The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Police Use of Domestic Violence Information

Systems, Final Report

Author(s): Janice A. Roehl Ph.D.

Document No.: 182435

Date Received: May 18, 2000

Award Number: 95-IJ-CX-0097

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems 

Final Report 

Submitted to the 

Seattle Police Department 

Submitted' by 

Janice A Roehl, Ph.D. 

Justice Research Center 

.. 

.. 

February 1997 

This pr~jcct was supported by Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-0097 awarded to the Seattle Police Department by the 

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table of Contents 

Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems 

Part I: Report Summary .............................................. 1 

Purpose ...................................................... 1 

Methods ..................................................... 1 

Central Findings ............................................... 3 

Overview ................................................ 3 

Domestic Violence Units .................................... 3 

Domestic violence databases: Content ......................... 4 

Database use ............................................. 7 

Assessing lethality ......................................... 7 

Implications for the Seattle Police Department ........................ 15 

Part 11: Case Studies 

Boston Police Department ............................................ 17' 

Overview ..................................................... 17 

17 

17 

Domestic Violence Research Project ............................... 18 

....................... 21 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... The Domestic Violence Information System .......................... 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

Chicago Police Department ........................................... 22 

Overview .................................................... 22 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... 22 

The Domestic Violence Information Systems ......................... 23 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies ....................... 26 

Metro-Dade (Miami) Police Department ................................. 27 

Overview .................................................... 27 

The Domestic Violence Information System .......................... 27 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies ....................... 29 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... 27 

Nashville Police Department .......................................... 30 

Overview .................................................... 30 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... 30 

The Domestic Violence Information System .......................... 30 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies ....................... 31 

1 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Portland Police Bureau .............................................. 32 

Overview .................................................... 32 

The Domestic Violence Information System .......................... 32 

....................... 34 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... 32 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

San Diego Police Department ......................................... 35 

Overview .................................................... 35 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling ..... 35 

The Domestic Violence Information System .......................... 37 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies ....................... 38 

Appendix A: Lexington: Abuse Reporting Form and Incident Report Form 

Appendix B: Seattle: Incident and Supplemental Forms, Lethality Score Information 

Appendix C: Duluth Domestic Abuse Related Incident Worksheet 

Appendix D: Gavin de Becker: Mosaic Brochure and LA Times article . .- 

Appendix E: Chicago: DVIS Brochure and New Incident Report Form 

Appendix F: Miami: Database Variables and Data Entry Screens 

Appendix G: Portland: Definition of Domestic Violence 

Appendix H: San Diego: Incident Report, Supplemental Form, 

Database Variables, and Case Assignment Logic Chart 

.. 

11 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems 

Part I: Report Summary 

The Seattle Police Department, University of Washington's School of Public 

Health and School of Medicine, and Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center 

have initiated a research program to develop a data management system for use in longterm evaluations and improving police efforts to break cycles of domestic violence. The 

Seattle Police Department has in place a fairly sophisticated database for domestic 

violence cases, has developed a supplemental data collection form for such cases, and is 

testing a method of assessing lethality to ensure that the most potentially dangerous 

cases receive appropriate attention. One objective is to use such lethality measures to 

assign detectives to misdemeanor cases judged most likely to escalate. 

To assist in this effort, the Justice Research Center (JRC) surveyed police 

departments known for their development and use of advanced domestic violence 

information systems. This report summarizes the survey's results and implications for the 

Seattle Police Department's domestic violence research program. Part I of this report 

briefly covers1 the purpose and methods of the JRC project, focuses on a summary of the. . 

current practices in selected departments, and presents recommendations. Part I1 

consists of case studies of six police departments doing innovative work in the 

development and use of domestic violence information systems; the appendices contain 

copies of incident reports, supplementary forms, data screens, etc., gathered from the 

departments surveyed. 

Purpose 

The purpose of JRC's project was to find and document domestic violence data 

collection schemes used by no fewer than six departments that present useful information 

to the Seattle Police Department's research program. In consultation with the 

researchers and department, the search focused on departments which have 

experimented with expanded databases (e.g., those which include supplementary 

evidence, medical data, etc.) for a variety of purposes, including prioritizing cases for 

special/coordinated response, treatment, investigation, and/or prosecution; improving 

evidence collection; and determining "lethality" (Le., identifying high-risk cases), 

Methods 

Police departments with innovative domestic violence information systems were 

identified in a variety of ways: (1) through a review of government reports and literature 

related to law enforcement handling of domestic violence, (2) by contacting key federal 

clearinghouses and agencies concerned with domestic violence, (3) by describing the 

project and sending a request for recommendations via the electronic "listserv" that 

connects the researchers and police practitioners working together on locally-initiated 

1 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
research partnerships funded by the National Lnstitute of Justice, and (4) through 

recommendations from individual departments contacted. The literature review 

conducted primarily through Department of Justice clearinghouses revealed little on this 

topic. Recommendations from knowledgeable people in the field were few, with the 

same departments mentioned several times. Fewer than 20 departments with a known 

track record in this area were identified. 

Telephone interviews were conducted with several individuals in eleven 

departments located in the following cities: 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Chicago, Illinois 

Denver, Colorado 

Lexington, Kentucky 

Miami, Florida 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Nashville, Tennessee 

New York, New York 

'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Portland, Oregon 

San Diego, California 

.- 

The summary information presented below is drawn from these interviews, and copies of 

relevant materials were also collected. The interviews covered the following topics: 

Structure and staffing of the Domestic Violence Unit, number and type of 

domestic violence (DV) incidents handled annually. 

Type of database used (centralized reporting system, separate DV system, etc.), its 

software requirements, sorting/tracking capabilities. 

Content of DV databases -- basic incident report data, supplementary data, data 

from other agencies (particularly the medical community and social services), etc.; 

links to other databases. 

Use of DV databases for prioritization, investigation, prosecution, etc; ability to 

track by individual as well as incident; information available to officers en route 

to a DV call, etc. 

Special handling of domestic violence cases. 

State and local laws and policies that impact on this issue. 

Relationships with prosecutors and other agencies. 

2 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Case studies are presented in Part I1 for six departments: Boston, Chicago, 

Miami, Nashville, Portland, and San Diego. Of the eleven surveyed by phone, these 

departments were selected because they had (1) a sophisticated domestic violence 

information system and/or (2) experience in assessing lethality in domestic violence 

cases. Individuals connected with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, 

Minnesota, and Gavin de Becker's private investigation firm in southern California were 

also interviewed concerning their current efforts in assessing dangerousness. 

Central Findings 

Overview. A central conclusion from this effort to find and document domestic 

violence information systems is that the work currently underway by the Seattle policeresearch partnership is at the forefront of law enforcement-based efforts to improve data 

violence information, evidence gathering, and the identification of high risk cases. Many 

of the departments contacted have only recently developed DV information systems or 

are currently in the process of developing them. The systems developed in San Diego, 

Chicago, Miami, and Nashville appear to be the most advanced, and offer the Seattle 

research program useful information. The Boston, Chicago, and Portland police 

departments also developed, or tried to develop, elaborate data collection and retrieval 

systems in recent years and encountered obstacles large enough to end the use of the 

systems. These problematic experiences also offer useful lessons. 

.I 

As this work drew to a close, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and 

bs Angeles Police Department agreed to field test a computer program developed by 

Gavin de Becker, a renown private investigator, designed to assess how dangerous a 

domestic violence abuser may be. This commercially developed program may well prove 

useful to the Seattle Police Department. Outside of this effort (described on pages 13- 

14), no law enforcement agency identified in this project has, as yet, developed and used 

a quantitatively-based lethality test, although several use rough facsimiles for different 

purposes. In short, the work underway in Seattle can be informed by the experiences 

provided by other departments, yet it is also clear that the Seattle Police Department is 

one of the national leaders in this difficult area, with which many law enforcement 

agencies are struggling. 

Domestic Violence Units. All of the departments surveyed have separate 

Domestic Violence Units, although several of them were created quite recently. The 

staffing and number of incidents handled annually varies tremendously from department 

to department. Approximate figures' on the number of DV incidents reported annually 

'It should be noted that these figures were gathered as part of the survey and 

have not been verified. Each department's definition of a domestic violence incident 

may also vary. These figures should be viewed cautiously, yet they provide a yardstick of 

relative caseload size. 

3 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
for Seattle and the six departments described in Part I1 are presented below: 

citv DV incidents Criminal DV cases 

Boston 

Chicago 

Miami 

Nashville 

Portland 

Seattle 

San Diego 

13,500 Unk 

150,000 44,000 

30,000 9,000 

22,000 15,600 

Unk 6,500 

9,000 8,000 

14,000 12,500 

The staff size of Domestic Violence Units (DWs) ranges from two (in the 

Chicago Police Department, which created its Unit in July of this year) to 35 (in the 

Nashville Police Department, reportedly the largest DW in the country). The majority 

of the units include investigators, and most of these detectives handle felony cases only, 

with misdemeanors handled by uniformed officers, victim advocates, other civilian 

personnel, and/or volunteers. One exception is San Diego, where detectives handle . 

misdemeanor cases involving repeat offenders and those currently on probation for DVrelated charges. Nashville's D W includes crisis counselors, which Chicago has 

experimented with as well. 

Domestic violence databases: Content. All six departments in Part I1 maintain 

separate DV databases, which vary in content, comprehensiveness, and age. Boston and 

Nashville have depended primarily on DV information extracted from their mainframe 

computer housing all incident data until recently -- both have just developed new systems 

called Detective or Investigator Case Management Systems. Neither system is fully 

operational as yet. In addition to relying on information from the department's main 

computer system, Boston detectives had formerly depended on individual systems created 

at the district level. New York City is another interesting system -- DV databases are 

maintained in each of the 76 precincts and five public housing substations. These 

precinct-based systems are not currently linked, although the department is developing a 

city-wide system to enable them to track offenders across precincts. 

