The purpose of this study was to provide a definitive test of whether batterer programs and varying intensities of judicial monitoring reduce reoffending among domestic violence offenders. Study enrollment took place between July 23, 2002, through February 27, 2004. In Part 1, Batterer Program Experiment Data, convicted male domestic violence offenders from court parts AP10 (Pretrial Appearances) or TAP2 (Trials) of the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court were randomly assigned into one of four experimental conditions. The four conditions were batterer program plus monthly judicial monitoring (n = 102), batterer program plus graduated monitoring (n = 100), monthly monitoring only (n = 109), and graduated monitoring only (n = 109). Defendants assigned to a batterer program completed either the Domestic Violence Accountability Program (DVAP) run by Safe Horizon or the Men's Choices Program run by the Fordham Tremont Community Mental Health Center. The offenders were tracked for at least 12 months after sentencing, and for up to 18 months for most of the men, to determine whether they fulfilled the conditions of their sentence, were rearrested for domestic violence, or were reported by the victim to have engaged in new incidents of abuse. Using each offender's New York State criminal identification number, complete criminal record files, including prior criminal history and recidivism, were obtained from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). Victims were interviewed about new domestic incidents committed within one year of sentencing. In Part 2, Monitoring Experiment Data, a quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching compared recidivism outcomes between the randomized offenders in Part 1 and a control group of conditional discharge (CD) offenders convicted of identical offenses, but who, as a result of the normal sentencing process, received neither a batterer program nor any form of monitoring. The propensity score predicted the probability of inclusion in the randomized trial (Part 1) sample, based not on actual membership in that sample, but on the statistical probability of membership in it, as computed from the observed set of background characteristics. Each offender in the randomized trial was then matched to the offender in the CD only group with the nearest propensity score. Sometimes multiple offenders from the the initial trial were matched to the same CD only offender. Variables in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the data set include demographic variables for both the defendants and victims, defendant arrest history, current sentence, assignment to a batterer program, type of judicial monitoring, and victim reports of new incidents of violence after sentencing.

The researchers sought to add to the incipient literature on randomized studies of batterer treatment, by conducting an experimental study that compared batterers assigned to treatment to batterers assigned to a community service program irrelevant to the problem of violence. The study was conducted using a true experimental design and consisted of 376 spousal assault cases drawn from the Kings County (New York) Criminal Court which were adjudicated between February 19, 1995, and March 1, 1996. Batterers were mandated to attend a 40-hour batterer treatment program or to complete 40 hours of community service. The random assignment was made at sentencing, after all parties (judge, prosecutor, and defense) had agreed that batterer treatment was appropriate, the defendant agreed to treatment and was accepted by the Alternatives to Violence (ATV) program, and the program was available based on the random assignment process. Interviews were also conducted with both the batterer and the victim at sentencing as well as 6 months post-sentence and 12 months post-sentence. These interviews collected data in areas regarding demographics (first interview only), recidivism, beliefs about domestic violence, conflict management strategies, locus of control, and for victims, self esteem. Administrative records were also used to obtain data regarding any new crimes committed.

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.

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 goal of this project was to compare the effectiveness of a 26-week stages of change (SOC) group treatment approach with a standard Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Gender-Reeducation (CBTGR) group treatment approach; to assess potential mediators of change; to conduct analyses on individual readiness to change as a moderator of treatment condition in predicting outcomes; to conduct exploratory analyses comparing the effectiveness of these 2 approaches in Spanish-speaking groups; and to assess the integrity of the 2 treatments with respect to therapist adherence. Male clients who were referred to the Montgomery County, Maryland, Abused Persons Program (APP) between June 2003 and January 2006 and who were appropriate for participation in either the English-speaking or Spanish-speaking 26-week group, were randomly assigned to either a Stage of Change (SOC) Treatment Format or a Cognitive-Behavioral Gender-Reeducation Format (CBTGR). All participants at the APP routinely underwent a standard intake procedure. Data collection consisted of (1) an intake interview and questionnaires completed by the batterer at intake, (2) an initial telephone interview of the partner, (3) data collected from the batterer at mid-treatment and post-treatment, (4) data collected at the end of treatment on the number of sessions attended, and (5) telephone-based follow-up information received from the partner at 6 and 12 months post-intake. The data file contains 550 cases and 901 variables. For the Abuser Intake Interview, the abuser was asked information regarding his age, education, employment status, income, relationship to the victim partner, current contact, children in common, and history of abuse and trauma. As part of this intake, the offender completed several instruments including (1) the Conflict Tactics Scales-Revised (CTS2), (2) the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA), (3) the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), (4) the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), (5) the Generality of Violence-Revised (GVQ-R), (6) Perceptions of Procedural Justice, and (7) the Dissociative Violence Scale (DVS). The victim partner was asked about demographics as well as relationship status, children in common, and current contact with the batterer. As part of this interview, the victim partner also completed (1) the CTS2 items as they pertained to the batterer's behavior toward her in the previous six months and over the course of their relationship, (2) the Danger Assessment Scale (DAS), and (3) the Process of Change in Abused Women Scale (PROCAWS). At 8 and 16 weeks into treatment, APP staff administered the Working Alliance Inventory -- Short Form (WAI-S) along with the Group Cohesion Scale (GES-COH).

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.

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 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.