-stop shop provides victims.
Because the services offered within the NFJC are primarily geared toward victim,
“offender accountability,” one piece of the NFJC mission, was not mentioned by any of
the respondents.
Collaboration Resolving Conflict
One of the espoused benefits of inter-agency collaboration is the positive effect it
may bring for agencies that have had a history of conflict. Here, we asked, “Do you feel
that the NFJC has led to more positive interaction among agencies that have had a
history of conflict?” Fourteen of 15 respondents stated unequivocally that the NFJC,
indeed, had led to more positive interactions among participating agencies. And one
respondent, while not completely sure, stated, “probably so”. Respondents reported
that the NFJC has resulted in better communication among agencies serving victims,
that it has brought agencies, once physically and socially distant, together, and that

22
there is a distinct lack of turf issues among participating agencies. Representative
responses included the following:
“The NFJC has increased communications between all agencies. Before,
prosecutors were on the other side of town and they were not the easiest
to contact. There’s a lot better communication.”
“Everyone is now in the same building. We know everyone and build that
relationship with other agencies.”
“The NFJC has brought attorneys, police, and other agencies together.”
“Before, CPS was seen as an adversary rather than a helping component,
but we are now more involved with the center.”
“The Canyon Sheriff and Nampa Police work a lot better together thanks
to the center.”
“What I see is that child protection staff are considered assistants and are
very helpful and that has really built a better relationship between all of
us.”
Participating Agencies: Collaboration/Motivation/Incentives
Given that collaboration/teamwork appears to readily exist at the NFJC,
information as whether or not this approach to problem-solving is simply a way of “doing
business” within each of the respondents’ own agencies appealed to the research team.
Not surprisingly (and as we found in our 2008 study), all 15 respondents indicated that
their own agency takes a collaborative approach to problem-solving in most cases.
Representative responses are included below:
“If I am not sure how to handle a situation, I can always ask someone else
here.”
“There is really no other way to handle the situation of family violence
without the help of other agencies.”
“There are tons of examples that explain how we collaborate in my
agency.”

23
In all, our interviewees, who comprise most of the agency partners within the
NFJC, suggest that the NFJC continues to experience a high level of collaboration and
problem-solving that other, similar centers tend not to initially experience. Interview
data suggest that teamwork is standard operating practice at the NFJC, facilitated by a
common understanding among respondents of the NFJC mission and collaborative
problem-solving initiatives practiced in the respondents’ respective agencies.
The next area of concentration was our interviewees’ thoughts concerning the
motivation of their own agency’s participation within the NFJC. At times and in other
places, these motivations are not always victim centered, and include turf issues and
information control. Based on our interviewees’ responses, however, we saw no signs
of the above with NFJC partner agencies. Representative responses included the
following:
“We want to make our community safer.”
“We are starting to understand the cycle of violence and we can now step
in and help resolve the situation. Before, we told people to take a walk
around the block to ‘cool off,’ and now we enforce more and are being
educated about domestic violence.”
“It makes my job a lot easier and makes things easier for victims to
understand the resources available.”
“We want to have a relationship with law enforcement to work on child
abuse cases.”
“It gives us the insight to how the child’s family is like at home. It gives us
information to what referrals we can make for them.”
“My agency has a mission to help. This is the best place for this help to
occur.”

24
The above responses indicate that individual agency motivation to participate in
the NFJC is driven by a concern to help, a desire to build relationships, and an effort to
work together for the sake of providing effective services for victims of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and child abuse.
Relatedly, we wanted to study the types of incentives respondents would
describe for their agency to be a partner with the NFJC. As the following
representative responses indicate, many of these incentives were very practical in
nature:
“We share funding from a grant. Knowing everyone at the NFJC makes
my job a lot easier.”
“We can get our cases handled a lot faster.”
“We have been able to get trainings for our office from being part of this
FJC. It helps with our job.”
“We benefit from the efficiency we can tap into.”
“We have better access to law enforcement. Most of the time, our cases
are criminal, so we have access to other agencies as well.”
“We get to bring students here. Students can get into a whole new aspect
of learning about nurses.”
Other incentives noted by our respondents revolved around enhanced victim
services:
“The incentive is the opportunity to provide service to the community.”
“Telling victims to go to the NFJC helps get our clients the services they
need. I am supportive of them, just like they are supportive of us.”
“It helps keep our community safer. We are able to protect our community
and makes for a stronger case to prosecute offenders.”
NFJC: Goal Realization, Obstacles, and Partners

25
Interviewees assisted us in determining the extent to which services available to
victims of domestic and dating violence, child abuse, and sexual violence have
increased with the creation of the NFJC. We wanted to know if interviewees felt that
the NFJC goals are being met, what works particularly well at the NFJC, what
obstacles exist that might impede goal realization, and what the state of victim
services would be in the area if the NFJC did not exist. We also asked whether any
needed agencies are missing from the collaboration that may affect the NFJC’s ability
to provide comprehensive services to victims.
Are NFJC goals being met? All 15 respondents stated that the NFJC is
achieving its goals of “co-locating professionals serving victims of family violence under
one roof, enhancing agency coordination and collaboration which ultimately will improve
victim services, increase victim safety and abuser accountability” (Nampa Family
Justice Center). Here, respondents spoke to how well the NFJC is organized, growth in
the number of victims served, the comprehensive nature of the services provided
(including an increase in the services provided in the past), and how the NFJC is unique
among other FJC’s. Representative responses are delineated below:
“The center is very organized and I have been to other FJC’s. Nampa
seems to be very consistent.”
“We have only had one family violence related homicide in the last 5
years. The NFJC has decreased homicides. And it is easier for victims to
get help.”
“Transportation is scarce around here and this center prevents victims fom
having to travel all around town and to Caldwell.”
“We have exceeded our goals and original expectations. We are seeing
an increase in clients/partnerships.”

26
“I work in Caldwell so I see the community that does not have a justice
center and the community that does. I see clear differences in the service
level for victims.”
“It’s continually moving forward. We have counseling for adults and
children. We are broadening. We just got a children’s center.”
“We are serving families and preparing them to deal with all of their issues
in an efficient manner. I was able to attend the National Family Justice
Center conference and I then realized that Nampa was doing an amazing
job compared to others.”
What works particularly well? We also were interested in what, if anything,
was working particularly well at the NFJC from the perspective of representatives of
agency partners. Not surprisingly, respondents reported some familiar themes here:
enhanced services to victims in one location, the ability for co-located partner agencies
to effectively communicate and collaborate, and the ability of the NFJC to provide a
safe and secure environment for victims. Representative responses are noted below:
“Victims only have to tell their story once or twice. With a building full of
professionals, there is an atmosphere that is created that benefits all
parties. There is a greater sense of a common cause that has been
created.”
“You don’t have victims driving all over the county. It is located right
downtown, where the majority of the phone calls for domestic violence and
sexual assault come from.”
“It is a safe and secure environment for victims to come and get help.”
“We have great relationships will all our partner agencies. A definite lack
of turf issues.”
“It’s really cool how surprised the clients are about what we offer here. I
like seeing how happy the clients get. Clients are very appreciative.”
What obstacles exist? As was expected, our interviewees were rather
consistent in their responses to the question, “What obstacles, if any, exist that might

27
impede on the NFJC achieving its goals?” Themes centered around funding and
space, especially as both related to potential further growth at the NFJC.
“We have to fundraise for all victim services.”
“Partners work really well together, but we need more space for more
partners.”
Two respondents noted other obstacles. For example, one lamented the fact
that transportation to and from the center is difficult for some victims who live on the
“south side”. And, another was concerned about the lack of awareness of community
leaders and other officials when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault. This
respondent felt that this lack of knowledge could translate into a reduction of resources.
If the NFJC didn’t exist, what would services look like? Next, we asked
interviewees to describe the state of services to victims in the area if the NFJC did not
exist. Here, respondents were quick to point out that services would still be available
to victims, but with some detrimental effects: some victims would stay in abusive
relationships, others would simply fall through the cracks, and still others would not be
able to access fragmented services because of transportation issues. Other victims,
according to one respondent, would be less willing to cooperate with the prosecution.
Representative responses are noted below:
“It would be the same as it was a few years ago. The services would still
be there. It would just be more difficult for victims to get them, especially if
victims do not have adequate transportation.”
“Victims would be bounced back and forth and forced to go all around
town.”
“A lot of victims would not seek help and stay in bad situations.”
“Children would not get the help they need and in a timely manner.”

28
“It would be just as fragmented as it was in the past. There would be a lot
of victims falling through the cracks.”
Comprehensiveness of the NFJC. In addition, we asked the perceptions of our
interviewees when it came to the comprehensive nature of the NFJC’s services for
victims. Here, we asked, “Do you feel that any important agencies have been left out
of the NFJC? If so, which ones?” Respondents provided a number of
agencies/services that they felt, if added, would enhance the services provided
through the center. These included the following: (1) housing services, (2) job
training/vocational skills, (3) probation and parole, (4) religious resources, (5) military,
(6) medical partners/major health care agency/medical for adults, (7) adult protection.
In all, based on the interview data presented here, it appears that the NFJC
provides enhanced services to victims of domestic and dating violence at a higher
level as compared to available services prior to the creation of the NFJC. Many of the
respondents indicated that the co-location of services, if nothing else, truly benefits
victims. However, NFJC decision-makers may want to continue to find ways to further
enhance NFJC services by bringing in additional partners as noted above by our
respondents. This, we know, is no easy task for a variety of reasons.
NFJC: Meetings and Information Sharing
The findings above indicate that agency partners within the NFJC collaborate
with one another and engage in teamwork. Indeed, when we asked our interviewees
to use a word or phrase to describe the NFJC, many said, “community”, “cooperation”,
or “collaborative”. Therefore, it is not surprising to have learned from the responses
below that agencies partners meet together with NFJC staff to engage in professional

29
development and to share information. This is done regularly both in formal meetings
and informally due to the close proximity of the co-located agencies.
“We have advisory board meetings together once a month. Every
representative from each partner has a seat on this board.”
“We have lunch-and-learns. We have a genuine fellowship and yearly
get-togethers.”
“We meet informally as needed. Formally, we meet once a month. Ad
hoc, as needed.”
“Rebecca does a lunch-and-learn once a month and we train. I meet with
other agencies once a month.”
Respondents described the information flow among NFJC partners through the
extensive use of e-mail and personal (face-to-face) communications. Others mentioned
information sharing via monthly “lunch-and-learns” as well as extensive documentation
through reports.
Summary/Conclusions
Data from fifteen face-to-face interviews with representatives from the NFJC
partner agencies indicate that there is something good going on in Nampa, Idaho.
Where other such coordinated efforts flounder—even years after having been
established—our findings from 2011, as was the case in 2008, indicate that the NFJC
is functioning in an effective and efficient way. The NFJC is experiencing a high level
of collaboration and problem-solving. Interview data also suggest that teamwork is
standard operating practice at the NFJC, facilitated by a common understanding
among respondents of NFJC goals and collaborative problem-solving initiatives
practiced in the respondents’ respective agencies.

30
Respondents also reported (delineated above) that the co-location of services
that the NFJC brings has increased the quality of services for victims of domestic and
dating violence. As indicated above, many respondents characterized the services as
“one-stop shopping”. While obstacles exist, in terms of funding and space, with the
cohesiveness of NFJC agency partners, the NFJC is in an ideal position to apply its
collaborative model to problem-solve these issues as well.
Suffice it to say, the Nampa Family Justice Center continues to succeed in its
goals of “co-locating professionals serving victims of family violence under one roof,
enhancing agency coordination and collaboration which ultimately will improve victim
services, increase victim safety and abuser accountability” (Nampa Family Justice
Center, 2004:4). Turf issues appear to be non-existent among agency partners, and
there is a genuine appreciation among them for the co-location concept, as it not only
facilitates their own work, but also promotes teamwork and collaborative efforts, while
enhancing services to victims of domestic violence.
Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault Center (DVSAC)
Collaboration
Given that collaboration is a key feature of an effective coordinated community
response to domestic violence, gathering information on respondents’ perceptions
regarding how well partner agencies were collaborating with one another was essential.
Here, all respondents were in agreement with the notion that a collaborative approach is
the most effective way to serve victims of domestic violence. Respondents noted
collaborative endeavors related to early awareness and education in junior high and
high schools, the fact that agency partners emphasize teamwork, and strong

31
partnerships created with law enforcement and prosecution. Representative responses
are found below:
“The education piece is very collaborative. Really good with high schools
and junior high schools by doing presentations. They build community
awareness and make themselves present so victims know they exist.”
“Everyone has a piece of the puzzle. Teamwork is present.”
“The FOP and DVSAC do a joint policeman’s ball.”
“It wasn’t always this easy. Talking to each other wasn’t as easy as it is
now.”
“Without the DVSAC, there is no structure. Things fall through the cracks
and the teamwork approach covers these issues and has numerous
voices providing opinions. Plus, it makes sure that all angles are
covered.”
As noted above, respondents resoundingly supported notions of collaboration
among DVSAC partners, and described efforts that illustrate this approach.
Collaboration and Working Together as a Team
We wondered whether individuals within the DVSAC were working well together
as a team. In other words, it is one thing to say that collaboration is an effective way to
deal with the needs of victims and offenders, but quite another to actually realize this
practice. Therefore, we asked interviewees the following: “In your opinion, how well are
individuals within the Center working together as a team in dealing with solutions to
domestic violence and sexual assault?” Representative responses are found below:
“We work really well together. This is definitely a teamwork approach.”
“The way cases were handled in the past was a complete joke. Now,
everyone is on board and they have redefined the whole court system and
law enforcement initiatives.”
“We are getting better. This has been a work in progress.”

32
“Everyone is on the same page and everyone gets involved. This has
been a teamwork approach.”
“It’s an ebb and flow. Individuals come and go. Agency heads change.
But we can withstand these changes.”
As indicated above, all respondents suggested that they are working with the
DVSAC as a team. And, several noted that this was not necessarily the case even a
few years ago. One respondent, however, pointed out a philosophical difference
between his/her agency and the DVSAC, which appears still unresolved.
“The most important thing they are doing at the Center is educating
women to make choices, and we help them put things in perspective. This
is where the relationship between us and the Center clash. The Center is
all about letting the victim make her own choice, while we say, ‘Get the
hell out!’”
In all, it is surprising to see that so many partners perceive themselves as part of
a collaborative, team effort to assist victims and offenders, given the challenges of true
collaborative behavior in other, similar endeavors.
Collaboration and DVSAC Goals
We also were interested in interviewees’ understanding of the goals and
objectives of the DVSAC. Our thinking here was that a common understanding of
DVSAC goals would be a first step in working in a collaborative fashion. As stated in
the DVSAC brochure, the DVSAC is,
“a private non-profit entity that provides assistance to those who suffer the
effects of domestic violence or sexual assault. The DVSAC extends a
hand to victims and their families in the following ways:
 Individual counseling
 24 hour crisis line
 Emergency shelter for victims and children who are in imminent danger
 Support and education groups for survivors of domestic violence and
sexual assault
 Victim advocacy
 Court advocacy and support services

33
 Batterer intervention program
 Community Education
The DVSAC works in cooperation with other agencies to provide help and
care for those affected by domestic violence and sexual assault” (DVSAC,
2011b).
When asked about their knowledge of the purpose and goals of the DVSAC,
respondents appeared well-versed in the Center’s mission. Themes here focused on
(1) efforts to prevent domestic violence, (2) working with victims of domestic violence
and sexual assault, (3) providing offender treatment, (4) providing victim advocacy, (5)
operating the 24 hour crisis line, and (6) empowering women to help make themselves
self-reliant. Representative responses to this item are noted below:
“The purpose is to have resources available for domestic violence and
sexual assault victims, and to get them through the trauma they are
involved in.”
“The main goals are to help victims, to provide training classes for victims
and offenders, to provide counseling, to be an advocate and voice for
victims, and to attend court hearings.”
“DVSAC exists to help women be safe and make their own choices, to
become self-reliant and empowered.”
“We provide services for victims and offenders in both English and
Spanish. We operate the 24/7 crisis line too.”
Collaboration Resolving Conflict
One of the espoused benefits of inter-agency collaboration is the positive effect it
might bring for agencies that have had a history of conflict. Towards that end, we asked
whether our interviewees felt that the coordinated community response (CCR) in the
Idaho Falls area had led to more positive interaction among agencies which, prior to the
CCR, may have had a history of conflict. Not surprisingly, 9 of 11 respondents reported

34
more positive interactions among agencies since the inception of the CCR. The other
two respondents were “unsure”. Representative comments are reported below:
“Working with the other agencies has built better relationships with all
agencies.”
“There are no political agendas here; everyone works together and helps
everyone else out.”
“The DVSAC has led to better interactions with law enforcement. Their
involvement increased once they saw other agencies involved.”
“Law enforcement and service providers have had a much better
relationship once law enforcement was on board.”
As indicated above, the most common response from interviewees centered on
better law enforcement/service provider relationships, which appears to have occurred
once each gained a better understanding of the other through the partnership.
Participating Agencies: Collaboration/Motivation/Incentives
Given that collaboration/teamwork appears to readily exist at the DVSAC, we
inquired as to whether this approach to problem-solving is simply a way of “doing
business” within each of the respondents’ own agencies. When asked, then, whether
the agency they work for generally takes a collaborative approach to problem-solving,
all respondents unequivocally stated, “yes”. Representative responses are noted
below:
“We work specifically with children and that takes a team approach.”
“Domestic violence and sexual assault take a team approach in our agency.”
“We work in a very collaborative way in our agency.”
The next area of focus was our interviewees’ thoughts concerning the motivation
of their own agency’s participation within the DVSAC, as sometimes agency
partnerships are motivated by less than positive reasons, such as information control

35
and turf issues. We asked our interviewees the reasons that their agencies are involved
with the DVSAC. While some responses were agency-mission specific, other
responses were more global, indicating their agencies have a mission to “help.” None
of the responses indicated possible information control or turf issues. Representative
responses are noted below:
“The Center is a great resource for our clients and the Center sends us
referrals.”
“We want to help child abuse victims. Many of our victims’ parents are
involved in domestic violence.”
“Our agency’s motivation has to do with working with Teena. She’s
proved herself in many ways. The grants she’s written have assisted us.”
“The teamwork is what’s most important. They are always there and
always helpful.”
The above responses indicate that individual agency motivation to participate in
the DVSAC is driven by a concern to help, a desire to build relationships, and an effort
to work together for the sake of providing effective services for victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault.
Relatedly, we asked respondents if they felt there were any incentives to being a
partner with the DVSAC. All but one of our respondents replied that there were.
Particular incentives noted by respondents varied greatly. One respondent noted that
partnering with the Center allows him to know the resources available to victims.
Another reported that the main incentive could be seen with the success of its clients.
And yet another interviewee noted that partnering with the Center has allowed her
agency to be part of a team offering quality services.