Each of the domestic violence databases is maintained on a personal computer 

using FoxPro, Access, or Paradox software. They were created within the departments, 

typically by individuals in the planning and research divisions. The exception is the 

Boston system, which was developed by a private vendor. San Diego's system is 

maintained by a civilian volunteer. Each system is incident-based (Le., data are entered 

when each new incident is reported, and data elements at that point are incidentspecific), but yet is very flexible -- data elements can be sorted and presented by 

individual and incident (see Boston's user's manuals for examples). Or, as San Diego's 

valuable volunteer put it, "by day of the week, month of the year, phase of the moon, 

and major televised sports events." Databases used by multiple groups (which is 

4 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
uncommon) can be programmed to limit access to specific classes of users (for example, 

detectives can access criminal history information, but social service providers may not). 

For the most part, DV databases contain information drawn from standard 

incident reports -- case data (date, location, charges, etc.), victim data (address, 

demographics, injuries), and suspect data (address, demographics). Several departments 

(notably Portland) have narrowed down the number of variables entered to a relative 

small number (7, in Portland’s case). 

The police departments surveyed are beginning to pay more attention to risk 

factors, and to include them in DV information systems. Portland’s seven variables, for 

example, are all related to known risk factors. The most common risk factors (or 

supplemental information) sought for information systems appear to be whether a 

weapon was involved, whether children ‘were present, and whether the suspect and/or 

victim appeared to be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol (see the section below 

on assessing risk for additional information). 

. .. Only two departments surveyed use supplemental forms for domestic violence 

cases in addition to standard incident reporting forms. San Diego has developed a 

separate supplemental form for domestic violence cases which captures detailed 

information on victim and suspects’ physical and emotionaI states, crime scene 

conditions, length of the relationship between parties, alcohol and drugs, weapons, 

presence of children and witnesses, status of restraining orders, and more. The form also 

includes diagrams for noting the location of injuries. Only some of the supplemental 

information, however, is entered into the DV database. Chicago is currently developing 

a new incident report specifically for domestic violence cases, which, in effect, combines 

standard incident reporting information with what is usually considered supplementary 

data (presence of children, protection order details, evidence of drug/alcohol use, etc.). 

The Chicago form is unlike any other forms gathered for this project, in that it is 

designed to record the presence of firearms in the household and whether they have 

been inventoried, whether referrals were offered, made, and accepted, and the reason for 

not making an arrest, if one was not made. 

A few departments (see Boston, for example) add information to their DV 

databases as cases are investigated. As new information is learned or gathered (on the 

victim’s medical treatment or extent of injury, or charges filed, for example), it is added 

to the database, usually by the detective handling the case. With one exception, the DV 

databases are free-standing, not linked to any other databases within the department, 

such as the central reporting system. In Chicago, however, the newly developed DV 

system is part of the department’s computerized mapping system and will ultimately be 

linked to the department’s reported crime database and 911 system. 

No department surveyed routinely obtains and enters data from outside the 

department (such as emergency room data or shelter use). On a case-by-case basis 

5 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
during investigations, information such as medical treatment (see Boston) or referrals to 

social service agencies (see Chicago) made be added to a database, but this information 

comes from the investigators as they work on a case, not from hospitals, physicians, or 

social service agencies. Recent California state law requires that hospitals and other 

medical personnel report suspected cases of domestic violence to law enforcement 

agencies; the San Diego police department is trying to figure out exactly what to do in 

these cases and does not enter the data into an information system at the present time. 

In Lexington, Kentucky, reverse reporting is required. Law enforcement agencies must 

report cases of domestic violence, adult abuse, and child abuse to the state’s Cabinet of 

Human Resources (this form, and the Lexington Police Department’s incident reporting 

form are in Appendix A). 

Two departments offer useful illustrations of building comprehensive DV 

information systems with many variables and extensive reporting formats -- and then not 

using them because they are too unwieldy, cumbersome, and labor intensive. In Chicago, 

a private vendor developed an extensive Domestic Violence Intervention System (DVIS) 

as part of a 1993-94 project to reduce domestic homicides in a single police district. The 

DVIS was developed with Informix, a relational database with substantial capacity and. . . 

power. The DVIS contained data from 911 calls, reported crimes, arrests, and incidents; 

could be sorted and examined any which way; and produced a numerical composite score 

to identify high-risk households. The Chicago Police Department, however, has never 

used the system or tested the risk scoring feature. The department found it too labor 

intensive for data entry, and too slow and cumbersome for use. The proprietary nature 

of the software also meant that if the department made any new queries not originally 

programmed for, vendor assistance was required. The Chicago Police Department has 

subsequently developed its own, more workable, information system (see pages 24-25 for 

additional information). 

In 1993, the Boston Police Department’s Office of Planning and Research 

developed two domestic violence databases (a retrospective one for 1993 and a 

prospective one for 1994) for a research project on the dynamics of domestic violence. 

Each database contained 125 or more variables, drawn from incident reports, follow-up 

investigation reports, state criminal history information, and court data. The database 

was created using dBase IV and analyzed with SPSS. The databases were intended to be 

used as a detective case management system, but were not maintained past the research 

project. The department found it did not have the resources to gather, enter, and 

maintain the system as it was designed, and has moved to a smaller and simpler 

Detective Case Management system. 

A common thread among the respondents to this survey was the sentiment that a 

database can only be as good as the data put into it. The program developed by Gavin 

de Becker, for example, produces a score that indicates how much information was 

available on a given suspect to feed into a lethality score, and enables the user to see 

what important information is missing. Several departments, rather than developing 

6 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
supplemental forms for field officers to use, have turned to training officers to complete 

the incident reports they do have with care and thoroughness. Both officers and 

detectives are receiving training on improving evidence collection in domestic violence 

cases, particularly focused on evidence useful to prosecutors handling cases with and 

without victim cooperation. Evidence helpful in such cases includes recording 

spontaneous utterances of victims, offenders, and witnesses; taking photographs of 

injuries; and taking statements from witnesses. The San Diego City Attorney's Office is 

the national leader in victimless prosecution, and their approach is described in San 

Diego's case study in Part 11. 

Database use. The domestic violence databases are used by the six departments 

in a variety of ways. They are used by detectives for case investigation, particularly for 

identifying repeat offenders, and for tracking the status of their caseloads. The databases 

are used by managers for case management, monitoring workloads, and tracking case 

progress. Finally, they are used by crime analysts, detectives, and officers for studying 

domestic violence incidents'-- e.g., analyzing trends and indicators over time, tracking 

repeat offenders and victims, producing statistical information, etc. In Chicago, the 

mapping system enables DV incidents to be examined by area, and in relation to other .. 

crime incidents. and environmental features such as public housing complexes. 

The Portland Police Bureau recently participated in a project to designed to link 

agencies concerned with domestic violence to one centralized database, so that various 

agencies could tap into the database to examine a case wherever it may be in the system. 

The participating agencies included the police Bureau, 911, booking, the district 

attorney's office, courts, and probation/parole. After a year of meeting and working 

together, the project ended without a linked system being developed. The agencies spent 

much of their time establishing a common definition of domestic violence across 

agencies. The Police Bureau reports that the agencies were generally in philosophical 

agreement about domestic violence case handling, but that confidentiality issues and 

access to information remain a problem. Only the criminal justice agencies have 

reciprocal agreements among themselves concerning shared data. In the end, however, 

the main reasons for not developing a linked system revolved around a lack of funds for 

software development (no "off the shelf' software was located), data entry and 

programming, and system maintenance. 

The Minneapolis Police Department was thought to have information on active 

restraining orders and warrants available to officers in cars en route to a domestic 

violence call. Officers do not have this information "at their fingertips", but can access it 

from a central source before responding to a call if they desire. Other departments have 

similar procedures. 

Assessing lethality. The Domestic Violence Unit of the Seattle Police 

Department has developed a quantitative measure, Ita lethality score", which is being 

tested for its potential in identifymg the most dangerous domestic violence situations, 

7 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
which are then reviewed to see if additional investigation or intervention is warranted. 

Six categories of information -- the nature of the offense, the extent of victim injury, the 

type of weapon used, the location of the assault, existence of restraining orders, and 

other pertinent information (alcohol/drug involvement, whether the victim was pregnant 

or not) -- are assigned values which, when added, provide a risk score per incident. The 

information is drawn from incident reports, although additional information available 

from the newly adopted Supplemental Form (see Appendix B) may be used in the 

future. The six categories were selected by a group of experienced detectives, based on 

their experience with domestic violence cases. 

Incident-specific risk scores from all reported domestic violence incidents in a 

specific time period are then combined into an overall lethality score for individual 

suspects or victims. The values assigned to each case element and examples of reports 

produced are attached in Appendix B, along with copies of Seattle's Incident Report and 

newly drafted Supplemental form for domestic violence cases. 

The Domestic Violence Unit's database, accessed by Access, contains information 

on misdemeanor and felony cases drawn from the Incident Report, follow-up reports. by 

officers and detectives, and -- in the near future -- the Supplemental form. Detectives 

and officers use the database to search for and review individual cases, and to produce 

the lethality score. The database dates from October 1994, and will provide additional 

information on repeat cases as time goes on. While it is being tested, the system 

provides one more tool for investigators, advocates, and officers to use in identifying the 

most potentially serious domestic violence cases. No cutoff scores are used at this time; 

boundary dates and minimum scores may be varied depending on the questions being 

asked. As the database grows, assessments of the predictive value of the lethality score 

can be made. In addition to including Supplemental data, future enhancement to the 

system includes better name recognition (matching). 

Seattle's method for assessing risk is more sophisticated than those used by the 

departments surveyed. Most, however, consider the issue to be a significant one and use 

gross measures (typically the number of repeat calls or offenses) to identify cases for 

special handling or for case assignment. Many departmental officials are also leery of 

using numerical scores for assigning risk to cases, because such systems are untested and 

the rate of false negatives is unknown (several recalled domestic homicides and serious 

injuries inflicted in "first-time" cases that had never before come to the attention of their 

department). The approach of each of the six departments to assessing risk is 

summarized below (department-specific information on specific risk factors and methods 

of combining them appear in the case studies in Part I1 of this report): 

Boston: Does not assess risk, but prior research project included the development 

of an "Offender Dangerousness Profile", which described the characteristics 

of offenders who inflicted injury on their victims. The predictive value of 

the profile was not tested. 

