This study examined the implementation of a specialized domestic violence unit within the San Diego County Sheriff's Department to determine whether the creation of the new unit would lead to increased and improved reporting, and more filings for prosecution. In order to evaluate the implementation of the specialized domestic violence unit, the researchers conducted the following tasks: (1) They surveyed field deputies to assess their level of knowledge about domestic violence laws and adherence to the countywide domestic violence protocol. (2) They studied a sample from the case tracking system that reported cases of domestic violence handled by the domestic violence unit to determine changes in procedures compared to an earlier case tracking study with no specialized unit. (3) They interviewed victims of domestic violence by phone to explore the responsiveness of the field deputies and the unit detectives to the needs of the victims. Part 1 (Deputy Survey Data) contains data on unit detectives' knowledge about the laws concerning domestic violence. Information includes whether or not the person considered the primary aggressor was the person who committed the first act of aggression, if a law enforcement officer could decide whether or not to complete a domestic violence supplemental report, whether an arrest should be made if there was reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor offense had been committed, and whether the decision to prosecute a suspect lay within the discretion of the district or city attorney. Demographic variables include deputy's years of education and law enforcement experience. Part 2 (Case Tracking Data) includes demographic variables such as race and sex of the victim and the suspect, and the relationship between the victim and the suspect. Other information was collected on whether the victim and the suspect used alcohol and drugs prior to or during the incident, if the victim was pregnant, if children were present during the incident, highest charge on the incident report, if the reporting call was made at the same place the incident occurred, suspect actions described on the report, if a gun, knife, physical force, or verbal abuse was used in the incident, if the victim or the suspect was injured, and if medical treatment was provided to the victim. Data were also gathered on whether the suspect was arrested or booked, how the investigating officer decided whether to request that the prosecutor file charges, type of evidence collected, if a victim or witness statement was collected, if the victim had a restraining order, prior history of domestic violence, if the victim was provided with information on domestic violence law, hotline, shelter, transportation, and medical treatment, highest arrest charge, number of arrests for any drug charges, weapon charges, domestic violence charges, or other charges, case disposition, number of convictions for the charges, and number of prior arrests and convictions. Part 3 (Victim Survey Data) includes demographic variables such as victim's gender and race. Other variables include how much time the deputy spent at the scene when s/he responded to the call, number of deputies the victim interacted with at the scene, number of deputies at the scene that were male or female, if the victim used any of the information the deputy provided, if the victim used referral information for counseling, legal, shelter, and other services, how helpful the victim found the information, and the victim's rating of the performance of the deputy.

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.

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.

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.

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 examined the role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports produced by the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD). It provided needed empirical data on the prevalence of stalking in domestic violence crime reports, risk factors associated with intimate partner stalking, and police responses to reports of intimate partner stalking. The study was conducted jointly by the Justice Studies Center (JSC) at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the Denver-based Center for Policy Research (CPR). JSC staff generated the sample and collected the data, and CPR staff processed and analyzed the data. The sample was generated from CSPD Domestic Violence Summons and Complaint (DVSC) forms, which were used by CSPD officers to investigate crime reports of victims and suspects who were or had been in an intimate relationship and where there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed. During January to September 1999, JSC staff reviewed and entered information from all 1998 DVSC forms into a computerized database as part of the evaluation process for Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT), a nationally recognized domestic violence prevention program. A subfile of reports initiated during April to September 1998 was generated from this database and formed the basis for the study sample. The DVSC forms contained detailed information about the violation including victim and suspect relationship, type of violation committed, and specific criminal charges made by the police officer. The DVSC forms also contained written narratives by both the victim and the investigating officer, which provided detailed information about the events precipitating the report, including whether the suspect stalked the victim. The researchers classified a domestic violence crime report as having stalking allegations if the victim and/or police narrative specifically stated that the victim was stalked by the suspect, or if the victim and/or police narrative mentioned that the suspect engaged in stalking-like behaviors (e.g., repeated following, face-to-face confrontations, or unwanted communications by phone, page, letter, fax, or e-mail). Demographic variables include victim-suspect relationship, and age, race, sex, and employment status of the victim and suspect. Variables describing the violation include type of violation committed, specific criminal charges made by the police officer, whether the alleged violation constituted a misdemeanor or a felony crime, whether a suspect was arrested, whether the victim sustained injuries, whether the victim received medical attention, whether the suspect used a firearm or other type of weapon, whether items were placed in evidence, whether the victim or suspect was using drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the incident, number and ages of children in the household, whether children were in the home at the time of the incident, and whether there was a no-contact or restraining order in effect against the suspect at the time of the incident.

This study was undertaken to evaluate Alexandria, Virginia's Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), which is a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Specifically, the goals of the study were (1) to determine the effectiveness of DVIP, (2) to compare victims' perceptions of program satisfaction and other program elements between the Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Program and domestic violence victim support services in Virginia Beach, Virginia, (3) to examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abuse their victims, and (4) to report the findings of attitudinal surveys of the Alexandria police department regarding the mandatory arrest policy. Data were collected from four sources. The first two sources of data were surveys conducted via telephone interviews with females living in either Alexandria, Virginia (Part 1), or Virginia Beach, Virginia (Part 2), who were victims of domestic violence assault incidents in which the police had been contacted. These surveys were designed to describe the services that the women had received, their satisfaction with those services, and their experience with subsequent abuse. For Part 3 (Alexandria Repeat Offender Data), administrative records from the Alexandria Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) were examined in order to identify and examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abused their victims. The fourth source of data was a survey distributed to police officers in Alexandria (Part 4, Alexandria Police Officer Survey Data) and was developed to assess police officers' attitudes regarding the domestic violence arrest policy in Alexandria. In four rounds of interviews for Part 1 and three rounds of interviews for Part 2, victims answered questions regarding the location where the domestic violence incident occurred and if the police were involved, their perceptions of the helpfulness of the police, prosecutor, domestic violence programs, hotlines, and shelters, their relationship to the abuser, their living arrangements at the time of each interview, and whether a protective order was obtained. Also gathered was information on the types of abuse and injuries sustained by the victim, whether she sought medical care for the injuries, whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the incident(s), whether the victim had been physically abused or threatened, yelled at, had personal property destroyed, or was made to feel unsafe by the abuser, if any other programs or persons provided help to the victim and how helpful these additional services were, and whether a judge ordered services for the victim or abuser. After the initial interviews, in subsequent rounds victims were asked if they had had any contact with the abuser since the last interview, if they had experienced any major life changes, if their situation had improved or gotten worse and if so how, and what types of assistance or programs would have helped improve their situation. Demographic variables for Part 3 include offenders' race, sex, age at first criminal nondomestic violence charge, and age at first domestic violence charge. Other variables include charge number, type, initiator, disposition, and sentence of nondomestic violence charges, as well as the conditions of the sentences, imposed days, months, and years, effective days, months, and years, type of domestic violence case, victim's relationship to offender, victim's age, sex, and race, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, if children were present at the domestic violence incident, the assault method used by the offender, and the severity of the assault. For Part 4, police officers were asked whether they knew what a domestic violent incident was, whether arresting without a warrant was considered good policy, whether they were in favor of domestic violence policy as a police response, whether they thought domestic violence policy was an effective deterrent, whether officers should have discretion to arrest,

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.