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.

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. This study was a secondary analysis of National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) data from Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women and Men in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 2566 - http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02566.v1). This analysis examined the levels and patterns of repeat and multiple violent victimization, and their effects. Distributed here are the codes used to create the datasets and preform the secondary analysis. Please refer to the User Guide, distributed with this study, for more information.

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 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.

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 study focused on domestic violence victims whose alleged batterers were free on bond with a no-contact order (NCO) as a condition of their release in Lexington County, South Carolina between 2005 and 2008. The project involved a prospective, randomized experimental study in which 466 NCO cases were randomly assigned to either the current level of NCO enforcement (the control condition, N=229) or to proactive enforcement (the treatment condition, N=237). An additional 51 interim control cases were enrolled in the study during a coverage gap between the two officers that implemented the treatment condition over the course of the study. The treatment condition involved the following intervention: (1) a special domestic violence investigator assigned by the jurisdiction's sheriff proactively "checked in" with the "treatment" group of victims to verify that they understood the NCO and to monitor compliance; (2) the investigator provided advice on mobilizing law enforcement and collecting evidence to help sanction the offender if the order was violated. Data were collected from official Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD), Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC), and Office of Diversion Programs (ODP) records (Dataset 1, Offender Data). Efforts were made to interview victims at six weeks (Dataset 2, Time 1 Victim Interview Data, N=141) and six months (Dataset 3, Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=100) after the gateway arrest. Dataset 4 (Combined Time 1/Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=97) include overall measures for respondents who completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 interviews. The victim interviews include measures on background characteristics, life experiences, circumstances surrounding the "gateway incident" which resulted in the case being enrolled in the study, and subsequent victimization experiences and no-contact order compliance levels.

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 documented women's experience of enhanced services and advocacy in the context of the three special session domestic violence courts in Connecticut. The study conducted 60 in-depth interviews with women whose current or former partners were arrested for domestic violence and who appeared in one of the three special session courts. The questions were designed to elicit information from women about the meaning and context of intimate violence in their lives generally, their assessments of the risks and options available to them and their children from family, friends, and other institutions, their strategies for maximizing safety for themselves and their children, the meaning of the arrest incident in their overall experience of their relationship with their abusive partner, and the impact of the court experience on their plans, sense of options, and understanding of the abuse they had experienced.

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.