8 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Chicago: Uses the number of dispatch calls to map "households at risk" and is 

currently working with a multi-agency Domestic Violence Council to 

develop a new form to gather information on risk factors, then weight the 

factor to identify high risk households. The risk scores would be used to 

determine if additional follow-up services are necessary, and the vested 

groups would respond as a community if a household is determined to be 

at risk. 

The unused DVIS reportedly weighted and combined eight to twelve risk 

factors into a single composite score to be used to rank individuals or 

locations according to risk. Both the specific factors and formula are 

considered proprietary information and could not be obtained. No testing 

of the risk scores has been completed. 

Miami: Does not assess risk. 

Nashville: Uses a Lethality Assessment form, which is a checklist completed by 

detectives. Cases "scoring high" receive extra assistance from detectives ' 

land counselors. 

Portland: Uses the seven risk factors captured in the DV database. If a case 

exhibits a high number of risk factors (no set number is used), it receives a 

higher priority than others for investigation. Repeat offenders, in 

particular, are a focused target of the DVU. 

San Diego: No quantitative risk assessments are made, but a decision tree is used 

to assign cases to detectives, light duty officers, or volunteers, based on the 

severity of the case and prior domestic violence incidents. 

Related research by Jacqueline Campbell and Daniel Sanders, At least two 

departments, Chicago and Boston, have used the work of Jacqueline Campbell to inform 

their approaches to identifying high risk cases. Ms. Campbell's work has been recently 

summarized in her edited book, Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, 

Batterers, and Child Abusers (1995, Sage Publications). Campbell's book looks at factors 

of interpersonal violence from the point-of-view of clinicians, and presents risk 

instruments and procedures most useful in clinical prediction. The contributors to the 

book stress that statistical methods of prediction are in various stages of development, 

and are inexact and imprecise -- and likely to stay that way, since domestic assault, and 

particularly domestic homicide, is a relatively rare event in their eyes. The authors do 

conclude that one of the best predictors of interpersonal violence is the history of 

violence in each relationship -- a truism that is not terribly helpful in preventing assaults. 

One chapter by Daniel Saunders reviews risk markers for wife assault (not 

predictors -- these markers are correlated with, but not assumed to cause wife assault). 

9 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
i 

t 

1 

These risk markers are violence in the family of origin, demographics (particularly 

income and education), alcohol abuse, behavioral deficits, psychopathology, violence 

toward children, anger, stress, depression, low self-esteem, and antisocial traits. These 

factors may be assessed with instruments (e.g., the Conflict Tactics Scale, Michigan 

Alcohol Screening Test, Attitudes Toward Women Scale, etc.), specialist's evaluations, 

police and victim reports, and direct questions of the offender. Yet Saunders concludes, 

"Those working in treatment and criminal justice settings need to realize that predictions 

cannot currently be made with any great certainty. Researchers one day may produce 

more precise prediction formulas that practitioners can use to avert tragedy" (p. 90). 

Campbell's chapter on predicting homicide of and by battered women directly 

addresses Seattle's interest in determining lethality. While she notes that warning signs 

for homicide in battering situations are based on research and clinical experience, none 

have been subjected to psychometric testing and the predictive validity of the only test 

developed for assessing lethality has not been established. Again, Campbell focuses on 

clinical prediction, yet recognizes that the criminal justice system may use clinician's 

predictions in decisions about incarceration and sentencing. In her brief review of 

"danger signs" identified by other researchers, the risk factors include a mix of criminal 

history indicators and other variables readily available to law enforcement (serious injury 

in prior abusive incidents, proximity of victim and offender, etc.) and a good number of 

clinical indicators, such as attitudes toward violence, isolation, general mental 

functioning, fantasies of homicide or suicide, obsessiveness about partner, rage, 

depression, etc. 

Campbell presents the copyrighted Danger Assessment instrument in her book, 

along with its psychometric results to date. The instrument includes two sections: (1) 

asking the battered woman to mark the dates over the past year when her partner beat 

her, and rate the severity of each incident in approximate hours and extent of abuse 

(from slapping to wounds from weapons), and (2) a 15-item checklist covering increases 

in the frequency and severity of violence, choking, presence of guns, forced sex, use of 

drugs, threats to kill, alcohol abuse, controlling behavior, beating while pregnant, 

jealousy, suicide threats and attempts, violence toward children, and violence outside the 

home. 

Because the scale has undergone limited testing on its reliability and validity, and 

has neither cutoff scores (for determining at what numerical score a case requires 

intervention) or methods to weight items, Campbell concludes that it should be used 

primarily as a basis for discussions with battered women by advocates, social workers, 

and psychologists. She feels it could be used only for informal prediction discussions 

with probation officers or other court officers; use by law enforcement is not mentioned. 

Campbell concludes her chapter with a listing of risk factors identified by a "majority of 

experts." They are: 

Access to/ownership of guns 

10 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Use of weapon in prior abusive incidents 

Threats with weapon(s) 

Threats to kill 

Serious injury in prior abusive incidents 

Threats of suicide 

Drug or alcohol abuse 

Forced sex of female partner 

Obsessiveness/extreme jealousy/extreme dominance 

The Duluth, Minnesota, Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Additional 

information on assessing risk was gathered from experts in Duluth, Minnesota. Battered 

women's advocates in Duluth have been national leaders in the handling of domestic 

violence cases for the past two decades, since domestic violence was recognized as a law 

enforcement problem rather than simply a family matter. Their work has evolved into 

the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), an independent organization currently 

headed by Ellen Pence, which coordinates and monitors the work of the justice system in 

intervening in domestic violence problems. Since Larry Sherman's seminal work in 

Minneapolis in 1984, the law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in nearby Duluth 

have become #national leaders in policies of mandatory arrest and victimless prosecution 

(also known as "no-drop" prosecution). The police department, city attorney's office, and 

victim advocates have worked together over the past decade or so to combat domestic 

violence. 

The DAIP currently has a grant from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) to 

screen and assess domestic violence cases, to test whether a focused, coordinated 

community response to specific cases, based on additional assessments of risk factors, can 

prevent further violence. The DAIP staff are working on ways to use risk factors to try 

to identify who is in most danger, and intervene appropriately. 

At present, the DAIP-is opposed to formal ranking methods or assigning 

numerical scores to cases to assess dangerousness. They do, however, want to do some 

real-world testing -- Le., if methods are developed to identify victims who have a serious 

chance of being harmed, if tracked over time, are those victims indeed harmed? The 

staff feel there are no real predictors of being killed. After several years of having no 

domestic homicides in Duluth, they have had six recently -- all situations with no prior 

risk indicators and no domestic violence agencies aware of the potential danger. On the 

other hand, the DAIP hopes that "getting more people to know more" will lead to more 

effective help and less violence. 

The agencies and groups involved in the CDC grant include the police 

department, probation department, court administrator, men's education project, victim 

advocates, public health nurses who do home visits, social workers, and employee 

assistance counselors. The group reviewed 26 risk factors that appear to be related to 

future violence, based on the work of Jacqueline Campbell and Daniel Saunders. A 

11 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 

I 

i 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

i 

I 

1 

I 

checklist of 10 risk factors was developed for officers' use at the scene of a domestic 

violence incident. Officers are asked to check "yes", "no", or "don't know" for each risk 

factor, plus write narratives where additional explanation may be helpful. The 10 risk 

factors/questions are (a copy appears in the Duluth Police Department's Domestic 

Abuse Related Incident Worksheet, attached in Appendix C): 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

Are there guns or other weapons in the home? (describe) 

Does the suspect drink excessively, or use cocaine, crack heroin, or similar drugs? 

Does the suspect seem pre-occupied or obsessed with the victim (following, 

constant phone calling, having others check on whereabouts, extreme jealousy)? 

Is the suspect threatiring to kill or severely harm the victim/others? 

Does the suspect have immediate access to, or carry weapons? (how, what kind) 

Has suspect ever attempted or threatened suicide? .. 

I. 

Has suspect experienced any unusually high stress recently? (loss of job, death, 

health problem, work problem, financial crisis) 

Has the victim ever called the police prior to this incident? 

Does the victim believe the suspect may seriously injure or kill her? 

Has there been a recent separation/OFP/divorce in the past six months? 

At the present time, the DAIP and its participating agencies are studying the -- 

information gathered and determining the best use of it. The police officers are using 

the information informally to determine whether follow-up efforts should be made and to 

identify cases for investigation. The DAIP is trying to follow up on cases and track them 

through the crimina justice system. In the long run, it is hoped that additional 

information on domestic violence cases will enable police, prosecutors, and advocates to 

notice potential danger, devote additional resources to these cases, and become more 

prevention-oriented. 

While the DAIP research project is underway, it is worth noting that the risk 

factors listed above are not incident specific. Officers (and presumably soon public 

health nurses, employee assistance counselors, and others who have contact with victims) 

must ask additional questions beyond the usual incident reporting. At present, there is 

no mandatory reporting of suspected domestic violence by the medical community, and 

emergency room personnel, hospital staff, and physicians are not yet part of the project. 

The DAIP project is scheduled to be completed at the end of 1998, and should provide 

12 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
useful information on risk assessments at that time. 

Gavin de Becker’s work. Gavin de Becker, a threat assessment expert, has 

developed a computer-assisted assessment system called Mosaic-20, to assess how 

dangerous a domestic abuser may be. The system is commercially available, and built on 

de Becker’s prior work in assessing potential threats to major corporate figures, 

celebrities, and public officials and assessing workplace violence. Descriptions of the 

Mosaic programs are contained in Appendix D. 

The domestic violence risk assessment system is based on behavioral patterns -- 

behavioral patterns of a particular abuser are statistically compared to the behaviors of 

perpetrators in thousands of domestic homicides, resulting in two scores. One score 

measures dangerousness on a scale of 1 to 10. The second, known as the IQ, rates from 

0 to 200 the amount of information available. The behavioral patterns of a particular 

abuser are measured by asking the victim 48 questions2 related to risk factors, which 

have been selected and reviewed by statistical and expert opinion means. According to a 

representative of de Becker’s office, the 48 questions are factuaily based and follow up 

questions (which appear on exploded windows) are designed to produce reliable scores.. 

