This study is a replication and extension of an experiment conducted in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) to test the efficacy of three types of police response to spouse abuse. Three experimental treatments were employed: (1) advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation (an order to appear in court to answer specific charges) to the offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the project concerned whether arrest is the most effective law enforcement response for deterring recidivism of spouse abusers. Cases were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments and were followed for at least six months to determine whether recidivism occurred. Measures of recidivism were obtained through official police records and victim interviews. Cases that met the following eligibility guidelines were included in the project: (1) a call involving a misdemeanor offense committed by a male offender aged 18 or over against a female victim aged 18 or over who were spouses, (2) ex-spouses, (3) cohabitants, or (4) ex-cohabitants. Also, both suspect and victim had to be present when officers arrived at the scene. Victims were interviewed twice. The first interview occurred shortly after the "presenting incident," the incident that initiated a call for police assistance. This initial interview focused on episodes of abuse that occurred between the time of the presenting incident and the day of the initial interview. In particular, detailed data were gathered on the nature of physical violence directed against the victim, the history of the victim's marital and cohabitating relationships, the nature of the presenting incident prior to the arrival of the police, the actual actions taken by the police at the scene, post-incident separations and reunions of the victim and the offender, recidivism since the presenting incident, the victim's previous abuse history, alcohol and drug use of both the victim and the offender, and the victim's help-seeking actions. Questions were asked regarding whether the offender had threatened to hurt the victim, actually hurt or tried to hurt the victim, threatened to hurt any member of the family, actually hurt or tried to hurt any member of the family, threatened to damage property, or actually damaged any property. In addition, criminal histories and arrest data for the six-month period subsequent to the presenting incident were collected for offenders. A follow-up interview was conducted approximately six months after the presenting incident and focused primarily on recidivism since the initial interview. Arrest recidivism was defined as any arrest for any subsequent offense by the same offender against the same victim committed within six months of the presenting incident. Victims were asked to estimate how often each type of victimization had occurred and to answer more detailed questions on the first and most recent incidents of victimization.

The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals,

가정폭력에 대한 데이터로 최근 6년간의 검거건수, 검거인원(구속 및 불구속), 가정보호사건 송치 인원에 대한 데이터 입니다.

In the mid-1980s New York City officials developed an intervention program, the Domestic Violence Intervention Education Project (DVIEP), to reduce repeat incidents of family abuse. The program posited that repeat victimization would decline as victims extracted themselves from self-defeating relationships or by working with social services and criminal justice staff to develop strategies to end the abuse while staying in the relationship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DVIEP model in reducing repeat instances of family violence. Between 1987 and 1997, three separate, randomized field experiments in New York City's public housing projects evaluated whether or not the DVIEP program reduced the rate of subsequent victimization. All three studies tested the same intervention model: persons who reported family violence to the police were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a follow-up visit from a domestic violence prevention police officer and a social worker. For this study, researchers concatenated the micro data from the 3 experiments into a single, 1,037 case dataset that contains identical treatment and control measures, and nearly identical outcome measures. Of the 1,037 total cases in the study, 434 are from the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 406 are from the Elder Abuse study, EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO ELDER ABUSE IN MANHATTAN [NEW YORK CITY], NEW YORK, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3130), and 197 are from the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2). The resulting data collection contains a total of 31 variables including which study (1987 Domestic Violence Study, Elder Abuse Study, or Domestic Violence Arrestee Study) the respondent participated in, whether the respondent was part of the experimental group or the control group, whether the respondent received public education or a home visit by a DVIEP team, the number of DVIEP services the respondent used, and whether the respondent completed a final interview with a DVIEP team after six months of tracking. Additionally, variables include the victim's age, whether the perpetrator of domestic abuse was a romantic partner of the victim, the number of incidents reported to the police, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) violence score, and the number of days until the first new incident of domestic abuse.

This longitudinal study, a follow-up to RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 3076), examined the relationship between the actions of a district court in eastern Massachusetts and a cohort of men arrested for domestic abuse between February 1995 and March 1996. Using criminal history records, this study followed the criminal behavior of 342 men until December 2004. Some of the variables in Part 1, Arrest Data, include the dates of arrests, dispositions, and restraining orders issued, the arrest charge, disposition of the case, and the relationship between the offender and the victim. In Part 2, Recidivism Data, variables include the age at first arrest, date of arrest and time to subsequent arrests, arrest charge, length of criminal career, and whether the offender is a recidivist.

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 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.

This study served as the pilot study for the domestic violence addendum to the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. The domestic violence addendum was administered during the third (Part 1) and fourth (Part 2) quarters of 1999 in Sacramento, California, to all arrestees who completed the ADAM interview, provided a urine specimen, and agreed to answer additional questions about domestic violence. The addendum was based on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Staus and Gelles, 1986) and sought to examine the issue of being the victim and/or perpetrator of domestic violence, age of onset of domestic violence, and injuries from domestic violence. The data also include demographic variables, arrest and charge variables, and alcohol and drug use variables.