Title: National Institute of Justice Journal (Issue No. 250)
Series: NIJ Journal
Author: National Institute of Justice
Published: November 2003
Subject: Child abuse and neglect, community policing, criminal justice system,
domestic violence, drug abuse and crime, drug law enforcement, gun violence,
homicide, police patrol, victim compensation, and victim services
64 pages
137,000 bytes

------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at
800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice Journal
Issue No. 250

Intimate Partner Homicide

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart
Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, NIJ can be found on the World Wide Web at:

Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

JR 000250

------------------------------

Director's Message

This issue of the NIJ Journal focuses on a single important topic--homicides
committed by the victim's spouse or other intimate partner. Women are most
likely to be the victim in these cases of intimate partner homicide. An overview
on page 2 reflects the range of ideas the authors discuss, from aspects of the
problem (such as risk factors and the effect of alcohol abuse) to possible steps
toward reducing the number of incidents (such as the effectiveness of domestic
violence services and the use of fatality reviews). The articles shed new light on
a type of crime that continues to have serious social consequences and to
present challenges to law enforcement and health providers.

The "At-A-Glance" section reports on research on numerous other criminal
justice subjects. The research and programs described include a pilot program
in which Florida sheriffs act as child protective service investigators; the new,
"gentrified" drug markets of Manhattan's Lower East Side (which offer home
delivery to middle-class customers); an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of
multijurisdictional drug enforcement task forces; quality-of-life policing; racial
profiling; and advice to police departments on how to get feedback and
participation from community residents.

The anniversary of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) is
also recognized in this issue. One of the first federally funded clearinghouses,
NCJRS helps criminal justice professionals easily access publications and
information from NIJ and its sister agencies of the Office of Justice Programs,
as well as offering an opportunity for professionals to share their knowledge
with one another.

Sarah V. Hart
Director

------------------------------

National Institute of Justice

Sarah V. Hart
Director

The NIJ Journal is published by the National Institute of Justice to announce the
Institute's policy-relevant research results and initiatives. The Attorney General
has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction
of the public business required by law of the Department of Justice. 

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors
and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Subscription information

email
puborder@ncjrs.org
In the subject line, put "NIJ Journal Subscription"

phone
301-519-5500
800-851-3420

mail
NCJRS
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

World Wide Web address
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals

Contact NIJ
National Institute of Justice
810 7th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20531, U.S.A. 

NIJ Journal Editorial Board

Glenn R. Schmitt
Deputy Director

John Morgan
Acting Assistant Director for Science and Technology

Thomas E. Feucht
Acting Assistant Director for Research and Evaluation

Jay Albanese
Patrick M. Clark
A. Trent DePersia
Lee Mockensturm
Sharla P. Rausch
Gerald P. Soucy
Cheryl C. Watson

Editors
Jolene Hernon
Dan Tompkins

Production by: Palladian Partners, Inc.
David Fialkoff, Managing Editor
Catharine Rankin, Production Editor
Felicia Barlow, Contributing Writer
Aaron Auyeung, Designer
Maureen Berg, Designer, Market Experts, Incorporated

------------------------------

Contents

Features

o Intimate Partner Homicide: An Overview
by Margaret Zahn

o How Can Practitioners Help an Abused Woman Lower Her Risk of Death?
by Carolyn Rebecca Block

o Risky Mix: Drinking, Drug Use, and Homicide
by Phyllis Sharps, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Doris Campbell, Faye Gary, and
Daniel Webster

o Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide
by Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Daniel Webster, Jane Koziol-McLain, Carolyn
Rebecca Block, Doris Campbell, Mary Ann Curry, Faye Gary, Judith
McFarlane, Carolyn Sachs, Phyllis Sharps, Yvonne Ulrich, and Susan A. Wilt

o Do Domestic Violence Services Save Lives?
by Laura Dugan, Daniel S. Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld

o Reviewing Domestic Violence Deaths
by Neil Websdale

NCJRS--Sharing Information for More Than 30 Years
by Cheryll Bissell and Jonathan Witte

At-A-Glance

o Cross-Cultural Issues in Domestic Violence by Kirsten Senturia, Marianne
Sullivan, Sandy Ciske, and Sharyne Shiu-Thornton

o Florida Sheriffs Take on Child Abuse Investigations by Richard J. Gelles,
Susan Kinnevy, and Burton J. Cohen

o The Gentrification of Drug Markets by Richard Curtis and Travis Wendel

o Evaluating Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement Task Forces by David
Hayeslip and Malcolm Russell-Einhorn

o Social Changes and Their Effects on Homicide Rates by Robert Kaminski
and Thomas Marvell

o Getting Residents' Feedback and Participation by Cheryl Maxson, Karen
Hennigan, and David Sloane

o Crime Victims Compensation Programs Needs Assessed by Lisa Newmark

o Measuring the Effects of Quality-of-Life Policing by Bruce D. Johnson and
Andrew Golub

o Studying Racial Profiling in North Carolina by Matthew T. Zingraff, William
R. Smith, and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey

------------------------------

Intimate Partner Homicide: An Overview
by Margaret A. Zahn

Intimate partner homicide--the killing of a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, or
girlfriend--has declined significantly in the past 25 years. The decline in these
homicides took place among all race and gender groups, although they were
greater for men and for blacks and less pronounced for white women.[1] These
declines, while truly significant, mask the important fact that women are
substantially more likely than men to be murdered by their intimate partners.
The findings presented in the accompanying articles examine which women are
most at risk for being a murder victim and consider policies that may help to
explain the declines or to result in further declines.

In assessing risk, Carolyn Rebecca Block found three key risk factors in
violence against women that predict a lethal outcome. They are the type of past
violence (previous choking is a significant risk factor), recency of attack, and
frequency of violence. Women who have recently been severely attacked are
more likely to be murdered. Phyllis Sharps and her colleagues found strong
correlations between partner alcohol and substance abuse and the killing of
women by their intimate partners. Men who murdered their partners were more
likely to be drunk every day or to use drugs than those who abused but did not
murder or than those who did not abuse their partners. Further, Jacquelyn C.
Campbell and her colleagues demonstrate the usefulness of risk assessment
instruments in predicting eventual murder. They also found drug use, serious
alcohol abuse, and gun possession to be highly associated with the murder of
women by their intimate partners. 

In terms of policies and practices that might explain the reduction in intimate
partner homicides, Laura Dugan and her colleagues focus on exposure
reduction strategies--that is, strategies that shorten the time that couples are in
contact with each other. The results are mixed. The impacts of some criminal
justice policies vary by race, gender, and marital status, with unmarried partners
often being negatively affected by the policies and married partners helped by
them. However, none of the policies examined address the use of drugs or
alcohol or the removal of guns from domestic violence situations--all significant
predictors of lethal violence.

Neil Websdale recommends the use of fatality reviews as a way to assess
where our criminal justice and social services systems fail in preventing
homicides. Although the focus of his article is on the utility of these reviews in
protecting women against homicide, the same technique could be used to
review the deaths of men who are murdered (the largest category of homicide
victims). Certainly the viability of these reviews to help reduce or prevent all
forms of homicide--not just those committed by intimate partners--should be
explored.

In general, these articles lead us forward in determining the risk factors for the
murder of women. They also examine the social policies and practices that
might be associated with additional preventive measures. Taken together, the
articles demonstrate the disconnect between our social policies and the risk
factors associated with intimate partner homicide. For example, although
alcohol abuse is a clear risk factor, few social policies aimed at reducing
intimate partner homicide have focused on it. We must do a better job of linking
social policy and practice to identified risk predictors if this social problem is to
be resolved. The extent to which victim services and criminal justice systems
focus on these factors could lead to a reduction, not only of intimate partner
homicide, but of other homicides as well.

NCJ 196544

Notes

1. Fox, James Alan, and Marianne W. Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United
States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, January 1999: 2 (NCJ 173956). Available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm.

------------------

About the Author

Margaret A. Zahn, Ph.D., is a professor of sociology and is the former dean of
humanities and social sciences at North Carolina State University-Raleigh. She
served a 1-year tour of duty at the National Institute of Justice, where she was
Director of the Institute's Violence and Victimization Division. She currently
heads the Crime and Justice Policy Program at the Research Triangle Institute
in Research Triangle Park, NC. She can be reached at mzahn@rti.org.

------------------------------

How Can Practitioners Help an Abused Woman Lower Her Risk of Death?
by Carolyn Rebecca Block

When nurses, police officers, and other service providers talk with an abused
woman, what should they say or do to lower the risk of severe or possibly fatal
violence? The Chicago Women's Health Risk Study identified several factors
that signal potential danger of death or life-threatening injury.

Here are some of the study's key findings with implications for practitioners.

Past Violent Incidents

o Finding. In the great majority of homicides, the woman had experienced
violence at the hands of her partner in the past year. Also, most of the abused
women had experienced other incidents in the past. But three particular aspects
of past violence are the highest risk factors for future violence: (1) the type of
past violence; (2) the number of days since the last incident; and (3) the
frequency, or increasing frequency, of violence in the past. 

Implication. Practitioners should talk with women about the nature of the
violence she has experienced--when it happened, how frequently it happened,
and the kind of violence. 

o Finding. For a substantial minority of women, about one in five, the fatal or
life-threatening incident was the first physical violence they had experienced
from their partner. These women have different risk factors for serious injury or
death: (1) her partner's controlling behavior or jealousy; (2) her partner's drug
use; and (3) her partner's violence outside the home.

Implication. Even the first incident could be fatal. Practitioners need to be
aware of the risk factors for women who have not yet experienced physical
violence.

o Finding. Her partner's extreme jealousy was the precipitating factor in 40
percent of the murders of a woman by a man in which there was no prior
violence. 

Implication. Extreme jealousy exhibited by an intimate partner is a risk factor
for possible fatal violence, even if there has been no previous violent incident.

Timing of Past Violence

o Finding. No matter how severe the most recent incident of abuse, if it
happened recently the woman faces a higher risk. The number of days since the
last act of violence was an important risk factor. Half the women killed, and
three-fourths of the women who killed, had experienced violence within 30
days of the homicide, some within 1 or 2 days.

Implication. Recent abuse by her intimate partner, regardless of the severity of
the incident, increases the risk of the woman being killed, or of killing her
abusive partner. 

o Finding. Frequency of violence was also an important risk factor. The
violence against them was becoming increasingly frequent for almost three-
fourths of women who murdered their abusive partners and for over two-fifths
of the murdered women. 

Implication. Increasingly frequent episodes of violence by an intimate partner
pose a high risk of deadly violence to the victim as well as to the abusive
partner.

Type and Severity of Violence

o Finding. Almost half of the abused women in the study had experienced at
least one "severe or life threatening" incident in the past year (permanent injury,
being severely "beaten up," being choked or burned, internal injury, head injury,
broken bones, or a threat or attack with a weapon). These women were more
likely to have sought help. The abused women who were killed, and especially
those abused women who killed their partners, were much more likely to have
sought help, compared to severely abused women not involved in homicide. 

Implication. Helping professionals should be aware that, by seeking help, an
abused woman indicates that her situation could be serious.

o Finding. Any past attempt to strangle or choke her is a risk factor for severe
or fatal violence. In a fourth of the homicides of a woman by a man, he
strangled or smothered her to death. Violent incidents involving choking were
more likely to prove fatal.

Implication. Practitioners should ask an abused woman if her partner has ever
tried to choke her or grab her around the neck. Also, in incidents when
someone may have been choked or strangled, responding officers should try to
ensure that the person receives a medical evaluation of her condition.

The Woman's Response to the Violence

o Finding. Most women try to leave an abusive relationship. Three-fourths of
homicide victims and 85 percent of women who had experienced severe but
nonfatal violence had left or tried to leave in the past year. 

Implication. The answer to the common question, "Why doesn't she leave?" is
that women do leave or try to leave.

o Finding. Leaving can end the violence. When it does not, however, the
continuing violence may become more severe than for women who never tried
to leave. Her attempt to leave was the precipitating factor in 45 percent of the
murders of a woman by a man.

Implication. Practitioners should not only provide support and practical advice
for women thinking of leaving an abusive relationship, but should also discuss
her risks if she leaves and how best to minimize those risks.

o Finding. Almost every abused woman in the study had sought some help after
a violent incident, either informal help (talking to someone) or formal help
(medical, counseling, contacting the police). However, some abused women
did not seek help from any source. A fifth of Latina/Hispanic women reporting
a severe or life-threatening incident did not seek any help, formal or informal. 

Implication. Helping agencies and practitioners need to find ways to ensure that
abused Latina/Hispanic women have culturally accessible and supportive
resources available to them.

o Finding. Women in the study were much more likely to seek medical help or
contact the police than to seek counseling or go to a service agency. 

Implication. This suggests that medical workers and police officers can play
important roles in linking abused women to counseling and other community
services.

Women Perpetrators

o Finding. Abused women who killed their partners differed strongly from all
other abused women. They (1) had experienced more severe and increasing
violence; (2) had fewer resources (such as employment or education); and (3)
were in more traditional relation-ships (were married, had children, had longer
relationships).

Implication. Some women who feel trapped in an increasingly abusive
relationship, with few resources, may resort to violence. It is important to find
ways to intervene successfully in these situations.

o Finding. Abused women who killed their partners were much more likely to
have called the police after a violent incident against them, compared to any
other group of women. 