While the full list of questions is proprietary, several examples were provided that 

demonstrate their relationship to known risk factors: How has the abuser accepted a 

separation from the victim? Has he acquired a firearm recently? Is the victim 

financially dependent on the abuser? Has the court issued a stay-away order? 

In late 1906, a field test of the Mosaic-20 program was to begin in divisions within 

the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department and Los Angeles Police Department (see LA 

Times article in Appendix D). A representative from the Los Angeles Sheriffs 

Department provided information on the purpose and use of the system, which it 

implemented in one division in October 1996 for cases with suspects currently custody. 

The purpose of their field test, confirmed by de Becker’s office, is not to assess the 

accuracy of the risk program, but to test its practical application by law enforcement and 

other parts of the criminal justice system. De Becker’s office adds that the field test in 

the sheriffs department and LAPD will test the impact of high volume on the program. 

Both stress the risk score is not a predictor of future violence, but provides a measure of 

how much the situation brought to the attention of authorities because of a domestic 

violence incident is like others that escalated to homicide. The risk score is not incidentspecific, but assesses the nature of a domestic situation, taking into account past and 

present behaviors. Thus, to the extent it is used to guide actions taken in present cases, 

it may be challenged in court. The sheriffs department also reports it is designed for 

’Much of this information could be drawn from a police records, if good at-thescene information has been collected and follow-up investigations have been done, but 

additional information on past incidents, related behavior, etc., is gathered from the 

victim. 

13 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
use only in cases with male batterers and female victims, due to a relative lack of 

homicide cases involving female or gay murderers. 

The sheriffs use of the risk program begins with deputies responding to a 

domestic violence incident, who ask 12-14 of the 48 questions routinely, as they are 

required on standard incident reports. If detectives are assigned, as they work the case 

they ask the victim all 48 questions and run the risk and IQ scores. The software is 

reported as easy to use and provides narratives of situation specific information. The 

sheriffs department reports they provide referrals and assistance to all domestic violence 

victims as a matter of course, but detectives may make an extra effort to help victims in 

high-scoring cases. The sheriffs representative noted that the cases scoring 8 to 10 were 

obvious high risk cases, which would have been noted without the program. Its value 

may come in its application to seemingly low-risk cases -- an example of one case was 

given in which the suspect had a spotless record, the current incident involved minimal 

injuries, yet the risk score was 10. As the case proceeded, the suspect proved to be very 

violent. 

A small number of cases have been "run through" the risk program to date. The. 

sheriffs department field test includes how other significant actors -- the district 

attorneys, judges, community-based victim resources, etc. -- use the risk program. Within 

each group, views of the risk program reportedly run the gamut from seeing it as a 

potentially useful tool to believing it is nonsense. De Becker's office and the sheriffs 

department envision many uses for the domestic violence risk program -- for allocating 

law enforcement resources to the most serious cases; prosecutors' use in evaluating filing 

decisions, releasing suspects, and setting bail conditions; probation/parole officers' use in 

setting probation conditions; judges' use in designing restraining orders and mandating 

treatment; and use by community resources in providing services to the victim. The 

district attorney's office is using the program independently as well, having volunteers 

interview victims. Assessment results are shared with the victim, along with appropriate 

assistance. 

The developers feel the risk program may be especially helpful in domestic 

violence cases in which the present incident is not severe -- but past and present 

behavioral patterns may reveal more potential for future fatal violence. Tests for 

accuracy, reliability, practical use, benefits of use, liability, and other legal and privacy 

concerns are needed before adoption of this promising approach occurs. A few 

questions to be explored include whether the program identifies cases more reliably than 

expert judgment, how the data are used, whether the use of the program violates privacy 

rights of suspects, and what responsibilities and liability agencies may have if they 

accurately identify high-risk situations (what knowledge and protection must be given to 

the victim?), misidentify low-risk as high-risk situations (i.e., the problem of false 

positives), or miss high-risk situations altogether (false negatives). 

14 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Implications for the Seattle Police Department 

As stated earlier, Seattle’s research program aims to develop an improved 

domestic violence information system to use in preventing the escalation of violence is 

clearly on the right track. The experiences of other police departments provide useful 

lessons in the content and use of DV systems. We offer the following suggestions based 

on the results of our search and survey: 

Database content: It appears that elaborate, comprehensive systems can store 

and produce valuable data, but system developers should be wary of developing a 

collection and reporting system that is more than what is needed by domestic 

violence units. Chicago and Boston developed detailed systems that ultimately 

proved to costly and cumbersome to maintain. In developing a system, the time 

and costs of ongoing data entry, data cleaning, and maintenance must be 

considered, as well as the users’ proficiencies and affinities for using computerized 

systems. Having said that, it appears that a useful domestic violence information 

system will contain basic incident report information, risk factors, and data useful 

for prosecutions without victim cooperation. The data may be gathered at the 

investigations by detectives. 

. 

crime Scene, through subsequent discussions with victims, and through .. 

Lethality tests: The development of instruments and formulas for assessing 

dangerousness and lethality are experimental at the present time. The results of 

efforts underway in Seattle, Duluth, Los Angeles, Chicago, Nashville, and Portland 

will be useful locally and nationally, and should be accompanied by rigorous 

research investigating predictive validity, reliability, ease of use, purpose of use, 

and potential harm of use. The warnings of advocacy experts, researchers, and 

police practitioners should be heeded in the application of risk assessments -- 

domestic homicides and domestic violence cases involving serious injury may 

occur in cases with no prior indicators, or cases with risk factors unknown to the 

police (such as a victim’s pregnancy). Gavin de Becker’s work represents the 

most sophisticated assessment of lethality in use, but many questions must be 

answered before it can be widely used. 

Evidence gathering: Supplementary forms may be necessary to improve evidence 

gathering at the scene of a domestic violence incident, as well as guiding 

subsequent investigation and follow ups with victims. Most incident reporting 

forms do not include all the risk factors necessary for determining future risk, nor 

do they include the types of information most helpful in victimless prosecution. 

Also, procedures and forms currently in place are not always properly and 

completely used. Training is necessary to ensure that officers gather useful and 

complete information at the scene of the incident, whether standard or 

supplemental forms are used. 

15 

I 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems 

' Part 11: Case Studies . 

. . .. . .. _. . .. 

I .. . 

.. .. . . ..: . ... . 

. .. .. 

.. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Boston Police Department 

Overview 

The Boston Police Department's domestic violence information systems are in a 

state of transition, moving from individual systems maintained by detectives assigned to 

domestic violence cases at the district level, to a department-wide Detective Case 

Management system which is not domestic violence-specific. Also of interest is a 

research project completed in late 1994, which examined the dynamics of domestic 

violence based on detailed case data from two of the ten police districts. Data analysis 

included the development of a profile of "offender dangerousness", but the predictive 

value of the resultant profile was not tested. The results of the research project have 

contributed to the development of the Detective Case Management system. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling 

The Boston Police Department has a Domestic Violence Unit, but domestic . 

violence officers .and detectives are assigned to one of the 10 police districts (there are 

actually eleven geographically defined districts, but two small ones are combined under 

one command structure). In 1995, 13,429 domestic violence incidents were reported to 

the Department; the felony/misdemeanor breakdown was not readily available. 

Restraining orders were issued in nearly half that number of cases (6,585 court orders 

were issued). The DVU includes 22 detectives, spread out over the ten districts. 

Incident handling and reporting procedures. At the present time, officers 

responding to domestic violence calls complete an incident report (a supplemental form 

is available also, but it is not specific to domestic violence cases). 

Relevant state, county, and city laws and policies. Massachusetts does not have 

mandatory reporting requirements for medical personnel to notify law enforcement 

agencies regarding suspected domestic violence victims. However, both the state public 

health department and medical association have trained their constituencies to identify 

and serve high-risk families. 

The Domestic Violence Information System 

The current domestic violence information system is a combination of (1) data 

entered and stored on the department's mainframe computer, drawn from incident 

reports, and (2) detectives' more-or-less individually maintained case management 

systems, which are district-based and typically built using Access or Lotus 1-2-3 software. 

These individual databases are used by detectives to track the status of cases, check 

whether the offender is a repeater, etc. The Detective Case Management system is a 

new system, not quite operational, created by a private vendor, Queues Enforth 

17 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Development Inc., within a Windows environment. This system will link together all 

detectives department-wide (e.g., not solely those working on domestic violence cases). 

This system and the database and analysis results from the 1994 project are described 

below. 

Database content and information sources. Data for the Detective Case 

Management system come from incident reports, and are entered by the Field Reports 

Unit (although decisions regarding who enters the data are currently in flux). According 

to the user’s manual, the following data are entered: 

Incident data -- date, times, clearance code, etc., based on NIBRS reporting codes 

and procedures. 

Offense data -- crimexategories, weapons used, etc., also based on NIBRS 

reporting codes and procedures. 

Victim and suspect data -- name, address, sex, age, date of birth, ethnicity, race, 

etc., (also based on NIBRS). 

Additional information such as relationship between victim and suspect, injury 

type, etc. 

.. I. 

Property data -- type of loss, description of items, etc. (based on NIBRS). 

MO data (method of operation) -- facts related to the incident. 

Case steps -- available steps and what has occurred. 

Database use. The Detective Case Management (DCM) system was developed 

after the 1994 research project on domestic violence. All detectives, as well as other 

personnel, can access the information, although safeguards provide different users with 

different levels of access. It will be used in similar fashion to the individually-maintained 

computer databases it is replacing -- to track the status of cases, review past history, etc. 

It also supports crime analysis, suspect description matching, and investigation 

management reporting. The system is designed to be flexible and expandable, built to 

allow interface with other Windows applications, including word processing. 

The DCM system also enables users to search cases by date range, suspect and 

victim information, MO facts, or other variables in the database. It also generates 

investigative reports containing comprehensive information. 

Domestic Violence Research Project 

In 1993, the Domestic Violence Research Project was initiated to examine the 

18 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
dynamics of domestic violence in two of the ten police districts, in order to determine 

how best to improve the police, prosecutorial, and social service response to domestic 

violence3. A key step of the project was to organize a Partnership Group composed of 

criminal justice agencies, community social service organizations, and advocacy groups. 