36
DVSAC: Goal Realization, Obstacles, and Partners
Interviewees assisted us in determining the extent to which services available to
victims of domestic violence and sexual violence (as well as services to offenders)
have increased with the creation of the DVSAC. Here we wanted to know if
interviewees felt that the DVSAC goals are being met, what works particularly well at
the DVSAC, what obstacles might impede goal realization, and what the state of
services would be in the area if the DVSAC did not exist. We also asked whether any
needed agencies are missing from the collaboration that may affect the DVSAC’s
ability to provide comprehensive services to victims and offenders.
Are DVSAC goals being met? Given their general familiarity of the DVSAC
goals as noted in a previous section of this report, we were next interested in our
interviewees’ perceptions regarding the extent to which the DVSAC is achieving its
goals. Here, all respondents stated that the DVSAC goals were being achieved.
Representative responses are noted below:
“The DVSAC has raised community awareness. It has done a lot of
training with law enforcement and its other partners.”
“The Center has helped law enforcement a lot. It is very effective for
domestic violence and sexual assault cases. They keep the prosecutors
motivated.”
“The Center addresses the overall needs of victims. It works well with law
enforcement.”
“It gives victims options—safety planning classes and living skills. They
can choose to continue groups or not. They do a great job with civil
protection orders too.”
Not surprisingly, however, several respondents insinuated that the Center’s
ability to achieve its goals is a constant “uphill battle”. They noted that given “tough

37
economic times,” funding is scarce. Another respondent noted that while DVSAC
goals are being achieved, the inability to secure funding that would shift efforts from a
coordinated community response to a family justice center has been disappointing.
What works particularly well? We also were curious as to what, if anything,
was working particularly well at the DVSAC from the perspective of representatives of
agency partners. Respondent themes centered on the following: (1) services to
victims (including education, 24 hour help line, safety planning, and empowerment),
(2) training and cross-training, (3) teamwork and collaboration, and (4) the working
relationship with law enforcement and prosecutors. Representative responses are
delineated below:
“Educating victims, allowing them to make their own decisions, and safety
planning.”
“It’s a very tight group—teamwork and cross training come to mind.”
“The strength is with their working relationship with the prosecutor’s office
and with law enforcement.”
What obstacles exist? We also asked respondents to discuss the obstacles, if
any, that might impede goal achievement at the DVSAC. Responses here were quite
varied and included, not surprisingly, funding. As several respondents noted, funding
for non-profits can be scarce during difficult economic times, and grants are almost
always competitive and not guaranteed. Other obstacles noted by respondents
included the following: (1) the lack of a battered women’s shelter in the area, (2) the
fact that both victim and offender groups meet in the same building, (3) the distances
some victims must travel to receive DVSAC services, (4) space, and (5) religious
doctrines that encourage married couples to stay together (noted by one respondent).

38
If the DVSAC did not exist, what would services look like? We asked
interviewees’, “If the DVSAC did not exist, how would you describe the state of
services offered to victims in this area?” Here, while we were not surprised to hear
that services for victims would certainly be decreased, we were surprised by how
extreme some of the responses were, including one respondent who said, “Not having
the Center would result in death.” Representative responses are noted below:
“It would be difficult for victims to get all the help they need.”
“Victims would just give up and allow it to happen. Victims would bail out
and go back to the perpetrator. It would be an extremely difficult
situation.”
“It would be very scary. CPS has a mandate and certain children do not
meet the criteria. The DVSAC takes on those cases and helps out.”
“It would be a tragic situation. It would be hard for victims to find
information.”
“There wouldn’t be any convenient services. They would have to travel to
outlying areas. There would be some services, but not coordinated.”
“There would be no support for women.”
Comprehensiveness of the DVSAC. At times, even effective coordinated
community responses to domestic violence and sexual assault can benefit from
additional agency partners. As such, we asked our interviewees if they felt as though
any important agencies/departments are missing from the partnerships created with
the DVSAC. The great majority of respondents said there were no missing
agencies/departments and that everything was covered by existing partners. A
minority of respondents, however, indicated that housing is missing (i.e., the need for a
secure shelter in the area).

39
In all, based on the interview data presented here, it appears that the DVSAC
provides enhanced services to victims (and offenders) of domestic violence and sexual
assault at a higher level as compared to available services prior to the creation of the
DVSAC. While respondents felt that the DVSAC is meeting its goals, they also
articulated obstacles, funding notwithstanding, that must continue to be addressed in
an era of scarce resources. Finally, many of our respondents were pleased to report
the enhanced relationships that have developed between the Center and law
enforcement and prosecution.
The findings above indicate that agency partners within the DVSAC collaborate
with one another and engage in teamwork. Not surprisingly, then, all respondents,
when asked to provide a word or phrase describing the activities of the DVSAC, used
terminology consistent with an effective coordinated community response to domestic
violence and sexual assault. The following words and phrases were provided by
interviewees:
 Community oriented
 Constantly building relationships
 Victim advocacy
 Supportive
 Well-coordinated
 Empowerment
 Dedicated
 Filling a need
 Compassionate
 Much needed
DVSAC: Meetings and Information Sharing
A common practice among collaborative endeavors is regular meetings among
partner agencies. With this in mind, we asked our interviewees about this practice at
the DVSAC and learned that while regular meetings do take place, this is not a regular

40
occurrence among all agency partners. Prosecution, law enforcement and probation
& parole staffings take place regularly. Trainings occur frequently, informal gatherings
(oftentimes around food) occur sporadically, but none of the above occurs with the
entire team, at least according to our respondents. Representative responses to the
question, “Do DVSAC partners meet regularly?” are found below:
“There are no regular meetings for all involved.”
“We meet twice a month to discuss active cases, new cases, and
missing cases.”
“No regular meetings, but we do get regular e-mails.”
While obviously difficult to achieve on a regular and ongoing basis, there are
substantial benefits to bringing the entire team together at regular intervals.
Finally, when asked how information flows among Center partners, the great
majority of respondents stated that e-mail and phone calls are the dominant form of
communication. Others reported face-to-face meetings or informal interactions.
Summary/Conclusions
Data from eleven face-to-face interviews with representatives from the DVSAC
partner agencies indicate that the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center in
Idaho Falls, Idaho is working well, and that, short of the need for a secure battered
women’s shelter in the area, all areas of core services were covered well by existing
agency partners. Agency partners and the DVSAC take on a collaborative, teamwork
approach, which is consistent with an effective coordinated community response to
domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, the great majority of respondents
stated that the DVSAC has resulted in more positive interactions among agencies,
particularly law enforcement/service providers, which have had a history of conflict.

41
Furthermore, many respondents noted efforts by DVSAC staff at continually
building relationships with agencies and community organizations, some of whom
mentioned particularly positive relationship building with law enforcement and
prosecution. In addition, respondents indicated that their participation with the DVSAC
has been motivated by a desire to work in a coordinated community response
system—a system that is most likely an effective way to help victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault.
Suffice it to say, data from our sample of respondents suggest that the DVSAC
and its partner agencies are functioning well, but that some obstacles exist.
Continued funding to support Center efforts is an obstacle noted by many
respondents. Among those respondents, several noted that as grant money has
diminished, there has been a decided focus on fundraising, which has sometimes
taken away from the mission of the DVSAC. In addition, none of our respondents
(including DVSAC staff) were aware of a strategic plan, which could guide operations
in the event that key Center staff members were to leave their current positions.
Finally, interviewees were quick to point out that regular meetings among all partner
agencies do not systematically occur. This practice, should it occur in the future, can
further enhance an already well-functioning coordinated community response to
domestic violence and sexual assault.

42
Client Survey and Focus Groups
Methodology
In order to assess the perceived effectiveness of the Family Justice Center (FJC)
and the Coordinated Community Response (CCR) models among program participants,
survey data was collected and focus groups conducted. A total of four focus groups
were held. Two groups were comprised of women who had utilized agency services
and had contact with the criminal justice system and two groups involved women who
sought services for reasons other than those related to the criminal justice system (e.g.
social services, counseling, assistance in filing for a civil protection order). One group
of each type was conducted at the Nampa Family Justice Center (NFJC) and one group
of each type at the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center (DVSAC).
Agency staff recruited focus group participants due to the sensitive nature of the
topic and vulnerable population. It was imperative that women were contacted in a safe
manner and by someone with whom they were familiar. In addition to the two types of
subgroups, three additional criteria were used to define the sampling frame. Women
had to be age 18 or older and speak English as their primary language. Additionally, we
wanted to capture the experiences of women whose criminal cases had been resolved.
Thus, agencies went back approximately 18 months in their records to identify program
participants for recruitment. For consistency, the same time frame was used for both
groups whether or not they were involved in the criminal system.
The target size for each focus group was fifteen participants, for an estimated
total sample size of 60 women. Unfortunately, the recruitment process proved to be
quite challenging. Contact information was often outdated. For each of the two groups

43
at NFJC, 10 women agreed to participate in the focus groups. However, on the days
the focus groups were conducted, only four women participated in the criminal justice
system contact group and six women in the non-criminal process group. This resulted in
a sample size of half of what was anticipated (n=10) from NFJC. Similarly, 15 women
agreed to participate in each of the two focus groups at DVSAC, while only six in each
group actually attended (n=12) from DVSAC. Ultimately, 22 women participated in
focus groups across both sites.
Focus groups were held during the month of April at the NFJC and in May at the
DVSAC. Groups were facilitated and moderated by Dr. Sanders with Dr. Growette
Bostaph for clarification and probing on experiences with the criminal justice system.
Graduate assistant Nikki Bodenstab was present to take notes. Note taking recorded
ideas that arose during group discussion and chronological note taking made it possible
for the transcriber to identify individual participants while listening to the audio recording,
and attribute responses to the correct person
3
. All 22 women who participated in focus
groups completed a written survey
4
.
A general discussion “guide” was used to explore women’s experiences with
either NFJC or DVSAC, the criminal justice system when applicable, and access and
coordination of needed services. A copy of the discussion guide is provided in
Appendix A. Focus group discussions, and thus findings, generally centered on four
areas:
3
All participants were given an anonymous identification number.
4
One DVSAC focus group participant was excluded from providing survey data (beyond demographic
information) as she did not receive services from DVSAC. She was recorded by DVSAC as a client due
to an advocate being present in court the day she went to court to obtain an order of protection. She was
given information about DVSAC but did not have further contact until agreeing to participate in the focus
group.

44
 General experience with the NFJC or DVSAC;
 Experiences with the police, prosecuting attorney’s office, and court;
 Access and coordination of services and resources; and
 Perceived impact of services on domestic violence and well-being.
Following is a presentation of survey results and focus group findings according
to the four areas listed above. Findings from NFJC will be presented first, followed by
findings from focus groups at DVSAC. Finally, some comparisons will be drawn
between the two locations/models, followed by conclusions. It is important to note some
of the limitations of focus groups. The number of women participating is small in
number and findings cannot be generalized to larger target populations. Due to
challenges in recruitment, it is possible that those who chose to participate introduce
additional selection bias. Data analysis of focus group content can also introduce
researcher bias if steps are not taken to promote reliability in interpretation. To this end,
the research team read and re-read focus group content searching for emerging themes
as well as content to the contrary. In this way, an iterative and comparative process
helped to insure objectivity in the assessment and reporting of findings from focus
groups.
Demographic and Economic Characteristics
Table 3 (Appendix C) provides demographic information, economic
characteristics, and intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences for the sample. As a
whole, women were generally Caucasian, most had a least some college education,
and only about a third of women were married or living with a partner. All women
reported having children with the mean number of children being three and ages
ranging from two to 52 years of age. On average, women reported one other adult

45
living in their household besides themselves. Given the relatively small number of
married women living with their spouse, other adults likely included adult children and
other family members.
Seventy-three percent of women were working at least part time and had been in
their current jobs for a mean of almost four years. Women’s monthly income ranged
from less than $250 a month to over $2,000 with an average income of $1,915 per
month; thus women were relatively low income. In terms of other economic
characteristics, over half of the women were homeowners and another third were
renting. The majority (86%) owned a vehicle in their name and had a bank account with
their name on it (91%). Due to the small sample size, statistically significant differences
could not be calculated between the sites. However, based on descriptive information,
a few observable differences appear to exist. Women in the DVSAC group were more
frequently married or living with a partner (50%) compared to women from NFJC (10%).
Women in the NFJC group more frequently worked full or part-time compared to women
from DVSAC who more frequently also reported being in school or job training.
Additionally, women from DVSAC on average reported a higher monthly income
($2,379) compared to women from NFJC ($1,450).
Victimization Characteristics
All women in the sample experienced verbal abuse and the majority of women
had a history of physical violence (86%) and emotional abuse (91%). Additionally, half
(50%) reported sexual abuse and economic abuse. Most women disclosed that their
most recent incident of abuse was over six months ago. This is likely to be partly a
function of the sampling frame being selected from 18 months prior to the data

46
collection. However, three women from DVSAC reported more recent violence within
the past week or three days prior to participating in the focus group. Of all women in the
sample, approximately two-thirds experienced abuse frequently, ranging from once a
week to almost every day. Comparing groups, the frequency of abuse was somewhat
greater among women from NFJC compared to DVSAC. In terms of injuries, women
most frequently listed bruises, scratches, and sprained limbs as a result of their abusive
partner. Finally, almost half had been battered by a prior intimate partner and about a
quarter by a family member. Relatively few had been abused by others such as friends,
acquaintances or strangers.
Needed Services and Accessibility
One of the primary goals of Family Justice Center (FJC) and Coordinated
Community Response (CCR) models is to systematically meet a wide array of needs
that survivors of domestic violence may have. These range from immediate needs such
as emergency shelter, safety planning, and filing for protective orders to longer term
needs such as food stamps and access to medical care, to ongoing and long-term
services such as legal services, counseling for women and their children, or access to
long-term housing or substance abuse treatment. In order to assess what women
needed when seeking services from NFJC or DVSAC, they were asked about the
presence or absence of needed resources and the degree of ease with which they were
able to access the resource/service. Table 4 provides data on referral sources,
women’s primary reasons for seeking services, and whether or not particular services
were needed (see Appendix C). Ease of access is measured on a ten point scale with
one indicating difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and ten indicating easy access and

47
sufficiently meeting the need. Obviously, the mean score in ease is based on the
answers of only those women who indicated the particular service was needed.
Women were referred for services from NFJC and DVSAC through the police,
court system or on their own initiative. It appears that women who sought services from
NFJC were more frequently referred by the police compared to women who sought
services from DVSAC who were more frequently referred through the court system.
Primary reasons for seeking services ranged from general information on how to
interact with an abusive partner to specific needs with counseling, legal help, and
assistance in obtaining a civil protection order. Interestingly, several women from
DVSAC indicated they sought services, specifically safety planning classes, to satisfy a
judge’s orders. Women’s comments suggest that they are well aware of safety planning
classes and assistance with protective orders provided by DVSAC but may not be as
aware of additional services or DVSAC’s capacity to connect women to other
community resources. Women’s comments about NFJC suggest they also largely seek
services for general help with domestic violence issues and assistance with obtaining
protective orders but they are also aware of a broader array of service or
resource/referral options through NFJC.
In terms of resources needed by women (Table 4, Appendix C), most prevalent
among them was legal assistance with 85 percent of all women reporting they needed
legal services at the time they made contact with NFJC or DVSAC. On a scale from
one to ten, they rated their ease in obtaining legal assistance as 7.6 indicating that
women, for the most part, received information and assistance with legal matters at a
satisfactory level.

48
Following legal assistance, women most commonly reported needing counseling
for themselves or their children (76%), safety planning (57%), and advocacy/case
management services (38%). Ease in obtaining resources in these three areas was
8.2, 9.2, and 8.8 respectively. NFJC clients did seek advocacy/case management
services at a higher rate (50%) compared to clients of DVSAC (27%) as well as
assistance with employment/job training (30%) compared to DVSAC clients (0%).
Ease in access of obtaining needed resources was generally quite highly rated.
However, there are a few notable differences. It is important to note that these low
values are generally based on one or two women only who reported they needed the
service. One woman from the DVSAC focus group was in need of substance abuse
treatment. She rated her ability to gain such services at a three indicating it was very
difficult and the need was likely not met. Access to medical care for self or child was a
reported need of one woman at NFJC and two women at DVSAC. Reported mean
scores in ease of access were 2 and 5.5 respectively. Finally, when women reported
needing counseling for themselves or children, ease in access scores were quite
different for clients of DVSAC compared to clients of NFJC. Average ease in access
score for DVSAC clients ranged in value from 1 to 10 with a mean score of 6.8
compared scores ranging from 7 -10 with a mean score of 9.5 for NFJC. The difference
here is at least in part NFJC’s ability to provide some professional counseling services
in house, whereas professional counseling for DVSAC clients is more likely to require
an outside referral. Overall, these results may suggest that, while the majority of
women do not seek these resources, when they do, agencies have a difficult time

49
providing it. Or alternatively, because the agency may not be known for providing the
services, women do not go there seeking it.
Finally, women were asked to assess as a whole how well their needs were met
and coordinated and to indicate whether their situation and safety had gotten worse,
remained the same or improved since receiving services from either NFJC or DVSAC.
The majority (85%) of women indicated that most, if not all, of their needs had been met
while 15 percent indicated many had been met. As to coordination of services, 85
percent felt they were either very or fairly well coordinated. The general pattern
indicates a lower frequency of women who felt services were “very coordinated” among
DVSAC clients (64%) compared to NFJC clients (80%) and a higher frequency (18%)
who felt services were “not coordinated at all” compared to 10 percent of NFJC clients
who felt services were only “fairly coordinated.” A similar pattern exists when examining
whether women needed services that were not offered. Fifty-five percent of DVSAC
clients felt they needed services that were not offered compared to 30% of NFJC
participants. Comments regarding services needed but not offered included legal
assistance, counseling, medical assistance and alcohol treatment. Additional services
mentioned included more and longer term guidance and support in order to leave an
abusive relationship, parenting classes, and prevention classes or groups for their
daughters in order to educate them about and prevent future abusive relationships.
Since receiving services at NFJC or DVSAC, women reported that their level of
domestic violence had decreased or stopped (96%) and the majority felt safe most or all
of the time (90%). The majority (89%) also felt their overall well-being had improved.
However, variation increased in women’s financial circumstances with about half of

50
women stating that their financial circumstances were either unchanged or worsened
and about half reporting improvement. While domestic violence and well-being
outcomes cannot be solely attributed to receiving services through NFJC or DVSAC, it
is feasible such services made an important contribution to women’s safety and their
ability to move forward or make decisions about their future.
Nampa Family Justice Center
General Experience with NFJC
Overall, regardless of why women sought services, participants of focus groups
at NFJC were overwhelmingly positive in their comments. Questions and prompts were
used to illicit negative experiences with NFJC but none were indicated. A few women
noted less than positive experiences with Legal Aid, police, or the prosecuting attorney’s
office which will be addressed later in this report. Generally, women made comments
about their experience with NFJC and staff in two main areas: help with the court
process and/or filing for a protective order and emotional validation and empowerment
in acquiring needed resources.
Court process assistance. All four women who participated in the first focus
group at NFJC had some experience with the legal/criminal process and were initially
referred to NFJC through the police. Participants felt the support they offered initially
was very valuable. Some women had received a no contact order, others had not or
the contact order was dropped following their abuser’s arrest. Women appreciated the
information and support they received from the NFJC about what they could anticipate
during the process. In other cases, and among women who participated in the second
focus group, reasons other than the arrest of an abuser brought them to the center,

51
including filing for a civil protective order or seeking other kinds of services/resources.
The comments of several women help demonstrate their positive experiences in dealing
with court processes with the assistance of NFJC:
“Positive. Very positive. I don't have anything negative at all. I tell others
about it. I got a 4 year no contact order and I'm really grateful. I didn't even
know this place existed. I tell people, “You have to go there, they'll give
you a direction. They'll help you out. “Somebody really cares. I feel this is
a real good asset. They'll point you in the direction you need to go.”
“There's so much available and I cannot say how wonderful it is to have
those resources when you think you have nothing. When you think you
have nowhere to go, nobody to support you, nobody to hold your hand in
court. Whatever it is you need just to answer a few questions, um,
anything, anytime they were here for me. Every single person made a
huge difference.”
“I'll come back here for help with a protection order”
“He (referring to abusive partner) is getting out in July, so I kind of started
to panic and I came in here and the support is amazing. Like, almost no
time had passed, and they pulled me back in.”
Emotional validation and empowerment. Women’s comments indicate they
felt validated when they came to the NFJC, affirming they were not alone and were
capable. There were no comments to suggest women ever felt like they were a burden
or asking for something that was not feasible.
“Very positive. I was very shaken and scared when I came in and uh, the
way they handled everything, it went real well. When I walked out of here
I was a lot stronger. They offered me counseling services and everything
but I was already dealing with that. They do a valuable service here. I
wouldn't mind working here.”
“Offered me clarification and validation. Nampa Family Justice Center is a
bridge to services, you don't have to prove you're pathetic enough every
time.”