Implication. Helping professionals must be certain not to miss the opportunity to
intervene when an abused woman reports the abuse.

o Finding. Women abused by women intimate partners contacted the police
much less frequently than women abused by men, but they were more likely to
seek medical care or talk to a counselor. 

Implication. Medical workers, counselors, and police officers can work
together to improve the responsiveness and coordination of services for women
abused by a female partner.

NCJ 196545

For More Information

o See the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Web site at
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/index.cfm and the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/index.html.

o Block, Carolyn Rebecca, and Christine Ovcharchyn Devitt, Chicago
Women's Health Risk Study At A Glance, Research Brief, Chicago: Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority, June 2000 (NCJ 187781).

o Block, Carolyn Rebecca, Chicago Women's Health Risk Study, Risk of
Serious Injury or Death in Intimate Violence: A Collaborative Research
Project, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 2000 (NCJ 184511).

o Block, Carolyn Rebecca, Christine Ovcharchyn Devitt, Judith M. McFarlane,
and Gail Rayford Walker, "Beyond Public Records Databases: Field Strategies
for Locating and Interviewing Proxy Respondents in Homicide Research,"
Homicide Studies 3 (1999): 349-366.

o Block, Carolyn Rebecca, Barbara Engel, Sara M. Naureckas, and Kim A.
Riordan, "The Chicago Women's Health Risk Study: Lessons in Collaboration,"
Violence Against Women 5 (1999): 1158-1177.

o Block, Carolyn Rebecca, Barbara Engel, Sara M. Naureckas, and Kim A.
Riordan, "Collaboration in the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study," Research
Brief 1(1) (June 1999): 1-4 (NCJ 180332).

o Donoghue, Edmund R., "Domestic Violence: Predicting Fatal Outcomes,"
Chicago Medicine 104 (2001): 4-5.

------------------

Methodology

The researchers screened more than 2,500 Chicago women during 1995-1996
who came to a hospital or health care clinic in areas where the risk for intimate
partner violence was high. The brief screening included three short questions
about current violence, current sexual abuse, and fear of going home. The
researchers interviewed almost 500 women aged 18 or older who were in a
relationship and answered "yes" to at least one of the screening questions. A
third of those in a relationship who answered "no" to all three questions were
also interviewed.

In addition, the researchers reviewed case files of all 87 intimate partner
homicides in Chicago in 1995 and 1996 with a woman victim or a woman
offender. The researchers also interviewed friends, family, and others who
knew the female offenders and victims. They were asked the same questions
the clinic women were asked. In addition, the researchers examined the
Chicago Homicide Dataset,[1] medical examiner's office and court records,
newspapers, and other sources.

1. The Chicago Homicide Dataset, maintained by the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority (ICJIA), contains information on all homicides in Chicago
since 1965. ICJIA is currently updating the data through 2000 with the help of
the Chicago Police Department.

------------------

About the Author

Carolyn Rebecca Block, Ph.D., is a senior research analyst at the Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority. She is the principal investigator of the
Chicago Women's Health Risk Study, a collaborative study of lethal and
nonlethal intimate partner violence. This report is based on the work of over 35
collaborating individuals, representing numerous participating agencies. Contact
her at 120 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606, 312-793-8550,
bblock@icjia.state.il.us.

------------------

Risky Mix: Drinking, Drug Use, and Homicide
by Phyllis Sharps, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Doris Campbell, Faye Gary, and
Daniel Webster

A study on patterns of alcohol and drug use in the murder or attempted murder
of women by their intimate partners showed a strong and direct relationship
between substance use and such violence. 

This study examines the connection between alcohol and drug use and intimate
partner violence, both during the incident and in the year leading up to it. The
researchers found that higher levels of substance use by the offenders (and to a
lesser extent, by the victims) tracked closely with more severe violence.
Notably, although both partners may have regularly used alcohol before the
homicide, attempted homicide, or the most severe violent incident of abuse,
more male partners than female victims were problem drinkers. Also, during
these violent incidents, more male partners than their female victims used
alcohol.

As other articles in this issue state, intimate partner violence, the most common
form of violence against women, is a key prelude to the murder of women by
their partners. Alcohol and drugs are involved in more than half of these
homicides,[1] and men who batter their partners also frequently abuse
alcohol.[2] In this study, strikingly high rates of alcohol and drug use were
reported for males who murdered or attempted to murder their female partners.
These findings reinforce the already documented complex relationship between
substance use by men and violence against women. 

Focus of Study

The researchers looked at women from 10 geographically diverse U.S. cities,
examining patterns of substance use by homicide or attempted homicide
victims, abuse victims, and nonabused women and by their male partners. The
study focused on three groupings: (1) women who were victims of homicide or
attempted homicide and their partners, (2) abused women who were not
targets of attempted homicide and their partners, and (3) nonabused women
and their partners. Because homicide victims and their partners were so similar
to attempted homicide victims and their partners--in terms of demographics, the
dynamics of the relationship, and other factors such as prior abuse and
stalking[3]--the researchers combined these two groups in the study.

Patterns of Alcohol and Drug Use

In the year before the murder, attempted murder, or the most severe violent
incident, female victims used alcohol and drugs less frequently than their
partners did, and they consumed less of either substance when they did drink or
use drugs (see table 1). This pattern largely mirrors that in the general
population.[4] Still, 13 percent of the female intimate partner homicide and
attempted homicide victims, 7 percent of the abuse victims, and less than 2
percent of the nonabused women were problem drinkers. These rates are
similar to those for abused women who went for treatment in hospital
emergency departments.[5]

During the homicide, attempted homicide, or the most severe violent incident,
the victims also were less likely than their partners to be drinking or using drugs
(see table 2). 

Previous studies found that almost two-thirds of female homicide victims tested
negative for alcohol at the time of death.[6] In this study, more than
three-quarters of the victims of the homicide or attempted homicide of women
and almost 90 percent of the abused women did not consume alcohol, either at
the time of their murder or the most serious violent incident. In contrast, more
than 80 percent of males who killed or abused a female partner were problem
drinkers in the year before the incident. They drank more frequently than their
victims, and they tended to binge drink. Other studies report that more than half
of these killers drank just before or at the time of the murder.[7]

The current findings on substance use in the homicide or attempted homicide of
women show less use by both parties than prior studies. But the findings
confirm the same pattern of male offenders being more likely than their female
victims to drink alcohol or use drugs at the time of the incidents. 

Several other findings provide insight into the role of substance use in intimate
partner violence. For example, during the homicide, attempted homicide, or the
most severe incident of violence, the offender typically used alcohol or drugs.
Significantly, 

o More homicide and attempted homicide offenders than those men who
abused or did not abuse their partners were described either as drunk every
day or as a problem drinker or drug user (see table 1).

o More than two-thirds of the homicide and attempted homicide offenders used
alcohol, drugs, or both during the incident; less than one-fourth of the victims
did (see table 2).

o More than one-fourth of the homicide and attempted homicide offenders used
both alcohol and drugs during the incident, while just under 6 percent of the
partner abusers used both substances during the most violent incident (see table
2).

Using the Findings to Keep Women Safe

Although there is likely a relationship between women's alcohol use and intimate
partner violence and homicide, this study found an increased risk of
victimization arising primarily from the offenders'--rather than from the
victims'--substance use.[8]

Alcohol or drugs alone do not cause violence between intimate partners. Yet, a
significant relationship seems to exist between men's alcohol or drug use and
violence by them against their intimate female partners. These findings show that
a violent intimate relationship in which the male abuser is a problem
drinker--characterized by frequent weekly and binge drinking--or a drug user is
particularly dangerous. The findings also point out that serious alcohol use by
males who abuse their partners increases the risk for fatal or violent
victimization of women involved in such relationships. 

Limitations of the Study

This study contained several limitations. First, proxy informants reported on the
use of alcohol and drugs by female homicide victims and their partners. Such
reports on a lost daughter, sister, or mother may be inaccurate. Perhaps the
informants were in denial about the substance use or just wanted to protect the
reputation of their relative--or the offender. Or a victim may not have revealed
to these informants the full extent of her own or her abuser's substance use.

Second, data on the context of substance use were limited. For example, the
study did not ask when substances were used, whether substance use was
more likely by the couple alone or with others, or if the victim's use of alcohol
or drugs started before or after the abuse. Nor did the study determine how the
substance use affected the violence. To understand the relationship between
violence in intimate relationships and substance use, the context of use--such as
the social setting, which can influence the type and amount of use, the rules and
norms for behavior, and the meanings each partner attaches to substance use
and violent behavior[9]--also must be studied. 

Third, African Americans with limited education and low incomes were
overrepresented in the sample of female victims of intimate partner homicide
and attempted homicide, perhaps because they had fewer resources to address
alcohol and drug problems, including limited social support systems. In addition,
African- American males who murdered or attempted to murder their partners
more frequently reported that they had a low level of education, were
unemployed, and were not looking for work than did others who carried out
these same violent acts. An earlier study showed that these same characteristics
were directly related to intimate partner violence against women.[10] 

It is also possible that the overrepresentation of African-American women
among the sample of female victims of intimate partner homicide and attempted
homicide resulted from how the sampling was done. African-American abuse
victims living in poverty and the proxies of those killed may have been easier to
find because they lacked the resources to relocate. Due to the above
limitations, generalizing from the results of this study may be somewhat
problematic. Still, poverty is an important factor because other research shows
that increased alcohol use and violence against women often occur within the
context of poverty.

NCJ 196546

Notes

1. Fagan, Jeffrey, "Interactions Among Drugs, Alcohol, and Violence," Health
Affairs 12 (1993): 65-79; Block, Carolyn Rebecca, and Antigone Christakos,
"Intimate Partner Homicide in Chicago Over 29 Years," Crime and
Delinquency 41 (1995): 496-525; and Wilt, Susan A., Susan Illman, and Maia
Brodyfield, Female Homicide Victims in New York City, New York: New
York City Department of Health, 1995.

2. Fagan, "Interactions Among Drugs, Alcohol, and Violence"; Cunradi, Carol
B., Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark, and John Schafer, "Alcohol-Related
Problems and Intimate Partner Violence Among White, Black, and Hispanic
Couples in the U.S.," Clinical and Experimental Research 23 (1999):
1492-1501; Hanson, R. Karl, Otto Cadsky, Andrea Harris, and Coralie
Lalonde, "Correlates of Battering Among 997 Men: Family History,
Adjustment, and Attitudinal Differences," Violence and Victims 12(3) (1997):
191-208; Bureau of Justice, Violence Between Intimates, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1997; and Browne,
Angela, Kirk R. Williams, and Donald G. Dutton, "Homicide Between Intimate
Partners," in Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research, ed. M. Dwayne
Smith and Margaret A. Zahn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999:
149-164.

3. McFarlane, Judith M., Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J.
Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich, and Xiao Xu, "Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide,"
Homicide Studies 3 (1999): 300-316.

4. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse: Population Estimates 1988, DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-1636,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, 1988; and Stark, Evan, and Anne H. Flitcraft, "Women
and Children at Risk: A Feminist Perspective on Child Abuse," International
Journal of Health Services 18 (1988): 97-118.

5. Stark and Flitcraft, "Women and Children at Risk."

6. Moracco, Kathryn E., Carol W. Runyan, and John D. Butts, "Femicide in
North Carolina, 1991-1993: A Statewide Study of Patterns and Precursors,"
Homicide Studies 2 (1998): 422-446; Campbell, Jacquelyn C., "If I Can't
Have You, No One Can: Power and Control in Homicide of Female Partners,"
in Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, ed. Jill Radford and Diana E.H.
Russell, New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992: 99-113; and Smith, Paige Hall,
Kathryn E. Moracco, and John D. Butts, "Partner Homicide in Context,"
Homicide Studies 2 (1998): 400-421.

7. Ibid.

8. Kantor, Glenda Kaufman, and Nancy L. Asdigian, "When Women Are
Under the Influence: Does Drinking or Drug Use by Women Provoke Beatings
by Men?" in Recent Developments in Alcoholism, ed. Marc Galanter, New
York: Plenum Press, 1996: 315-336.

9. Fagan, "Interactions Among Drugs, Alcohol, and Violence."

10. Bennett, Larry W., Richard M. Tolman, Carol Jean Rogalski, and
Jagannathan Srinivasaraghavan, "Domestic Abuse by Male Alcohol and Drug
Addicts," Violence and Victims 9(4) (1994): 359-368.

------------------

Study Methods 

The researchers studied risk factors for the killing of women in violent intimate
relationships in 10 geographically diverse cities: Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX;
Kansas City, KS; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY;
Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; St. Petersburg/Tampa, FL; and Wichita, KS.[1]

Cases involving the murder or attempted murder of women by their intimate
partners were identified from closed police, district attorney, medical examiner,
and trauma records. For the homicide victims, most of the data came from
telephone interviews of a proxy informant, a person who knew a lot about the
victim's relationship with the offender. Proxy informants most often were
mothers, friends, sisters, or other family members of the murdered women. 

Similar records helped the researchers identify and contact the attempted
homicide survivors. These women survived a gunshot, stabbing, or serious
assault carried out by an intimate partner with a clear intent to kill.

The abused women studied were between 18 and 50 years old and were
"romantically or sexually involved with the perpetrator at some time during the
past 2 years." In the study, a woman was categorized as abused if she had been
physically assaulted, threatened with serious violence, or stalked by a current or
former intimate partner.

