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.

The goal of this study was to compile and analyze data about incidents of domestic violence in San Diego County, California, in order to enhance understanding of the nature and scope of violence against women. The following objectives were set to achieve this goal: (1) to develop a standardized interview instrument to be used by all emergency shelters for battered women in the region, and (2) to conduct interviews with shelter staff. For this study, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) collected information about domestic violence in San Diego County from clients admitted to battered women's shelters. The Compilation of Research and Evaluation (CORE) intake interview (Part 1) was initiated in March of 1997. Through this interview, researchers gathered data over a 22-month period, through December 1998, for 599 clients. The CORE discharge interview (Part 2) was theoretically completed at the time of exit with each client who completed the CORE intake interview in order to document the services received. However, data collection at exit was not reliable, due to factors beyond the researchers' control, and thus researchers did not receive a discharge form for each individual who had an intake form. For Part 1 (Intake Data), demographic variables include the client's primary language, and the client and batterer's age, education, race, how they supported themselves, their annual incomes, and their children's sex, age, and ethnicity. Other variables cover whether the client had been to this shelter within the last 12 months, the kind of housing the client had before she came to the shelter, person's admitted along with the client, drug and alcohol use by the client, the batterer, and the children, relationship between the client and the batterer (e.g., spouse, former spouse), if the client and batterer had been in the military, if the client or children were military dependents, the client's citizenship, if the client and batterer had any physical/mental limitations, abuse characteristics (e.g., physical, verbal, sexual, weapon involved), and the client's medical treatment history (e.g., went to hospital, had been abused while pregnant, witnessed abuse while growing up, had been involved in other abusive relationships, had attempted suicide). Additional variables provide legal information (number of times police had been called to the client's household as a result of domestic violence, if anyone in the household had been arrested as a result of those calls, if any charges were filed, if the client or batterer had been convicted of abuse), if the client had a restraining order against the batterer, how the client found out about the shelter, the number of times the client had been admitted to a domestic violence shelter, the client's assessment of her needs at the time of admittance, and the interviewer/counselor's assessment of the client's needs at the time of admittance. Part 2 (Discharge Data) provides information on services the client received from the shelter during her stay (food, clothing, permanent housing, transitional housing, financial assistance, employment, education, medical help, assistance with retrieving belongings, assistance with retrieving/replacing legal documents, law enforcement, temporary restraining order), and services this client received as a referral to another agency (attorney, divorce, child care, counseling, transportation, safety plan, victim/witness funds, mental health services, department of social services, Children's Services Bureau, help with immigration, drug treatment).

This study investigated the relationship between domestic violence and welfare reform. Two specific goals were (1) to determine the impact of domestic violence on welfare tenure and employment over a three-year period, and (2) to examine the well-being of children of female welfare recipients who experienced domestic violence. In addition, the study examined issues related to mental health problems and alcohol and drug problems, both of which are associated with domestic violence. This study was based on three rounds of interviews with a random sample of welfare recipients in Kern and Stanislaus Counties, California, between April 1999 and December 2002. Although the interview instrument was slightly altered for each round, the questions in all three rounds focused on employment history, health, mental health, domestic violence victimization, children's well-being, and alcohol and drug use.

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.

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 explored the histories of physical and sexual victimization reported by incarcerated and non-incarcerated women. It sought to identify the survival strategies women activated at various points in their life span. In Phase One, 424 women were interviewed from March 2004 to March 2005 on a variety of topics covering victimization and disclosure experiences and risk and protective factors. Information from those interviews is contained in Part 1, Phase One, Interview Data. In Phase Two, 17 women from the prison and/or the community who had participated in the Phase One interviews were again interviewed in an effort to provide more depth about their experiences of victimization and of the resources, social services, and supports they may have received or not, subsequent to the victimization(s). Information from these qualitative follow-up interviews is contained in Parts 2-18. Variables cover topics such as personal attitudes, health and well-being, relationships with family and friends, coping with stress, emotional health, alcohol and drug use, childhood maltreatment, intimate partner violence, sexual experiences, services and resources received, traumatic experiences, suicide, resource generating strategies, legal issues, and demographics.

The Metro-Dade project replicated an earlier study of domestic violence, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT: MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 [ICPSR 8250]), which was conducted by the Police Foundation with a grant from the National Institute of Justice. The Metro-Dade study employed a research design that tested the relative effectiveness of various combinations of treatments that were randomly assigned in two stages. Initially, eligible spouse battery cases were assigned to either an arrest or a nonarrest condition. Later, cases were assigned either to receive or not to receive a follow-up investigation and victim counseling from a detective working with the Safe Streets Unit (SSU), a unit that deals specifically with domestic violence. Given the various treatment conditions employed, three types of dependent variables were examined: (1) prevalence--the proportion of suspects who engaged in repeat incidents, (2) incidence--the frequency with which repeat incidents occurred, and (3) "time to failure"--the interval between the presenting incident and subsequent incidents. Initial interviews were conducted with victims soon after the presenting incident, and follow-up interviews were attempted six months later. The interviews were conducted in either English or Spanish. The interview questions requested detailed background information about the suspect, victim, and any family members living with the victim at the time of the interview, including age, gender, and marital and employment status. Parallel sets of employment and education questions were asked about the victim and the suspect. Additionally, the interview questionnaire was designed to collect information on (1) the history of the victim's relationship with the suspect, (2) the nature of the presenting incident, including physical violence, property damage, and threats, (3) causes of the presenting incident, including the use of alcohol and drugs by both the victim and the offender, (4) actions taken by the police when they arrived on the scene, (5) the victim's evaluation of the services rendered by the police on the scene, (6) the nature of the follow-up contact by a detective from the Safe Street Unit and an evaluation of the services provided, (7) the victim's history of abuse by the offender, and (8) the nature of subsequent abuse since the presenting incident. Data for Parts 1 and 2 are self-reported data, obtained from interviews with victims. Part 4 consists of data recorded on Domestic Violence Continuation Report forms, indicating subsequent assaults or domestic disputes, and Part 5 contains criminal history data on suspects from arrest reports, indicating a subsequent arrest. The police report of the incident and information on the type of randomized treatment assigned to each case is given in Part 6.