52
“I wasn't sure which direction to head with finances, moving, everything.
They were “incredibly helpful” I was educated about abuse. Very, very
helpful. Practical kinds of help. Awesome.”
“The first person I dealt with did an incredible intake. And that was very
important. The first…and the fact that you do, have been told its all you.
And so, that made a big difference. The intake lady offered me resources
and did call backs to see how they worked for me. I was very pleased with
that.”
“Safe environment here, nice to know you're not the only one. They
reinforce that. Came in for Legal Aid, frustrating, but I got other services.
They helped me say, “You DO fit here, here, and here. We can help you
with this” I returned here rather than another center because I felt there
were more resources here.”
“Well, I think it goes back to that empowerment piece. You've got a voice
and you’re not alone. And, you’re, you’re, ya know, what you think
matters. Especially when you've got children involved. Taking care of
them, and so the empowerment piece was great for me.”
Additionally, the above comments suggest that women felt as though they had a
relationship with the NFJC as indicated by both women who stated they would come
back to the NFJC if they needed further assistance. And in the case of the woman
above who was frustrated by her experience with Legal Aid, her relationship with NFJC
remained undamaged. Women appear to enjoy remaining in contact with NFJC.
Criminal Justice System Experience
Police. While mostly positive, women reported a variety of experiences with law
enforcement. Several women indicated their experience was very positive; police
responded quickly and readily referred them to NFJC for follow-up services and support.
Additionally in most, but not all cases, when police were called, the perpetrator was
arrested immediately or within a couple days of an incident, depending on the
circumstances. And despite some less than positive experiences with the police in a
couple of instances, all four women in the focus group who had experience with the

53
police and criminal justice system said they would call again to report an incident of
domestic violence if needed.
“I talked to the police department and within ten minutes there were six of
them at my house. Very positive, very positive.”
“They sent a police officer to come and file the charges and take the
information and the report to my sister’s house. And that was wonderful to
not have t go into the police station. Because that was really scary for me
to think, “oh my gosh, I’m really doing this.” It’s hard enough to make the
call, much less going to some place that just makes it worse.”
“I called the police, they followed through and brought me in. The police
were great.”
“The policeman gave me a whole packet of information about the Nampa
Family Justice Center right there from his car.”
Another woman explained that she went to the emergency room when her
abusive partner broke her arm. The police, believing it may have been due to domestic
violence, questioned her about it:
“The cops thought my hospitalization was DV related, but I denied it. They
wrote it in their report but no one referred me to here.”
While this participant was later referred to NFJC by the prosecuting attorney’s office,
this scenario demonstrates a need for police to refer women to domestic violence
resources such as NFJC when domestic violence is suspected, whether or not the
survivor confirms this suspicion.
Two women reported less than positive experiences with the police who
responded to their calls. One woman indicated she called the police when she began to
feel “unsafe” before any physical altercation took place:
“I bantered back and forth whether or not I should get a protective order
but was actually told by the police at my house that a judge would never
give it to me. Which I knew better than to think that was true. Um, I was
actually told that there were no services that I could access.” Then I was

54
told that I should leave my house and he doesn’t have to go anywhere.
And that no, there wasn’t anywhere to go and if I didn’t feel safe then just
too bad because he didn’t do anything”
She was not provided with any information about NFJC or other domestic violence
services.
Finally, another focus group participant started to become tearful when she
realized how different her experience had been with the police and her efforts to get a
protective order compared to that of most other women in the group:
“He (referring to ex-husband) just bulldozed me off of the steps all the way
onto the ground and proceeded to straddle me. And he was gonna hit me.
But I started to scream. And I heard my daughter, as I was going down, I
heard her scream, “Mommy!” And, he stopped. He got back up, took her
back inside. And, ya know, I got up and ran into my car and I got my
phone. And, I was shaking. And I didn't know whether to call the police.
But I said, you know, I got to do…. And I made a promise that if anything
happened to me again that I wasn't going to keep quiet, so I called. The
police came and they questioned me and they questioned him. And the
police officer said, ya know “It's raining, the stairs are slippery...you could
have slipped.” It's what he's saying. So immediately I just felt, ya know,
what's....And they questioned my daughter. That hurt I think even the
most. She said she didn't see anything. They questioned her inside his
house. And I don't know why. Well, I know why, actually. Yeah, I know
why. She wanted to protect him. She loves her father. And, so, ya know,
they pretty much said, “It's your word against his.”
When this respondent later went to the hospital with severe back pain and bruising on
her legs, she decided to try talking to the police again. Another officer referred her to
NFJC and they helped her file for a civil protection order. Even after obtaining a
protective order she was disappointed in the police stating:
“Because even after the first protection order was in effect, he'd call his
sister and have her harass me and I'd call the police because it says “no
contact even by a third party.” And the police would say, “well, he didn't
actually threaten you or say anything to you.” So, consistently, it was the
police that were poo-pawing it. So I just got to the point where, unless he
comes over and hits me or something then there's really nothing that I can
do.”

55
In addition this woman felt like she would have appreciated more follow-up from NFJC
after the protection order was granted:
“I think one of the things I would have felt, um, knowing what I know now
is that it would be nice if there would be a periodic…just kind of checking,
like “how you doing” or “how’re things going.”
Several other women in the group nodded in agreement with this statement.
Prosecuting attorney’s office and court. Most but not all women indicated they
felt supported through the process by NFJC advocates, victim witness coordinators, or
other contacts within the prosecuting attorney’s office. Some women even felt like they
would not have been able to go through with the court process without the support of an
advocate.
“There’s family advocacy through the prosecuting attorney, and she had
regular contact with me. I can’t remember her name. But, um, she would
let me know what was going on and what the possibility could happen. We
sat in a little room in the prosecuting attorney’s area and she asked me
what happened and, uh, I just, ya know, she was very, very…she was
kinda like…she was there with me the whole time. Whenever I had any
kind of court or anything, she was there. She was with the prosecuting
attorney’s office.”
“Well, the DA's office was in constant contact with me……. the DA
shielded the other lady and I from him so that he would pass us and he
would smirk and laugh at us, and be an ass. But they protected us there.
And then in the court, when they finally went to where we testified and
stuff, um, the judge, I went first and, uh, when I was testifying, he was
making comments and the judge stopped me and just read him the riot
act.”
“I was really scared because I'd never been through anything like that
before, ever. And, um, when I got to the court house the advocate was
waiting in the hall. And, so, I mean, she sat down right next to me and told
me what was going to go on inside, how long it would take, and if the
judge asked any questions...she said, “I can't help you. I can't answer any
questions. I can't give you legal aDVSACe but I will sit right next to you.
And if you have any questions make sure that you do ask the judge and
then wait for me in the hallway when we're done so we can discuss what
happens next.” So, that process would have...I probably wouldn't even

56
have gone through it without her help. And that was...we went to court
three times...and all three times there was an advocate in the hall, um,
waiting for me to get there and walk me through. At one time there was
two advocates for the group of women that was with me. So, it was, they
had a lot to talk about. They met with every woman. And we kind of,
almost formed a tight little clique there for a second. We'd all had the
same experiences and everybody was scared the same, and, all that.
They just really helped out a lot. And they sat next to each one of us when
we were up there. And, so the support was...I probably wouldn't have
been able to go through it without them.
“He is currently going to get out of prison soon. So, I just used the Family
Justice Center to help me get a protection order. Just went to the court
last week and got the protection order granted. So that was nice. That was
a huge step. And I had advocates there the whole time with me. I definitely
wasn't alone doing it. Um, I went to a couple of classes before...and, um,
they taught me a lot about the legal parts of it...the differences between,
um, protection orders or no contact orders...and which one would be best
for me and my kids. The judge granted it for me and my kids...”
“She (referring the victim witness coordinator) was a great sense of
information and support and was always there in court with me, and like I
said, when I got to the end of it, it was like…Okay, well, here ya go The
only thing that I felt like I missed was just that you get to the end of the
court and the court case and the hearing and whatever happened and
then it’s just done. There’s not, you have all these people that you’ve
connected with that are a great support system and they’re suddenly not
part of your life anymore. So I just felt like, well, what am I supposed to do
now, what’s the next step? Where do I go from here? And so, that’s kinda
where I felt like there’s something lacking that could be changed.”
Similarly, when charges in another woman’s case were dropped (and her abuser
was alternatively charged with assault on an officer), she was left feeling unsure where
to turn stating, “I was not longer a victim in the court’s eyes.” However, she did note the
prosecuting attorney’s office referred her to the NFJC. This and the prior comment
suggest that perhaps greater efforts could be made between victim witness coordinators
from the prosecuting attorney’s office and advocates from NFJC to ensure a cohesive
support system between the court process and other advocacy needs and ongoing
support once the court process has been resolved. Additionally, on occasion, women

57
were unclear if the person who was present at court was from the NFJC or the
prosecuting attorney’s office. This would indicate that perhaps the role of advocates
and victim witness coordinators need to be made clearer and more coordinated on
behalf of victims.
Two women indicated they did not feel supported in the court process. One
woman simply stated, “He was prosecuted, but not much happened.” And in another
case, while it is unclear if there may have been legal reasons for it, one participant who
also felt dismissed by her experience with the police was disappointed by her
experience with the prosecutor’s office and their unwillingness to allow her support
system to be present.
“They told me, no, they can't. No, they can't be here …. that was my
support system. And they didn't want me to go into the interview room with
my husband or his mom or his aunt who was here too, I felt support me.
So they took me into this interview room and it was the prosecutor and this
other lady. And I was very discouraged. 'Cause they were like, no, it is
your word against his. And, you go through a jury trial, and at that point I
told them, ya know what, I don't care if they don't believe me. I just want
to tell them what is going on and at least I will feel like I tried, that I tried
and that he's gonna know that I'm not going to shut up any more. That I'm
not gonna take it. He's gonna have some consequences. So, anyway,
they, I guess they served him a summons...that's what happened, they
served him a summons. And, ya know...like I said...listening to their
(referring to other participants) what happened to them...it was totally,
totally different than what happened to me.”
Access and Coordination of Services and Resources
Some women sought services from NFJC following a domestic violence incident
upon the referral of police or prosecuting attorney’s office. Other women came to NFJC
for assistance in filing for a civil protection order or seeking other resources such as
help with legal matters or basic needs. Additionally, while many women came with one
primary need in mind they often found they needed additional resources that NFJC may

58
be able to assist them with. We asked women to talk about the types of services and
resources they needed and utilized when coming to NFJC as well as their experience
with regard to access and coordination.
Generally, in addition to assistance with court processes and filing for protective
orders, the most common resources women sought out were Legal Aid and counseling
services for themselves and/or children. Interestingly, women’s access and experience
with Legal Aid was perhaps their biggest criticism. While women appreciated the
resource and indicated how important it was for women without financial resources to
seek their own legal counsel, a number of women found it rather difficult to connect with
Legal Aid, follow-up was lacking, and the interaction rather impersonal. Their frustration
is reflected in the example quotes that follow:
“The legal department, which I was not impressed with. (Laughs.) But the
counseling part, that was awesome. And I knew, when I came initially, and
signed all the paperwork and what have you, I was told that there was
going to be a waiting period, and I said, that's fine. I think that was in
August of '09. And then I finally got my letter in January of last year. But it
took for-ever. I got my divorce done faster on my own than I did through
the Legal Aid here. So, and it was like, I would call in and he would tell me
he needed information. I would call and give it to him on his voice mail.
And then I wouldn't hear from him three to four weeks. Um, and then he'd
finally get a hold of me and he would need something else. Okay, I'd give
it to him and wait another three of four weeks. And I finally just went and
did it on my own and got it done so much faster.”
“Now, the counseling was very good. Legal Aid, I went a different route,
not good. But I recognize, too, the difference between the counseling role.
Ya know, that's very personal, and people at Legal Aid are thinking
“legalities” not people. And so they, they connect differently. But I ended
up going a different route.”
Both of the women quoted above had enough resources so they could turn elsewhere
to resolve legal issues. However, many women do not have resources and must rely on

59
Legal Aid. Any steps that can be taken to strengthen the communication and
relationship between the NFJC and Legal Aid are likely to benefit NFJC clients.
Beyond women’s critical feedback with regard to access to legal services, most
women felt that NFJC did a very good job in identifying needs and providing them
through NFJC partner agencies or other resource referrals. This was perceived as
especially helpful to women who often times felt they “didn’t know where to begin”.
Women generally were very appreciative of delivery of goods and services through
NFJC from basic items like toiletries and food to longer term support through counseling
services.
One woman had moved from another state to Idaho in order to leave her abusive
husband. While she had the support of a sister in Idaho, she felt the coordination and
access to services and resources provided through NFJC made her transition much
less stressful:
“Um, yes, I, um, I originally came to the justice center through the
recommendation of my sister who lives in (city name). I'm actually from
(name of state). So after a conversation, um, with her about what was
going on in our home, um, she suggested just get out of there. And, um,
and then had heard, maybe through the papers or something about the
Justice Center. So, um, so that's how I initially got connected with them.
So I was in a situation where I either needed to..I just needed to figure out
everything. I wasn't sure at all what direction I was going to head, you
know, financially with moving or across the board, and so, um, so when I
first came here, it was, oh it was incredibly helpful. Um, to sit down with
(name of advocate) for the initial intake and, um, and she both educated
me a bit on abuse which I was quite ignorant about the characteristics and
all of that, um, and so it was just extremely helpful to hear that kind of
information as well as she met with me just for a number of weeks in a
row. I think like six weeks or something and just helping me get my head
straight. And she would just ask things like, “What's on your mind this
week? What's worrying you and what's bothering you?” And then would
just come over and help me think through what resources there are and
that kind of thing too. To just get my head on straight. And that...that was
so helpful. And then we also utilized the counseling center quite a bit both

60
for myself and my two girls. They were involved in one of the teen groups
as well. And that was just excellent. Just very, very helpful.”
Women were often unaware of the types of services available and were
pleasantly surprised to find needed resources were available through the NFJC. They
appreciated how staff at NFJC helped them identify needs and acquire necessary
resources.
“….Um, and to be honest, I think I had just mentioned one time that I
couldn't figure out how to do this because my daughter didn't have....“My
daughter's coming and entering a new school” and, um, and I thought, I
couldn't figure out what do you do with school, what does she need for her
school work, she'll need a computer. So she referred me to services, um,
related to that even. So it was just really practical kinds of help like that. It
was just awesome. Very helpful. I'm attending a class right now that's a
financial class that's run through the justice center. And, um, and so that's
been very helpful.”
“But I , uh, through this process, have gone through counseling for my
son. I have a seven year old that's attending right now, actually, with one
of their counselors here. The advocates have been unbelievably
supportive. And that, uh, safe environment here has been, ya know, very
comforting and I mean, they're available as often as they can be. Services
they provide have been...ya know...they've done some things for my family
for the holidays. Um, I have teenage daughters, and a son, and it's just
been nice to know you're not the only one going through it and they
reinforce that………. And I felt that it was a little deeper circle of resources
that they had here. So, and just the people. You know, they were a
constant, not a, ya know, pestering kind of things. But knowing that they're
there, and just a phone call. And the counseling services brought me
back. So.....”
“Um, well, at first I didn't need housing but I did eventually. Um, and, just
every little thing from counseling, from trying to figure out what was going
on, helping my children, housing was huge. I ended up losing my
apartment and staying with my sister that didn’t work out, ended up at a
shelter. Um, and every question I had I called (Name of NFJC
representative) first. And if she didn’t have the answer, she’d look it up.
Um, I, at one point, needed assistance with the restraining order when he
tried to ask the judge to modify it. So, I got an attorney from Legal Aid that
represented me at that time. And that was through the Justice Center.
And, I mean they gave us blankets, they gave us books, and helped us
out with basic necessities such as toiletries. The list…anything that I

