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.

The purposes of this study were (1) to examine factors associated with New York City Family Courts' visitation decisions and conformity to the provisions of the Model Code of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges when there was a history of abuse of the mother by the father, (2) to compare the different visitation conditions in regard to reabuse -- both psychological and physical, and (3) to examine children's psychological well-being as measured by maternal report on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), given their exposure to abuse. Two hundred forty-two participants were recruited from the Family Courts and supervised visitation centers in the five counties in New York City. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. There were two interviews with the mother, with an average interval of six months between interviews. Baseline interviews were conducted in person, at the court, or visitation center from 2002 to 2004. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 168 of the participants from 2003 to 2005 and were conducted over the phone, except on the rare occasions when a participant requested an in-person interview. Information in the the baseline interview included demographic information on the participant as well as on the father of the child(ren), information on the level of physical violence and the children's exposure, how often particular acts of violence took place, threats and coercion, an injury index, information regarding court orders, information regarding custody petitions, information regarding visitation orders, and visitation experience. The follow-up interview asked about abuse since the previous interview and included updates, changes, and modifications to the information provided in the baseline interview.

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.

This study focused on an evaluation of EVOLVE, a newly developed 26-week, 52-session skill building, culturally competent, psycho-educational curriculum-based intervention for male domestic violence offenders with female victims. The curriculum was implemented in three large urban courts that have specialized domestic violence court sessions, judicial monitoring, specialized court staff throughout the judicial process, enhanced advocacy for victims, a collaborative team approach to case processing, and collaboration with networks of involved community service providers. The comparison site (called Explore), also a large urban court, had some specialized court staff and enhanced victim advocacy, as well. It was selected as the comparison because of these court features, the use of a more traditional 26-week intervention (that met just once each week), its high volume, and the high rate of involvement of men of color, which was similar to rates found at the EVOLVE sites at the time the evaluation was proposed. The data file contains 545 cases and 872 variables.

The current study was a national evaluation that examined the effects of implementing The Greenbook recommendations on collaboration, systems change, and practice within and across the three primary systems of child welfare agencies, courts, and domestic violence service providers. The national evaluation utilized data collected through stakeholder surveys, direct service worker surveys, child welfare case file reviews, and site visit interviews between 2001 and 2006. The purpose of the national evaluation was to develop and implement a strategy for gaining a formative understanding of sites' planning and implementation processes and a summative assessment of the impact of such work on communities, systems, and families. Part 1 (Stakeholder Survey Data) includes variables on the respondent's level of involvement in the organization and barriers to implementing Greenbook initiatives. The baseline stakeholder survey was conducted in 2002 with a total of 86 respondents across sites, and follow-up data were collected three years later (2005) with a total of 62 respondents. Part 2 through Part 7 (Direct Service Worker, and Supervisor Data) include variables on the respondents' race, gender, and length of time at the child welfare agency, court, or domestic violence service provider. Respondents are asked about the hours of training received over the past year, the presence of written reporting guidelines, screening tools, and working relationships with the other agency types. The baseline direct service worker survey was conducted after the end of the demonstration planning period (2003) with a total of 275 respondents across sites, and follow-up data were collected two years later (2005) with a total of 224 respondents. Part 8 (Case Abstractions Data) includes variables on substantiated cases of child maltreatment, risk factors contributing to maltreatment attributed to the mother, the father, or other caregiver, documentation of domestic violence and services provided to the victims and perpetrators. A random sample of substantiated cases of child maltreatment was reviewed in each site at the beginning of the demonstration initiative (2001) with a total of 616 case files reviewed across sites, after the end of the planning period (2003) with a total of 642 case files reviewed across sites, and toward the end of the implementation period (2005) with a total of 562 case files reviewed across sites. Part 9 (Site Visit Interview Notes Qualitative Data) includes questions on structure of services, policies and procedures, training, and the strengths and needs of the site. Site visits were conducted between January 2001 and June 2006 with interviewers with at least one collaborative member from each of the three primary systems (child welfare agency, courts, domestic violence service provider).

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.

A representative national sample of 6,002 families were studied with an emphasis on psychological and medical consequences, costs, and help-seeking patterns of intra-family violence. The study is a follow-up to the 1975 National Family Violence Survey. Investigators: Straus, M. A. & Gelles, R. J.

The purpose of the study was to examine the processes of resistance in domestic violence offenders. Study One (Part 1, Study One Quantitative Data) was developed to refine and offer preliminary validation of the draft processes of resistance measure. In the summer of 2004, group facilitators collected data from 346 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic violence agencies in Florida, California, Georgia, and Rhode Island. The 88 item draft processes of resistance measure was administered as part of a 280 item paper-and-pencil survey that took approximately 60 minutes to complete. Resistance items were placed in random order in the measure and in 50 percent of the surveys, resistance items were placed in reverse order within the measure. Study Two (Part 2, Study Two Quantitative Data), administered the processes of resistance measure to a separate sample of domestic violence offenders at batterer program intake and again two months later. Participants included 358 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic violence agencies in Florida, Virginia, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Calgary, Canada, between January and December 2005. In Study Three (Part 3, Study Three Expert Interview Qualitative Data), 16 of the 18 domestic violence experts who were interviewed in Study One during the drafting of the resistance measure were invited by telephone or email to participate in a 1- hour interview on best practices for dealing with resistance. Thirteen experts who agreed to be interviewed were mailed a list of processes of resistance measure items and asked to give recommendations on how domestic violence counselors can respond to a client engaging in those behaviors in treatment. Interviews were conducted by telephone in November 2005, with an interviewer and note taker, and audiotaped. Part 1 (Study One Quantitative Data) and Part 2 (Study Two Quantitative Data) include demographic variables such as age, race, level of education, employment and income level, relationship to the domestic assault victim, months in batterer treatment, and criminal history. Both Parts also include variables to measure stage of change, decisional balance, processes of change, self-efficacy, physical and psychological aggression, social desirability, at risk drinking, and physical and mental health. Additionally, Part 2 includes variables on program attendance and completion. Part 3 (Study Three Expert Interviews Qualitative Data) includes domestic violence experts recommendations for managing eight types of resistance in batterer treatment including system blaming, problems with partner, problems with alliance, social justification, hopelessness, isolation, psychological reactance, and passive reactance.

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 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.