Members from the following agencies and groups were included: 

m Boston Police Office of Planning and Research 

Boston Police Bureau of Investigative Services 

Boston Police Academy 

Suffolk County District Attorney's Office 

Massachusetts Attorney General's Office 

Massachusetts Department of Probation 

Massachusetts Legislature 

Boston Women's Commission 

Public health care professionals 

University researchers 

Victim advocate groups 

Child Advocate groups 

To analyze the dynamics of domestic violence cases, two databases were 

constructed using dBase IV and analyzed using SPSS: (1) a retrospective sample of 

1,000 randomly selected domestic violence incidents occurring in 1993 in the two test 

districts and (2) a prospective sample consisting of 1,152 incidents reported in May, June, 

and July 1994. The databases contained 125 and 128 variables, respectively, drawn from: 

Incident reports, and (for 1993) any available follow-up investigation reports 

completed by the DV detectives. For the 1994 sample, additional information was 

obtained from victims involved current cases, through the detectives, including 

whether victims were still living with their offenders, whether they had taken the 

officers' advice and obtained a restraining order, whether drugs or alcohol had 

been involved in the incident, and whether their children had witnessed the 

violence. A "commentst' field also enabled detectives to provide additional 

information on warrants issued and hearings scheduled after the incident. A list 

of the variables for 1994 are attached, along with a Victim Interview Form used 

by detectives during the DV project. 

The Massachusetts Criminal History Systems Board, which provided detailed 

criminal history information and data on court arraignments and sentencing. 

%is information is drawn from the Final Activities Report of the Domestic 

Violence Research Project, written by Pamela Kelley and Patrice O'Brien, which has 

been provided to the principal investigator. 

19 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, which reviewed each case's court 

data and added information on judges' and prosecutors' names, reasons for 

dismissal (if appropriate), and any other noteworthy information. 

The prospective database was copied into the DV detective's computers within 

their districts, to serve as a current case management system. 

Analyses and Findings. Simple descriptive analyses were performed on the 2,152 

domestic violence incidents contained in the databases, broken down by district. For 

each district for each year, a case profile, victim profile, and offender profile were 

presented; the data summarized in each profile are: 

= Case profile -- offender status (arrested, warrant issued, etc.), court outcomes for 

offenders arrested on-site and by warrant, contact with DV detectives, restraining 

order violations, restraining orders issued, number of similar incidents between 

the same parties (there were none in 5571% of the incidents), presence of 

children at the scene, primary reported crime, weapons information, witness 

information (present or not, adult or minor), use of drugs and/or alcohol, 

property damage, and the number of incidents by sector car and reporting area: 

= Victim profile -- age, race, gender, employment, marital status, injury information 

(injured or not), type of medical treatment (ER, hospital, refused, not necessary), 

location of injury (head/face, arms, back, chest, abdomen, legs), referrals to 

shelters and victim services, and transportation to safe locations. 

Offender profile -- age, race, gender, relationship to the victim, living 

arrangements, arrest information, criminal history prior to the incident, criminal 

history between the incident and when the criminal record check was made. 

Criminal history was broken down by the crime categories of violent, non-violent, 

domestic violence, drug/alcohol related, and firearms offenses. 

Supplemental analyses were also completed, including analyses of cases involving 

on-site arrests, prosecuted cases, cases resulting in restraining orders, an offender 

dangerousness profile (consisting of cases in which victims were injured), cases involving 

elderly or pregnant victims, cases resulting in jail sentences, and cases resulting in child 

abuse reports. Although the final report presents "findings" and "implications for 

criminal justice operations", the findings are actually the analysis results and the 

implications suggest that the agencies and groups within the Partnership Group formed 

for the project should use the results as they see fit. Some recommendations are: that a 

domestic violence program be developed in specific neighborhoods and housing 

developments accounting for high levels of reported incidents, that the police 

department, district attorney, and attorney general's office use information obtained on 

offendcrs with prior multiple victims for further investigation and action, that detectives 

target repeat offenders, and that the police and prosecutors look closely at the high rate 

20 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
of case dismissal to improve evidence gathering and re-examine prosecution strategies. 

f 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

The Offender Dangerousness Profile is most relevant to the Seattle Police 

Department’s Domestic Violence Project. Dangerous offenders were defined as 

offenders who inflicted injury on their victims. Cases with injury were selected and 

descriptive analyses were performed; no predictive tests related to future actions of these 

offenders were performed. No statistical tests were reported either, but simple 

percentages indicate some differences between cases with injury and cases without injury, 

providing some information on risk factors potentially useful in predicting dangerousness. 

Cases with injury were more likely to involve male offenders, more likely to involve 

current boyfriend/girlfriend relationships than past ones, more likely to involve similar 

incidents between the parties, more likely to involve parties living together, and more 

’ likely to involve offenders with criminal histories. 

Other lessons come from the Boston Police Department’s research project. 

Although the final report concluded that the project produced a case management and 

tracking tool for domestic violence detectives, one that may also be easily replicated in 

other cities, the database has not been maintained at the Boston Police Departmentand 

did not go beyond the end of the pilot study. The department did not have the resources 

to continue to gather and enter the data and maintain the system as designed; rather, it 

has moved to the smaller and simpler Detective Case Management system. At the end 

of the research project, however, Cambridge Police Department had initiated the 

development of a domestic violence case management system similar to that developed 

in the research effort. 

The research project also summarized the implementation problems they 

encountered, which included missing data on police incident reports and difficulties in 

obtaining criminal history information due to incomplete names, dates of birth, and 

social security numbers. Due to a delay in the department implementing a wide area 

computer network, detectives were not linked, and case data had to be physically 

downloaded to their computers in person on a weekly basis. Finally, the researchers had 

looked to MAPINFO software to provide new insights into domestic violence, but 

mapping DV incidents did not provide new knowledge beyond what had already been 

obtained. 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

The project’s final report celebrates the formation of the Partnership Group, and 

it appears that the agencies do communicate with each other on domestic violence 

matters of mutual concern. The police department reports that prosecutors provide 

feedback on domestic violence cases on a case-by-case basis, and the it does encourage 

victimless prosecution. 

21 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

Chicago Police Department 

Overview 

In late 1992, the Chicago Police Department initiated an experimental, grantfunded project to reduce domestic homicides in a single police district. The project 

funded pairs of police officers and civilian counselors to follow-up on high-risk 

households; the households were to be identified by a very sophisticated Domestic 

Violence Intervention System (DVIS) developed by a private firm, InfoMaker, Inc. 

Among other capabilities, the DVIS used risk factors to produce a composite score for 

individuals and households; the score was designed to pinpoint households where 

domestic violence could escalate, creating a ranked list for law enforcement agencies and 

social service providers to work with. 

The police department’s Domestic Violence Unit, however, found the system too 

slow and labor intensive to work with, never used the risk scores, and is currently 

developing their own domestic violence information system. The new system will soon. 

incorporate data ,collected on a new incident report designed specifically for domestic 

violence cases, and it is part of the department’s computerized crime mapping system. 

The development of a weighting system for risk factors is also underway. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling 

The Chicago Police Department handles 150,000 domestic violence incidents per 

year, with 44,000 becoming criminal cases. The Domestic Violence Unit was established 

in July 1996, and currently has just two staff members. The Unit has plans to dedicate 

detectives to the DW in the future. Coinciding with the creation of the DVU is a new 

project which seeks to link beat officers with community-based services for victims 

providing immediate access at the time of the DV call. The department found that the 

pairing of officers and counselors in the experimental effort introduced above was not 

workable or cost-effective, due to the fluctuation of calls. The experience, however, led 

the department to the new project aiming to have services available at any time, noon or 

midnight. The Domestic Violence Unit also houses a one-of-a-kind program, where 

victim services are provided specifically for domestic violence victims where the suspect 

is a Chicago Police Department officer. 

Incident handling and reporting procedures. When an officer responds to a 

domestic violence call, the officer currently completes either a crime report or an 

auxiliary card, if the officer determines that no crime was committed. At the present 

time, no supplemental form is completed, but two developments are underway. The 

department is developing a new incident report for domestic violence (see below), with 

input from domestic violence advocates; factors related to assessing risk are included. A 

Domestic Violence Council is being formed, encompassing law enforcement, public 

22 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
health, and victim advocacy representatives. One aim of the DV Council is to develop a 

way to weight risk factors to determine if follow-up is needed at particular households. 

If households are identified as high risk, response will come from multi-agency teams. 

Relevant state, county, and city laws and policies. Illinois passed a 

comprehensive Domestic Violence Act in 1984 which included the specification of the 

wide range of relationships inherent in domestic violence situations. While hospitals 

have to report cases of suspected battery to law enforcement agencies, this is not 

dependent on the relationship between the parties. 

Neither state law nor department mandate arrest if the victim does not wish to 

sign a complaint. Officers must make an arrest for violations of protection orders and 

violations of the "72-hour prohibition" -- an arrested offender cannot return home or 

have any contact with the victim for 72 hours after the incident. Victims must be offered 

referral information about advocacy agencies, and must be given a copy of the incident 

report and information sheet. 

The Domestic Violence Information Systems 

The two domestic violence systems developed for or by the Chicago Police 

Department are described below. They are the private-vendor developed Domestic 

Violence Intervention System (DVIS) and the department's own (ICAM) system. 

DVIS: Database content and information sources. A detailed, six-page brochure 

is appended which describes the DVIS (Appendix E). DVIS currently runs on a UNIX 

operating system using Informix, relational database software. This software can handle 

enormous amounts of information, such as a million domestic violence cases. The 

developer would like to see the system adopted by other police departments, and could 

program it to run on a Windows platform. 

When developed for the Chicago Police Department in late 1993, data for the 

DVIS were gathered from two sources, the CPD's 911 system and the case reporting 

system (based on crime reports). Data were downloaded from these two systems, and 

uploaded into the DVIS, and new case information was to be entered continually by 

police officers. 

The DVIS contains the following information, all of it obtained from police 

databases or entered by the police officers: 

= General offense and 911 call data, by address and specific persons. 

Domestic violence incident data, including demographic and relationship 

information, addresses, phone numbers, arrest history, and intervention history 

data. 

23 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Tracking information on interventions, advocacy counseling, shelters, and other 

protective services provided to victims. 