61
called and said, “I’m kind of having this problem..” It was amazing to me.
Um gas vouchers, or gas cards a few times. It was just little things that I
just sometimes had no idea that I would need. And talking with my
advocate, she would say, “Well, ya know, we can help you out with that.” I
also do the address confidentiality program. I had no idea that was even a
possibility. And being fearful and wondering if someone could be able to
find you, that was a wonderful, wonderful opportunity.”
Two of the most commonly sought out resources were counseling for women
and/or their children and help with filing for civil protection orders. Generally, women
felt counseling services were of high quality and accessible.
“They were really good. They were really good. Ya know, when I first
came in here, everybody's a little bit embarrassed that they let somebody
hit them, but everybody made me feel so comfortable. The lady that did
the counseling with me, and I can't remember her name..and I went to
maybe about 5 sessions. Um, but she was just absolutely wonderful. And
she reassured me.”
A few women who were referred for counseling services in the community for
themselves or their children found the process somewhat difficult. Generally, the
challenge seemed to be in finding a counselor who accepted Medicaid, was male
versus female, worked with adults versus children, or perhaps had little expertise in
issues related to domestic violence. This suggests NFJC may wish to routinely review
their list of community counselors to insure they are referring clients to an appropriate
counselor who is competent with regard to issues arising from domestic violence.
“Um, I think, just about everything aside from counseling, which was hard
to figure out, to get into the right person, so that …female, opposed to a
male, those who accepted Medicaid, all those kind of different pieces.
That made the counseling piece harder to get… scheduling, all that kind of
stuff.”
“It was difficult, it was difficult because having kids, and trying to, it wasn’t
so much hard for me as it was hard to find the right person for them.
Someone that took kids, someone that accepted Medicaid, that could work
around their school schedule, my work schedule. Those kind of things that
made it hard to find the right person. In fact, we even went to someone the

62
first time who was referred as a domestic violence-type counselor that had
dealt with that. And when we went in for our first session the lady that did
the intake got into great detail about how spouses that are kicked out,
basically, sometimes come back and kidnap their children. So my kids
were sitting right there with me, having to re-live this whole big scary thing,
and so..that didn’t work out so well. So it took a little work to find the right
people and make sure that they really were gonna have the background
and the education, and the, uh….um…expertise, I guess.”
Overwhelmingly, women felt supported in their efforts to file for and receive civil
protection orders:
“She even helped me fill out the paperwork here. She sat with me, in her
room, and just having the support if I had a question, or if something was
too hard to get through. Or if I needed to talk about it. She was right here
when I needed to fill out the paperwork. Very helpful.”
And I think it's really nice too, that when you come in here you fill out the
petition for the protection order. You do all of that, but they make sure that
it gets filed.
“Yeah, the next day. Yeah, almost as an automatic thing. You don't have
to make a million trips to the court house. You don't have to come up with
the filing fee. They just do it here and that was so helpful. Because, ya
know, like with me, if I would have been left to do it on my own, I probably
wouldn't have done it. Ya know, it would have just been something
that...ya know, whatever, he can just stay away from me and if he comes
near me I'll deal with it. But, no, they did it all right here.”
Finally, with regard to access and coordination of services, women were asked
what they thought about having a variety of services in one location as opposed to
various locations. They clearly believed having so many services under one roof made
access easier and more convenient. They also felt that coming to one place time after
time gave them a sense of “familiarity” and “comfort”. Critically, they also felt this was a
safer way to access services.
“I definitely was glad that it was all here. A couple of different situations
happened, and it was just nice to call one spot and know that the people
that I was working with kind of all worked together too, and so they could

63
easily communicate about situations and collaborate that way. That was
really nice.”
“I think it’s really good that it’s located so close to the Nampa Police
Department, that, ya know, if you need to go the Police Department then
it's just across the street. It’s convenient and doesn't take that extra step
for you to even think about backing out. ‘Cause sometimes, that’s what it
is. It’s that, “Oh, I'll do it tomorrow” and it doesn't get done. And, ya know,
it’s across the street...and sometimes that's just what's gonna get it done.
Not that it’s two miles down the road. And you have to take…consciously
take that, ya know, that drive, and I guess, have time to chicken out.”
“And also, when they’re separated out….I know the security here was
excellent and you’re not going to have that security base when you go
from place to place.”
“Coming here, the community was a whole new experience. That
familiarity was a very big deal.”
“I think it's so much better to have it all located because you don’t have to
worry about, ya know, going here for this thing, going here for this thing.
Ya know, when you're in the situation like that, I mean, it's kind of
traumatic to start with. And to be able to come to one place and get, ya
know, the one-stop-shopping, ya know.”
“And safer, when they’re separated out….I know the security here was
excellent and you’re not going to have that security base when you go
from place to place.”
Perceived Impact of Services on Domestic Violence and Well-Being
Women were asked to comment on how they perceived the services they
received through NFJC had impacted their current level of domestic violence as well as
their overall well-being. Unanimously, women believed that in one way or another
NFJC had played a critical and positive role in their current circumstances. Some
women believed that if it were not for NFJC and the resources they provided they would
potentially still be with an abusive partner. Others felt that they were at a turning point
in their lives when they became aware of NFJC and would have left their abuser
regardless but that it would have been much more difficult and their (and their

64
children’s) well-being would have been much more adversely impacted if not for the role
of that NFJC.
“I, uh, think I would still been married to him.”
“Well, I know had they not followed up with me I wouldn't have sought help
the second time, with the second arrested. There was follow up between
the first arrest which was in 2008 and the second arrest which was in
2010. So there was, ya know, after the initial one there was fairly
consistent [communication]. And then it fell off, it was maintained. I can’t
remember the exact frequency of it, and I can't imagine it was exact but
there was a protective order that I filed each, each year. I had one, ya
know, around summer time. Things just sort of started to happen. So, ya
know, had that follow up not been there, I don’t know that I would’ve …..”
“Um, definitely I agree with the fact, that if the support weren’t there…and
if the…knowing there was going to be someone to help you along each
part of it. If that wasn't there…definitely….I can see that…I don't know if I
would have gone back, I was at the point in my life where that was it, but
that support was crucial. The two pieces together, along with whatever
else support came with that. That was a…an awesome foundation of
support at that time. That I, and definitely, my well-being is much, much
better.”
“I think it's important that you come to a place where people know what
they're doing and guide you through that process. Because it can be
overwhelming if you're already limited in transportation or income…or
confidence, or…whatever. To go take those steps on your own. If you
have a place that you come to, just talk to someone and tell them what’s
going on and they help you with that process, and that’s, ya know,
that’s…that's encouragement to, ya know, okay, you've got over this step,
now take the next one. You're not going to be by yourself through it. We're
gonna be there with you. That is so important, ya know….”
“That was true for my kids too. They were older also, but I think they felt a
sense of support. And we were given backpacks just as the school year
started, from the Justice Center. There were just enough messages for
them also that were communicated, “You're not alone” and “There's help
and there’s hope.” And all of those things are really important support
messages.”
“I felt like I accomplished quite a bit by coming here. More than I what I
would have done on my own. A lot more steps for my kids and myself…for
our safety, just from coming here. So, I definitely think it changed my life
for the better, all around.”

65
Finally, women were asked if they had any constructive feedback they could offer
NFJC in order to improve their services. There were essentially three areas of
feedback. First was with regard to improving access to and a relationship with Legal
Services which was discussed earlier. Second, women would like to have more routine
follow-up for a longer period of time from NFJC, even after they were no longer utilizing
their services. However, some women were uncomfortable with routine follow-up due to
safety issues. Yet, all indicated they would be comfortable providing NFJC with a “safe
contact” person in order to receive ongoing follow-up and check-ins. Additionally, they
felt an ongoing support group for women who had previously used their services would
be beneficial. Third, women felt there should be more community outreach and
education to increase awareness among women who may be in need of their services.
One woman suggested that information about NFJC be more widely distributed and
advertised on college campuses. Another felt like community counselors should be
educated about the NFJC for referral purposes, as she thought most counselors did not
have the knowledge or expertise necessary to address domestic violence-related
issues.
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center (DVSAC)
General Experience with DVSAC
Women who participated in focus groups from DVSAC largely perceived the
Center provided two main services: court advocacy services to obtain civil protection
orders and safety planning classes. Women were most often referred to DVSAC for
services through either the police, court administrator, or ordered by a Judge
(particularly women who had gone through a criminal court process) to take safety

66
classes. While some women obtained additional types of services from or through
DVSAC, based on the women who participated in focus groups, it does not appear
common to be referred to DVSAC for reasons other than protection orders or safety
classes. Most women found the court advocacy services helpful and safety classes
informative. However, there were some women who felt follow-through was somewhat
lacking and, in some cases, women had difficulty accessing additional services if
needed such as housing, legal aid, or counseling. While some women (generally those
not ordered to attend by a judge) were enthusiastic about the classes and court
advocacy services provided by DVSAC, others seemed to view it more as a hoop to
jump through and did not seem to “connect” with the Center. Others would have liked to
have more follow-up from DVSAC after safety classes. Comments of several women
reflect their experiences:
“Um, my husband had been arrested and the no contact order was put in
place. And so, I had like typical battered woman syndrome and wanted
out. And so the judge ordered that I go to a class. I think it was 5 weeks or
something like that, or I don't know what it was. Safety planning, or safety
class, before it would be re-evaluated. So, I was kind of doing it to jump
through a hoop. I don't really, I didn't have any needs that I needed met. I
had housing. I was okay financially. Everything was kind of in place. As far
as them meeting needs, it was just the class for safety.”
“My husband and I got in a fight. He actually went to jail and he spent two
days in jail. He went to court. The officer gave me the card. Basically, the
officer told me, at the time, he says, “this ends in one of two ways: Death
or divorce. It’s your choice.” So, I came in. I went to one class. So, and
she hooked me up with [staff member] and I saw her on an occasion
outside of any class. And she actually, she called and checked on me a
couple of times. But other than that, I just kind of, I fell through the cracks
myself. It wasn't the center, it was me.”
“I had the court order to take the safety planning class. And, like her
(referring to another woman in the group), they never followed up with me.
I did as many as I could, but I was taking night classes also. And there

67
were a couple of nights that I couldn't find someone to stay with him
(referring to her child). And so, like her, they didn’t follow up with me.”
“Um, it was good. Um, we'd go through waves where we'd have new
people and they would want to overbear the group with their problem. Um,
well, a couple of them. Um, although their stories and, um situations were
interesting, I also did have things I wanted to talk about. And there were
many times where, there was no way of interrupting them. And then, there
were some instances where, um, issues that were brought up really didn’t
pertain to my circumstances. So, I felt a lot of times it was a waste of time
to be there. On some instances, on the other hand, it was, they were really
good, but, um, I remember quite a few times, and even, I understand in
the safety planning. ….Um, I already knew what services there were. I
knew the power cycle. I knew everything so I felt like I was going through
a hoop too, just to appease the judge, even though I wasn't...I started
them before he ordered.”
Other women found the classes and services offered by DVSAC very accommodating,
including one woman who was court ordered but lived in Rexburg.
“They were really good. Because I live quite a ways away from here and I
was working nights and trying to take care of my kids and get down here.
They were really good too...they pushed it through faster. They let me stay
longer after classes so I could have two classes at once instead of one.”
“It was great. When I first walked in they grabbed me. We talked. We sat
down, It was…it was great. And the classes were an eye opener. You
know, not what you expect.”
“Yeah, they were good to have…they offered, you know, “Do you need
some place to stay,” but “No I had a place.” They offered me everything,
asked me if I needed anything else and went through the list. But no, I'm
okay.”
“I loved the class. I learned a lot, I learned a lot about abuse and how to
recognize it. I don't think I left with a safety plan, though. They gave me
paperwork to fill out and I think I might have started it, and, if I remember
right, it might have been a little overwhelming or a little much. I don't know,
I when I left I don’t think I had a plan set. And that was the purpose of the
class. I don't know, they didn’t really stick on it too hard.”
Overall, women found DVSAC was very helpful when they requested assistance
with understanding the court process and in filing for orders of protection:

68
“I didn’t come here until after I had the protective order. So, but, the same
lady who helped me here, she was at the court house when I went to get
the protective order. And she's helped me fill out the paperwork. And, ya
know, she talked me through what to expect...”
“Yeah, um, I came in here for a help with a protection order against my
kids’ ex- step mom. My ex-husband was very abusive to me. He was
emotionally, mentally, sexually abusive to me. And I had divorced him. He
re-married two months after our divorce was final and she was extremely
abusive to my children. Um, when they got taken out of the house, it was
because, I think he was three…my three year old son was dropped off at
the day care with a black eye. And so, my ex-husband’s parents said
“That’s it, we’re not dealing with this anymore.” And took the kids out of
the house. Um, they had eventually divorced but then they were getting
back together. And I was absolutely terrified of what was gonna happen to
my kids. So I filed for a protection order. I was denied. And so, the lady
there recommended that I come in here and speak with the lady here. And
she was amazing. She pretty much told me, “ya know, we can try to re-file,
but we’ll probably be denied again.” But she just helped me with things I
could do if anything happened. You know, like, keeping a journal; which I
used to do when the kids were at their dad. Of things they would tell me,
how they would look when they came home. Ya know, things that I’d seen.
Just so I would have that as a backup if anything happened.”
One woman noted that, when her teenage daughters had to go to court in order
to get an order of protection against their father, both the court advocate and staff at
DVSAC went out of their way to assist her girls and support them throughout the
process:
“Well, um, mostly the day that we filed the protective order…I forget her
name, the one who has her office next to family court services in the
courthouse, was there and helped us fill out the paperwork, answer
questions. And they stayed in her office when they had to go back for the
hearing in case they had to testify. Um, and then, they said there’s not
really classes for teenage girls, which was, is an issue that I think needs to
be addressed. Um, it ended up, one of the people here [at DVSAC] ended
up meeting with them. But I think she was just being nice. I don’t think it
was officially part of her job. And she was wonderful. I think she basically
did the safety planning classes. And it was very helpful for them. Once
again, just that same “you’re doing the right thing. It’s okay to stand up for
yourself. You know, you don’t have to be treated like this. You’re doing the
right thing. You don’t have to put up with this; take a stand.” You just need

69
a lot of that when you’re in that kind of a situation because it’s just so
scary.”
Criminal Justice System Experiences
Police. Most women’s experiences with the law enforcement were positive.
Referral to DVSAC by police appears to be inconsistent with some women indicating
they received information and others stating they did not. As noted earlier (Table 2,
Appendix C), women receiving services from DVSAC were less likely to be referred by
police and more likely to be referred by the court or prosecuting attorney’s office
compared to women receiving services from NFJC:
“They were really good when like, whenever I got the protective order, and
he broke the protective order four or five times. And he went to jail each
time.”
“Um, the officer that was dispatched to my house is the one that referred
me to the Domestic Violence...err, here. And, um, he told me when the
groups were, and he's like, I know the judge is probably going to order you
to do this. So, if you can get ahead on it, that's probably better in your
favor. So I already had one class under before we went to court for the No
Contact order and everything like that…. Um, and, the officer was really
nice. Um, I was totally like…I mean, I didn’t want him to get in trouble. I
was trying to justify. And like, you know, I don't want him to get in
trouble...and thinking back I can see why I wouldn't because I didn’t want
the repercussions or anything like that. But, um, so he spent the night in
jail and he was ordered, um, he...I had to... we had to somehow I had to
pack up some things and his friends could take him his clothes. He wasn't
allowed to come to the house at all. And so, we had a No Contact order.
The No Contact order is still in place..”
“When I called the cops, or, when I had come in, it was almost like they
made light of the situation at the police department. And I just, stood tall,
and became a total bitch until they would listen to me. There was a lady
there that connected me to these guys (DVSAC). She was really good to
help me, ya know, to get what I needed.”
Women were asked if they would call the police again if needed based on their
experience. The majority of women indicated they would. However, a couple of the

70
women were not so sure and one woman indicated she would not call the police again
due both to the economic repercussions and because she felt her husband was not
receiving the services he needed:
“I just don’t want to deal with the legal system…….But, um, I don’t want to
pay the, I don’t want to pay the price for it. And honestly, he gets arrested,
we’re still married so I’m still partially responsible t pay the bills. And I
don’t want to deal with it. It's better to just kinda let it go, me go my
separate way, and let him deal with his, his issues. His issue is he’s an
alcoholic. Ya know, it's not...and that was, that was one of the most
disappointing things with the whole outcome. Not once did they [referring
to court] have him do an alcohol assessment. You know, they didn't listen
to me when I said, he needs help. He needs rehab. He doesn't need jail.
He needs rehab. They don’t care.”
Prosecuting attorney’s office and court. A number of women made
comments suggesting that when their abusers were court ordered into some form of
treatment or counseling that the court did not follow through to see if it was completed,
or alternatively let them stop after they completed only a portion of what originally was
required. Similarly, they stated that, when they were court ordered to safety classes,
there was no follow-up to see if they had done so or were allowed to stop before
completing all the classes. As one woman stated:
“Follow through with the court pretty much sucks. Well, I mean honestly, if
I was ordered to go to classes and I didn’t go to classes and I didn't have
any repercussions for it, that's pretty poor follow through. Nobody
checked to see if I went to the classes. Um, he was ordered to do the
Domestic Violence classes with Tom. And instead of the 52 weeks, which
is the normal, he was only ordered 26 weeks. It was kind of funny because
the letter that Tom wrote at the end was basically, that he had all the right
answers to all the questions, but that he felt he needed more time, but yet
there was nothing ever done. I checked Idaho repository. It's still showing,
it actually, the last thing shows that he had, um, a follow up with, with
diversion. And nothing..it says “Case closed.”
Women had mixed feelings and results in court with regard to sentencing or
charges being dropped. A couple of women noted they really appreciated the closed

71
circuit television in the courtroom. Generally, women seemed satisfied with their
interaction with the Bonneville County Court Administrator and appreciated being
referred to DVSAC. Additionally, they generally felt they were informed by the
prosecuting attorney’s office during the court process, whether or not the outcome was
what they had hoped.
“But, every step of the way, if I had a question, the prosecuting office was
right there. Um, I was getting called by his personal assistant all the time.”
Women seemed to be less satisfied with prosecuting attorneys’ offices outside of
Idaho Falls, reporting their charges were routinely dropped. One woman noted it was
common knowledge among women in the Rigby area that the police would respond but
the prosecuting attorney’s office would drop the charges.
“The police were really good and arrested him and everything….. But the
Rigby Prosecutor’s office is horrible. They dropped all of his charges every
time. Every single time the officers would arrest him and charge him with
something, they'd drop it. The prosecutor actually looked at me
once….and he said, “Well, I hope he doesn’t bother ya.” Ya know, “He
seems sorry. I hope he leaves you alone.”
Access and Coordination of Services and Resources
DVSAC’s two primary services, court advocacy and safety classes, were well
received. Women often did not seek other types of services. This may be because they
were not needed, were not aware of other services available through DVSAC, or not
offered such services. When women did seek other services their experience in access
and coordination were mixed.
Similar to women at NFJC, the most common comments with regard to additional
services focused on Legal Aid and counseling services. While some women felt they

