The ultimate purpose of the study was to test whether court-mandated counseling reduced the likelihood of repeat violence by men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Researchers also tested the underlying theory arising from the reanalyses of the Minneapolis experiment (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987 [ICPSR 9808]) and Spouse Assault Replication Programs (SARPs). This theory proposes that having a stake in conformity predicts when an intervention (whether an arrest or court-mandated treatment) will be effective in reducing the likelihood of subsequent violence. The study used a classical experimental design to test whether courts can effect change in men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence by mandating them to participate in a spouse abuse abatement program (SAAP). All men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in Broward County, Florida, between May 1 and September 30, 1997, were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control group. The only exceptions were for those couples in which either defendant or victim did not speak English or Spanish; either defendant or victim was under 18 years of age; the defendant was severely mentally ill; or the judge, at the time of sentencing, allowed the defendant to move to another jurisdiction and serve his probation through mail contact. Of the remaining 404 defendants, men in the control group were sentenced to 1 year's probation and men in the experimental group were sentenced to 1 year's probation and mandated into one of the five local SAAPs. In an effort to determine the true amount of change in individuals undergoing court-mandated counseling, the researchers included various measures from several sources. Each batterer was interviewed at time of adjudication and again six months after adjudication. The victim was also interviewed at adjudication and 6 and 12 months after adjudication. Standardized measures with known reliability were used when possible. Probation records and computer checks with the local police for all new arrests were used to track the defendants for one year after adjudication. The defendant interviews asked questions to assess the defendant's stake in conformity including those dealing with his relationship to the victim, his employment, his residential stability and his relationship to others. Included in these interviews were questions from an abbreviated version of the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, the Shortened Attitudes Towards Women Scale, the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBWB), and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. The data file also includes questions dealing with offenders' perceptions of the fairness of the criminal justice process they had just been through, who they believed was responsible for the instant offense that brought them to court, and whether they felt coerced into the batterer's program. The victim interviews were similar to the defendants though most of the questions asked the victim to provide information about the offender and his relationship with her. The woman was also asked to provide information on her work history, who she regularly spent time with, whether she had spoken with family, friends, and neighbors about her relationship with the offender and, if she had, if they were critical of her or her partner's actions in the particular incident leading to this court case. Similar to the offender's interviews, victims were asked about the history of violence in their home of origin and the particular incident bringing the offender to court. The probation reports provided information on the offender's criminal history, behavior in the community for the year while under supervision, and compliance with the batterer program.

The purpose of the research was to learn about the effectiveness of supervision of domestic violence offenders on probation. Specifically, the study sought to determine which, if any, probation practices promote victim safety and hold offenders accountable. This study used several data collection strategies to better evaluate and compare two domestic violence offender case management strategies. The quantitative analysis was based on the findings from a nonrandom representative sample of 551 male probationers drawn from the nearly 3,000 misdemeanor domestic probationers in Rhode Island as of January 1, 2003. These offenders were, at the time of their sentencing, placed in either a regular or specialized domestic violence caseload determined by probation policies for each of 10 caseloads included in the study. A total of 182 offenders were placed on traditional supervision, while 369 offenders were placed in a specialized domestic violence unit. The probationers were tracked through January 1, 2004, to determine recidivism and reabuse differences between these supervision approaches. There were three measures used to determine reabuse and recidivism: (1) rearrest for either an offense classified as domestic violence or for any other offense resulting in the defendant being charged and arraigned in a Rhode Island court; (2) a police report filed for an incident classified as domestic violence, whether or not an arrest was made; and (3) a victim report of domestic violence obtained in study interviews (see Data Collection Notes). The data file contains 115 variables including basic information regarding the offender such as age, caseload number, and caseload type. Additional variables detail the relationship between the offender and the victim, as well as the offender's previous arrest record, and previous domestic violence incidents involving the offender.

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 represents a modified replication of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT: MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 [ICPSR 8250]). The Minneapolis study found arrest to be an effective deterrent against repeat domestic violence. The two key purposes of the current study were (1) to examine the possible differences in reactions to arrest, and (2) to compare the effects of short and long incarceration associated with arrest. Research protocol involved 35 patrol officers in four Milwaukee police districts screening domestic violence cases for eligibility, then calling police headquarters to request a randomly-assigned disposition. The three possible randomly assigned dispositions were (1) Code 1, which consisted of arrest and at least one night in jail, unless the suspect posted bond, (2) Code 2, which consisted of arrest and immediate release on recognizance from the booking area at police headquarters, or as soon as possible, and (3) Code 3, which consisted of a standard Miranda-style script warning read by police to both suspect and victim. A battered women's shelter hotline system provided the primary measurement of the frequency of violence by the same suspects both before and after each case leading to a randomized police action. Other forms of measurement included arrests of the suspect both before and after the offense, as well as offenses against the same victim. Initial victim interviews were attempted within one month after the first 900 incidents were compiled. A second victim interview was attempted six months after the incident for all 1,200 cases. Data collected for this study included detailed data on each of the 1,200 randomized events, less detailed data on an additional 854 cases found ineligible, "pipeline" data on the frequency of domestic violence in the four Milwaukee police districts, official measures of prior and subsequent domestic violence for both suspects and victims, interviews of arrested suspects for eligible and ineligible cases, criminal justice system dispositions of the randomized arrests, results of urinalysis tests of drug and alcohol use for some arrestees, and log attempts to obtain interviews from suspects and victims. Demographic variables include victim and suspect age, race, education, employment status, and marital status. Additional information obtained includes victim-offender relationships, alcohol and drug use during incident, substance of conflict, nature of victim injury and medical treatment as reported by police and victims, characteristics of suspects in the Code 1 and 2 arrest groups, victim and suspect reports of who called police, and victim and suspect versions of speed of police response.

This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions' domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial,

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.

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.

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 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,