Sample sizes for each city were set based on the annual rate of intimate partner
homicide in that city. The nonabused women in the study were selected from
the same cities as the homicide and attempted homicide victims and the abused
women, using a random-digit-dialing telephone method. The nonabused group
also included women who had been romantically or sexually involved sometime
during the past 2 years but who had not been physically assaulted, threatened
with serious violence, or stalked by a current or former intimate partner.

Details on sample recruitment and on data collection tools and methods are
described in "The Role of Alcohol Use in Intimate Partner Femicide."[2]
(Femicide is a term that means the murder of women by their intimate partners.)

1. Campbell, Jacquelyn C., "Risk Factors for Homicide in Violent Intimate
Relationships" (R01 DA11156), funded by the National Institutes of Health, the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, and NIJ, 1996.

2. Sharps, Phyllis W., Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Doris Williams Campbell, Faye
Gary, and Daniel Webster, "The Role of Alcohol Use in Intimate Partner
Femicide," Journal on Addictions 10 (2001): 1-14.

------------------

About the Authors

Phyllis Sharps, Ph.D., R.N., is director of the masters program and an
associate professor of community health nursing at the Johns Hopkins
University School of Nursing. Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N.,
is the associate dean for faculty affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School
of Nursing. Doris Campbell, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., is professor emeritus at
the University of South Florida. Faye Gary, Ed.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., is the
Medical Mutual of Ohio Professor in Nursing for Vulnerable and At-Risk
Persons at Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing at Case Western Reserve
University. Daniel Webster, Sc.D., M.P.H., is an associate professor at the
Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health and co-director of the Johns
Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

This research was supported under the Risk Factors for Homicide in Violent
Intimate Relations project funded by the National Institutes of Health, the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and NIJ (R01 DA11156). Dr.
Sharps was supported by a Minority Research Supplement Award funded by
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and NIDA. 

Dr. Sharps can be reached at 410-614-5312 or psharps@son.jhmi.edu.

------------------

Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide
by Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Daniel Webster, Jane Koziol-McLain, Carolyn
Rebecca Block, Doris Campbell, Mary Ann Curry, Faye Gary, Judith
McFarlane, Carolyn Sachs, Phyllis Sharps, Yvonne Ulrich, and Susan A. Wilt

Why does domestic violence turn to murder? Can we measure the risk of death
for a battered woman? Which women in abusive relationships are most likely to
be killed?

One helpful tool for finding answers to these questions is called the Danger
Assessment.[1] The series of 15 questions on the Danger Assessment is
designed to measure a woman's risk in an abusive relationship. (See figure 1.) 

A team of researchers studied the Danger Assessment and found that despite
certain limitations, the tool can with some reliability identify women who may be
at risk of being killed by their intimate partners. The study found that women
who score 8 or higher on the Danger Assessment are at very grave risk (the
average score for women who were murdered was just under 8). Women who
score 4 or higher are at great risk (the average score for abused women was
just over 3). The findings indicate that the Danger Assessment tool can assist in
assessing battered women who may be at risk of being killed as well as those
who are not.

The study also found that almost half the murdered women studied did not
recognize the high level of their risk. Thus, a tool like the Danger
Assessment--or another risk assessment process--may assist women (and the
professionals who help them) to better understand the potential for danger and
the level of their risk.

Limitations and Caveats

Eighty-three percent of the women who were killed had scores of 4 or higher,
but so did almost 40 percent of the women who were not killed. This finding
indicates that practitioners can use the Danger Assessment (like all intimate
partner violence risk assessment tools) as a guide in the process rather than as a
precise actuarial tool.[2]

It also indicates the need for a more precise cutoff score. Perhaps giving greater
weight to certain questions, such as those related to guns and threats, could
accomplish greater precision.

Cutoff scores should identify those who are at great risk of being killed, not
miscategorize women who are not likely to be killed. Both categories are
important because if the cutoff score is too high, women in extreme danger may
be missed. If the cutoff score is too low, women with a lower risk of being
murdered may be scared unnecessarily, and potential perpetrators' liberty may
be restricted unfairly. Although finding a realistic cutoff score is difficult, it is
crucial and something the researchers will continue to study.

High Correlations: Guns and Threats to Kill

Previous studies have looked at the relationship of gun ownership or possession
to intimate partner homicide, particularly when the partners live apart.[3] The
Danger Assessment study found that women who were threatened or assaulted
with a gun or other weapon were 20 times more likely than other women to be
murdered. Women whose partners threatened them with murder were 15 times
more likely than other women to be killed. When a gun was in the house, an
abused woman was 6 times more likely than other abused women to be killed.
(See figure 2.)

Although drug abuse or serious alcohol abuse (where the abuser was drunk
every day or almost every day) also translates into increased risk and tends to
separate batterers from intimate partners who kill, threats to kill, extreme
jealousy, attempts to choke, and forced sex present higher risks.[4]

Low Correlation: Threatened or Attempted Suicide

Threatened or attempted suicide by either males or females in the study were
not found to be predictors of intimate partner homicide. However, there is an
increased risk of homicide when the man is suicidal and there has not been any
physical abuse. Approximately one-third of the murders studied were
homicide-suicides. Further analysis is needed to learn how a man's potential for
suicide increases his partner's risk of becoming a homicide-suicide victim.

This study did not examine the risk faced by men of intimate partner homicide
when the woman was suicidal, so this factor's weight was not determined.[5]
However, since the question of whether a woman is suicidal is important for
prevention efforts, the researchers recommend that it remain on the assessment.

The Safety Plan

In safety planning, an abuser's threats with a weapon or threats to kill should be
rated as particularly serious, as should a possible murderer's access to a gun.
Thus, the researchers suggest that the legal prohibition against gun ownership
for those convicted of domestic violence is especially important to enforce, and
any protection order should include firearms search-and-seizure provisions.

However, criminal justice practitioners making decisions about an alleged
batterer's bail or sentencing should keep in mind that more than a third of
women who had a score of 4 or higher were not murdered. The research
showed that only a score of 8 or 9 reliably identified those women who were
killed. Thus, while the current cutoff score of 4 suggests the need for great
caution and for protective action, it does not reliably identify a woman's risk of
death.

NCJ 196547

For more information

o Background information on the Danger Assessment plus the full text of the
questionnaire is available at http://www.son.jhmi.edu/research/CNR/
homicide/DANGER.htm.

Notes

1. Pataki, George, Intimate Partner Homicides in New York State, Albany,
NY: State of New York, 1997; Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Phyllis W. Sharps,
and Nancy Glass, "Risk Assessment for Intimate Partner Violence," in Clinical
Assessment of Dangerousness: Empirical Contributions, ed. Georges-Franck
Pinard and Linda Pagani, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000:
136-157; Bennett, Lauren, Lisa Goodman, and Mary Ann Dutton, "Risk
Assessment Among Batterers Arrested for Domestic Violence," Violence
Against Women: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 6(11) (2000):
1190-1203; and Weisz, Arlene N., Richard M. Tolman, and Daniel G.
Saunders, "Assessing the Risk of Severe Domestic Violence: The Importance
of Survivors' Predictions," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 15(1) (2000):
75-90.

2. An actuarial instrument is one that provides weightings and published scores
that have been shown through formal and independent research to predict
violent outcomes. See Roehl, Jan, and Kristin Guertin, Current Use of
Dangerousness Assessments in Sentencing Domestic Violence Offenders,
Pacific Grove, CA: State Justice Institute, 1988; and Quinsey, Vernon L.,
Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice, and Catherine A. Cormier, Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk (1st ed.), Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 1998.

3. Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Daniel Webster, Jane Koziol-McLain, Carolyn
Rebecca Block, Doris Williams Campbell, Faye Gary, Judith M. McFarlane,
Carolyn Sachs, Phyllis W. Sharps, Yvonne Ulrich, Susan A. Wilt, Jennifer
Manganello, Xiao Xu, Janet Schollenberger, and Victoria Frye, "Risk Factors
for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control
Study,"American Journal of Public Health (93) (2003): 1089-1097.

4. See Sharps, Phyllis W., Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Doris Williams Campbell,
Faye Gary, and Daniel Webster, "The Role of Alcohol Use in Intimate Partner
Femicide," American Journal on Addictions 10(2) (2001): 1-14, for a complete
multivariate analysis of substance abuse of both the perpetrator and victim in
these data.

5. Browne, Angela, Kirk R. Williams, and Donald G. Dutton, "Homicide
Between Intimate Partners," in Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research,
ed. M. Dwayne Smith and Margaret A. Zahn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1999: 149-164.

------------------

The Numbers

Women are killed by intimate partners--husbands, lovers, ex-husbands, or
ex-lovers--more often than by any other category of killer.[1] It is the leading
cause of death for African-American women aged 15 to 45 and the seventh
leading cause of premature death for U.S. women overall.[2] Intimate partner
homicides make up 40 to 50 percent of all murders of women in the United
States, according to city- or State-specific databases (as opposed to the
Federal Supplementary Homicide Reports).[3] Significantly, the Federal report
doesn't have an ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend category, which accounts for as
much as 11 percent of intimate partner homicides of women and for 2 to 3
percent of intimate partner homicides committed by women.

In 70 to 80 percent of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was
killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.[4] Thus, one
of the primary ways to decrease intimate partner homicide is to identify and
intervene promptly with abused women at risk.

1. Mercy, James A., and Linda E. Saltzman, "Fatal Violence Among Spouses
in the United States, 1976-85," American Journal of Public Health 79 (1989):
595-599; Bailey, James E., Arthur L. Kellermann, Grant W. Somes, Joyce G.
Banton, Frederick P. Rivara, and Norman B. Rushforth, "Risk Factors for
Violent Death of Women in the Home," Archives of Internal Medicine 157(7)
(1997): 777-782; and Bachman, Ronet, and Linda E. Saltzman, Violence
Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute
of Justice, 1995 (NCJ 154348).

2. Office of Justice Programs, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on
Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau of
Justice Statistics Factbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
March 1998 (NCJ 167237).

3. Campbell, Jacquelyn C., "If I Can't Have You, No One Can: Power and
Control in Homicide of Female Partners," in Femicide: The Politics of Woman
Killing, ed. Jill Radford and Diana E.H. Russell, New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1992: 99-113; and Langford, Linda, Nancy Isaac, and Stacey
Kabat, "Homicides Related to Intimate Partner Violence in Massachusetts,"
Homicide Studies 2(4) (1998): 353-377.

4. Pataki, George, Intimate Partner Homicides in New York State, Albany,
NY: State of New York, 1997; Office of Justice Programs, Violence by
Intimates; Campbell, "If I Can't Have You"; McFarlane, Judith M., Jacquelyn
C. Campbell, Susan A. Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich, and Xiao Xu,
"Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide," Homicide Studies 3(4) (1999):
300-316; and Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by
Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1995.

------------------

About the Authors

The research reported here was supported with a grant from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (RO1 DA/AA 11156), with funding also provided by NIJ. Many
people contributed: Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., School of
Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Daniel Webster,
Sc.D., Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; Jane
Koziol-McLain, Ph.D., R.N., Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand; Carolyn Rebecca Block, Ph.D., Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, Chicago; Doris Campbell, Ph.D., R.N., College of
Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa; Mary Ann Curry, Ph.D., R.N.,
School of Nursing, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland; Faye Gary,
Ed.D., R.N., College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville; Judith
McFarlane, Ph.D., R.N., Texas Women's University, Houston; Carolyn Sachs,
M.D., M.P.H., School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles;
Phyllis Sharps, Ph.D., R.N., School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University;
Yvonne Ulrich, Ph.D., R.N., School of Nursing, University of Washington,
Seattle; and Susan A. Wilt, Dr.P.H., New York City Department of Health.

------------------

Do Domestic Violence Services Save Lives?
by Laura Dugan, Daniel S. Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld

Policies and services designed to help victims of domestic violence appear to
have two possible and opposing effects: either they decrease the abuse and risk
of homicide, or they have the unintended consequence of increasing them.
Some interventions that reduce contact between intimate partners in violent
relationships also reduce opportunities for further abuse and potential homicide
attempts.[1] But certain interventions designed to help victims gain access to
helpful resources may actually increase the risk of homicide--they have a
backlash or retaliation effect. The outcome depends on the type of intervention
and the characteristics of the victim and the offender. 

Researchers have examined the effects of many domestic violence resources
and their impact on intimate partner homicide to determine whether any
conclusions could be drawn about the relationship between the policies or
services used and the risk of death or further injury. Although clear conclusions
cannot be drawn and additional research is needed, current findings suggest that
certain interventions (such as warrantless arrest laws and economic assistance
for victims of domestic abuse) may help reduce domestic violence homicides. In
addition, life circumstances of the parties involved seem to play a role in
homicide rates. For example, unmarried black women may be especially
vulnerable to homicide if they elect to use domestic violence resources. 

Resources Up, Murders Down

In the United States, rates of homicide by intimate partners--spouses,
ex-spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends--have fallen over the past 25 years.
During that same time, public awareness of and policy responses to intimate
partner violence have intensified. As a result, domestic violence policies and
programs expanded dramatically beginning in the early 1970's, when the
battered women's movement began pressing for greater response to the needs
of women abused by their spouses.[2] The movement prompted officials to
redefine domestic violence as a criminal offense rather than a private matter.
Policymakers responded with stronger criminal justice sanctions, specialized
procedures, and services for victims.

