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 Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and

Using data from five Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) sites, this study examined the extent to which domestic violence offenders exhibit a specialized proclivity toward violence and the extent to which attack severity escalates, de-escalates, or stays about the same over time. The specialization question was examined using official arrest records from the Charlotte, North Carolina, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Omaha, Nebraska sites. Escalation was examined using victim interview data from the Charlotte, Milwaukee, Omaha, and Miami-Dada, Florida sites. This collection consists of 18 SAS setup files used to recode the variables from the original datasets, organized in five groups, by city of each data collection site. This collection does not contain the original data files, themselves.

The purpose of the study was to better understand the factors associated with police decisions to make an arrest or not in cases of heterosexual partner violence and how these decisions vary across jurisdictions. The study utilized data from three large national datasets: the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for the year 2003, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) for the years 2000 and 2003, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Area Resource File (ARF) for the year 2003. Researchers also developed a database of domestic violence state arrest laws including arrest type (mandatory, discretionary, or preferred) and primary aggressor statutes. Next, the research team merged these four databases into one, with incident being the unit of analysis. As a further step, the research team conducted spatial analysis to examine the impact of spatial autocorrelation in arrest decisions by police organizations on the results of statistical analyses. The dependent variable for this study was arrest outcome, defined as no arrest, single male arrest, single female arrest, and dual arrest for an act of violence against an intimate partner. The primary independent variables were divided into three categories: incident factors, police organizational factors, and community factors.

The purpose of the research project was to examine the extent to which the perception of procedural fairness by suspects arrested for spouse assault effectively inhibited their subsequent violence. The data for this study were collected for the MILWAUKEE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9966), which was conducted from April 1987 to August 1988. In this experiment, all cases of misdemeanor domestic battery where probable cause to arrest existed were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) warning with no arrest, (2) arrest with a brief detention period (average of 3 hours), and (3) arrest with a longer detention period (average of 11 hours). Variables include demographic and background information, as well as descriptive variables pertaining to the domestic violence incident.

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.

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,

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.

In collaboration with community- and system-based partners, the current study used an experimental design to test the impact of phone outreach from community-based agencies to women exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) compared to phone referrals provided by system-based unit (i.e., the Victim Assistance Unit of the DPD or the City Attorney's Office) in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of women whose cases have come to the attention of the criminal justice system. The phone outreach was informed by an interdisciplinary team involving both system- and community-based team members. Participants, who were randomly selected to receive outreach or treatment-as-usual, were interviewed at three time points: after an incident of IPV was reported to the police (T1), 6 months after T1, and 12 months after T1. The study addressed three primary roles. First, investigators evaluated the effectiveness of a coordinated, community-based outreach program in improving criminal justice and victim safety and empowerment outcomes for IPV victims using a longitudinal, randomized control design. Second, victim and case characteristics that moderated outcomes were identified. Third, the influence of spatial characteristics on criminal justice outcomes was evaluated.

This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.