This study evaluated the effects of a program for detained arrestees developed by the Sacramento Sheriff's Department. The program was set up as an early intervention program to provide domestic violence (DV) education for arrestees during their time of detention before going to court. This evaluation used an experimental design. The researchers randomly assigned 629 batterers to either the batterer treatment wing of the jail or to a no-treatment control group in another wing of the jail. Interviews were conducted with the batterers and victims shortly after the arrest that placed the batterer in the Sacramento jail (Parts 1 and 2) and again six months after the intervention or control condition was concluded (Parts 3 and 4). Official police arrest data on recidivism were also collected post-arrest (Part 5). Interviews were conducted over the phone, except for the baseline batterer interviews that were done in the jail, and for those who were not available for interviewing, over the phone. Activities of the batterer treatment program included: mandatory detention in a special DV jail wing supervised by correction officers who had received special DV training, batterer educational workshops, daily Twelve-Step Drug/Alcohol addiction support groups, and strict regulations on television watching (special nonviolent educational programs were the only available programs). Batterer education classes were held daily, and the research team checked attendance logs. The arrestees were required at least to attend the program classes and Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous groups and sit quietly. For the control group, participants were assigned to the regular part of the jail and received the usual incarceration experience of persons detained in the Sacramento County Jail (including no treatment services). Official police arrest data on recidivism were analyzed for up to one year post-arrest (Part 5). Treatment implementation data (Part 6), which records the frequency of the batterer's attendance in the various treatment programs offered in the special DV jail wing, and variables used in the analysis for the project's final report (Part 7) are also available with this collection. In addition to general demographic variables such as age, race, religion, source of income, and employment situation, specific variables are gathered for specific datasets. Variables collected in Parts 1 and 2 (Batterer and Victim Baseline Data) include information regarding whether or not the batterer was in the treatment or control group, the relationship between the batterer and victim, and types of injuries the victim received. Parts 3 and 4 (Batterer and Victim Six-Month Data) contain variables related to employment and living situation, as well as any additional assistance either party received since the arrest event. Variables in Part 5 (Tracking Database) include the date, location, and length of interviews. Part 6 (Treatment and Implementation Data) contains variables related to the different programs the batterer in the experimental group may have participated in. The variables for Part 7 (Supplemental Final Report Variables) include information about the study participants such as whether all four interviews were completed and the presence of any new domestic violence charges.

The aim of this study was to examine the factors related to different patterns of male violence against women. Employing both intra-individual and sociocultural perspectives, the project focused on the relationship between violence against women and previously established risk factors for intimate partner violence including stressors related to work, economic status, and role transitions (e.g., pregnancy), as well as family power dynamics, status discrepancies, and alcohol use. The following research questions were addressed: (1) To what extent do Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic individuals engage in physical violence with their partners? (2) How are socioeconomic stressors associated with violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (3) To what extent are changes in patterns of physical violence against women associated with different stages of a relationship (e.g., cohabitation, early marriage, pregnancy, marriage)? (4) To what extent do culturally linked attitudes about family structure (family power dynamics) predict violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (5) To what extent do family strengths and support systems contribute to the cessation of violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (6) What is the role of alcohol use in violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? The data used for this project came from the first and second waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) conducted by the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS: WAVE I, 1987-1988, AND WAVE II, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6906)]. The NSFH was designed to cover a broad range of family structures, processes, and relationships with a large enough sample to permit subgroup analysis. For the purposes of this study, the analytical sample focused on only those couples who were cohabiting or married at the time of the first wave of the study and still with the same person at the time of the second wave (N=3,584). Since the study design included oversamples of previously understudied groups (i.e., Blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans), racial and ethnic comparisons were possible. In both waves of the NSFH several identical questions were asked regarding marital conflicts. Both married and cohabiting respondents were asked how often they used various tactics including heated arguments and hitting or throwing things at each other to resolve their conflicts. In addition, respondents were asked if any of their arguments became physical, how many of their fights resulted in either the respondent or their partner hitting, shoving, or throwing things, and if any injuries resulted as a consequence of these fights. This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode variables from the original NSFH dataset. In addition, new variables, including both composite variables (e.g., self-esteem, hostility, depression) and husband and wife versions of the variables (using information from both respondent and partner), were constructed. New variables were grouped into the following categories: demographic, personality, alcohol and drug use, relationship stages, gender role attitudes, division of labor, fairness in household chores, social support, and isolation. Psychological well-being scales were created to measure autonomy, positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and personal growth. Additional scales were created to measure relationship conflict, sex role gender attitudes, personal mastery, alcohol use, and hostility. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) were also utilized.