Specifically, the number of domestic violence legal advocacy programs and
hotlines grew sharply from 1976 to 1996 in 48 of the country's largest cities, as
the intimate homicide rate declined (see figure 1). Legal advocacy resources
increased ninefold, with especially rapid growth after the mid-1980's. The
number of hotlines shot up in the late 1970's, then stabilized at between 8 and 9
per million women after the late 1980's. During the 20 years of the study
period, the intimate partner homicide rate dropped from roughly 1.3 to 0.9
victims per 100,000, a decline of about 30 percent.[3]

The decline in intimate partner homicide varied by the victim's sex, race, and
relationship to the offender. Larger decreases occurred among men, blacks,
and married victims than among women, whites, and unmarried partners.[4]
The rate for married 20- to 44-year-old black men dropped a surprising 87
percent, from 18.4 to 2.4 per 100,000. These numbers highlight the importance
of assessing the effect of domestic violence resources by characteristics of the
victims.

Demographic Influences

Because most intimate partner killings involve married couples,[5] perhaps the
most crucial factor in reducing intimate partner homicide has been the sharp
drop in marriage rates among young adults during the past 25 years. At the
same time, separation and divorce rates have increased.[6] Fewer marriages
may translate into less exposure to abusive partners. This decrease in exposure
may lower the risk for intimate partner homicide. Fewer marriages also could
mean that the marriages that do take place are different: those who marry may
be more selective in choosing partners and, thus, less likely to marry
abusers.[7] Finally, violent relationships may more likely end in divorce.[8]

In addition, women's economic status has improved. Women are now more
likely to finish college and to have a job--both in absolute terms and in relation
to men. Women's incomes also have increased.[9] This improved status means
that women may depend less on intimate partners, including abusive partners.
But at the same time, such gains may sometimes provoke retaliation from men
who fear loss of status or control in their intimate relationships and thereby
contribute to increased violence. 

Women on welfare reportedly are more likely than others to experience
domestic violence.[10] But for women with children living in poverty, public
assistance may help cushion the financial blow of leaving an abusive partner.

Weighing Exposure Reduction Against Retaliation

Reducing exposure. One might assume that anything that makes it easier for an
abuse victim to leave a violent relationship will reduce the contact between the
intimate partners and lower the chance that one will kill the other. This
approach is called "exposure reduction." For example, welfare benefits may
give a woman and her children the financial resources they need to leave an
abusive man and thereby reduce their exposure to violence. But sometimes
factors designed to reduce a woman's exposure may cause an abusive partner
to retaliate.

Research shows that two policies support exposure reduction: (1) warrantless
arrest laws and (2) higher Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
benefit levels.

Warrantless arrest laws have been associated with a decrease in intimate
partner homicides. Reductions in AFDC benefits have been associated with an
increase in intimate partner homicide. 

Warrantless arrest laws allow police to arrest abusers who violate protection
orders without an officer first having to obtain a warrant. These laws are
associated with fewer deaths of white women, whether or not they are married.
According to the research, the period during which a woman seeks to obtain a
warrant is the most dangerous because a batterer is more likely to be
antagonistic after the police intervene. The effect of warrantless arrests was
especially noticeable among unmarried white females. 

Reductions in AFDC benefit levels have been associated with an increase in
homicides of unmarried men, particularly unmarried black men. When welfare
payments were lowered, there was an associated increase in women killing their
boyfriends.[11] This suggests that cuts in AFDC may limit opportunities for
unmarried women with children to live independently of their abusers: perhaps
when women see no other alternative, they are more likely to kill their abusers.
Conversely, increases in AFDC benefits may provide opportunities for
unmarried women to live independently of their abusers, thereby reducing
exposure and the likelihood that these women will kill their abusers.[12]

For unmarried black women, cuts in AFDC benefit levels appear to endanger
their lives. For white women, however, cuts seem to have no effect.[13] Blacks
may be more sensitive than whites to changes in AFDC benefits. That
interpretation is in line with blacks' higher AFDC participation rates.[14]

The risk of intimate partner homicide is highest when a victim of domestic abuse
tries to leave the relationship.[15] Such a retaliation effect or backlash may also
be triggered by an intervention--such as a restraining order, arrest, or shelter
protection--that angers or threatens the abuser without effectively reducing
contact with the victim.

Backlash. Two policies appear to provoke backlash: (1) prosecutor willingness
to take cases of protection order violation and (2) the relative education of the
partners. As prosecutors' willingness to pursue such cases increased, the
research seemed to indicate an increase in the murder of married white and
unmarried black partners and in the victimization of unmarried white women.
Thus, it could be that the prosecutor's willingness to pursue protection order
violations may aggravate these conflicted relationships.

The researchers also noted that as the relative education of black women to
black men grows, there is an associated increase in the number of black
husbands killed and in the number of black unmarried partnerships that end in
homicide. The large difference in education between black men and women
may add more stress to already contentious relationships, creating a backlash.

Other factors supporting the backlash theory were the availability of hotlines in
the city, the presence of domestic violence units or training programs in police
departments and prosecutors' offices, and the employment of trained legal
advocates on the prosecutor's staff. Each of these factors was designed to
assist abuse victims, but they also appear to be associated with retaliation by
abusive partners.

Factors That Can Cut Both Ways

The research found a number of factors that supported both exposure reduction
and backlash theories, but only among different groups, based on marital status,
gender, and race. These factors included:

o State laws requiring mandatory arrest for violating a protection order.

o The availability of contempt, misdemeanor, or felony charges for violating a
protection order.

o State laws providing for no-contact orders, custody relief, or protection
beyond cohabitation.

o Agencies with dedicated budgets for legal advocacy and with lawyers on
staff.

o Pro-arrest and mandatory arrest policies for protection order violations and
mandatory arrest for domestic assault.

Policy, Planning, and Prevention

The fact that retaliation occurs doesn't mean that prevention strategies are a bad
idea. Instead, prevention should be tailored to individual needs. These results
also imply that reducing exposure just a little--or failing to meet promises of
exposure reduction--can be worse than doing nothing at all for persons in
severely violent relationships. For them, exposure reduction is crucial, although
it may not be easy to achieve.

Much research has looked into failed efforts by abuse victims to leave their
abusers. Case reports and interviews often provide rich details of the events
leading to a homicide. Yet, that is only half the story. How people in severely
violent relationships can avoid deadly consequences must be understood.[16]
Only more research documenting both successful and unsuccessful cases of
relief from partner violence will help in the design of policies to better meet
victims' safety needs.

NCJ 196548 

For more information

o Dugan, Laura, Daniel Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld, "Explaining the Decline
in Intimate Partner Homicide: The Effects of Changing Domesticity, Women's
Status, and Domestic Violence Resources," Homicide Studies 3 (1999):
187-214.

o Dugan, Laura, Daniel Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld, "Exposure Reduction or
Retaliation? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner
Homicide," Law & Society Review 37(1) (2003): 169-198.

Notes

1. Browne, Angela, and Kirk R. Williams, "Exploring the Effect of Resource
Availability and the Likelihood of Female-Perpetrated Homicides," Law &
Society Review 23 (1989): 75-94; Dugan, Laura, Daniel Nagin, and Richard
Rosenfeld, "Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide: The Effects of
Changing Domesticity, Women's Status, and Domestic Violence Resources,"
Homicide Studies 3 (1999): 187-214.

2. Schechter, Susan K., Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles
of the Battered Women's Movement, Boston: South End Press, 1982. In 1994,
the Violence Against Women Act was passed. This legislation enhanced the
funding for domestic violence services and supported domestic violence
specialization in local police departments and prosecutors' offices. However,
for technical reasons only, resource data before 1994 were used in this study.

3. The intimate homicide rate is driven primarily by the population between the
ages of 20 and 44, the age category in which intimate homicides are heavily
concentrated. The data are from the Supplementary Homicide Reports at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm.

4. Greenfield, Lawrence A., Michael R. Rand, Diane Craven, Patsy A. Klaus,
Craig A. Perkins, Cheryl Ringel, Greg Warchol, Cathy Maston, and James
Alan Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or
Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Factbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, March 1998 (NCJ 167237); Rosenfeld, Richard, "Patterns in Adult
Homicide: 1980-1995," in The Crime Drop in America, ed. Alfred Blumstein
and Joel Wallman, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 130-163
(NCJ 185238).

5. Ibid.

6. Saluter, Arlene F., and Terry A. Lugaila, Marital Status and Living
Arrangements: March 1996, Current Population Reports (P20-496),
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, March
1998.

7. Edin, Kathryn, "Few Good Men: Why Poor Mothers Don't Marry or
Remarry," American Prospect (2000): 26-31.

8. For evidence supporting the relationship between domesticity and intimate
partner homicide, see Dugan et al., "Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner
Homicide"; and Rosenfeld, "Patterns in Adult Homicide."

9. Dugan et al., "Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide."

10. Allard, Mary Ann, Randy Albelda, Mary Ellen Colten, and Carol Cosenza,
In Harm's Way? Domestic Violence, AFDC Receipt, and Welfare Reform in
Massachusetts, Boston: University of Massachusetts, McCormack Institute and
Center for Survey Research, 1997; Browne, Angela, and Shari S. Bassuk,
"Intimate Violence in the Lives of Homeless and Poor Housed Women:
Prevalence and Patterns in an Ethnically Diverse Sample," American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 67(2) (1997): 261-278; and Tolman, Richard M., and Daniel
Rosen, "Domestic Violence in the Lives of Women Receiving Welfare,"
Violence Against Women 7 (2001): 141-158.

11. Dugan, Laura, Daniel Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld, Exposure Reduction
or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner
Homicide, Final Report to NIJ, grant number 97-WT-VX-0004, 2001 (NCJ
186194); Dugan, Laura, Daniel Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld, "Exposure
Reduction or Retaliation? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on
Intimate Partner Homicide," Law & Society Review 37(1) (2003): 169-198.

12. Dugan et al., Exposure Reduction or Backlash?

13. Dugan et al., Exposure Reduction or Backlash?; Dugan, Laura, "Identifying
Unit-Dependency and Time-Specificity in Longitudinal Analysis: A Graphical
Methodology," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18(3) (2002): 213-237
(NCJ 196843).

14. Committee on Ways and Means, 1996 Green Book, Washington, DC:
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, November 4,
1996; Dugan et al., Exposure Reduction or Backlash?

15. Bernard, M.L., and J.L. Bernard, "Violent Intimacy: The Family as a
Model for Love Relationships," Family Relations 32 (1983): 283-286;
Campbell, Jacquelyn C., "If I Can't Have You, No One Can: Power and
Control in Homicide of Female Partners," in Femicide: The Politics of Woman
Killing, ed. Jill Radford and Diana E.H. Russell, New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1992: 99-113.

16. Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Linda Rose, Joan Kub, and Daphne Nedd,
"Voices of Strength and Resistance: A Contextual and Longitudinal Analysis of
Women's Responses to Battering," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 13
(1998): 743-762; and Campbell, Jacquelyn C., and Karen L. Soeken,
"Women's Responses to Battering Over Time: An Analysis of Change," Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 14 (1999): 21-40. See also Block, Carolyn
Rebecca, Chicago Women's Health Risk Study, Risk of Serious Injury or
Death in Intimate Violence: A Collaborative Research Project, Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000 (NCJ
184511).

------------------

Data and Methods

The homicide data for this study were from the Supplementary Homicide
Reports of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program.[1] The researchers
looked at the relationship between homicide among hetero-sexual intimate
partners and domestic violence resources in 48 large U.S. cities between 1976
and 1996. The researchers controlled for marriage and divorce rates, the
relative education of women and men, and other factors. The researchers also
looked at the number of homicides in each city over time by the victim's sex,
race, and marital relationship to the offender.[2] Married people included
ex-spouses and common-law couples; unmarried people included boyfriends
and girlfriends.

The researchers developed 11 variables in an effort to measure exposure
reduction and retaliation:

Variable--Measure

State Statutes  

o Warrantless arrest--An indicator variable identifying States that have a
warrantless arrest law for when protection orders are violated.

o Mandatory arrest--An indicator variable identifying States that have a
mandatory arrest law for when protection orders are violated.

o Violation index--An index that sums the total number of the following
consequences for violating a protection order: contempt (either civil or
criminal), misdemeanor, or felony.

o Exposure reduction index--An index that increases by one increment for each
of the following statute provisions: no-contact order and custody relief (if
married) and protection beyond cohabitation and no-contact order (if
unmarried).

Local Policies

o Police arrest index--An index totaling the number of the following arrest
policies: pro-arrest for violation of a protection order, mandatory arrest for
violation of a protection order, and mandatory arrest for domestic assault.

o Police commitment index--An index that increases by one increment if the
department has a domestic violence unit, and by one increment if it offers
domestic violence in-service training to officers.

o DA willingness index--An index that increases by one increment if the
prosecutor's office takes cases of protection-order violation, and by another
increment if the office has a written policy standardizing the prosecution of such
cases.

o DA specialization index--An index that increases by one increment if the
prosecutor's office has a domestic violence unit, and by one increment if the
office has trained legal advocates on staff.

o No-drop policy--An indicator variable that identifies cities with prosecutor's
offices that have no-drop policies.

Programs

o Legal advocacy index--Index that sums the number of agencies with a
separate budget for legal advocacy with the number of agencies that have
lawyers on staff, adjusted for the number of women over age 15 years (14
years in 1970) in the city.

o Hotlines--The total number of hotlines adjusted for the number of women
over age 15 years (14 years in 1970) in the city.

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicide Reports
1976-1996. Machine-readable files and documentation were obtained directly
from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 1998. 

