The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and

This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.

As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews,

This study tested the effectiveness of two court-based intervention programs in California (Santa Clara County, San Francisco County) that addressed juvenile domestic and family violence. The court-based intervention programs included an intake assessment process for domestic and family violence, specialized prosecution and defense, a dedicated docket, intensive supervision, offender programs, and victim services. Probation and court records of juvenile domestic/family violence offenders provided the source of data to compare the intervention programs with a third county that did not have a specialized response (Contra Costa County). The final study group included 303 closed cases (201 cases from Santa Clara County, 40 cases from San Francisco County, and 62 cases from Contra Costa County).

This study sought to examine the incidence and prevalence of domestic violence among female arrestees. The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. Female arrestees in San Diego, California, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen were asked if they would be willing to answer an additional set of questions concerning their experience with domestic violence. Respondents were asked a series of questions about the types of abuse they experienced and a host of supplemental questions detailing the abusive incidents they experienced in their lifetime and in the last 12 months.

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.

범죄발생원표를 활용한 가정폭력의 항목별 처분결과 현황(기소, 불기소, 기소중지 등)