72
acquired the necessary resources, some women acknowledged that other resource
agencies were sometimes difficult to access and lacked follow through:
“I had heard about it from class, but [DVSAC staff member], basically filled
out the referral form so that my case would be considered to get legal
services. And then after that I was basically receiving the services
after….Um, but, I know they have a big case load and sometimes I felt like
I was kind of pushed to the side. Which, I, I mean, I understand, but, I was
the one that would call when I needed something and when I had
questions. They were pretty good about returning phone calls on some
instances. Um, but, (laughs) on other instances there were some where I
wanted to fight for something. And she [staff at Legal Aid] said, it doesn't
really matter, you should just move on. Which, to me it was important.”
Alternatively, one woman generally found her experience with Legal Aid positive
even though she had ongoing challenges with her ex-husband abiding by the legal
outcomes:
“It was good. I, um, it was good but the lawyers aren't very....they kind of
let people walk all over you. Like, I still don’t have the things awarded to
me. I still don't have them because he just refuses to give them to me.”
In some cases, women felt DVSAC was helpful with court issues but lacked
follow-through in facilitating access to additional services. This included a woman who
was in need of housing and felt DVSAC did not assist her. She was able to get
assistance from Club Incorporated:
“Well, not so great. The getting a protection order was fine. She came
that day and met me that day. She was great. She was fast. She did that
part really well. The other things I had to go find on my own. I needed
housing immediately and didn’t know, ya know, where there were
resources to even, ya know, to get that. I had two kids……My experience
was, with myself and with clients that I worked with, was that if you can be
handed off, then this center will hand it off, that’s what they do. And that's
frustrating, when this is a targeted place for that specific problem. The
protection order happened really fast and that part was great. Um, the
legal stuff, trying to figure out what I needed to do, what I needed to get.
That was kind of the same thing. I got a phone number with the person's
first name and the phone number didn’t work. So...I just got in the phone
book and called the courthouse. I was like, the courthouse stalker for

73
days. I was always trying to find out where to go for things, when they
really could have done that here.
I left a message once and never heard from the Center again.”
Similar issues were noted in securing needed counseling:
“The only thing that I wasn't ever able to receive that I wanted was
counseling. Because I worked nights and evenings, and that was the only
time they could offer it. They couldn't offer it any other time and I couldn't
afford to take any time off work.”
When asked if DVSAC provided referral sources for counseling she stated, “No, no,
they didn’t.” Other women felt that, had they wanted counseling, DVSAC would have
connected them.
“I didn’t need the DVSAC counseling connections, I had family in the
business. I knew where to go for those things and didn’t need help.”
“They offered, but I didn’t need any. I was referred to a specialist
counselor by my previous counselor. People sometimes end up with
counselors who don’t understand domestic violence.”
Finally, one participant had a unique experience compared to other focus group
participants. She had no contact with DVSAC except perhaps briefly in the courthouse
which she did not remember. An advocate from DVSAC was present at the courthouse
the day this participant was seeking an order of protection and thus was on DVSAC’s
list. However until they called her to ask if she would like to participate in the focus
group, she had no contact with DVSAC staff. She indicated she wished she had known
more about the Center because she really could have used the support and resources.
“Well, like…when you go in there [court]…you’re like…upside down and
you’re not going to remember anything. And you’re fillin out this form.
And in the process you don’t know what to do. There’s probably a lot of
people like me that could use the help…”

74
When asked if she thought there were services at DVSAC that might be helpful to her
now, she stated, “I have no idea because I don’t know what available. But I’m sure
there’s gotta be something.” This participant was referred for immediate contact with
DVSAC following the focus group at her request. This scenario suggests the DVSAC
may wish to assess ways of safely following-up with women who seek orders of
protection but are not referred for their services such as safety classes.
Finally, women were asked how collaborative and well-coordinated agencies
were in addressing women’s needs. Unfortunately, most women felt there was a lack of
collaboration between agencies addressing domestic violence.
“No one is talking to anybody, not the counselor, the parole officers or the
courts.”
“I had to retell stories a lot.”
“The police were informed about the Center, but the Center was not
collaborating with Legal Aid.”
“I don’t think they work together at all.”
“I didn’t really utilize the system here. So I didn't really feel like anybody
was really talking to anybody. But as far as, like, with him, his counseling,
his probation officer, his counselor, and the court, it kind of all fell through
the cracks. I mean, I don't know if, as it sits right now, it's still kind of in
limbo.”
We then inquired what their thoughts were about the idea of having different
kinds of services at one location. Responses were mixed. While one woman stated, “I
think so. Then we wouldn’t have to wait for phone calls.” Another stated, “not
necessarily, if they just communicated they wouldn’t have to be.” It is possible that
because so few women utilized services beyond safety classes and assistance with
protective orders they did not see the potential benefit of such an arrangement.

75
Perceived Impact of Services on Domestic Violence and Well-Being
Women were asked if they felt DVSAC had an impact on their current well-being
and issues related to domestic violence. A few women made affirmative comments:
“I think the center, for me, has, um, given me another support, basically, a
support group. I mean, you have your family and stuff, but knowing that
you’re not alone. 'Cause sometimes your family doesn’t understand. Half
my family didn't know everything that was going on until it happened. Um,
but, um, being able to get input from other people’s experiences to help
me with mine, it's been wonderful. Um, and I know I can call when I need
it. Um, [DVSAC staff member]’s called me on some occasions, inviting me
to a different group. Um, kind of help us focus on other things, such as
self-esteem and things like that to help, help yourself, not just the situation
you're in, but help yourself and that's been really nice to be a part of.....”
“You kind of can see what you were going through. And you can see that,
Oh, you were in an abusive relationship. And you should have been out.
You should have realized what, what… It shows you what you see in
another person. It makes you make the right decision. I think it’d be good
for all young teenage girls to go through this or something, so that they
know what to see before they even get in a relationship.”
“In the safety classes, they were really helpful to me because I took them
and I was like, Oh, that's why I do that, and I didn't realize until I took
those classes.”
“Would I call them? Yes, I would.”
“Yeah, the class is really good.”
Other women indicated that DVSAC would not be the first place they turned for
help. One woman had strong feelings about not receiving the types of services she
needed when she came to DVSAC.
It's not that I wouldn't feel comfortable; I just wouldn’t waste my time
calling. I'd rather call someone who’s going to help me.
Women were requested to offer suggestions for ways that the DVSAC might
improve their services. First, women who needed services beyond court services or
safety classes felt this could sometimes be difficult. It may be necessary for members

76
of the Coordinated Community Response to convene and identify ways in which
additional resources and services can be more seamlessly delivered survivors of
domestic violence. Second, similar to the suggestions by NFJC participants, some
women noted they would like follow-up from the Center after receiving their services.
This would require a process for identifying who would like follow-up and how that can
be done most safely. Unlike women at NFJC who all indicated they would have a “safe
contact”, some women from DVSAC indicated they would not want follow-up due to
safety concerns. Third, again echoing comments from women at the NFJC, women
believed there needed to be more education and outreach to raise awareness of the
array of services offered through DVSAC. As one woman stated:
“I think they need to advertise more. Because there’s a lot of women who
are very silent about this. And a lot of them don’t…I wouldn’t have ever
known to come here but my ex-mother in law’s like, you need to come
here. She goes, it’s the best thing you could ever do for yourself. And if it
wasn’t for her, I would never have come. And I think they just need more
advertisement or something so the women who live in the background can
come.”
And another woman stated:
“I think a lot of us need to be pulled in. Because you’re such in a whirlwind
and you’re hiding and you don’t know what to do or where to go and it’s
such a whirlwind goin’ on. You pretty much need someone to grab your
hand and pull you in.”
As previously mentioned, women also requested a prevention and education class for
their daughters and teenage girls about domestic violence. Fourth, again similar to
findings among NFJC participants, was the need to assess and improve relationships
and access to Legal Aid services. Finally, women also felt better community resources
were needed for counseling:

77
“Because this is something that if you get it, you get it, if you don’t then
you don’t. But if you don’t understand the dynamics, you can’t. You just
know…you can’t send people in the right direction. People end up with
counselors who don’t understand.”
How do you find someone who’s good with those kinds of issues?
Overall, DVSAC is well known and does well assisting women with the civil court
process and providing safety classes. Women appreciated these services and felt the
classes were educational. However, it appears that some women may slip through the
cracks (e.g., the one participant who had no contact with DVSAC except for being on
their list as having filed for a protective order). And, women rarely seek services
beyond safety classes and assistance with protection orders. It is unclear if this is
because they really do not need the services, do not realize DVSAC can help them
acquire resources, or are not being offered services consistently. It is also possible that
more follow-up is needed after the initial contact to meet on-going or changing needs.
For women who did seek other services, they often felt as though it was a challenge to
receive them. This could be a function of limited services in the community or less than
effective collaboration between DVSAC and other collaborating agencies, which
suggests the CCR may wish to reconvene to discuss ways of improvement or
alternatively examine whether a co-located family justice model might be worth
considering. There appears to be some inconsistency in police referral to DVSAC and
women outside of Idaho Falls seemed to struggle with the response from the
prosecuting attorney’s office. Additionally, some women reported that there was little
follow-through from the court when an abusive partner was court ordered into some
form of treatment to see if they actually completed it.

78
Conclusion
Overall, both agencies provide critical and valued services which women
appreciate. NFJC has the advantage of having co-location of service providers which
may facilitate collaboration in a way that enables women to both learn more readily
about community resources and access those services. Additionally, there was a sense
of a “relationship” between women and NFJC. Women from NFJC may have had more
sustained contact with the NFJC, whereas, it seems women who utilized services at
DVSAC were more often only seeking assistance with a protection order or attending
safety planning classes (court-ordered in many cases). Interestingly, women at both
locations offered similar suggestions for improvement including increased access to and
services from Legal Aid, counseling service availability, referrals to counselors who are
competent in addressing domestic violence issues, and the need for more community
advertising and education to reach women who may not be aware of their services.

79
Criminal Justice System Outcomes
Methodology
The purpose of this outcome evaluation was to provide baseline and/or
comparison statistics for both sites to evaluate how well they are meeting their stated
goals, (i.e., increased victim safety and increased accountability for offenders). Using a
systemic evaluation allows for all of the agencies involved to evaluate how well they, as
a system, are functioning in terms of holding offenders accountable for the violence they
commit and increasing public safety. Because the actions of each agency along the
criminal justice continuum affect the ability of each successive agency to act, a systemic
analysis, such as this one, is the only appropriate means of evaluating the broader
picture of institutional response to domestic violence.
In November of 2009, the NFJC contracted with Dr. Growette Bostaph at Boise
State University to conduct an updated outcome evaluation using the same systemic
model as in the initial 2007 evaluation and it was completed in January 2010. Since the
funding for the current study came less than a year after the updated evaluation, the
data compiled for that report was used here. The same evaluative model was used in
the collection of data from Idaho Falls, with some differences in who collected the data.
The outcome portion of this evaluation required data to be collected from
agencies across the criminal justice system. As with the previous evaluation in Nampa,
the study focused on the population of cases coming into the Nampa Family Justice
Center (NFJC) and the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Program (DVSAC)

80
during a two month period of time (April-May 2008). These cases (N=66 for NFJC
5
and
N=76 for DVSAC) were then tracked through the criminal justice system (police,
prosecution, and sentencing). We chose the time period of April-May 2008 to ensure
that all prosecuted cases would be resolved, thus enabling the collection of sentencing
data. For Nampa, data were gathered from NFJC files, the ISTARS database in the
Nampa Police Department and the City Prosecutor’s Office, the Idaho Repository, and
additional data were from Valley Crisis Center. For Idaho Falls, data were gathered from
DVSAC files, police reports were provided by the Records Departments for the Idaho
Falls Police Department and the Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office
6
, and all prosecution
and sentencing data was drawn from the Idaho Repository. The differences in data
collection between sites may be one reason why post-arrest data on cases from the
Nampa site appear to be more complete than those from Idaho Falls.
As with the initial Nampa outcome evaluation, some obstacles were still present
that made data collection somewhat cumbersome. Offender names are an ongoing
obstacle for this type of data collection. Victim services agencies focus on assisting
victims, so case files are generally filed by the victim name and often do not include the
offender’s name. However, the criminal justice system is focused on the offender’s
suspected behavior and organizes all information using the offender’s name; the
victim’s name may or may not appear in the file. Linking the two information bodies is
essential for systemic evaluations, but is still problematic within the NFJC and its
partnering agencies. Interestingly, while the DVSAC files cases by victim name as well,
5
The sample sizes differ between the 2010 and current analyses. A handful of additional intake forms were found
during the current data collection process that were not available during the 2010 collection.
6
The researchers would like to thank Deputy Karl Casperson and Nikoli Fyfe for their assistance in gathering police
reports.

81
they do collect offender names as part of the information during intake. Thus, the ability
to link victim to offender was obviously not an issue at that site. Based on our previous
experience in Nampa, a graduate research assistant applied and was accepted as an
intern for the Nampa Police Department. The research assistant had access to
departmental files (via ISTARS) and remaining data were gathered at the City
Prosecutor’s Office, again using ISTARS and Spillman.
Data were collected using previously designed paper forms and later entered into
an Access database. In order to perform the necessary statistical analyses, the data
were transferred into SPSS. The data were collected, stored, and analyzed on a secure
computer in a restricted access location. The next section reports the findings of these
analyses.
Nampa Family Justice Center (NFJC)
Decision to Report to Police
During the study period:
 52% (n=34) of the clients entering NFJC during the study period reported their
assault to the police, including 50% (n=17) who requested counseling, one client
who sought an order for protection, one client who requested shelter, and 24%
(n=8) who disclosed physical injuries resulting from the assault.
 94% (n=32) of the victims were female and 93% (n=28) of offenders were male.
 39% of clients reporting to the police were divorced/separated, while 32% were
married and 29% were single/living together.
 82% of the cases reported to the police involved Caucasian clients and the
average age of those reporting to the police was 37 years old.
 76% (n=25) were reported by the client themselves with 24% (n=8) reported by a
third party.
 The two most frequently specified offenses were domestic violence (27%, n=9)
and domestic battery (35%, n=12).
 77% (n=26) of reported cases involved no physical injuries.
 Of the 24% (n=8) involving injuries, the most frequently reported injuries were
body bruising (50%, n=4) and facial lacerations (38%, n=3).
 One case involved multiple forms of injuries.
 No weapons were involved in any of the reported assaults.

82
 There were no additional witnesses beyond the victim in 77% (n=26) of the
reported assaults.
 68% (n=19) of the reported assaults occurred within the victim’s residence.
 74% (n=25) of the offenders were arrested with one dual arrest occurring.
Nationally, the reporting rate for intimate partner violence is roughly 50 percent
(Rennison & Welchans, 2000). During the study period, 52% of clients at NFJC reported
their assault to police, higher than the national average. Compared to those seeking
assistance, the proportion of married clients who reported to the police decreased
slightly (35% to 32%) with a subsequent increase (36% to 39%) in divorced/separated
clients who reported to the police.
An overwhelming percentage of offenders (74%) were arrested with a majority of
the assaults reported by the victims themselves (77%). Both of these statistics are
relatively unchanged from 2008. Roughly one-quarter of the reported cases involved
visible physical injuries to the victim (a decrease from 36% in 2008), but this represents
all of the cases involving injury coming into the NFJC. Compared to 2008, the most
frequently reported injuries changed with facial lacerations (38%) replacing facial
bruising. There was a significant increase in the proportion of cases reported to the
police that involved no additional witness beyond the victim (64% in 2008 vs. 77% in
2010).
Decision to Refer for Charging
During the study period:
 85% (n=29) of reported cases were referred for prosecution, including 86%
(n=25) of cases involving arrests and 80% (n=4) of cases where the offender was
not arrested.
 Overall, 86% (n=25) of referred cases involved an arrested offender.
 93% (n=27) of victims in referred cases were female and 93% (n=26) of
offenders were male.

83
 Both divorced/separated and single/living together clients comprised 32% of the
cases that were referred for charging.
 The average age of clients whose cases were referred for charging was 33 years
old.
 One of the victims in referred cases had an order for protection, one was
sheltered, and 59% (n=17) were in counseling.
 The two most frequent offenses comprising referred cases were domestic battery
(41%, n=12) and domestic assault/violence (41%, n=9).
 72% (n=21) of referred cases involved no visible physical injuries.
 72% (n=21) of referred cases had no other witnesses to the assault other than
the victim.
 65% (n=17) of referred cases occurred inside the victim’s residence.
As would be expected due to the existence of probable cause, the majority of
cases where the offender was arrested were referred for prosecution. However, that
proportion of referred cases decreased from 99% in 2008 to 86% in 2010. The more
significant change in referred cases though occurred in those where the offender was
not arrested at the scene. During the study period, 80% of non-arrest cases were
referred for prosecution compared to 48% in 2008.
The percentage of cases with a female victim remained relatively unchanged
from those who reported to the police and from 2008 with similar results for cases
involving a male offender. A smaller proportion of cases involving divorced/separated
clients comprised those referred for prosecution compared to those who reported to the
police (32% vs. 39%, respectively), resulting in an increase in the proportion of
single/living together cases referred for prosecution (29% to 32%). In addition, the
average age of clients whose cases were referred for prosecution (33 years old)
declined from those who reported to the police (37 years old). While the number of
cases involving clients requesting a protection order or shelter was minimal (one case

84
for each service type), 59% of referred cases involved a client who requested
counseling compared to 50% of those seeking assistance.
Compared to 2008, increases were found in types of offenses, lack of physical
injuries, lack of witnesses, and location of assault. While the most frequent offenses
listed in referred cases remained the same, domestic battery increased from 23% in
2008 to 41% in 2010. In 2008, 57% of referred cases involved no visible physical
injuries, but increased to 72% in 2010. The proportion of referred cases lacking
additional witnesses (outside of the victim) also increased from 2008 to 2010 (60% vs.
72%). And, the proportion of referred cases occurring inside the victim’s residence
continued to increase (57% in 2008 vs. 65% in 2010).
Decision to Prosecute
During the study period:
 93% (n=27) of cases referred for prosecution by the police were actually
charged.
 96% (n=26) of prosecuted cases had a female victim and 96% had a male
offender.
 The average age of victims in prosecuted cases was 33 years and there were
fairly similar proportions of divorced/separated, married, and single/living
together victims in those cases that were prosecuted.
 Only one prosecuted case involved a protection order and one involved a request
for shelter, while 63% of victims in prosecuted cases requested counseling.
 74% (n=20) of prosecuted cases involved no visible physical injuries.
 74% (n=15) of cases prosecuted had no other witnesses aside from the victim.
 The most frequently charged offenses were Battery-Domestic Violence (34%,
n=10) and Enhancement-Domestic Battery in the Presence of a Child (24%,
n=7).
 An even proportion of defendants were released on their recognizance and
ordered to post bail (42%, n=10) with the most frequent bail amount ordered at
$5,000 (22%, n=6). Ninety percent of those ordered to post bail actually made
bail.
 88% (n=22) of the defendants were provided court appointed attorneys.
 15% (n=4) of prosecuted cases were dismissed.
 19% (n=5) of cases went to jury trial and one case went to a court trial.
 19% (n=5) of prosecuted cases were resolved by a guilty plea.