2. The analysis was conducted using 6 waves of data, with 3 years in each
wave.

------------------

Reviewing Domestic Violence Deaths
by Neil Websdale

Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their
male partners, often after a long, escalating pattern of battering.[1] The
estimated number of deaths due to intimate partner violence does not include
those women who kill themselves to exit violent relationships, or who die
homeless on the streets avoiding batterers. (See "What Is the Actual Death Toll
Due to Domestic Violence?")

Increasingly, criminal justice professionals and other practitioners involved in
domestic violence cases are using a tool that may help reduce the many deaths
due to intimate partner homicide. It's a fatality review.

Like the reviews conducted after an airplane crash, a fatality review helps
determine what went wrong and what could have been done differently to
prevent the tragedy. (See "Borrowing an Airline Industry Strategy--The Post
Mortem," page 28.)

What Are Fatality Reviews?

In a fatality review, community practitioners and service providers identify
homicides and suicides resulting from domestic violence, examine the events
leading up to the death, identify gaps in service delivery, and improve
preventive interventions.

The review team asks many questions: Did the victim approach a social service
or law enforcement agency? If so, what services and interventions were
provided? How might these have been provided more effectively? How might
the victim have been better protected? In short, a fatality review identifies
relevant social, economic, and policy realities that compromise the safety of
battered women and their children.

Fatality reviews can reveal trends and may lead to changes to the system that
could prevent future deaths. They may also enhance prevention and intervention
programs aimed at reducing the death toll from acts of domestic violence.

Reviewing domestic violence deaths over time might identify broader issues
with social policies, criminal justice intervention strategies, and political
initiatives. Such reviews might also highlight success stories.

The Review Process Varies with Local Needs

Fatality reviews may vary with the locale. They can be formal or informal.
Some review teams track basic demographic data. These teams may have
fewer resources that might prevent in-depth analysis. However, other teams,
even those with few resources, conduct very detailed reviews including a
critical examination of interagency cooperation or lack thereof. 

Reviews Lead to Tailored Services

Fatality reviews can uncover a region's special needs, such as a need for
language services. For example, in Washington State, a report from a fatality
review of a domestic homicide noted that "a law enforcement officer had to ask
a 6-year-old child to translate for the family member...who had discovered the
bodies of the two victims."[2] In another case, a hostage situation, "the young
hostage had to provide translation while the murderer held a gun to her
head."[3] In addition to the potential trauma associated with having victims,
family members, or bystanders translate in such circumstances, the use of
untrained translators may impede case investigations of all domestic assaults.

The Washington State report recommended that "law enforcement, hospitals,
domestic violence programs, and Temporary Aid to Needy Families
offices...create collaborative relationships with grassroots organizations based in
limited English-speaking communities."[4] The report continued, "Law
enforcement agencies should conduct investigations of domestic violence crimes
with qualified interpreters."[5]

In African-American communities, particularly those in inner city public housing,
the domestic homicide rate is almost six times higher than that of the white
population. This overrepresentation appears to be largely a product of
poverty.[6]

Reviews of domestic violence deaths in poor black neighborhoods reveal that
African-American women display a deep suspicion of police, social services,
shelters, housing agencies, and the courts. Community policing and its emphasis
on greater and more varied forms of surveillance seems to make little difference
to domestic violence in these acutely disadvantaged areas. Fatality reviews
might offer one means of enhancing dialogue between inner-city minority
citizens and political authorities. This dialogue might include discussion of the
war on drugs, public housing rules, welfare-to-work initiatives, the mass
incarceration of black people, the ongoing loss of meaningful and relatively
well-paid jobs from the inner city, and other policies that limit battered women's
ability to exit dangerous intimate relationships.

Removing Barriers to Review

Fatality reviews--like many processes that seek to save lives--raise liability
issues and make some agencies nervous. Some States have reduced the
concern associated with liability by enacting confidentiality laws to shield the
deliberations and findings. These laws immunize teams from civil suits and
disciplinary action. 

In Florida, 16 review teams operate under immunity legislation that protects
their deliberations. Florida's fatality review process began after a statewide
initiative recommended examining the particulars of all domestic homicides.[7]
Team deliberations "are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence
in any civil action or disciplinary proceeding by any department or employing
agency... A person who has attended a meeting of a domestic violence fatality
review team may not testify in any civil action or disciplinary proceeding as to
any records or information produced or presented to the team during meetings
or other activities authorized by this section."[8] 

The Florida statute stipulates that data collection procedures be consistent
throughout the State. The data are used to write Florida's annual report on
domestic violence fatalities, which goes to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court.[9] 

The downside of requiring that data be in a standardized format is that local
review teams, typically underfunded and frequently staffed by volunteers, often
do not willingly complete standard government forms. The upside is that such a
system can generate comprehensive statewide data, which, when reviewed by
key decisionmakers, can advance policy development.

In States without confidentiality protections, reviewing only closed cases (e.g.,
homicide-suicides) in which all the parties involved have died and where there
are no pending civil or criminal legal proceedings, can reduce concerns about
liability. The challenge is timeliness: the review must be recent enough that the
findings--usually from public records--can inform and guide discussions about
improving existing policies and procedures. Such reviews have produced a
wealth of information about homicide-suicide deaths.

For example, in Washington State, reviewers noted the dangers that suicidal
abusers pose and recommended that "officers...routinely ask victims about the
abuser's history of making homicidal or suicidal threats." If such threats have
been made, officers should "urge the victim to call a domestic violence program
for help with safety planning."[10] The report also recommended expanding the
contents of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Model
Operating Procedures on screening for suicide and responding to suicidal
abusers.[11]

What the Future Holds

It is up to local jurisdictions and agencies to decide if they can assign resources
to fatality reviews. Although the benefits of conducting such reviews have yet to
be measured on a broad scale, preliminary results indicate that fatality reviews
can have a positive effect in addressing domestic violence. Nevertheless,
decisionmakers can weigh the time and money needed for the reviews against
the time and money being spent on answering domestic violence calls and
managing death scenes--not to mention the number of lives that could be saved
by acting on the information that fatality reviews uncover.

NCJ 196549

Notes

1. Fox, James Alan, and Marianne W. Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United
States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, January 1999 (NCJ 173956). 

2. Hobart, Margaret, Honoring Their Lives, Learning From Their Deaths:
Findings and Recommendations From the Washington State Domestic Violence
Fatality Review, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2000:
48.

3. Ibid., 49. 

4. Ibid., 9.

5. Ibid., 9.

6. See Centerwall, Brandon S., "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Domestic
Homicide, Atlanta, 1971-1972," American Journal of Public Health 74 (1984):
813-815; and Centerwall, Brandon S., "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and
Domestic Homicide," Journal of the American Medical Association 273(22)
(June 14, 1995): 1755-1758. For a recent analysis of the relationship between
race, poverty, and domestic homicide, see Websdale, Neil, Understanding
Domestic Homicide, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999: 204-236.

7. See Websdale, Understanding Domestic Homicide. For the most recent
statement on the status of the Florida fatality review teams, see Websdale, Neil,
and Byron Johnson, Implementing and Monitoring New Fatality Review
Teams, Tallahassee: Florida Department of Children and Families, 2001.

8. Florida Statutes 741.316 s.6

9. Florida Statutes 741.316 s.3

10. Hobart, Honoring Their Lives: 12.

11. Ibid., 11. The report recommends that law enforcement officers
immediately call in mental health professionals when batterers threaten suicide
(p. 35).

------------------

What Is the Actual Death Toll Due to Domestic Violence?

Even more deaths than those directly associated with an act of domestic
violence can be traced to domestic violence if the women who die from
conditions that are byproducts of domestic crimes are included in the count.
For example, many female deaths are attributed to HIV, the consequences of
homelessness, and prostitution. Because battered women are somewhat more
vulnerable to HIV infection than other women,[1] some deaths of women
currently attributed to HIV or its complications might be traced to a woman's
status as battered. The same could be said of women who die on the streets,
where roughly half of homeless women report "fleeing abuse" as the primary
reason for their homelessness.[2] Likewise, prostitutes typically experience
extensive interpersonal abuse and sometimes even death at the hands of male
intimates, family members, and clients.

1. Websdale, Neil, and Byron Johnson, "Battered Women's Vulnerability to
HIV Infection," Justice Professional 10(4) (1997): 183-198.

2. Zorza, Joan, "Woman Battering: A Major Cause of Homelessness,"
Clearinghouse Review 25(4) (1991).

------------------

Borrowing an Airline Industry Strategy--The Post Mortem

Commercial airline crashes draw a lot of attention and quickly become
high-profile news, mostly because many deaths occur at once and the event
increases general anxiety about flying. The airline industry responds by
conducting reviews to find ways to prevent future crashes. Such investigations
cost millions of dollars and use enormous amounts of technical expertise. The
expensive, sophisticated, and systematic investigation of airline crashes has
many benefits, not the least of which are the specific precautions that are
subsequently introduced to prevent similar crashes from occurring.

In the United States, deaths traceable to domestic violence are more numerous
than those stemming from airline crashes. This raises the question of why
comparable amounts of time, money, and expertise are not applied to
investigating the causes of domestic violence deaths. Most intimate partner
homicides are stylized killings that exhibit common patterns and antecedents.[1]
Although they share many of the characteristics of abuse cases that do not
result in death, many of the cases that do end in death may be preventable.
Nevertheless, most domestic violence homicides are not subject to any
systematic review, and substantial resources are not spent trying to learn ways
to better protect future victims of domestic violence.

Despite limited funding for in-depth local fatality reviews, some States and local
jurisdictions are exploring the reasons for and causes of domestic
violence-related deaths.[2] Approximately 27 States and the District of
Columbia conduct or plan to conduct some form of domestic violence fatality
review. In some regions, the reviews dovetail with or build upon existing
coordinated community responses to domestic violence.

For example, without any funding or protective legislation, the Philadelphia
Department of Public Health, with support from the district attorney's office,
has been reviewing all deaths (not just domestic violence cases) of women ages
15 to 60.[3] The Santa Clara County, CA, review team has examined domestic
homicides since 1994. This team generates a wealth of information on what
happened in the lives of both the perpetrators and their victims before the
death. Fatality reviews are increasingly part of an expanding arsenal of
multiagency, interdisciplinary strategies for addressing the effects of violence
against women. Underpinning these strategies is a concern about the risks of
harm faced by women and other family members and a desire to improve the
accountability of individual service agencies and to enhance the effectiveness of
interagency coordination efforts. If conducted thoroughly and thoughtfully,
fatality reviews may yield a more comprehensive understanding of the causes of
and prevention strategies for domestic homicide. 

1. See Websdale, Neil, Understanding Domestic Homicide, Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 1999; Dobash, Russell P., R. Emerson Dobash,
Margo Wilson, and Martin Daly, "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital
Violence," Social Problems 39(1) (1992): 71-91; Ewing, Charles Patrick, Fatal
Families: The Dynamics of Intrafamilial Homicide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1997; Heide, Kathleen, Why Kids Kill Parents: Child Abuse and
Adolescent Homicide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995. 

2. The following States have some form of domestic violence fatality review
activity. The letter "L" in parentheses after a State means that State has passed
fatality review legislation; the letters "EO" in parentheses denote the issuance of
an Executive Order to formally initiate the process. Alaska, Arizona, California
(L), Colorado, Delaware (L), District of Columbia (L), Florida (L), Illinois,
Indiana (L), Iowa (L), Kentucky (L), Maine (L), Michigan (L), Minnesota (one
county only, local legislation), Nevada (L), New Hampshire (EO), New Jersey
(EO), New Mexico (EO), North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma (L), Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee (L), Vermont (L), Virginia (L), Washington (L), West
Virginia. The United States Department of Defense is considering adopting
domestic violence fatality reviews throughout the four branches of the military. 

3. This includes deaths classified as homicides, suicides, unintentional injury,
undetermined cause, those with inadequate certificates, and peculiar
circumstances (i.e., asthma, AIDS).

------------------

What Do Fatality Reviews Do?[1] 

o Identify deaths--both homicides and suicides--caused by domestic violence.

o Examine the effects of all domestic violence interventions that took place
before the victim's death.

o Consider changes in prevention and intervention systems to help prevent such
deaths in the future.

o Develop recommendations for coordinated community prevention and
intervention initiatives to reduce domestic violence.

1. Barbara Hart, Legal Committee, Domestic Violence Death Review, National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, February 9, 1995 (unpublished).

------------------

Domestic Violence Provokes Suicides

A significant number of the 6,000 or so women who commit suicide in the
United States each year likely do so because of being abused by an intimate
male partner.[1] Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft found that "among the medical
histories of the 176 women who attempted suicide, 29.5 percent were
battered" and "22.2 percent... had at least one documented incident of
domestic abuse in their records."[2]

1. During the 1990's, approximately 30,000 people per year took their own
lives. Of these, approximately 6,000 were female. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web site http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm, August 9,
2002.

2. Stark, Evan, and Anne Flitcraft, Women at Risk: Domestic Violence and
Women's Health, London: Sage Publications, 1996: 107.

------------------

About the Author

Neil Websdale, Ph.D., is a professor of criminal justice at Northern Arizona
University-Flagstaff. He is the author of Policing the Poor: From Slave
Plantation to Public Housing and co-editor of Making Trouble: Cultural
Constructions of Crime, Deviance, and Control. His publications also include
Understanding Domestic Homicide and Rural Women Battering and the Justice
System, 1999 winner of the Outstanding Book Award from the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences. He can be reached at 928-523-9205 or
neil.websdale@nau.edu.