For the Chicago Police Department, the system was designed for the use of police 

officers and civilian counselors working with them on domestic violence cases. Thus, all 

data would be entered by police department staff. However, the system is capable of 

being linked to other computers or workstations within or outside of the police 

department, with appropriate security safeguards to keep individuals users from seeing or 

modifying data outside of their authority. It would be possible to have computers in the 

police department and victim advocacy organization, for example, linked to share case 

information. 

DVIS: Database use. The DVIS system was designed for several functions. 

According to its brochure arid developer, information can be retrieved in virtually any 

way -- by beat, type of crime, location, suspect, victim, date, etc. DVIS provides 

reporting and query capabilities that enable users to investigate the domestic violence 

history of an address or suspect; examine incident and call patterns; track intervention 

attempts, shelter use, and advocacy services; and provide management information an. 

progress and services provided. The system can be set up so that certain users can see 

and modify only certain portions of the data -- so that law enforcement officers cannot 

view sensitive treatment data and counselors cannot see or alter any criminal history 

information, for example. 

The DVIS system reportedly has the capability of evaluating the degree of risk an 

individual or household has of further violence, by weighting and combining eight to 

twelve risk factors into a single composite score. The composite scores enables the user 

to rank individuals or locations according to risk. Unfortunately, the developer of the 

system considers the risk formula and specific factors used to be proprietary information 

and would not divulge this information unless the department is seriously interested in 

adopting the system. The developer did report that the risk factors are the "usual" ones, 

including the number of 911 calls, whether a protective order is active, and past gun 

usage. Jacqueline Campbell, author of Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexuul 

Offenders, Barterers, and Child Abusers, served as an advisor and trainer to the Chicago 

Police Department on how to spot high-risk families when the project pairing officers 

and counselors began. It is likely that Campbell's work was also used to design the risk 

selection feature of DVIS. 

The DVIS looks powerful, flexible, and useful for a Domestic Violence Unit 

interested in traclung, predicting, and understanding domestic violence. Unfortunately, 

the system has not been tested in the field. The key users within the Chicago Police 

Department found that the software did not meet their needs, and have never used it or 

tested the risk selection feature. They say it is too labor intensive for data entry, and 

just too slow and cumbersome -- too many screens, too many databases, etc. to go 

through -- to access information. They do not know whether the "correct" risk factors 

24 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
were used to develop composite scores, or how well the scores predicted further 

violence; this application was never tried. The CPD users also reported that the 

proprietary nature of the software was a problem. If they wanted to produce a report 

that wasn’t preplanned and built into DVIS, they had to contact the vendor for 

programming assistance. The DVIS was developed using Informix and could be altered 

only by the vendor. After this experience, the CPD began developing their own tracking 

system, as described below. No other police department has adopted the DVIS, 

although the vendor has advertised the system in law enforcement magazine and 

contacted a number of departments directly. 

ICAM: Database content and information sources. The Research and 

Development Unit of the Chicago Police Department is nearing the end of the 

development of an enhanced domestic violence database which is incorporated into 

ICAM (Integrated Collection for Automated Mapping), the department’s automated 

mapping system. The department wanted a simple, accessible system that met both the 

department’s and state’s needs. 

A new form is being developed to replace the department’s incident report forms 

(called General Offense Reports) for domestic violence cases. If an officer responds to a 

domestic disturbance, whether or not a crime has been committed, the officer must 

complete the new form in lieu of a General Offense Report. A preliminary report form 

(the Domestic Violence Incident Report, Appendix E) has been developed. In addition 

to commonly found information such as the victim and suspect’s names and 

demographics, the following variables are included: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

If hospitalization is required. 

If children were present, how many, and if children were injured. 

Whether a protection order is in effect. 

Whether firearms are present in the household and whether they have been 

inventoried. 

Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse. 

Whether referrals were offered, accepted, and made, including the name of the 

referral agency. 

Whether the victim would like to be contacted at a later date. 

If no arrest was made, why. 

Officers must also record detailed facts (e.g., injuries, torn clothing, property damage, 

reasons for no arrest) in the narrative of the report. This preliminary form is already 

being revised before use, to include domestic incidents that do not involve violence, but 

may involve domestic burglary or other domestic incidents. In this way, a total picture of 

a household can be obtained (Le., the household may have called the police ten times in 

a year -- twice without alleging crimes and eight times where no crime is alleged or some 

other crime has occurred; in the current system, only the two crime-related calls would 

have been noted). 

25 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

ICAM: Database use. Within a month, the ICAM will be connected to the 

database containing reported crime data, case reports, and arrest data. Eventually, the 

ICAM system will also be connected to the 911 system. 

The ICAM system can be searched by individual or location. Because it has 

mapping capabilities, the system can map the locations of domestic violence cases given 

certain parameters -- such as the households with three domestic violence calls in the 

past six months. The spatial location of domestic violence calls can also be viewed in 

relation to the locations of other reported crime incidents and physical features such as 

bus stops, public housing, etc. 

The ICAM system currently maps households at risk based on the number of 

dispatch calls related to domestic violence. A Domestic Violence Council is being 

formed, composed of law enforcement officers, victim advocates, and health officials, and 

one of their aims is to use the new form used by officers at the scene to gather 

information on risk factors (particularly evidence of alcohol/drug use, firearms in the 

household, children in the household, injuries to children, and extent of victim’s injuries), 

used to determine if additional follow-up services are necessary, and the vested groups 

would respond as a community if a household is determined to be at risk. 

that could then be weighted to identify high risk households. The risk scores would be -I 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

The Domestic Violence Coordinator reports that the department has excellent 

with the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, which handles both felonies and 

misdemeanors. The police department and State’s Attorney have conducted joint 

training for their staffs in domestic violence, and police representatives service on the 

prosecutor’s domestic violence task force. The disposition of individual cases is not 

received, nor felt to be needed, since detectives interact regularly with prosecutors. 

Cook County also has a separate Domestic Violence Court which handles all domestic 

violence-related cases. 

26 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Metro-Dade (Miami) Police Department 

Overview 

The Metro-Dade Police Department, Miami, Florida, has recently developed a 

good, solid domestic violence database that enables the department to produce a wide 

variety of useful reports on domestic violence cases. The database contains information 

contained on incident reports and subsequent case handling. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling 

The Domestic Crimes Bureau was created recently within the Miami Police 

Department; previously, there were separate domestic violence units in each police 

district. The Department receives about 2,500 domestic dispute calls per month 

(30,00O/year) in all categories -- disturbances, arguments, minor assaults, etc. The 

Domestic Crimes Bureau handles the approximately 9,000 domestic cases a year in which 

an assault took place; approximately two-thirds (6,000) of them are misdemeanors. The 

Bureau staff includes 24 detectives who are assigned to felonies for investigation or 

follow-up; misdemeanor cases are handled by uniformed personnel. The Bureau tries to 

follow-up with each victim, and is looking to shift some of those responsibilities to 

volunteers. The department does not attempt to prioritize cases or determine lethality 

or dangerousness. 

Incident handling and reporting procedures. Officers responding to domestic 

violence calls complete a standard incident report. No supplemental forms are used, 

although the department is looking into adopting the form used by the San Diego Police 

Department. No special domestic violence case handling procedures were reported. 

The Bureau does try to maintain "victim consistency", assigning repeat cases to the 

detective who handled the prior incident. This is accomplished with the help of 

information produced by the database, and is done to build trust and rapport between 

the detective and the victim. 

Relevant state, county, and city laws and policies. The state of Florida does not 

have mandatory reporting requirements for medical personnel to report suspected cases 

of domestic violence to law enforcement agencies, but does promote victimless 

prosecution. The Metro-Dade Police Department supports victimless prosecution when 

a case meets the prosecutor's criteria; prosecutors subpoena reluctant witnesses and 

proceed to prosecute without victim cooperation as necessary. 

The Domestic Violence Information System 

The domestic violence database within the Domestic Crimes Bureau was 

27 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
developed recently -- it became operational on May 6, 1996. It is a free-standing system 

within the Bureau, maintained on a PC using Access software through Windows. The 

Bureau would like to put the DV database on the department's mainframe, to enable it 

to be networked with others. There are concerns, however, about incorporating the DV 

database into the 911 system, due to the potential for corrupting or altering data. 

As described below, the system is comprehensive in content and is used to 

produce a variety of reports and analyses useful to the Domestic Crimes Bureau. All 

domestic disputes in which a crime has been committed are entered into the database. 

The database is only limited in time, due to its recent development. Past data were not 

entered, so information on prior incidents is limited. 

Database content and information sources. The database is built primarily from 

information reported on the department's regular incident report, plus additional 

information added by detectives as investigations proceed. The detectives enter the basic 

information (a five to seven minute task), then update it as necessary over time. All 

data are generated by the detectives, based on law enforcement and prosecutor 

information. No data is routinely collected from outside the department except for . 

prosecutor information. 

The following data are entered: 

Case data -- case number, incident date, location (district and grid), primary and 

secondary offense/incident, detective name and badge number, case call-out status 

(a "call-out" means a detective was off-duty at the time of the call (no detectives 

are on-duty between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.) and was called in to respond to the 

case), case assignment status, assignment date, primary and secondary charge, 

relationship between the parties, whether weapons were used, number of children 

in household, evidence information (existence of photographs, weapons, medical 

reports, and dispatch tapes), whether the case was a referral from the State's 

Attorney's Office (SAO) or Health and Rehabilitation Services (HRS), 

miscellaneous case information. 

= Victim data -- name, address, date of birth or age, race, sex, ethnicity, home and 

business phone numbers, primary and secondary type of injury, type and location 

of treatment, additional victim information, information on additional victims. 

= Suspect data -- name, address, date of birth or age, race, sex, ethnicity, home and 

business phone numbers, whether suspect was at the scene when officers arrived, 

whether suspect was arrested, whether suspect was injured, additional subject 

information, information on additional suspects. 

= Follow-up information -- crime type (felony, misdemeanor, information), primary 

charge filed, type of clearance, Bureau case status. 

28 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The database includes secondary crirne/incident data, to enable the Bureau to 

track domestic violence cases in which other crimes have occurred as well. Prior to 

developing the in-house database, detectives did not always know, for example, that a 

person was the victim of burglary or other crime associated with the domestic violence 

situation. 