85
 44% (n=12) of cases were resolved through a guilty plea to lesser charges (plea
bargain).
A large majority of the cases referred by police for charging were prosecuted
(93%) and the proportion has increased compared to 2008 (83%). The proportions of
female victims and male offenders have also increased since 2008 (92% to 96%, 88%
to 96%). The average age of clients whose cases were prosecuted remained
unchanged from cases that were charged (33 years old); however marital status has
continued to change across decision-making points in the criminal justice system. The
proportion of divorced/separated victims in prosecuted cases continued to decline
compared to earlier decision-making points in the system (31%). While the proportion of
married victims has remained relatively stable across those same points, the proportion
of single/living together victims has continued to increase (35% for prosecuted cases
compared to 29% for charging cases). While no changes have occurred with clients
who requested a protection order or shelter (remaining extremely low at one case
each), the percentage of cases involving a victim who requested counseling continued
to increase with 63% of victims in prosecuted cases having requested this service (an
increase from 59% at charging).
Roughly three-quarters of prosecuted cases still involve no physical injury and
that statistic has remained fairly stable as cases have progressed through the criminal
justice system (varying 72%-77%). However, this proportion is a significant increase
from 2008 when only 52% of prosecuted cases involved no visible physical injuries. This
increase is similar to that reported for prosecuted cases with no other witnesses aside
from the victim (74% up from 60% in 2008). While Domestic Violence and Criminal

86
Trespass were the two most frequent charged offenses in 2008, for 2010, Battery-
Domestic Violence and an enhancement for Domestic Battery in the Presence of a
Child were the most frequent offenses charged by prosecutors. The higher proportion of
cases involving no visible physical injury and no additional witnesses may account for
the significant decrease in defendants ordered to pretrial detention (16% in 2010 vs.
76% in 2008). Defendants in 2010 were equally likely to be released on their own
recognizance or ordered to post bail (42% each) with 90% of defendants ordered to
post bail making bail and being released. The most frequent bail amount ordered by the
court was $5000. In 2008, all of the defendants qualified for court appointed attorneys,
but that proportion decreased to 88% in 2010.
A dramatic decrease in dismissed cases occurred in 2010 compared to 2008
(15% vs. 32%). All of the defendants in these dismissed cases had been arrested (n=4).
Twenty-five percent of these dismissed cases involved physical injuries to the victim
and all had no additional witnesses beyond the victim. There was no concentration in
any specific type of offense charged for these dismissed cases as they ranged from
disturbing the peace to domestic battery in the presence of a child.
For this evaluation, the researchers were able to separate straight guilty pleas
from guilty pleas originating from a plea bargain to a lesser offense. Thus, only 19% of
prosecuted cases were resolved through a straight plea to original charges, while 44%
were resolved through a guilty plea to a lesser charge. These appear to be decreases
compared to 2008 where 64% where resolved through either straight pleas or a plea to
a lesser charge. Comprising the difference was an increase in both jury and court trials

87
(19%). In a change from 2008, only one of the plea bargained cases involved a lesser
charge of disturbing the peace, compared to 90% in 2008.
Decision to Sentence
During the study period:
 81% of cases resolved by guilty plea, jury trial, court trial, or plea bargain were
sentenced (n=22).
 96% (n=21) of the cases sentenced involved a female victim and 95% (n=20)
involved a male offender.
 The average age of the victim in sentenced cases was 33 years old.
 Only 24% of sentenced cases involved divorced/separated victims, while both
married and single/living together victims reached 38% of the prosecuted cases.
 None of the sentenced cases included an initial request for a protection order or
shelter. However, 68% of sentenced cases involved a victim who requested
counseling.
 77% (n=17) of sentenced cases involved no physical injuries to the victim.
 68% (n=15) of sentenced cases had no additional witnesses beyond the victim.
 71% (n=15) of sentenced cases occurred at the victim’s residence.
 86% (n=19) of the defendants sentenced received jail time and in all of the cases
at least some, if not all, of the jail time was suspended by the court.
 One case resulted in a conviction to a felony charge and the defendant was
ordered to serve 60 months in prison.
 91% (n=20) of defendants sentenced were required to pay a fine to the court with
29% ordered to pay $350 (most frequent amount).
 46% (n=10) were ordered to complete some form of treatment with 30% ordered
to complete domestic violence treatment (most frequent treatment type).
 27% (n=6) of defendants were ordered to have no contact with the victim of the
crime.
 91% (n=20) of defendants were placed on probation for a specified amount of
time with 60% ordered on probation for 2 years (most frequent length of time).
A majority of cases (81%) that were resolved through various means were
sentenced. Of these sentenced cases, 96% involved a female victim (an increase from
88% in 2008) and 95% involved a male offender (also an increase from 82% in 2008).
The average of the victim in sentenced cases remained unchanged from prosecuted
cases at 33 years old. The proportion of cases involving separated/divorced victims
continued to decline (24% down from 31% of prosecuted cases), while the proportion of

88
married or single/living together cases continued to increase across decision making
points in the system (both at 38% up from 32% and 35% respectively). While neither of
the cases involving a protection order or a request for shelter was sentenced, the
proportion of cases involving victims who requested counseling reached its highest level
at 68% of sentenced cases.
Some of the most dramatic increases occurred in the characteristics of cases
reaching the sentencing phase. The percentage of cases being sentenced that included
no physical injuries to the victim and no additional witnesses beyond the victim
increased from 53% for both in 2008 to 77% and 68%, respectively. A smaller increase
was noted in the percentage of sentenced cases that occurred at the victim’s residence
(71%, up from 65% in 2008).
In terms of actual sentences handed down to offenders, most measures saw
steady increases. A higher percentage of defendants were required to pay a fine in
2010 (91%) than in 2008 (82%). The most significant increase in this category
appeared in the area of treatment. In 2008, only one defendant was ordered to
complete some form of domestic violence treatment. In 2010, 46% of defendants were
ordered to treatment and the researchers were able to document the type of treatment
ordered by the Court. Thirty percent were ordered to complete domestic violence
treatment which was the most frequent form of treatment ordered for defendants during
the study period. Some measures did decrease compared to the 2008 data. In 2008,
94% of sentenced defendants received jail time, while in 2010, 86% received jail time
and all defendants had partial or all of their time suspended by the Court. The
percentage of defendants ordered to have no contact with the victim as a condition of

89
their sentence also decreased in 2010 (27%, down from 35%). Finally, 91% of
defendants were placed on probation for a period of time in 2010, a decrease from 94%
in 2008. And only 60% were given a probationary period of 2 years as opposed to 91%
in 2008.
NFJC Discussion
The initial results indicated that, for the most part, each agency in the system is
addressing domestic violence to some extent. And, in comparison to the 2008
evaluation, significant increases across many of the measures indicate greater
awareness and better response to cases of domestic violence. The high percentage of
reported cases actually involving an arrest, those being referred for prosecution, the
proportion being charged, the percentage of offenders being held in jail, the likelihood of
a convicted offender being sentenced to jail time and probation are all good indicators of
a functioning system in response to domestic violence. In addition, there were
significant increases and decreases in case characteristics that imply a stronger
prosecutorial presence in the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence
compared to 2008. Some of these changes are discussed in the remainder of this
section.
In 2010, the percentage of cases coming into the Nampa Family Justice Center
that were reported to the police was 52%, a significant increase from a reporting rate of
31% in 2008. This possibly reflects an increased awareness of the NFJC and its
services as well as an increased willingness to report these incidents to law
enforcement. The researchers did not have the requisite data to answer the question as
to why reporting has increased. The primary caveat to this finding is that the actual

90
reporting rate to the local police department may be higher, in that victims may be
reporting directly to local police and never receiving services from the NFJC. If victims
did not seek out services from NFJC, they would not be reflected in this analysis. But,
the only way to ascertain that would be to conduct a victimization study in the Nampa-
area to determine prevalence and incidence rates and actual proportions which are
being reported to area police. In terms of the NFJC evaluation, the increase in reporting
from 2008 is a significant improvement.
Second, in 2008, the researchers highlighted two areas of concern: the low
percentages of non-arrest cases referred for prosecution and non-arrest cases actually
charged. These were areas of concern due to the issue that victims may often delay
reporting the assault, sometimes waiting to see what the response of the offender will
be, while other times in order to make appropriate plans for themselves and/or their
children. This potentially could mean that a large proportion of domestic violence cases
coming to the attention of the police would never reach the rest of the criminal justice
system, accountability for the offender would decrease, and, possibly, risk for the victim
would increase. The results from the 2010 analysis have calmed those concerns. In
2010, 80% of cases where the offender was not arrested were referred for charging as
opposed to 48% in 2008. In 2010, 50% of the cases referred where the offender was
not arrested were actually charged as opposed to none in 2008.
Those changes may be related to changes that were observed in the
characteristics of cases prosecuted in the 2010 study period compared to the 2008
study period. Strength of domestic violence cases is often determined by the presence
of physical injuries, witnesses beyond the victim, and location of the assault (which is

91
highly correlated to the presence of witnesses). The concern is that most cases of
domestic violence fall into the misdemeanor category of offenses, often involve few, if
any, physical injuries visible at the time of reporting, and few witnesses other than the
victim primarily because most incidents occur inside of a private residence.
Improvements have been made over the years in evidence collection and prosecution of
cases with these characteristics in order to address the vast majority of domestic
violence. In 2008, 57% of cases referred by the police had no visible physical injuries,
60% involved no other witnesses beyond the victim, and 57% occurred inside the
victim’s residence. While not bad findings, there was still the possibility that many
domestic violence cases were being overlooked in the decision to refer to the
prosecutor’s office because of a perceived lack of strength in the case. Also in 2008,
52% of prosecuted domestic violence cases coming from the NFJC involved no physical
injuries and 60% had no other witnesses beyond the victim. Again, while these findings
were not necessarily negative, if the vast majority of cases fall into these categories but
only half of the prosecutions, there is some concern. In 2010, these concerns can be set
aside to some extent. Seventy-two percent of cases referred by the police involved no
physical injuries, 72% had no other witnesses, and 65% occurred inside the victim’s
residence. Of the cases charged by the prosecutor in 2010, 74% had no visible physical
injuries and 74% had no other witnesses. In addition, the percentage of cases
dismissed by the prosecutor decreased from 32% in 2008 to 15% in 2010. These are
sizable increases (and decreases) within that time frame and the researchers are aware
that a change in city prosecutor occurred between the two evaluations.

92
Finally, in 2008, we expressed concern that only one defendant during the study
period was court-ordered into treatment. Defendants who pled guilty to original charges
of domestic violence or domestic battery were not even ordered into treatment. In 2010,
46% of defendants were ordered to complete some form of treatment of which 30%
were ordered to complete domestic violence treatment. This is an obvious improvement
from 2008, however only 30% of defendants convicted of an incident arising out of act
of domestic violence were ordered to complete a course of treatment designed
specifically to address domestic violence. The other 70% were ordered to sex offender
treatment, alcohol treatment, anger management, or marriage counseling (which of
course would require the participation of a victim who is not under the purview of the
Court and places that victim in a very precarious situation). The researchers do not
argue that these other forms of treatment were inappropriate for each individual
defendant, but they are not designed to address the issue of domestic violence and may
further misconceptions about causative factors (e.g., alcohol causes domestic violence
rather than as a facilitator or aggravator of domestic violence).
The initial outcome study (also conducted from a systemic perspective) served
as a baseline for this second evaluation. This outcome study (and any other subsequent
ones) serves as an update to assist the NFJC and its partnering agencies in achieving
their stated goals, especially in the areas of increasing accountability for offenders and
increasing safety for victims. Towards this end, NFJC and its partnering agencies must
continue to address data sharing issues that prevent effective analysis of the work all of
the agencies are conducting. In the future, a larger data collection period (six months as
opposed to two months) may be more instructive especially if the NFJC is interested in

93
examining predictive characteristics among client demographics, case characteristics,
and systemic response. In addition, comparing cases that originate at the NFJC to
those that bypass the NFJC will be important in determining the full effect of the NFJC.
In conclusion, the work done by the NFJC and its partnering agencies has
possibly lead to significant increases in reporting, referral, prosecution, and sentencing
of domestic violence cases in the past two years. These increases, especially in the
area of prosecution, should demonstrate that changing one or more parts of the system
can have a dramatic effect on the system’s response as a whole. Ongoing evaluations
from a systemic perspective are important in order gain perspective on the effects of
changes within the system and to ensure that the goals of the Nampa Family Justice
Center continue to be met.
DVSAC Findings
Decision to Report to Police
7
During the study period:
 20% (n=15) of the clients entering DVSAC during the study period reported their
assault to the police, including 19% (n=3) who sought an order for protection,
30% (n=5) who disclosed physical injuries resulting from the assault, and one
who reported two separate incidents
8
.
 93% (n=13) of the victims were female and 87% (n=13) of offenders were male.
 63% (n=10) of clients reporting to the police stated that their offender was a
current spouse/cohabitant, while 20% of offenders were former
spouses/cohabitants or boyfriends/girlfriends, and 7% each were current
boyfriend/girlfriends or a relative.
 80% (n=12) were reported by the client themselves with 20% (n=3) reported by a
third party.
 The two most frequently specified offenses were domestic battery (25%, n=4)
and domestic violence (13%, n=2).
 69% (n=11) of reported cases involved no physical injuries.
7
The researchers acknowledge that, due to the smaller sample size of the 2010 data collection period, small
raw number changes may result in larger percentage changes.
8
Subgroup totals differ between number of clients and number cases due to the multiple reports (cases) involving
one client.

94
 Of the 31% (n=5) involving injuries, two cases reported facial lacerations and one
case each reported facial bruising, body lacerations, and body bruising.
 13% (n=2) of reported cases involved a weapon. Of those reporting the use of a
weapon, one case involved a firearm and one case involved a blunt object.
 There were no additional witnesses beyond the victim in 81% (n=13) of the
reported cases.
 93% (n=13) of the reported incidents occurred within the victim’s residence.
 31% (n=5) of the offenders were arrested with no dual arrests occurring.
During the study period, the reporting rate at the CCR site was 20% (n=15),
significantly lower than the previously reported 50% rate nationally. Most frequent
marital status among those reporting to the police remained the same as the overall
intake proportions, but the gap between current spouses/cohabitants (44% intake, 63%
reported) and former spouses/cohabitants or former boyfriends/girlfriends (31% intake,
20% reported) increased. Eighty percent (n=12) of the reported cases were the result of
the victims contacting police. In terms of frequency of assaults, 80% (n=12) had been
previously assaulted by their offender with 46% reporting a frequency of 2-3 times
(n=5), while those victimized daily comprised 18% (n=2) of the group
9
. In fact, 73%
(n=8) of victims who had been previously assaulted were the ones who contacted police
in the reported incident which is not surprising as only 19% (n=3) included witnesses
other than the victim. Of the 19% who disclosed physical injuries from the assault, the
most frequently reported physical injury was facial lacerations (13%, n=2).
Thirty-one percent (n=5) of the cases reported to the police resulted in an arrest.
Among those arrested, offender relationship to the victim (i.e., marital status) remained
in similar proportions to the reported cases, and, while the 60% (n=3) of cases resulting
in arrest involved prior assaultive incidents against the victim, that same percentage
9
Comparisons between sites on this variable were not discussed as the NFJC does not collect data on frequency of
abuse.

95
was 80% among all who reported to the police. However, the 2-3 prior incidents
remained the most identified frequency (40%, n=2). Both reported cases involving the
use of a weapon resulted in arrests. Cases resulting in an arrest had a higher
concentration of physical injuries (60%, n=3) than all of the cases reported to police
(31%, n=5 for injuries). However, the arrests had a lower concentrations of incident
location inside the victim’s residence (80%, n=4) than the sample of reported cases
(93%, n=13 for location).
Decision to Refer for Charging
During the study period:
 47% (n=7) of reported cases were referred for prosecution, including 80% (n=4)
of cases involving arrests and 30% (n=3) of cases where the offender was not
arrested.
 Overall, 57% (n=4) of referred cases involved an arrested offender.
 100% (n=7) of victims in referred cases were female and 100% (n=7) of
offenders were male.
 71% (n=5) of cases referred for charging involved current spouses/cohabitants,
with 14% (n=1) each involving former spouses/cohabitants and current dating
partners.
 Two of the victims in referred cases had completed a safety plan, one was
sheltered, and one was attending support groups.
 57% (n=4) of referred cases were at the misdemeanor level and 43% (n=3) were
felonies.
 57% (n=4) of referred cases involved no visible physical injuries.
 86% (n=6) of referred cases had no other witnesses to the assault other than the
victim.
 83% (n=5) of referred cases occurred inside the victim’s residence.
As would be expected due to the existence of probable cause, the majority of
cases where the offender was arrested were referred for prosecution. So, the more
interesting outcome is the proportion of those cases where no arrest occurred (e.g.,
gone on arrival or GOA cases) as referral is the only method through which these cases

96
will be considered for prosecution. During the two months in question, only 30% (3 out
of 10) of reported cases were referred for prosecution.
Only cases with a female victim and male offender were referred for prosecution,
although there were only two reported cases involving other gender combinations. The
gap continued to widen between current spouses/cohabitants and other victim-offender
relationships compared to reported cases (71% and 29% vs. 63% and 27%,
respectively). Cases involving a history of assaults by the offender against the victim
still comprised a majority of cases referred for prosecution and slightly increased (71%,
n=5). Interestingly though, the frequency of prior assaults was more widely distributed
among referred cases than reported cases with an equal proportion among daily, 2-3
times, every six months, and yearly reports (25%, n=1 each).
Compared to reported cases and cases resulting in arrest only, offense
seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony) and incident location at victim’s home remained
relatively unchanged among cases referred for prosecution. One change was in the
proportion of cases involving no physical injury which decreased among referred cases
compared to reported cases (57% vs. 69%).
Decision to Prosecute
10
During the study period:
 71% (n=5) of cases and four of the five arrests referred for prosecution by the
police were actually charged.
 No cases involving former spouses, cohabitants, boyfriends, or girlfriends were
prosecuted. Four of the five cases were current spouses/cohabitants with the
remaining case between current dating partners.
 Victims from three prosecuted cases had sought out non-criminal justice system
services, such as safety planning, support groups, shelter, victim advocacy,
and/or crime victim compensation.
10
Results for this section report raw numbers rather than percentages due to the extremely low sample size.