------------------

NCJRS--Sharing Information for More Than 30 Years
by Cheryll Bissell and Jonathan Witte

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) has been bringing
the government and the field together to improve justice policy and practice for
more than 30 years. It may not seem unusual today, but in 1972, when NIJ
created one of the first federally funded clearinghouses, it embarked on a bold
endeavor to give criminal justice professionals a single resource for information.

Today NCJRS staff answer questions; provide statistics; offer referrals; select
publications to match needs; compile packages of information; search for
additional resources; and provide other technical assistance to the President,
Congress, Federal, State, and local policymakers and practitioners, educators,
and the general public.

How To Reach NCJRS

The easiest way to get to NCJRS is to visit its Web site (http://www.ncjrs.org),
where "What's New" and "In the Spotlight" showcase recent publications and
topical issues related to criminal and juvenile justice and drug policy.

From the NCJRS home page, an assortment of tools and services are available:

o Full text publications. The full text of more than 2,000 titles are searchable
and can be downloaded or read online. These include grant research reports,
State and local program/project summaries, white papers, and a variety of
articles.

o Abstracts database. The NCJRS database contains more than 170,000
summaries of publications, reports, articles, and audiovisual products. Each
abstract provides a 100- to 200-word summary and lists the sponsoring agency
or organization, purchasing address, and journal citation, along with links to the
full text, if available.

o Online shopping. NCJRS's online store is always open. Click on "What's
Hot" under "Order Print Publications" to see which publications are the most
frequently requested. To make shopping faster, set up a personal account to
store your shipping address and other information.

o Grants and funding opportunities. Discover funding opportunities at the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) and other Federal agencies by visiting the "Grants
and Funding" section of the Web site. Link to other resources--such as Federal
Business Opportunities and the Federal Register--to learn about the types of
funding (including formula and discretionary) most often available to State,
local, and private agencies and organizations.

o Calendar of events. Learn about upcoming regional and national conferences,
training and technical assistance workshops, seminars, and other events. 

o Links. Find additional resources from other agencies and organizations
around the world through links to the 15 agencies that sponsor NCJRS.

It's Free To Join NCJRS

Joining the NCJRS network helps you stay informed. Register online at
http://puborder.ncjrs.org/register or request a print copy of the registration form
by calling 1-800-851-3420. When you register, indicate your areas of interest
so NCJRS can send you notifications about whats new in the areas you
specify. Registered users can receive the following:

o The NCJRS Catalog, a bimonthly periodical that lists recent publications and
includes sections called "Spotlight On...," which discusses timely topics, and
"Grants and Funding," which describes recent awards made by OJP and other
agencies.

o JUSTINFO, an electronic newsletter issued twice a month that lists funding
opportunities, newly released publications, agency initiatives, and upcoming
conferences.

o Periodic email notices about publications and issues that match your specific
interests. 

A Special Network for the Press 

NCJRS sponsors a network of editors in the field of criminal justice. Any
agency or organization that publishes a newsletter, magazine, bulletin, or other
document can join the Criminal Justice Editors Group. Members regularly
share information with one another and with their respective readerships.

Your Feedback Welcome

Tell NCJRS about your experiences with their services. Describe the resources
you have used and how they have helped with your research, policymaking, or
practice. Suggest new services or refinements to existing ones. NCJRS would
also like to know how you describe NCJRS to your colleagues. Send your
comments, feedback, and descriptions to cbissell@ncjrs.org.

NCJ 196550

For More Information

o Visit NCJRS at http://www.ncjrs.org. Join the mailing list by registering online
at http://puborder.ncjrs.org/register.

o Send email to:

-- askncjrs@ncjrs.org (for criminal justice information).

-- askjj@ncjrs.org (for juvenile justice information).

-- ondcp@ncjrs.org (for drug policy information).

-- tellncjrs@ncjrs.org (for suggestions and general comments).

o Contact NCJRS at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000,
1-800-851-3420. If calling from outside the United States, call 301-519-5500;
TDD/TTY: 877-712-9279 (toll free in the United States) or 301-947-8374
(outside the United States). Telephones are staffed from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
eastern standard time, Monday-Friday.

------------------

NCJRS Timeline Thirty-one years ago, professionals in the field had to read
microfiche, make long-distance telephone calls, and wait at least a week to
receive database search results. Today, they can receive information and
assistance almost instantaneously.

NCJRS: From 1972 to 2002

o 1972: NCJRS established.

o 1979: The first NCJRS regular publication--called SNI, or Selective    
Notification of Information--was produced.

o 1980: Toll-free telephone number introduced.

o 1988: Electronic bulletin board established.

o 1995: Web site launched.

o 1997: Abstracts database put online.

o 1999: Automated calendar of events went live.

o 2001: Online ordering service introduced.

o 2002: All grant research reports posted online and available for downloading.

------------------

About the Authors

Cheryll Bissell and Jonathan Witte are with the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. Ms. Bissell oversees networking and outreach activities,
and Mr. Witte is a senior writer/editor.

------------------

At-A-Glance: Recent Research Findings

------------------

How to Get At-A-Glance Materials

Materials are available at:

o NIJ's Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij, or

o NCJRS, puborder@ncjrs.org, 1-800-851-3420, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville,
MD 20849-6000.

The summaries in this section are based on the following:

Research in Progress Seminars. At these seminars, scholars discuss their
ongoing research and preliminary findings with an audience of researchers and
criminal justice professionals. Sixty-minute VHS videotapes of the Research in
Progress seminars are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420. Videotaped seminars are $19 ($24 in
Canada and other countries). 

NIJ Final Reports. These final submissions from NIJ grantees typically are
available from NCJRS through interlibrary loan. In some cases, photocopies
may be obtained for a fee. For information about these reports and possible
fees, contact NCJRS.

NIJ Publications. Some of the information here is summarized from recent NIJ
publications, which are available from the NIJ Web site or by contacting
NCJRS. Refer to the documents' accession (ACN) or NCJ numbers.

------------------

Cross-Cultural Issues in Domestic Violence

Final report submitted to NIJ, Cultural Issues Affecting Domestic Violence
Service Utilization in Ethnic and Hard- to-Reach Populations, Kirsten Senturia,
Marianne Sullivan, Sandy Ciske, and Sharyne Shiu-Thornton, grant number
98-WT-VX-0025, available from NCJRS (NCJ 185357).

Many victims of domestic violence share the same fears: exacerbation of their
abuser's anger, lack of shelter, loss of the abuser's economic support, and the
possibility of a wrongful arrest. For immigrant women, these fears are
compounded by additional worries caused by language barriers and possible
immigration problems for themselves and their extended families. Like many
minority crime victims, these women also face personal and cultural obstacles
when they try to access the justice system--for example, they may find that
language is a significant barrier; they may believe that the police will not take
action on their complaints or that the police are insincere when dealing with
same-sex domestic violence; they may even feel such shame and
embarrassment that they are unwilling to involve the police.

To understand better how cultural factors affect services for victims,
researchers in the Seattle area joined forces with five community-based
agencies, the City of Seattle's Domestic Violence Council, and local university
researchers.

The researchers conducted 38 focus groups and 16 one-on-one interviews,
each of which was conducted in the participant's first language. A total of 254
members representing 9 minority populations in the Seattle area participated in
the study: 39 African Americans, 47 American Indians/Alaskan Natives, 18
Amharic-speaking Ethiopians, 39 Cambodians, 13 Filipinas, 9 Latinas, 24
Russian-speakers, 43 Vietnamese, and 22 lesbians/bisexuals/transgenders.

Key Findings

Researchers learned that victims of domestic violence in these communities face
a complex set of challenges. They may face acculturation problems and racial,
sexual, and economic oppression in their new social setting, after already
experiencing major social upheavals and political oppression. These issues
increase the difficulty they experience in obtaining assistance and may
exacerbate the view that what help is available is culturally and linguistically
inappropriate.

In fact, services provided by the criminal justice system received mixed ratings
from the study participants. Simply put, when police officers responded with
sensitivity, the women reported positive experiences. However, when the police
response was perceived as insensitive, the women viewed the experience as
negative.

Implications for Criminal Justice 

The authors suggest that innovative solutions are needed to resolve the unique
problems of minority victims of domestic violence in overcoming barriers to the
justice system. Responding officers must consider the underlying social context
of these women's lives, including racism, homophobia, and low economic
status. This social context not only shapes the experience of domestic violence,
but also the survivors' and justice system's responses.

The report makes several recommendations based on participants' suggestions
and on the authors' interpretation of the data. The recommendations address
three areas--systems, services, and community. The authors call for providing
more low-income housing and childcare services for victims and for conducting
culturally and linguistically appropriate domestic violence education campaigns
in the community.

The authors recommend more outreach on domestic violence by the police to
ethnic and sexual minority communities and multiple options for services to
survivors of domestic violence. Also recommended are giving greater attention
to the special needs of children who have experienced the pain and horror of
domestic violence and explaining the variety of victim assistance services that
are available at no cost. 

For more information

o Contact Kirsten Senturia, Medical Anthropologist, 206-205-0562,
kirsten.senturia@metrokc.gov. 

o Contact Sharyne Shiu-Thornton, Medical Anthropologist, 206-616-2940,
sharyne@u.washington.edu.

------------------

Florida Sheriffs Take on Child Abuse Investigations

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "The Police as Child Protective Service
Investigators: An Evaluation of the Transfer of Responsibility for Child
Maltreatment Investigations in Four Counties in Florida," Richard J. Gelles,
Susan Kinnevy, and Burton J. Cohen, grant number 00-IJ-CX-0002, available
on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 189634).

A study in which four Florida counties shifted responsibility for investigating
child abuse and neglect cases from child welfare agencies to sheriffs' offices
found no adverse consequences and detected improved police attitudes.

At the close of the 1990's, Federal courts supervised almost half of the Nation's
child welfare systems because of deficiencies in foster care, adoption, and child
welfare responsibilities. To improve the handling of child maltreatment
investigations in Florida, the State legislature required three counties--Manatee,
Pasco, and Pinellas--to transfer all investigations of child maltreatment cases
from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to the sheriff's office. A
fourth county--Broward--voluntarily shifted its child investigative functions to
the sheriff's office.

Some thought that this transfer of duties would be beneficial because: (1) police
officers might be better trained and equipped than DCF staff to investigate child
abuse and neglect hotline reports and (2) the shift might allow DCF personnel
to focus on improving family support services. Critics were concerned because
officers have, at times, been viewed as insensitive to the needs of child abuse
victims and perpetrators. 

Researchers tested the hypothesis that the shift would lead to fewer service
referrals, more foster care placements, and more arrests for child abuse and
neglect offenses. The resulting trend would be toward criminalization of child
abuse cases.

In a Research in Progress seminar held at NIJ, Richard J. Gelles, Susan
Kinnevy, and Burton J. Cohen from the University of Pennsylvania presented
encouraging preliminary findings from their study of the four Florida counties
and three comparison counties. 

Two Approaches to Child Abuse Cases

Traditional approach. In traditional child abuse programs, DCF workers take
action based on incoming calls to a hotline. They visit the child, conduct a risk
assessment, and provide support services to the family based on the
assessment. If the case needs criminal investigation, DCF may ask a police
officer either to meet with the DCF worker at the child's location or to conduct
a separate investigation (see figure 1).

Experimental approach. In the four experimental counties, a civilian child
protective investigator employed by the sheriff and a deputy make the initial
visit. Together they assess the risk and, if necessary, refer the case to DCF for
services. If a criminal investigation is required, they contact a detective from the
sheriff's Crimes Against Children office (see figure 2).

No Dire Consequences Found

The researchers found that the possible negative consequences--such as
increases in emergency placements and the growth of foster care rolls--were
not evident. 

Although it may be too soon to conclude that children reported as maltreated
were any safer over time in the experimental counties, the findings indicate that
child abusers were no more likely to be arrested in the experimental counties
than they were in the comparison counties. Researchers believe that this is due
to the lack of significant criminal penalties for child abuse in all of the counties
studied. 

Police Attitudes Improved

The study found that police officers' attitudes toward child welfare cases
appeared markedly more sensitive after the restructuring. One officer stated,
"I'm more aware of the 'gray' areas...I can see the connection with poverty
better." Another said, "I feel better about what happens to kids when there isn't
any crime...I know the services they get..." Significantly, when the officers were
asked, "What is the purpose of maltreatment investigations?" they uniformly
answered, "To find out what the family needs."

Further consideration of regional differences may help clarify the findings. The
researchers will review the data from 2001 and expand the study to cover
related issues, including criminal penalties for child abusers and evaluations of
legal representation provided in such cases.

For more information

o Contact Richard J. Gelles, Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy,
School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Locust Walk,
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6214, 215-898-5541, fax: 215-573-2099,
gelles@ssw.upenn.edu.

------------------

The Gentrification of Drug Markets

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "We Deliver: The Gentrification of Drug
Markets on Manhattan's Lower East Side," Richard Curtis and Travis Wendel,
grant number 99-IJ-CX-0010, available on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ
193405).

Researchers investigating sales of illegal drugs on Manhattan's Lower East Side
have found that the current business model more closely resembles Domino's
Pizza than the stereotyped media image of the urban drug market. Rapid
gentrification of the area, they found, has brought a new set of characters to the
drug trade: white middle-class customers, who are now the majority of area
buyers and want the convenience of home delivery. Although some long-time
users still prefer crack and heroin, the three top drugs here now are marijuana,
powder cocaine, and ecstasy.

