Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000

This study examined the ways in which the model of the
 Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way
 cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on
 outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the
 implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected
 three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons
 on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony
 domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the
 FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state
 Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison
 group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very
 few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole
 or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of
 the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September
 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early
 period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented)
 and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was
 selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or
 in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order
 violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been
 indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without
 application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September
 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal
 contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme
 Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this
 law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning
 in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in
 which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony
 charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during
 the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts
 as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers
 to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from
 the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled
 differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were
 designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for
 criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order
 violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain
 information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated
 for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and
 post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug
 treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition,
 indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or
 other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and
 probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of
 abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months,
 history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and
 medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional
 variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before
 the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past
 domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims,
 weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical
 attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the
 defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases
 during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the
 victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with
 children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim
 and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the
 defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether
 the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
 trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
 pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
 violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
 victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
 income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
 Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
 prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
 charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
 charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
 arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
 indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
 disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.