97
 Two prosecuted cases involved no visible physical injuries.
 Four of the cases prosecuted had no other witnesses aside from the victim.
 Three cases were charged as misdemeanors with the remaining two at the felony
level.
 Three defendants were held on bail with amounts ranging from $25,000-$75,000.
 Two of the defendants were provided court appointed attorneys.
 None of prosecuted cases were dismissed.
 Three cases went to a court trial and all three were found guilty by the Court.
 Two of prosecuted cases were resolved by guilty pleas.
A large majority of the cases referred by police for charging were prosecuted
(five out of seven). Most of the cases involved current spouses/cohabitants, physical
injury, and no additional witnesses. Looking backwards to the larger group of reported
cases, those prosecuted appear different in terms of the lack of former spouses,
cohabitants, or dating partners and the increased prevalence of physical injury.
The higher proportion of cases involving visible physical injury may account for
three of five defendants being held on fairly significant amounts of bail. According to the
Idaho Repository, only one defendant appears to have made bail, but the available
information offer information on bail outcomes for the other two. A similar problem
occurred with information on legal representation with the Repository identifying court
appointed attorneys for two defendants but no entries for the remaining three offenders.
Once again, given the presence of physical injuries among three of the five cases
prosecuted, the absence of any dismissals is not surprising. However, the fact that three
of the five defendants requested court trials was surprising to the researchers.
Decision to Sentence
During the study period:
 Four of the five cases resolved by guilty plea or court trial were sentenced.
 Three of the cases sentenced by the Court involved victims who sought out non-
criminal justice system services.

98
 Three of the sentenced cases involved no physical injuries to the victim.
 Three of the sentenced cases had no additional witnesses beyond the victim.
 All of the cases involving a weapon were sentenced (n=3).
 Three defendants were found guilty or pled guilty to lesser offenses.
 All four of the defendants sentenced received jail time and in three of the cases
at least some, if not all, of the jail time was suspended by the court.
 Four of the defendants sentenced were required to pay a fine to the court with
amounts ranging from $112.50-$501.50.
 None of the defendants were ordered to complete any type of treatment.
 Three defendants were ordered to have no contact with the victim of the crime.
 All of the sentenced defendants were placed on probation for a specified amount
of time ranging from one to three years.
Four of the five cases resolved through either guilty plea or court trial were
sentenced. No sentencing information was available for one defendant. Of these
sentenced cases, three of the five included pleas to lesser charges with two of the three
pleading to disturbing the peace. This included the one felony charge for attempted
strangulation. In terms of case characteristics, three of the four sentenced cases were
comprised of no physical injuries to the victim, no additional witnesses outside of the
victim, and an incident location inside of a residence.
There were some consistencies across sentences handed down to offenders. All
were given jail sentences, had at least a portion of their jail time stayed, were ordered to
pay a fine, placed on probation for some specified period of time, and none were
ordered to complete any type of treatment. Variations across sentences were seen in
amount of jail sentenced, stayed, and served, amount of fine to pay, and length of
probationary period.
DVSAC Discussion
These results should be viewed as a baseline measure of coordinated
community response in Idaho Falls as, to our knowledge, no other systemic evaluation

99
has been undertaken in this community. And while the sample size was decent for the
intake portion of the analysis, the extremely low reporting rate to the police created an
unstable size for the systemic analysis. Though this leads to concern regarding the
validity of the analysis, it can still be instructive in targeting areas for improvement. We
will discuss further the decision points in the analysis that may be deemed in need of
improvement.
The primary issue which drives all other points in the system is the decision to
report to the police. As stated earlier in this chapter, there are good indicators of a well-
functioning system in response to domestic violence: percentage of reported cases
actually involving an arrest, referred for prosecution, being charged, offenders being
held in jail, and the likelihood of a convicted offender being sentenced to jail time,
probation, and batterer treatment. However, none of those factors are truly meaningful,
if a significant proportion of domestic violence incidents are never reported to the police.
During the study period, the reporting rate in this traditional coordinate community
response site was less than half of the national rate (20% vs. 50%). Only 15 of 75
incidents coming into the DVSAC were reported to the police. This study did not provide
the appropriate data to determine why reporting among DVSAC cases was so low.
However, as stated in the family justice center site discussion, the reporting rate out of
the DVSAC may not be the same as the reporting rate directly to the police department
or sheriff’s office. Again, calculating a community-wide reporting rate would require
determining the prevalence of domestic violence through a citizen-based survey in
which self-identified victims would disclose whether or not they reported the incident(s)
to the police. This could also then be compared to the number of calls for service during

100
a specified time period. Without this data, the reporting rate out of the DVSAC is the
best proxy. And, a 20% reporting rate is a cause for concern and action to increase
victims’ understanding of the potential benefits of more formal intervention through the
criminal justice system, especially in light of the high concentration of prior incidents
among those reporting (80 percent).
A second area for concern is the percentage of reported cases resulting in an
arrest. During the two months under examination, 31% of reported cases resulted in an
arrest. But, this is where the impact of such a low reporting rate begins to be seen: this
represents only seven percent of all cases coming into the DVSAC during those two
months. And, with the high proportion of reporting victims disclosing previous assaults
by their offenders, they most likely view the criminal justice system, at that point in time,
as the appropriate avenue to stop the assaults. Lack of action at this juncture may lead
to a decreased likelihood of future reporting.
While the decision to arrest is driven by meeting probable cause, there is a
mechanism through which cases that did not meet probable cause standards at the time
of reporting can move forward in the criminal justice system: the decision to refer for
charging. Given the nature of domestic violence where victims often delay reporting to
the police for any number of valid reasons, the ability to refer for charges is only way
many offenders will be held accountable by the criminal justice system. During this
study, 47% of reported cases were referred for charging, however suspects had already
been arrested in over half of those cases, thus meeting the probable cause standard
and having a high likelihood of being charged. A more instructive outcome may be the
proportion of cases where an offender was not arrested that were ultimately referred for

101
charging. That statistic is 30 percent; three of the 10 reported cases where the offender
was not arrested were referred for charging. This is further compounded by the finding
that only one of those non-arrest referrals was prosecuted, resulting in only 10% of non-
arrest cases ever being prosecuted. The reasons for declining to charge a case were
not made available to the evaluation team, but the strength of a case (regardless of the
type) is often evaluated on evidence of damage (e.g., physical injuries) and witnesses to
the crime. However, domestic violence cases, especially misdemeanors, often
compounded by a delay in reporting and an incident location inside a residence, rarely
meet those standards. If waiting a day to report an incident (in an already low reporting
situation) makes the difference between an offender being prosecuted or not, then most
domestic violence cases reported to the police will never see the inside of a courtroom.
It was not just 30% of non-arrest cases that were referred for charging, only 30% of
reported cases were prosecuted during the study period.
One of the positive outcomes in this portion of the study was the lack of case
dismissals. However, because of the systemic nature of the criminal justice system
where decisions earlier in the system impact outcomes later in the system, this should
not have been a surprise. Four of the five cases charged during these two months
involved an arrest, indicating that at least the burden of probable cause had been met
and three of the prosecuted cases had victims with visible physical injuries at the time of
reporting. In other words, weak or average domestic violence cases were not charged,
thus the likelihood of any cases being dismissed was ensured at the time of charging.
The final area of concern rests in treatment. While all of the sentenced
defendants received jail time, served or stayed, and were placed on probation, none of

102
them were court-ordered to into treatment. The research team is aware that judges may
not be inclined to order defendants convicted of disturbing the peace (which two of the
cases were amended to), however even the offenders convicted of domestic violence,
battery, or aggravated assault were not ordered into treatment. Reliance on deterrence
alone may not be enough to decrease the risk of future harm to victims or the risk of
future offending against other victims by the offender.
As stated at the beginning, this outcome portion of the evaluation should be
viewed as a baseline against which future evaluations can be compared. It is hoped that
the results detailed above will serve as a starting point for all of the agencies in the
coordinated community response to discuss how to make improvements that will
increase reporting, offender accountability, and victim safety. While the outcomes may
not be seen as positive, it is important to note that significant changes can occur in
relatively short periods of time when everyone works together to achieve the same
goals. The research team has consciously not engaged in direct comparisons between
the two sites, however the Idaho Falls outcomes reported in this study are similar to
those reported in the 2008 evaluation of Nampa. The vast improvements made in
outcomes between the 2008 and 2010 NFJC evaluations are indicative of what can
happen when agencies focus their efforts through collaboration and share a common
goal.
The next section is the final chapter of this report, which discusses overall
conclusions based on the data and analyses presented.

103
Conclusion/Recommendations
The evaluation of the Nampa Family Justice Center and the Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault Center (Idaho Falls, ID), represents a comprehensive assessment
that not only is outcome based, but also formative in nature. Multiple methods of
evaluation were used at both sites, including (1) client intake data, (2) self-administered
questionnaires of survivors at both locations, (3) survivor focus groups, (4) personal
interviews with staff and agency partners at both sites, and (5) archival data and official
statistics to determine the extent to which the goals of offender accountability and public
safety were being met. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the main findings
for each section of the report, and provide strategic recommendations based on these
findings.
We undertook client profiles at each location to provide baseline data for the
DVSAC, and comparative data for the NFJC. Client data for NFJC, despite the fact we
were able to compare our earlier effort in 2008 with the current effort in 2011, should be
construed as data snapshots rather than definitive trends. As compared to the 2008
data collected at this site, the client population was more female, separated/divorced/
and non-Hispanic.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #1: NFJC CLIENT POPULATION ANALYSIS
Determining trends/changes in client populations require systematic analysis of client
population data. For the NFJC, we recommend a client population analysis in the bi-
annual evaluation with system outcomes, rather than the current five year cycle.
Likewise, our analysis of the client population from the DVSAC should be
construed as a data snapshot from the study sample period April and May 2008. From

104
this snapshot, we learned a number of characteristics of the clients who went through
intake: that they were (1) mainly female, (2) spouses/cohabitants, (3) individuals with
children, (4) people with minimal education, and (5) largely unemployed. We also
learned of a number of victimization characteristics, including the fact that for most
victims, repeated victimizations resulted in seeking out the services of the DVSAC, and
that multiple forms of victimization were not uncommon.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #2: DVSAC INTAKE FORMS/CLIENT PROFILES
Future intake forms should include other demographic data, including age,
race/ethnicity, and disability information. In order to determine trends in client profiles at
the DVSAC, we recommend a systematic analysis of client data bi-annually.
We also sought the feedback of Center staff and agency partners at both
locations to determine the extent of teamwork and collaboration, as well as perceptions
regarding the quality of services offered at each site. Our data indicated that the NFJC
is experiencing a high level of collaboration and problem-solving, facilitated by a
common understanding of NFJC goals and collaborative problem-solving initiatives
practiced in the respondents’ respective agencies. While obstacles exist, in terms of
funding and space, with the cohesiveness of NFJC agency partners, the NFJC is in an
ideal position to apply its collaborative model to problem-solve these issues as well.
Similarly, data from eleven face-to-face interviews with representatives from the
DVSAC partner agencies indicate that the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Center in Idaho Falls, Idaho is working well, facilitated by a collaborative, teamwork
approach among Center staff and agency partners. Short of the need for a secure
battered women’s shelter in the area, all areas of core services were covered well by

105
existing agency partners. In addition, the great majority of respondents stated that the
DVSAC has resulted in more positive interactions among agencies, particularly law
enforcement/service providers, which have had a history of conflict.
Interview data from the DVSAC also led to constructive feedback among Center
staff and agency partners, including the following: (1) continued funding to support
Center efforts was an obstacle noted by many respondents. Among those
respondents, several noted that as grant money has diminished, there has been a
decided focus on fundraising, which has sometimes taken away from the mission of
the DVSAC; (2) none of our respondents (including DVSAC staff) were aware of a
strategic plan, which could guide operations in the event that key Center staff
members were to leave their current positions, and (3) regular meetings among all
partner agencies do not systematically occur.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #3: DVSAC ONGOING MEETINGS
DVSAC staff, along with agency partners, should meet on a regular, ongoing basis as
a way to further enhance collaboration and problem-solve continuing obstacles,
including funding and lack of a battered women’s shelter in the area. In addition,
these meetings can also facilitate the creation of a strategic plan, where a vision for
the future of the DVSAC, goals and objectives can be articulated.
Our evaluation also included a client survey as well as client focus groups at the
NFJC and the DVSAC. As reported in more detail in the report, hearing directly from
the intended clients at both sites provided a useful perspective of victimization and
perceptions of services both in Nampa and in Idaho Falls. Main findings from the client
survey included the following:

106
 Women who sought services from the DVSAC were more frequently referred
through the court system. For NFJC clients, the referral was more commonly
made by the police.
 For DVSAC clients, they were generally aware of safety planning classes and
assistance with protective orders, while less aware of other services offered
through the DVSAC.
 For NFJC clients, they were aware of both specific services offered as well as a
broader array of service or resource referral options through the NFJC.
 Clients at both sites were most likely seeking resources for legal assistance,
followed by counseling for themselves or children, safety planning and
advocacy/case management.
 Ease in access of obtaining needed resources was generally quite highly rated
at both sites. There were, however, some notable exceptions articulated by the
minority of respondents, including access to substance abuse treatment
(DVSAC). In addition, respondents reported easier access to professional
counseling services at the NFJC as compared to the DVSAC.
 Sixty-four percent of DVSAC clients reported that the services were “very
coordinated;” 80 percent of NFJC reported this.
 Women reported that since receiving services at the NFJC or the DVSAC their
level of domestic violence had decreased or stopped (96 percent); 89 percent
felt their overall well-being had improved.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #4: DVSAC SERVICES/PROMOTION
We recommend that decision-makers within the DVSAC engage in a focused effort to
better promote the array of services offered to victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault in the Idaho Falls area. This effort should include a more focused brochure on
services offered as well as an online presence.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #5: NFJC & DVSAC SERVICES
We recommend that the NFJC and DVSAC continue the high level of service offered to
victims through, in particular, counseling, safety planning, and advocacy.
Survivor focus groups at each site revealed insights into women’s experiences
with either the NFJC or DVSAC, the criminal justice system, and the extent of access
and coordination of needed services. In general, focus group data suggest that
services at the NFJC and DVSAC are well received and appreciated. Focus group

107
participants from the DVSAC suggested that the DVSAC is best known for its safety
classes and assistance with protective orders, but that other services offered by the
DVSAC were less familiar. NFJC focus group participants were more likely to report a
sense of “relationship” between themselves and the NFJC, likely due to more sustained
contact with the Center.
Interestingly enough, similar themes emerged at both sites when participants
were asked to provide constructive feedback. Participants in both Nampa and Idaho
Falls suggested that they would like to see follow-up for their respective centers, even
after they were no longer utilizing their services. However, due to safety issues, some
focus group participants suggested they could provide a “safe contact” person. Finally,
NFJC participants also suggested adding an ongoing support group for survivors who
had previously used the Center’s services.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #6: NFJC & DVSAC CLIENT FOLLOW-UP
Based on data from focus group participants in Nampa and Idaho Falls, both NFJC and
DVSAC decision-makers should consider the issue of regular, systematic follow-up with
clients to determine if follow-up services can be integrated into center operations. In
addition, each site should consider the feasibility of an ongoing support group for
survivors.
Client focus group data also revealed sporadic issues with particular services at
each site, including women’s access and experiences with Legal Aid (NFJC and
DVSAC), and the need for better community resources for counseling (DVSAC).
Finally, focus group participants at both sites were concerned that other women who
need the services offered at each Center may not be aware of the array of services
available, thereby suggesting the need for better outreach efforts at both locations.

108
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #7: NFJC & DVSAC PROMOTION OF SERVICES
NFJC and DVSAC decision-makers (DVSAC decision makers see additional
recommendation above) should examine their efforts at promoting the services offered
at each site, and if appropriate, develop additional ways of advertising the broad array
of services available through the respective centers and through agency partners.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #8: CLIENT EXIT SURVEYS
Both NFJC and DVSAC decision-makers should consider the implementation of client
exit surveys as a way to gather systematic feedback from clients about services and
their levels of satisfaction. While the NFJC has implemented such a system in the past,
it appears that exit survey data have not recently been collected.
Finally, we engaged in a systemic evaluation at both locations for the purposes of
determining the extent to which all agencies involved in each of the respective
collaborations were functioning in terms of the goals of promoting offender
accountability and public safety. Multiple sources of data at each location were used to
track a sample of cases through the criminal justice system.
A prior evaluation in Nampa created baseline data from 2008 from which we
could draw comparisons to more recent systemic data collected in 2010. Here, we
found significant increases across many of the measures, indicating greater awareness
and better response to cases of domestic violence. For example, the high percentages
of reported cases involving arrest, referral to prosecution, proportion of cases charged,
percentage of offenders held in jail, and likelihood of an offender sentenced to jail or
probation are all indicators of a well-functioning system in response to domestic
violence. What’s more, we determined that in 2010, 80% of cases were referred for
charging in instances where the offender was not arrested (48% in 2008). And in 2010,

109
for non-arrest cases, 50% of cases referred were actually charged as opposed to none
in 2008. Therefore, we conclude that the work undertaken through the NFJC has
potentially led to significant increases in reporting, referral, prosecution, and sentencing
of domestic violence cases in the past two years, and as such, the goals of offender
accountability and public safety are being better realized than they were just two years
prior.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #9: CLIENT INTAKE FORMS
Decision-makers at the NFJC should consider collecting the offender’s name at the time
of client intake (as the DVSAC already does) to better facilitate future systemic
evaluations, and to more accurately determine goals of offender accountability and
public safety.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #10: FREQUENCY OF ABUSE DATA
In addition to offender names, one other piece of relevant information was collected by
DVSAC but not NFJC, frequency of abuse. While the research team understands the
controversial nature of including such descriptive information in a case file that may be
subject to disclosure via a court order, it is also pertinent information for the purposes of
service delivery. Frequency of abuse can alter the type and frequency of services that a
survivor receives, highlight the level of urgency in accessing services, and, most
importantly, can indicate increasing levels of dangerousness within the relationship and
or potential lethality.
In Idaho Falls, our goal with the systemic evaluation was to create baseline data
from which to compare in future systemic analyses. As noted in the body of this report,
however, the low reporting rate to the police created an unstable size for the systemic
analysis, thereby creating concerns regarding the validity of the analysis. Be that as it
may, our analysis can still serve as a mechanism to target areas for improvement,
despite the fact that low reporting rates (less than half the national average) made it
difficult for us to determine how well other aspects of the system were working. Those

110
facets are not truly meaningful if a significant proportion of domestic violence incidents
is not reported to the police.
Main findings from the Idaho Falls systemic evaluation, encompassing a two-
month study period, included the following:
 31% of reported cases resulted in arrest;
 47% of reported cases were referred for charging;
 30% of reported cases where the offender was not arrested were referred
for charging;
 Only one of three non-arrest referrals was prosecuted;
 Overall, 30% of reported cases were prosecuted;
 5 of 7 cases referred by police for charging were prosecuted;
 While all sentenced offenders received jail time/probation, none were
court ordered into treatment.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION #11: DVSAC SYSTEM ANALYSIS REVIEW
DVSAC staff and agencies partners should review the systemic outcome data
presented in this report and discuss how to facilitate improvements that will increase
reporting, offender accountability, and victim safety.
In all, multiple sources of data used to evaluate the process and outcomes of the
Nampa Family Justice Center and the Idaho Falls Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault Center suggest that at each location, victims’ services have been enhanced by
the collaboration and teamwork approach at each site. Center staff, agency partners,
and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault all indicate that the operations as
each location are making a positive difference. Based on these data, the research team
agrees with these conclusions.
The formative nature of this evaluation has also allowed the researchers to make
strategic recommendations that are intended to improve the processes at each site, and
in the case of the systemic portion of this evaluation, improve systemic outcomes to

111
best achieve the goals of offender accountability and public safety. It is our hope that
with this evaluation, key stakeholders at both locations are in a better position to fine-
tune already well-functioning systems to further improve victim services, offender
accountability, and public safety in the Nampa and Idaho Falls areas.