Richard Curtis and Travis Wendel, anthropologists with the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, studied drug transactions on the Lower East Side and in the
East Village from January 1999 to January 2001. This was a period of dramatic
reductions in every category of crime in New York City. Curtis and Wendel
discussed their findings at an NIJ Research in Progress seminar.

The researchers combined direct observation with qualitative interviews, talking
with 73 dealers and 93 users of various drugs. About half of those interviewed
were white and the rest were African American, Hispanic, or mixed heritage.
Only five were female, and all were 18 or older. Naturally, many of the dealers
and users approached for interviews were reluctant to talk about their
experiences.

Organization of Drug Markets

Initially, the researchers found large street-level "corporations" doing business in
the area. By the end of the study, however, most street sales had disappeared,
as middle-class users came to prefer the convenience of having pre-arranged
drug deliveries made to their homes--like any other good or service in
Manhattan that delivers--and the security of avoiding arrest. Thus, direct
delivery became the typical transaction.

Buyers used acquaintances and networks to obtain drugs they previously would
have purchased through anonymous street markets. As those markets
disappeared, first-time users in particular had to rely on personal contacts to
buy drugs. Generally, white heroin users bought from white dealers, while
minority heroin users found the drug in their predominantly Hispanic
public-housing complexes.

Drug distribution was carried out by three types of organizations: freelance
distributors acting independently; distributors with a social bond, such as having
the same religion or growing up in the same neighborhood or ethnic group; and
individuals operating like a corporation, complete with job titles and a
hierarchy, focused solely on making money. Large distributors had to downsize
as drug sales moved off the streets. Employees developed franchising
relationships with their former employers, obtaining drugs on credit from their
old bosses and selling them to their established customers.

Digital Divide

The study found that the increased use of delivery services and technology by
buyers and sellers contributed to a growing division of drug markets along class
lines. Both buyers and distributors used pagers, cell phones, and computers to
form exclusive drug markets not accessible to other groups. High-tech devices
also helped those who used them to communicate with one another while
remaining off the street and out of sight of the police. 

Customers typically called cell phones, pager numbers, or answering machines
to order drugs. In some cases, dispatchers answered phones and assigned
deliveries, as if they worked for a legitimate messenger service.

Dealers Unarmed

With the change in drug sales from street markets to private deliveries, dealers
felt little incentive to carry guns. None of the dealers interviewed for this study
did so. The new sales strategy brought an end to fights over territory, as dealers
came to realize that the criminal penalties for firearms possession were much
greater than for drug possession. One result was that unarmed dealers were
often robbed by criminals who recognized that dealers represented good
sources of cash who could be victimized with impunity. White dealers regarded
robbery as the greatest risk to their business, while African-American and
Hispanic dealers were more concerned about arrest and imprisonment.

Message for Police

The presence of the police in public places helped drive the corporations out of
most on-street drug sales. But while the police were effective in getting drug
markets off the streets, dealers in the home-delivery trade reported little contact
with police as they conducted their business. Law enforcement officials should
note the frequent armed robberies of dealers. Although many in law
enforcement might regard investigation of these violent crimes as less important
than imprisoning dealer-victims, it may be that it is not helpful to society to feed
the appetites of violent predators.

For more information

o Contact Richard Curtis, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of
Anthropology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 212-237-8962,
rcurtis@jjay.cuny.edu.

o Contact Travis Wendel, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Anthropology, John
Jay College of Criminal Justice, 212-237-8956, twendel@jjay.cuny.edu.

------------------

Evaluating Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement Task Forces

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "The Evaluation of Multijurisdictional Task
Forces," David Hayeslip and Malcolm Russell-Einhorn, grant number
99-DD-BX-0034, available on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 191963).

When local agencies band together to confront drug problems, the results
outweigh what a single agency can do alone. Sounds like common sense. But to
what extent do multiagency efforts work better than single-agency efforts? And
are there tools for figuring out whether these multiagency efforts are worth the
Federal funding that ranges from $200 to $360 million each year?

These questions were at the heart of a study of Byrne Program-funded
multijurisdictional task forces (MJTF's) conducted by David Hayeslip, a former
senior researcher at Abt Associates who is now a senior research associate at
the Urban Institute, and Malcolm Russell-Einhorn, a former researcher at Abt
Associates who is now the associate director of the University of Maryland's
IRIS Center. (For more information, see "The Byrne Program," page 41.)
These two researchers hoped to provide drug MJTF's with tools to conduct
meaningful evaluations of their own effectiveness. Byrne Program State
Administrative Agencies (SAA's), which usually allocate the funding to MJTF's,
could also use such tools. Hayeslip and Russell-Einhorn discussed preliminary
findings of their study and future plans at a Research in Progress seminar at
NIJ. 

Initial Findings

The researchers found that data gathering at the local level is limited and data
analysis is scant. Most of the data collected by task forces are for reporting to
the SAA's the numbers of arrests and amounts of drugs seized. Fewer than a
dozen studies conducted over the past decade--all of them using outside
researchers--purported to serve as true evaluations of task force operations
and to assess outcomes as well as activities and outputs. 

Hayeslip and Russell-Einhorn worked toward the development of what could
be called a menu of various evaluation tools that States and individual task
forces could use to help MJTF's better assess the impact of their work on drug
crime, drug availability and use, drug-related crime, and law enforcement
organizational effectiveness.

According to Russell-Einhorn, "Visits to 18 sites revealed a diversity in task
force environments and missions and the complexities of task force evaluation."
This complexity necessitates the development of tools that are similarly
adaptable. The researchers reported that the site visits yielded the following
insights:

o Most MJTF's play a critical frontline drug enforcement role. As a result, they
must often mix street-level enforcement with the upper-level enforcement
strategies that are more commonly associated with task force work.

o Rural or semirural jurisdictions face special challenges. They often cover
larger areas than MJTF's in more populated areas and may have to address
multiple problems concurrently, such as low-level trafficking in towns, highway
interdiction, and crop eradication, along with longer term investigations of
criminal organizations. In addition, local customs influence drug enforcement
priorities and can create distinctive patterns of drug-related activities, such as
regular drug sales at regional rodeos or airports.

o The varied demands of member agencies, citizens, and political leaders
sometimes complicate MJTF strategic planning. Some task forces have formed
separate, highly flexible units to deal with covert (or overt) work stemming from
these competing demands. 

o Most studies overlook the important benefits of MJTF's, such as better
information-sharing among local law enforcement agencies. Also, participating
police officers gain invaluable practical experience from their association with a
task force (although many task force personnel "graduate" to Federal or State
investigative agencies, leaving personnel shortages in local departments). In
addition, multiagency efforts generally result in cases that are better prepared
for prosecution.

o Dissatisfaction with current reporting requirements among MJTF's is
widespread because there is a common assumption that quantitative tallies of
arrests and seizures can give a meaningful picture of task force effectiveness
and value. Instead, officers in the field would like to see reporting and
evaluation that considers changing missions and tactics and that pays more
attention to local impact such as effects on drug-related crime (e.g., assaults
and burglaries).

Toward Developing the Toolkit

"Task force leaders need better ways to collect and analyze data," said
Russell-Einhorn. "The only way that researchers can evaluate the effectiveness
of these task forces in the long term is through adequate and consistent data
collection." The researchers' focus was on relatively easy-to-use tools that
would fit the expertise and budgets of most SAA's and task forces. Data could
range from statistics on drug crime, to interview information from burglary
detectives (on drug-related crime impacts), to interview information from
prosecutors (on the quality of cases prepared by MJTF's).

As a result of the surveys and site visits, the researchers developed a set of
recommendations as a basis for developing the specific evaluation tools. They
pretested the recommendations with both NIJ staff and key SAA members and
held focus groups with task force personnel. They used the recommendations
to draft a wide range of evaluation questions to meet diverse evaluation needs.
The goal was to produce a multidimensional menu of tools that would balance
questions about process, outcome, and impact. 

For more information o Contact David Hayeslip, Senior Research Associate,
Urban Institute, 202-261-5404.

o Contact Malcolm Russell-Einhorn, Associate Director-Governance
Institutions Team, IRIS Center, University of Maryland, 301-405-3177,
russell-einhorn@iris.econ.umd.edu.

------------------

The Byrne Program

Through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program (the Byrne Program), the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) provides leadership and guidance on crime and violence prevention and
control and works in partnership with State and local governments to make
communities safe and improve criminal justice systems. BJA develops and tests
new approaches in criminal justice and crime control and encourages
replication of effective programs and practices by State and local criminal
justice agencies. The Byrne Program, created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-690), emphasizes controlling violent and drug-related
crime and serious offenders and fosters multijurisdictional and multistate efforts
to support national drug control priorities.

BJA makes Byrne Program funds available through two types of grant
programs: discretionary and formula. Discretionary funds are awarded directly
to public and private agencies and private nonprofit organizations; formula funds
are awarded to the States, which then make subawards to State and local units
of government.

------------------

Social Changes and Their Effects on Homicide Rates

Journal article, "A Comparison of Changes in Police and General Homicides:
1930-1998," Robert Kaminski and Thomas Marvell, Criminology 40(1)
(2002): 701-719.

Two researchers compared the rate of police officers killed in the line of duty to
the rate of homicides among the general public. They wanted to determine if
changes in the Nation's economic condition, prison population, or other major
events over a 68-year period resulted in significant parallel effects on homicide
rates. Robert Kaminski, with NIJ, and Thomas Marvell, with Justec Research,
reviewed the number and rate of murders in the comparison groups (police
officers and the general public) from 1930 to 1998 to determine if they shifted
in similar fashion.

The researchers found that three separate factors in American society appeared
to have the largest impact in reducing the number of police officers killed in the
line of duty: declining inflation, economic growth, and increased prison
populations.

The lowest homicide rate among police officers was recorded in 1943-44,
when the United States was fighting in World War II. Fifty officers were killed
in 1941, compared to 33 in 1944. The researchers observed that during that
war, any potential criminals serving in the military were probably partly
incapacitated and thus less able to try to kill police officers.

These same factors also decreased public homicide rates, but the effects were
generally smaller. For example, for each 1 percent added to the prison
population between 1932 and 1998, police homicides declined by about 2.1
percent while total homicides dropped by 1.1 percent. The researchers also
noted that the impact of growth in personal income was apparently larger in
reducing police homicides than general homicides.

The researchers pointed out that the harder the economic times and the greater
the economic uncertainty, the higher the murder rates were for both police
officers and the general public. Following that trend, the highest police homicide
rate was in the 1930's during the Great Depression. In contrast, when the
economy was booming in 1998, the rate for police homicides was more than
80 percent lower than in 1930.

Explaining the Effects

Existing police homicide theories cannot explain why these factors caused
greater decreases in police homicides compared to those among the general
public. One possible explanation, though, is that these same variables could
affect criminals' opportunity and motivation to commit murder. The researchers
again cited the importance of incapacitation through imprisonment and military
service. As noted earlier, the impact of factors such as the growth in the prison
population was nearly twice as strong for police homicides.

Although police generally have more frequent contact with offenders than do
members of the general public, providing more opportunities for officers to be
killed, this fact by itself cannot explain the greater reductions in homicides
among law enforcement officers. The researchers speculate that because
criminals have more opportunities than the general public to assault police, the
effect of their lack of availability--due to imprisonment or military service--on
police homicides may be magnified. The authors suggest that opportunity
factors, such as criminals' motivation and availability to commit crime, might
help to explain the rate differences during the period studied, but they call for
more research in this area.

Correcting Past Research on Risk

Police homicide research in the 1990's found that the riskiest period per capita
for officers in American history was during the 1970's. But based on analysis of
new data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
in 1998 and used in this study, it turns out that the highest rate of murders per
capita among police officers was actually during the late 1920's and early
1930's, when Prohibition was in effect.

For more information

o Contact Robert Kaminski at NIJ at 202-616-9135,
kaminski@ojp.usdoj.gov, or visit http://www.mmarvell.com/justec.html.

------------------

Getting Residents' Feedback and Participation

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "Defending the Community: Results of a
Citizen Survey on Coproduction and Community Policing," Cheryl Maxson,
Karen Hennigan, and David Sloane, grant number 96-IJ-CX-0069, available
on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 193404).

Citizen participation has become an important element of community policing,
and police agencies continue to look for feedback on the effectiveness of
community policing programs and input on better ways to work with
neighborhood residents to control crime. 

Researchers have some helpful ideas about how police can get that information
from residents.

With the support of the Los Angeles Police Department, Cheryl Maxson of the
University of California-Irvine and Karen Hennigan and David Sloane of the
University of Southern California are studying citizen participation. They are
examining some of the obstacles to and opportunities for successful
police-community partnerships. 

Their findings can help other police departments and their research partners
devise better ways to collect and analyze systematic information to improve
their working relationships with residents. 

Mail Surveys Work Better Than Telephone Surveys

The Los Angeles research team carried out experiments to test the effectiveness
of mailed surveys versus random-digit- dialing telephone surveys. They
concluded that self-administered mail surveys, with rigorous followup of
nonrespondents, were more effective in capturing community residents' attitudes
and experiences on sensitive crime and policing issues. They also determined
that the length of mail surveys was not a significant factor. That means
departments can use mail surveys to gather more detailed feedback than
previously thought possible if they use careful survey procedures.