The variables used to produce a detailed case history are listed in Appendix F, 

along with copies of data entry screens. 

Database use. The domestic violence database was developed in-house to enable 

the Bureau to track and analyze domestic violence incidents and manage the detectives' 

workloads. Information can be extracted from the database by suspect, victim, incident, 

or other variable -- in short, the database can be lkearched by anything". The location 

information is entered in such a way that enables domestic violence incidents to be 

mapped. 

The Domestic Crimes Bureau uses the database for case management, statistical 

information, and crime analysis (to identify troubled areas, etc.). Fifteen reports are - . 

produced as needed for detectives and their management staff: 

Detective case reports -- four reports summarize (1) all felony, misdemeanor, or 

information reports assigned to a specific detective; (2) all felony, misdemeanor, 

or information reports assigned to the unit for investigation, with the number of 

cases and percentage per detective reported, (3) the assignment status of cases for 

all detectives, and (4) number of cases by specific charges. 

. Demographic case reports -- five reports are used to summarize statistical data by 

(1) suspect's ethnicity, (2) nature of the victim/suspect relationship, (3) victim's 

race and gender, (4) suspect's race and gender, and (5) victim injury, treatment 

type, and treatment location. 

Other reports -- six reports provide information on (1) the total call-outs and 

percentage for each detective, (2) assignment status of felony cases, (3) 

assignment status of misdemeanor cases, (4) summary of other cases involving the 

same victim investigated by the Bureau, (5) summary of other cases involving the 

same suspect investigated by the Bureau, and (6) summary information organized 

by victim's zip code. 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

The Domestic Crimes Bureau detectives receive information from prosecutors 

concerning the disposition of individual cases. 

29 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Nashville Police Department 

Overview 

The Nashville Police Department Domestic Violence Unit’s is one of the largest 

in the country, and the Unit has worked in concert with all elements of the criminal 

justice system and domestic violence advocacy community to improve the handling of 

domestic violence cases. At the present time, the development of a sophisticated 

Investigative Case Management System is underway, which will provide the Unit with its 

own customized database. The Unit uses a Lethality Assessment Checklist to identify 

cases for further follow-up and assistance. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling 

The Nashville Police Department’s Domestic Violence Unit handles 15,000 to 

16,000 criminal cases annually, out of 22,000 domestic calls received. The Unit has 35 

personnel, including a Captain, a Lieutenant, four sergeants, 21 detectives, and four crisis 

counselors. They report excellent relations with other criminal justice system and 

domestic violence advocates, and have reduced the domestic homicide rate by 50% in 

three years (there were 25 domestic murders in 1993, 12 in 1995). 

Investigators are well-equipped to handle domestic violence cases in a state-ofthe-art manner. Each investigator has his or her own computer (laptop or desktop), 

three cameras (a Polaroid, a 35mm, and a video camera), and vehicle, and receives 80 

hours of advanced training. The Unit also owns household security systems that it can 

install immediately in a high-risk household. 

The Domestic Violence Information System 

At the present time, the Domestic Violence Unit depends on two primary sources 

of information -- the department’s mainframe computer which enables them to access 

prior cases, search for criminal histories, etc., and files kept manually. The department’s 

research division is presenting developing an Investigators Case Management System for 

personal computers, using FoxPro software. 

Database content and information sources. When the system is ready (it is being 

designed down and data are limited on its full contents and capabilities), data will be 

downloaded from the department’s mainframe, to include domestic violence incidents 

going back to 1993. The system will be based on incident reports, which include basic 

case information, plus data on whether weapons and alcohol/drugs are involved. The 

system will be able to searched any way desired -- by location, date, victim’s name, etc. 

The Lethality Assessment form is used to identify cases in which a cluster of 

30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

f 

1 

events have occurred. It is reportedly a simple question/answer checklist completed by 

detectives (a copy was not made available), filed with the case records, and shown to the 

victim. In cases "scoring high", detectives and crisis counselors will give extra assistance 

to the victim, counseling her or him about security, developing a safety plan, etc. 

Database use. Specialized uses of the future database are unknown. Detectives 

are likely to use the database for case tracking and investigation, including identifying 

repeat cases for special attention. 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

As stated above, Nashville has a well-coordinated, multi-agency response to 

domestic violence. The prosecutors' office has its own Domestic Violence Unit, which 

includes victim/witness coordinators. Three courts have been designated as domestic 

violence courts, with judges specially trained. Four probation officers concentrate solely 

on domestic violence offenders, and the city has four batterers programs, including a year 

long treatment program, a school-based program, and one specifically for AfricanAmericans. Two shelters house victims, and plans are underway to increase the numbef 

of beds available, City-wide training has taken place to increase the awareness and 

cooperation of counselors, emergency room personnel, paramedics, and others who work 

with domestic violence victims. 

Prosecutors are now more apt to prosecute without victim cooperation than they 

were in the past, due in part to the police DVU's ability to prepare quality cases. Police 

officers and detectives collect and send forward such evidence as photographs, 

audiotapes, videotapes, 911 calls, threatening phone calls (recorded with the victim's 

permission), testimony from counselors and paramedics, and spontaneous utterances. 

31 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Portland Police Bureau 

Overview 

The Portland, Oregon, Police Bureau’s domestic violence information system 

begins with incident reports from the Bureau’s central reporting database, which are 

augmented by data added by the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit, using a small, inhouse computer system designed to serve the Unit’s needs. The Bureau has also worked 

recently with a group of agencies concerned with domestic violence in an attempt to link 

them together via a single information system. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling 

The Portland Police Bureau’s Domestic Violence Reduction Unit is housed within 

the Family Services Division. The Family Services Division has eleven sworn and nine 

non-sworn staff providing twenty separate programs. The Domestic Violence Reduction . Unit has one sergeant, six officers, and one non-sworn personnel. This Unit reviews 

approximately ‘6500 police reports annually regarding domestic violence; about 80% of 

these are misdemeanors. The Unit conducts follow up investigations, assists victims in 

obtaining restraining orders, and focuses on attempting to break the cycle of violence. 

Incident handling and reporting procedures. Portland Police Bureau officers use 

standard incident reporting forms only, and the Bureau’s statistician notes that the 

Domestic Violence Unit’s information system can only be as good as the evidence 

gathered and recording that occur at the scene of a DV incident. 

Relevant state, county, and city laws and policies. Oregon does not have a 

mandatory requirement that medical personnel and facilities report suspected domestic 

violence incidents to law enforcement agencies. The state’s mandatory reporting 

requirements pertain to child and elder abuse only; the latter category may involve some 

domestic violence incidents. A positive benchmark of the state’s position, however, is 

that the state Health Bureau has recognized domestic violence as a community problem. 

Mandatory arrest policies are promulgated by the state to all law enforcement 

agencies. The Portland Police Bureau upholds a mandatory arrest policy given probable 

cause; arrests are made in cases where there has been an assault, typically with evidence 

of injury. 

The Domestic Violence Information System 

The Domestic Violence Reduction Unit maintains its small domestic violence 

database on a personal computer, using Paradox software. The Bureau’s primary 

reporting system is maintained on a mainframe, and contains a DV code which enables 

32 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 

domestic violence calls to be extracted from it as necessary. The reliability and validity 

of the DV code are unknown, but the DVR Unit subscribes to the detailed and broad 

definition of domestic violence developed by the county's Family Violence Intervention 

Services Committee (see Appendix G). MAPINFO software is used for crime mapping, 

and the Statistical Support Unit is working to make the mapping system available to all 

units. 

Database content and information sources. The DVR Unit uses hard-copy 

incident reports and individual case cover sheets (rather than data downloaded from the 

mainframe) to obtain identifying information for domestic violence victims and suspects. 

The Unit then enters information on seven specific variables: whether children are 

present, whether weapons were involved, prior victimization, whether the victim is under 

the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether the suspect is under the influence of alcohol 

or drugs, the suspect's prior record, and whether the suspect was arrested and is in 

custody or not. 

Database use. The DVR Unit uses the data in their system to track caseloads, 

conduct investigations, and analyze trends and indicators over time. Routine reports arenot produced -2 rather the system is used as needed for investigation and management. 

A central goal of the Unit is to reduce recidivism, so the computer system is used to 

track repeat offenders. The system is incident-based, but can be used to look up 

information on an individual. 

The DVR Unit does not apply a quantitative risk formula to domestic violence 

cases, but uses the seven critical variables in a broad way. If a case exhibits a high 

number of these seven risk factors (no firm cutoff is used), it will receive a higher 

priority than others. Repeat offenders, in particular, are a focused target of the Unit. 

The state of Oregon maintains current information on restraining orders, which is 

available to officers as they respond to calls. An enhanced 911 system is also used to 

"flag" dangerous addresses; officers' subjective information may also be used in a similar 

manner. Flagging particular addresses is intended to provide officers with current 

knowledge of location-specific problems, in order to adopt additional safety measures 

and respond appropriately. Domestic violence "flags" are often short-term -- for 

example, an officer may receive information that a former victim's ex-boyfriend is in the 

area and making threats against his ex-girlfriend. In this instance, if a call comes in from 

the girlfriend's "flagged" address, not only will the responding officers have this 

information in route, they are apt to be backed up by additional officers and get a faster 

response. 

The Portland Police Bureau recently participated in a project supported by federal 

Byrne funds (block grant monies from BJA). The purpose of the project was to develop 

the means to link agencies concerned with domestic violence to one centralized database, 

so that the agencies could tap into the computerized database to examine a case 

33 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
wherever it may be in the system. The participating agencies included the police Bureau, 

91 1, booking, the district attorney's office, courts, and probation/parole. This project 

was separate from the work of the regional Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, 

which wants to see the appropriate agencies linked within a generation. 

After a year of meeting and working together, the project ended without a linked 

system being developed. The agencies spent much of their time establishing a common 

definition of domestic violence across agencies. The Police Bureau reports that the 

agencies were generally in philosophical agreement about domestic violence case 

handling. Confidentiality issues remain a problem, although less so among the criminal 

justice agencies which have reciprocal agreements among themselves. Confidentiality -- 

and access to information -- remains an active issue for shelter providers. In the end, 

however, the main reasons for not developing a linked system revolved around a lack of 

funds for software development (no "off the shelf" software was located), data entry and 

programming, and system maintenance. A final project report is expected to be available 

in a month or two. 