112
References
Abt Associates (2005). Evaluability Assessment of the President’s Family Justice
Center Initiative. Unpublished Report: Cambridge, MA.
Bostaph, Lisa, Andrew Giacomazzi and Elizabeth Hannah (2008). Nampa Family
Justice Center Process and Outcome Evaluation, Report 2 (August).
DVSAC (2011) Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. Brochure.
Giacomazzi, Andrew, Elizabeth Hannah and Lisa Bostaph (2008). Nampa Family
Justice Center Process and Outcome Evaluation, Report 1 (March).
Nampa Family Justice Center (2004). The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative
Grant Application. NFJC.
Nampa Family Justice Center (2007) NFJC 2006 Statistics. NFJC.
Nampa Family Justice Center Director (February 20, 2007). Personal communication.
Rennison, C.M. & S. Welchans (2000). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report:
Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
Electronic References
http://idahofalls.chambermaster.com/list/member/domestic-violence-sexual-assault-
center-inc-idaho-falls.htm
http://myweb.cableone.net/mesina/DVSAC/DVSAC.htm
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Domestic-Violence-Sexual-Assault-
Center/123279711082925?sk=info

113
Appendix A: Client Focus Group Question Guide

114
Focus Group
Question Guide
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our discussion today. We are very interested to
learn about your experience in working with the Nampa Family Justice Center
[Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center] and associated organizations from
whom you may have received information or services. We are interested in both things
that were positive and negative to you. Please be assured your comments are
anonymous and confidential, meaning that nothing you say will be attached to you
specifically in any reports.
1. In general how would you describe your experience with NFJC or DVSAC?
a. What were you primary reasons for seeking services?
2. Tell us about your experience with the criminal justice system.
a. Did you call the police? If so, did they respond in a timely manner?
b. What was your experience like with the police who responded to your call?
3. Was your abuser arrested? If so, please tell us about your experience with that
process.
a. Was an advocate made available to you at the scene?
b. Was an advocate made available to you after arrest, when charged,
during prosecution, after the case closed?
4. Was your abuser prosecuted? If so, please tell us about your experience with:
a. the prosecuting attorney
b. the court – were you consulted about the process ahead of time?
c. Were you asked to testify?
d. Did you have contact with your abuser during the criminal court process?
5. Was a No Contact order issued?
a. Did the prosecutor ask for a no contact order?
b. Was the no contact order dropped at any point in the process? If so, were
you required to do anything to get it dropped?
c. Did you have advocate support during this process from the NFJC or
DVSAC?
6. Were there any unreported incidents of violence during the court process?

115
7. Overall, how did you feel you were treated at each point in the arrest,
prosecution, and/or sentencing?
8. If there were another domestic violence incident, given your experience, would
you report again? If yes – explain. If no – explain.
9. What other types of services were you seeking when you went to NFJC or
DVSAC?
a. How easy or difficult was it to receive information about the services you
needed?
b. How well would you say your needs were met?
c. Were you assigned an advocate? How helpful were they (in the criminal
justice process, protection order, in receiving needed resources, etc)?
10. Were there certain services/agencies you felt were especially helpful and
responsive to your needs?
11. Were there certain services/agencies that were especially difficult to receive
information or services from?
12. How accessible were services? That is, how convenient and did they seem to
work together?
13. Please tell us if there are things that would have made the process of gaining
information and services easier for you.
14. Overall, have the services you received through the NFJC or DVSAC impacted
your current level of domestic violence?
15. Overall, do you believe your well-being has improved, stayed the same, or
declined as a result of receiving services and information through NFJC or
DVSAC?

116
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Key Stakeholder interviews

117
Idaho Falls
Nampa
Agency/Department Name __________________________________
Director / Line Staff
Date & Time ______________________________________________

118
Idaho Falls Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Center
(Nampa Family Justice Center)
[Perceptions about the Center and involvement]
Tell us a bit about what you know of Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Center
(DVSAC) (Nampa Family Justice Center) It’s purpose, goals, operations……..
(Prod: We want to know as much as possible)
What is your department/agency’s role in this effort?
In your view, is the DVSAC (NFJC) achieving its goals? How so?
What works particularly well?
What obstacles exist in the Center achieving its goals?
If the DVSAC (NFJC) did not exist, how would you describe the state of services to
victims in this area.
What one word or phrase would you use to describe the activities of the DVSAC
(NFJC)?
Do you feel that any important agencies/departments have been left out as Center
partners? Which ones? Why do you think they were left out/are not participating?
[Collaboration/Teamwork Questions]
The DVSAC (NFJC) represents an inter-agency, collaborative approach to serve victims
of family violence and sexual assault. In your opinion, is this the most effective way to
deal with the problem? Why or why not?
Given that your agency is involved—at least at some level—with the Center, what do
you believe is the motivation underlying your agency’s involvement with the DVSAC
(NFJC)?
Do DVSAC (NFJC) partners meet regularly? How often? Under what circumstances?
In your opinion, how well are individuals within the Center working together as a team in
dealing with solutions to family violence and sexual assault?
How supportive are your superiors with your involvement in the Center?
Why are YOU involved with the activities of the Center?

119
Thinking about the agency you work for, would you say that it takes a collaborative
approach to problem solving in most cases?
Are there any incentives for you to be a partner of the Center? What about for your
agency?
Do you feel that the Center has led to more positive interaction among any agencies
that have had a history of conflict?
Describe the information flow among Center partners?
[Views about domestic violence and sexual assault]
What do you think is the underlying cause of family violence and sexual assault in your
area?
What do you think should be done to lessen the occurrence of family violence and
sexual assault in your area?
[Wrap-up]
Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about the DVSAC (NFJC)?

120
Appendix C: Tables

121
Table 1. Specific Services Requested During Initial Intake (NFJC)
Service Name
Number
requesting
service
Percent
Nampa Prosecuting Attorney/Victim Witness Coordinator
24
34%
Civil Protection Order/Modification
18
26%
Counseling
15
21%
Idaho Legal Aid
15
21%
Nampa Police Department/Victim Witness Coordinator
10
14%
Rental Assistance
6
9%
Case Management
6
9%
Health & Welfare Self Reliance Program
5
7%
Valley Crisis Center/Shelter Referral
5
7%
Child Protection Services
4
6%
Working Solutions
4
6%
Canyon County Prosecutor/Victim Witness Coordinator
4
6%
Safety Planning
3
4%
Idaho Legal Aid Online
1
1%
Immigration Assistance
1
1%

122
Table 2. Specific Services Requested During Initial Intake (DVSAC)
Service Name
Number
requesting
service
Percent
Safety Planning
12
16%
Idaho Legal Aid
4
5%
Advocacy
3
4%
Civil Protection Order/Modification
3
4%
Crime Victim Compensation
1
1%
Shelter Referral
1
1%

123
Table 3. Women’s Characteristics
Characteristic
NFJC
(n=10)
DVSAC (n=12)
Total
(n=22)
Race
Caucasian
Latina
Education
Less than High School
High School or GED
Some College or Technical School
Two-year or Technical School Degree
Four-year Degree
Attended Graduate School
Value Missing
Relationship Status
Single
Living with (married) spouse or partner
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Children
Yes
No
Mean number of children
Min – Max number of children
Number of adults in household (besides self)
Mean number of adults besides self
Min – Max number of adults
Employment Status
Working Full-time
Working Part-time
Working and in School
In School or Job Training
Unemployed, Disabled, Retired, Other
Time in current employment (n=16)
Mean number of months
Min – Max months
Monthly Income
$250 or Less
$251 - $500
$501 - $1,000
$1,001 - $1,500
$1,501 - $2,000
$2,001+
Mean monthly income
Min – Max monthly income
Housing Status
Own/purchasing home
Rent
Living with friend or relative
Other
Owns automobile in own name
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
3 (30%)
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
2 (20%)
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
5 (50%)
1 (10%)
10 (10%)
0 (0%)
2.4
1 - 4
1
0 - 3
4 (40%)
4 (40%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (20%)
52
.5 – 240
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
5 (50%)
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
$1,450
$680 - $3,167
6 (60%)
3 (30%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
12 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
5 (42%)
1 (8%)
4 (33%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
4 (33%)
6 (50%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
12 (100%)
0 (0%)
3
1 - 7
1
0 -2
3 (25%)
4 (33%)
1 (8%)
2 (17%)
2 (17%)
29
3 – 108
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
3 (25%)
0 (0%)
4 (33%)
4 (33%)
$2,379
$400 - $5,000
7 (58%)
4 (33%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
21 (95%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
2 (9%)
8 (36%)
3 (14%)
5 (23%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
6 (27%)
7 (32%)
2 (9%)
6 (27%)
1 (5%)
22 (100%)
0 (0%)
2.7
1 - 7
1
0 - 3
7 (32%)
8 (36%)
1 (5%)
2 (9%)
4 (18%)
40
.5 – 240
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
4 (18%)
5 (23%)
6 (27%)
5 (23%)
$1,915
$400 - $5,000
13 (59%)
7 (32%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)

124
Yes
No
Bank account with name on it
Yes
No
History of Intimate Partner Violence
Physical
Yes
No
Sexual
Yes
No
Verbal
Yes
No
Economic
Yes
No
Emotional/Psychological
Yes
No
Most recent incidence of abuse
Within past 3 days
Within the past week
Within the past 2 -3 weeks
Within the past month
Within the past six months
Within the past year
More than one year ago
Frequency of abuse
Almost every day
Several times per week
Approximately once a week
1 to 2 times per month
About once a month
Every few months
Once every six months
Once a year
Other
Types of injuries as a result of partner
Bruises/scratches
Yes
No
Cuts
Yes
No
Burns
Yes
No
Sprained limbs
Yes
No
Broken bones
Yes
No
Internal injuries
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
4 (40%)
6 (60%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (40%)
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
1 (10%)
3 (30%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
8 (80%)
2 (20%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
10 (83%)
2 (17%)
11 (92%)
1 (8%)
10 (83%)
2 (17%)
7 (58%)
5 (42%)
12 (120%)
0 (0%)
5 (42%)
7 (58%)
10 (83%)
2 (17%)
2 (17%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
7 (58%)
2 (17%)
3 (25%)
2 (17%)
1 (8%)
2 (17%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
8 (67%)
4 (33%)
1 (8%)
11 (92%)
1 (8%)
11 (92%)
4 (33%)
8 (67%)
1 (8%)
11 (92%)
19 (86%)
3 (14%)
20 (91%)
2 (9%)
19 (86%)
3 (14%)
11 (50%)
11 (50%)
22 (100%)
0 (0%)
11 (50%)
11 (50%)
20 (91%)
2 (9%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
5 (23%)
13 (59%)
6 (27%)
4 (18%)
5 (23%)
1 (5%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
2 (9%)
16 (73%)
6 (27%)
4 (18%)
18 (82%)
1 (5%)
21 (95%)
5 (23%)
17 (77%)
2 (9%)
20 (91%)

125
Yes
No
Miscarriages
Yes
No
Other
Yes
No
Abuse by those other than most recent
partner
Other intimate partners
Yes
No
Family members
Yes
No
Friends
Yes
No
Acquaintances
Yes
No
Strangers
Yes
No
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
0 (0%)
12 (100%)
0 (0%)
12 (100%)
1 (8%)
11 (92%)
4 (33%)
8 (67%)
2 (17%)
10 (83%)
0 (0%)
12 (100%)
1 (8%)
11 (92%)
0 (0%)
12 (100%)
1 (5%)
21 (95%)
1 (5%)
21 (95%)
4 (18%)
18 (82%)
10 (45%)
12 (55%)
5 (23%)
17 (77%)
1 (5%)
21 (95%)
2 (9%)
20 (91%)
1 (5%)
21 (95%)

126
Table 4. Service/Resource Needs and Outcomes
Needs/Outcomes
NFJC
(n=10)
DVSAC (n=11)
Total
(n=21)
Referral Sources
Police/Sheriff
Judge or Court Administrator
Self initiated for family referral
Primary Reason for seeking servicesa
Domestic Violence
Assistance to obtain protective order
Counseling
Legal Help
Court ordered safety classes
Legal Assistance
Yes
No
Min - Max (n=10)
Mean (n=10)
Emergency Shelter
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Access to Medical Services for self or
children
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Rape Crisis or Sexual Assault
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Counseling for self or children
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Substance abuse treatment
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Safety planning
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Advocacy/case management
Yes
No
6 (60%)
1 (10%)
3 (30%)
5 (36%)
3 (21%)
2 (14%)
4 (29%)
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
2 - 10
7.6
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
10
10
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
2
2
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
NA
NA
8 (80%)
2 (20%)
7 - 10
9.5
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
NA
NA
6 (60%)
4 (40%)
4 - 10
8.7
5 (50%)
5 (50%)
3 (27%)
5 (45%)
3 (27%)
3 (21%)
4 (29%)
3 (21%)
1 (7%)
3 (21%)
8 (73%)
3 (27%)
1 - 10
7.5
1 (9%)
10 (91%)
6
6
2 (18%)
9 (82%)
1 - 10
5.5
1 (9%)
10 (91%)
missing
missing
8 (73%)
3 (27%)
1 - 10
6.8
1 (9%)
10 (91%)
3
3
6 (55%)
5 (45%)
9 - 10
9.7
3 (27%)
8 (73%)
9 (43%)
6 (29%)
6 (29%)
8 (29%)
7 (25%)
5 (18%)
5 (18%)
3 (11%)
18 (86%)
3 (14%)
1 – 10
7.6
2 (10%)
19 (90%)
6 – 10
8
3 (14%)
18 (86%)
1 -10
4.3
1 (5%)
20 (95%)
NA
NA
16 (76%)
5 (24%)
1 - 10
8.2
1 (5%)
20 (95%)
NA
NA
12 (57%)
9 (43%)
4 - 10
9.2
8 (38%)
13 (62%)

127
Min - Max
Mean
Financial resources (e.g. food stamps)
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Housing
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Child care
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Employment/job training
Yes
No
Min - Max
Mean
Overall how well were needs met
None of my needs were met
A few of my needs were met
Many of my needs were met
Most of my needs were met
All of my needs were met
Overall how well coordinated
Not coordinated at all
Somewhat coordinated
Fairly coordinated
Very coordinated
Services needed but not offered?
Yes
No
Since receiving services DV has:
Increased
Stayed about the same
Decreased
Stopped
Since receiving services safety level:
Fear for safety most of the time
Feel only somewhat safe
Feel safe most of the time
Feel safe all of the time
Since receiving services financial
circumstances have:
Gotten much worse
Gotten worse
Stayed about the same
Gotten somewhat better
Gotten much better
Since receiving services overall well-being
has:
Become much worse
7 - 10
9
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
7 – 10
8.3
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
10
10
1 (10%)
9 (90%)
10
10
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
6 - 10
8.3
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
4 (40%)
5 (50%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
8 (80%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%0
7 (70%)
2 (20%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
6 (60%)
2 (20%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
5 - 10
8.3
3 (27%)
8 (73%)
3 - 10
7
2 (18%)
9 (82%)
1 - 10
5.5
1 (9%)
10 (91%)
8
8
0 (0%)
11 (100%)
NA
NA
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
4 (36%)
5 (45%)
2 (18%)
0 (0%)
2 (18%)
7 (64%)
6 (55%)
5 (45%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
5 (45%)
5 (45%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
5 (45%)
5(45%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
2 (18%)
4 (36%)
3 (27%)
0 (0%)
5 - 10
8.8
6 (29%)
15 (71%)
3 - 10
7.7
3 (14%)
18 (86%)
1 - 10
7
2 (10%)
19 (90%)
8 -10
9
3 (14%)
18 (86%)
NA
NA
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
2 (10%)
8 (38%)
10 (48%)
2 (10%)
1 (5%)
3 (14%)
15 (71%)
9 (43%)
12 (57%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
8 (38%)
12 (57%)
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
12 (57%)
7 (33%)
1 (5%)
2 (10%)
8 (38%)
6 (29%)
4 (19%)
0 (0%)

128
Become worse
Stayed about the same
Become somewhat better
Become much better
Since receiving services child(ren)’s
wellbeing has:
Become much worse
Become worse
Stayed about the same
Become somewhat better
Become much better
NA no children or adult children
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
5 (50%)
2 (20%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
8 (73%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (27%)
1 (9%)
7 (64%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
4 (19%)
15 (71%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (14%)
4 (19%)
12 (57%)
2 (10%)
aTotal is greater than n=21 because several women indicated more than one primary reason for seeking services