The surveys were mailed to residents in four police divisions of Los Angeles
between October 1997 and March 1998. The areas were selected for their
demographic diversity and included poor and wealthy neighborhoods; stable
and transitional residents; minority, immigrant, and white communities; and
some of the highest and lowest property and violent crime rates in Los Angeles.
The overall response rate to the survey was 57 percent, with some variation
among areas.

Why Do Residents Help the Police?

Researchers analyzed the surveys to determine why residents participate in
crime control activities. Citizen participation was defined as volunteering at the
station, attending crime and safety meetings, and talking with police officers on
patrol. The researchers concluded that community participation was influenced
by residents' recognition of disorder in their neighborhoods, their connections
with their neighbors, and their trust in the police. 

Disorder and social cohesion. The more disorder there was in a community, the
greater the level of citizen participation. However, although individuals in
disordered communities were willing to participate, they faced obstacles
because of low social cohesion among neighbors and less willingness to
intervene for the common good. Despite success in involving residents with the
police in highly disordered areas, these issues limited the effectiveness of
community-police crime control efforts.

Sociability. Citizens who engaged in friendly interactions with their neighbors
were more likely to relate well with the police. Sociability is an important
characteristic connecting police and community residents, and it is significantly
related to citizen participation. The researchers suggest that police identify
sociable residents of a neighborhood and build networks to include them as one
means of developing stronger police-citizen relationships that then produce
safer neighborhoods. 

Trust in and contact with police. Data revealed a positive two-way relationship
between trust in the police and participation in local crime control activities: the
more trust the respondents had in the police, the more they participated in such
activities, and the more they participated, the more trust they gained. Informal
contacts with police at events like community meetings were shown to
contribute to positive opinions about the job the police were doing in the
community and to help build trust and enhance cooperation among residents in
working with police to produce safe neighborhoods. 

Age and other respondent characteristics. Citizen participation increased with
age from 18 to 65, but then it declined. Residents' level of education and
income, ethnicity, and size of household did not impact the rate of participation.
Rather, it was neighbors' willingness to act for each other and to trust in one
another along with the police department's commitment to interact informally
with residents that propelled community participation.

For more information

o Hennigan, Karen, Cheryl Maxson, David Sloane, and Molly Ranney,
"Community Views on Crime and Policing: Survey Mode Effects on Bias in
Community Surveys," Justice Quarterly 19(3) (September 2002): 565-587.

o Maxson, Cheryl, Karen Hennigan, and David Sloane, Factors That Influence
Public Opinion of the Police, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, 2003 (NCJ 197925).

o Contact Cheryl Maxson, Associate Professor, Criminology, Law & Society,
University of California-Irvine, 2309 Social Ecology II, Irvine, CA
92697-7080, 949-824-5150, cmaxson@uci.edu.

------------------

Crime Victims Compensation Programs Needs Assessed

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "Crime Victims Compensation: Evaluation
Findings and Policy and Program Administration Trends and Strategies for the
Future," Lisa Newmark, grant number 98-VF-GX-OO16, available on
videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 189632).

Almost $1 billion in Federal funds have gone to compensate crime victims since
the Victims of Crime Act became law in 1984. Claimants say that the money is
making a difference. In a study of compensation programs, victims generally
reported positive perceptions of the compensation process.

In an NIJ Research in Progress seminar, Lisa Newmark, a senior research
associate at the Urban Institute, presented findings from an ongoing study of
crime victims' compensation programs. The study surveyed 452 compensation
claimants in 6 States, plus compensation and assistance administrators in all 50
States. Selected State administrators, members of oversight bodies, advocacy
group representatives, and direct service providers were also interviewed.

Research Reveals Needs

More than two-thirds of the crime victims who were approved for
compensation suffered an average financial loss of $600. Ongoing research
shows a need for expanded outreach to victims, consideration of expanded
benefits, higher compensation caps, revised eligibility criteria, and increased
funding if victim support programs are to truly reach their potential.

Expand benefits. Generally, only certain types of expenses are eligible for
compensation. The survey findings showed that additional compensation to
cover items such as moving expenses would help a considerable number of
victims who suffer crime in or near their homes. Claimants also suggested that
States should consider raising the compensation limits for reimbursements of
funeral and burial costs, mental health counseling, medical treatment for
catastrophic injuries, and other such expenses.

Expand eligibility requirements. Because the monetary effects of crime are often
complex, reaching beyond the primary victim alone, expanding compensation
for secondary victims of crime--including victims' dependents and other
relatives--should be considered.

Extend deadlines. Filing deadlines are being extended for certain types of
victims (for example, victims of child abuse who may not report such incidents
until long afterwards). The research suggests that reports to authorities other
than the police might be considered in determining eligibility and that
requirements of notification of insurance companies might be reconsidered in
cases in which claimants could be negatively affected by the filing of an
insurance claim.

Improve case processing. Some programs are streamlining the processing of
claims for compensation, which currently can take up to 6 months. For claims
to be processed faster, improvements must be made in the claims verification
process.

Improve training. Better training of the direct service providers who assist
victims with the claims process is also needed. In addition, more diverse
groups--particularly those who work effectively with minorities--could be
brought into the claims process to increase the number and diversity of
compensation claims.

Explain the program. Claimants say they want greater knowledge of the claims
process. Compensation programs need better publicity and better explanations
of claims procedures for potential claimants. More than half of the crime victims
surveyed whose claims were denied said that they weren't given a reason for
the denial.

Funding These Innovations

Taking steps to improve program operations, with the goal of providing more
benefits to more victims, means more funds will be needed, including money to
support administrative activities.

For more information

o Contact Lisa Newmark, Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2100 M
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037, 202-261-5566,
lnewmark@ui.urban.org.

------------------

Measuring the Effects of Quality-of-Life Policing

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "Measuring the Impacts of Policing Among
Arrestees in New York City: Veracity of Self-Reports, Deterrence Effects of
Quality-of-Life Policing, and Net Widening," Bruce D. Johnson and Andrew
Golub, grant number 00-7353-NY-IJ, available on videotape from NCJRS
(NCJ 190638).

When police increase efforts against disorderly conduct, such as loitering,
trespassing, and urinating in public, does it make a difference? Bruce D.
Johnson and Andrew Golub, of the National Development and Research
Institutes, studied this issue in New York City and found that it does. Arrestees
report that they are aware of the New York City Police Department's
(NYPD's) various "quality-of-life" (QOL) initiatives, and many have changed
their behavior accordingly. Further, such programs do not appear to "widen the
net" and bring people into the criminal justice system who would otherwise not
be involved with it. Johnson and Golub discussed their study at an NIJ
Research in Progress Seminar. 

Research Design

This study used the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program as a
research platform for understanding the impact of recent New York City
policing initiatives on arrestee behavior. During the second half of 1999, 892
New York City arrestees were interviewed. For this analysis, researchers
compiled the responses to the standard ADAM questionnaire, ADAM drug
test results, responses to a special New York City Policing questionnaire, and
official New York State criminal histories.

Quality-of-Life Policing

Initiatives against publicly annoying behaviors, such as loitering, panhandling,
transit farebeating, urinating in public, public consumption of alcohol or
marijuana, and overall disorderly conduct, are called QOL policing. The
NYPD wanted to know if offenders were aware that police had stepped up
efforts to control QOL offenses, and, if so, what their response was. As a
related issue, the department wanted to know if those arrested for QOL
offenses are truthful about their other criminal activities in their post-arrest
interviews.

Offenders Get the Message

Johnson and Golub found that the arrestees appeared to be getting the
message. Arrestees reported their awareness that police were targeting people
for a variety of QOL offenses. On average, about half of the offenders said that
in response they had stopped or cut down on those activities in the past 6
months. (The greatest decrease was among farebeaters. Almost 70 percent
reported that they had stopped or decreased their farebeating after becoming
aware of QOL initiatives.)

Offenders primarily cited an increased police presence and a consciousness on
the street of a stepped up police focus on QOL behaviors--rather than their
personal contact with the criminal justice system--as the reason for changing
their behavior. The researchers concluded that QOL policing initiatives can
provide a general deterrent to these types of activities.

Widening the Net? 

The researchers compared those arrested for felony drug and index crimes with
those charged with a QOL offense and found them to be highly comparable.
The two groups had similar demographic characteristics, prior arrest records,
and self-reports of QOL offenses. According to the researchers, this lack of
differences, plus the fact that individuals without prior police records were
generally not brought in on QOL charges, indicates that the QOL initiatives did
not widen the pool of arrestees (at least not in New York City in 1999).
Moreover, the researchers note that QOL enforcement provides police with
additional opportunities to monitor and possibly intervene in the lives of
long-term criminal offenders who routinely pass through the city's criminal
justice system. 

Do Arrestees Tell the Truth? 

The arrestees interviewed were generally open and honest about their lifelong
record of arrest and imprisonment, but not so candid about the details. While
most accurately reported their use of marijuana, few volunteered that they had
committed more serious crimes, particularly violent crimes; this was true even
among those arrestees who initially were honest about their prison time--they
were less honest about the serious criminal actions that led to their
incarceration.

For more information

o Contact Bruce D. Johnson, Director, or Andrew Golub, Principal
Investigator, Institute for Special Populations Research, National Development
and Research Institutes, Inc., 71 West 23rd Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY
10010, 212-845-4400, http://www.ndri.org.

------------------

Studying Racial Profiling in North Carolina

NIJ Research in Progress Seminar, "Studying Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops
and Outcomes: Lessons Learned in North Carolina," Matthew T. Zingraff,
William R. Smith, and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, grant number
99-MU-CX-0022, available on videotape from NCJRS (NCJ 188064).

Racial profiling by law enforcement officials in traffic stops can lead to bias and
disparity in arrests, searches, citations, and other interventions. It may also lead
to increased distrust of police.

A study by researchers from North Carolina State University found a small
degree of racial disparity in the actions of the North Carolina State Highway
Patrol and a higher level of distrust of police among African-American drivers.
The preliminary findings were presented at a Research in Progress seminar at
NIJ. The complete findings will address individual and organizational practices,
the racial composition of drivers on specific roads, differences in driving
behavior, and variations in other factors correlated with driving behavior.

Sources of Data

The researchers used two data sets. The first set included North Carolina State
Highway Patrol data on citations, written warnings, and search files for 1998
and 2000, as well as "stop" records for 2000. Additional data were collected
by the researchers from focus groups, a telephone survey of 1,500 white and
1,500 African-American licensed drivers in North Carolina, and on-road
observations. These additional data were used to gauge the extent of driving
violations, independent of official police records.

Findings

Who gets stopped and why. The telephone survey found that the people who
were stopped more often drove more miles per year, reported more speeding
and risky driving behaviors, and expressed a greater desire to avoid getting
speeding tickets. Specifically, drivers stopped most often were younger drivers,
drivers in older cars, and African Americans. However, African-American
drivers reported that the highway patrol stopped them less often than did
officers from other law enforcement agencies.

More African Americans than whites reported that officers gave them a
discretionary reason for stopping them. African-American drivers also related
more disrespect on the part of the officer during the stop than did white drivers.
Both African-American and white drivers reported a similar distribution of
citations and written and verbal warnings.

Officer bias. In focus groups conducted by the researchers, some officers
indicated that cognitive bias--the perception of race or ethnicity as a reason for
a person's behavior--does not affect their behavior. Some officers said that they
know whether they will write a citation, issue a written warning, or give a verbal
warning before they know who is driving. Other officers said they decide what
action to take based on the circumstances of the stop, including the demeanor
of the driver. For these officers, cognitive bias is possible.

Level of trust. To measure trust in the police, respondents were asked to rank
their trust on a scale of one to five, with one representing a belief that police are
always fair and five representing a belief that police are never fair. The average
for African-American respondents was 2.53 while the average for white
respondents was 1.89. Respondents cited negative stop experiences, a belief
that racial profiling exists, and a general distrust of government as reasons for
their lack of trust of the police.

Patterns in traffic stops. To gather on-road observations, the researchers
selected 14 four-lane highway segments of 10-15 miles in length. These road
segments were located in areas with a substantial number of highway patrol
stops and a significant presence of African Americans. Researchers traveled the
14 highway segments for approximately 24 hours over several weekdays,
recording the speed and demographic characteristics of the drivers. 

Across the 14 highway segments, the percentage of those stopped for speeding
who were African American was highly correlated with the percentage of
drivers who were African American and were observed speeding (r=.91). The
researchers found a pattern for speeding stops along the highway segments and
a bias against African Americans. In 12 of the 14 highway segments, officers
stopped more African Americans than non-African Americans. However, in
only 2 of the 12 sites was the difference statistically significant.

The researchers explained that the results from the on-road observations can be
generalized to the same highway in the same county. However, different
highways in the same county may yield different results, suggesting limits to
generalizing to other highways.

For more information

o Contact Matthew T. Zingraff at North Carolina State University, College of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Campus Box 8101, Raleigh, NC
27695-8101, 919-513-1837, fax: 919-515-7856, Matt_Zingraff@ncsu.edu.

------------------

Ideas Welcome

The NIJ Journal welcomes your ideas for articles on crime and justice.
Practitioners, policymakers and their staff, researchers, and anyone else with an
interest in criminal justice are invited to contact Managing Editor David Fialkoff,
dfialkoff@ palladianpartners.com, 301-650-8660 (ext. 122).

------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation
agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ provides objective, independent,
evidence-based knowledge and tools to enhance the administration of justice
and public safety.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime. 

Photo Sources: PhotoDisc and PictureQuest.

------------------

JR000250