.- 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

The Domestic Violence Unit regularly shares information with prosecutors and 

social service providers. The district attorney's office is county-based, handles both 

felonies and misdemeanors, and proceeds with victimless prosecutions where warranted. 

34 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
San Diego Police Department 

Overview 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

3 

The Domestic Violence Unit of the San Diego Police Department was established 

in August 1992. By formal policy, the department is pro-arrest and pro-prosecution with 

or without the victim’s cooperation. The Domestic Violence Unit maintains a database 

separate from the department’s official reporting system. The domestic violence 

database incorporates basic incident report and some supplemental data; no information 

from outside the department is contained in the database. The database appears to be 

used primarily for reporting and research purposes (such as analyzing trends) rather than 

case investigation and prosecution. A decision tree approach is used to assign cases to 

detectives, based primarily on the severity of the case and prior domestic violence 

incidents; lethality or risk is not quantitatively determined. 

Description of the Domestic Violence Unit and General Case Handling .- 

The SDPD Domestic Violence Unit was created in August 1992, and handles 

approximately 14,000 cases per year. About a third (31%) of the cases are felonies, 58% 

are misdemeanors, and 11% are determined to be non-criminal in nature. The Unit 

includes 19 detectives, who are assigned approximately 60% of the domestic violence 

cases -- all felonies, and misdemeanor cases in which the suspect is on domestic violence 

probation and has three or more domestic violence incidents in the past year. 

Misdemeanor cases in which the victim agrees to the suspect’s arrest (makes a citizen’s 

arrest, in effect) but the suspect is not on domestic violence probation are assigned to 

“light duty officers” (those on disability) for follow-up; these cases account for 16% of the 

DV cases. The remaining cases (24% of the total) are either (1) misdemeanor cases 

where the victim refuses to support the suspect’s arrest and the suspect is not on 

domestic violence probation or (2) non-criminal cases. These cases are followed up by 

volunteers supervised by light duty officers. 

Incident handling and reporting procedures. Officers responding to a domestic 

violence call complete a standard Crime/Incident Report (appended). Information from 

the Crime/Incident Report is entered into MIS, the county’s official uniform reporting 

system used for crime analysis and UCR reporting. The C/I Report includes a box to be 

checked if the incident is related to domestic violence. For all domestic violence cases 

in which an officer responds, a Domestic Violence Supplemental report is also required 

(see Appendix H). 

The official departmental policy concerning domestic violence cases is pro-arrest 

when probable cause exists that a felony crime has been committed. On April 7, 1995, 

Chief Jerry Sanders issued a Training Bulletin on domestic violence, clearly stating that 

domestic violence is one of the department’s highest priorities. The pro-arrest policy 

35 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
aims to stop the escalation of violence in the family and break the cycle of violence. 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

I 

Chief Sanders' bulletin also stresses certain on-scene procedures to be followed by 

officers. Officers are to "diligentlv evaluate the offense including injuries and potential 

injuries", as "the officer's evaluation of the victim's injuries is crucial to making the 

arrest". Visible injuries, including bruises and scratches, are to be photographed. 

Complaints of pain caused by possible internal injuries are to be documented by 

describing any physical symptoms (e.g., "doubled over and holding stomach"). Officers 

are also instructed to look for injuries common in self-defense cases, such as bite marks 

on the biceps or forearm and scratches on the face, chest, or neck. 

In incidents with potential felony charges (typically those with visible injuries -- 

see below), arrests are to be made. In misdemeanor cases which did not occur in the 

officer's presence, victims are.'to be advised of their right to make a citizen's arrest, and 

if the victim wishes to do, the suspect is arrested. If a valid restraining order exists and a 

misdemeanor has occurred, the officer has grounds for an arrest. Many arrests with 

potential felony charges are later downgraded by the police department to misdemeanors 

and sent to the city attorney's office. This tactic is used to increase the likelihood that 

the offender will plead guilty to the misdemeanor (in California, the specter of the three 

strikes law enhances this probability) and receive a consequential sentence. According to 

the city attorney's office, the typical sentence for a first offense includes three years 

probation, one year of treatment, $300 to crime victim and domestic violence funds, and 

at least 10 days of public work service. 

Relevant state, county, and city laws and policies. Under California state law 

(13700 of the Penal Code, which defines domestic violence), an incident report must be 

written for any domestic violence-related call for service in which a criminal offense has 

occurred or the victim fears violence. Also, state law 273.5 P.C. provides that a felony 

charge can be used whenever there is visible injury, significant complaint of pain, or 

documented type of injury is present, if the case meets certain relationship requirements. 

In 1990, all San Diego County Law Enforcement agencies adopted a new 

Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Protocol to provide consistency in the investigation 

and prosecution of domestic violence cases throughout the county. The protocol 

promotes prosecution with or without the victim's cooperation whenever possible. The 

District and City Attorneys have successfully prosecuted domestic violence cases based 

on 91 1 tapes, photographs, medical records, neighbor witnesses, child witnesses, officer 

testimony, defendant admissions, and spontaneous declarations of the victim and suspect. 

About a year ago, a state law went into effect, requiring hospitals, medical 

personnel, and social service providers to report suspected domestic violence cases to the 

police. At the present time, the police department and the Domestic Violence Council, 

a city-wide group, are studying how this information should be handled. 

36 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

i 

I 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

i 

1 

, 

The Domestic Violence Information System 

San Diego's domestic violence database was begun in the spring of 1993 and 

became fully operational in July 1993. Data entry is done by clerical staff, and data 

quality and reports are the responsibility of a volunteer civilian Ph.D. The system was 

developed internally using Paradox software. 

Database content and information sources. The DV database includes all cases 

investigated by the Domestic Violence Unit, which includes police reports of noncriminal domestic violence calls and some non-DV cases involving parties cited for 

domestic violence. Over 40,000 cases are now contained in the database. Data from 

both the Crime/Incident Report and Domestic Violence Supplemental form are entered 

into the DV database, but not all information from either form is included. The DV 

database contains 25 variables, 24 of which are shown on the appended sheet, "SDPD 

DV Unit Assignment Log Data Base". The entered variables include case data (number, 

date assigned within the Unit, present charges, whether the suspect is in custody, beat 

location, detective, and disposition date and type), victim data (name, birth date, race,. 

phone number, relationship to suspect, whether a translator was needed, and sex); 

whether children. were present; and suspect data (name, birth date, race, whether a 

translator was needed, and sex). Very recently, whether the suspect was under the 

influence of alcohol and drugs was added to the database. 

The newly developed Domestic Violence Supplemental form conforms to the 

latest California law on domestic violence cases. The form contains detailed information 

on the victim and suspects' physical and emotional states, conditions observed at the 

crime scene, length of relationship between the parties, history of domestic violence, 

whether medical treatment was sought and of what type, whether the suspect was under 

the influence of alcohol and drugs, evidence collected, whether a weapon was used, 

presence of witnesses and children (and their emotional state), status of restraining 

orders, and information given to the victim. The form also includes body diagrams for 

noting the location of any injuries, and victim's and suspect's approximately height and 

weight. 

No data from outside the department is included in the DV database. If 

additional information comes to light during the course of an investigation, such as the 

extent of a victim's injuries based on hospital records, it is included in the case file, but 

not in the database. 

Database use. The database is used by DVU management, for determining the 

detectives' workloads, length of time required by cases, etc. The database is also used 

for studying domestic violence patterns and trends. The crime analyst notes that the San 

Diego has a diversity of ethnic groups, including significant numbers of Filipinos, Asians, 

and Native Americans; neighborhoods of widely varying economic status; and large gay 

and lesbian populations. The database is used to study interrelationships among 

37 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
different populations and areas in terms of domestic violence problems. Statistical 

profiles of suspects and victims have been developed -- providing information, for 

example, such as the number of teenage victims is rising. The frequency of domestic 

violence calls can also be tracked by “day of the week, month of the year, phase of the 

moon, and major televised sports events” according to the SDPD crime analyst. 

The SDPD Domestic Violence Unit does not attempt to predict the lethality or 

dangerousness of a DV case by assigning risk scores. The crime analyst commented that 

lethality is difficult to predict, that deaths occur in never-before-seen cases; this type of 

comment was echoed by others surveyed. Cases are assigned to detectives using a logic 

chart (Appendix H) that formalizes the assignment criteria described above. 

Relations with Prosecutors and Other Agencies 

In San Diego, felony DV cases are prosecuted by district attorneys, and 

misdemeanor cases are handled by city attorneys. San Diego’s city attorney’s office is 

renowned for its prosecution of misdemeanor cases where the victim refuses to 

cooperate. The victimless prosecution techniques were developed in the mid-l980s, - - 

spearheaded by then-Assistant City Attorney Casey Gwinn, who is now the elected City 

Attorney. In 1995, 33% of misdemeanor cases against batterers went to trial without the 

presence of the victim at all. Twenty cases were tried in 1986 without victim 

cooperation; 1500 are expected this year, and additional evidence that the city attorney’s 

office is on the right track is that homicides have decreased nearly 70% since 1985 (AM 

Journal, July 1996). 

According to the current head of the city attorney’s Domestic Violence Unit, city 

prosecutors rely heavily on police officers’ reports and they encourage maximizing the 

time and evidence gathering at the scene of the DV crime. The infomation gathered on 

the DV Supplemental form is considered vital4, and prosecutors promote thorough 

training in the use of the form (the police department has a manual on it). The city 

attorney’s office considers the following information most important: 

. What is said by the victim and suspect, their demeanor, and emotional state, with 

particular attention paid to recording spontaneous utterances. 

. Photographs of injuries. 

Witness statements. 

4The San Diego City Attorney’s Office estimates that 10% of all U.S. police 

departments use a domestic violence supplemental form, and are in the process of 

gathering copies of them. It may be useful to recontact the office at a later date to 

obtain results of their search. 

38 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
= History of violence. 

9 911 tapes. 

In addition to stressing how important is it that officers gather good data at the 

Scene of the crime, the city attorney's office believes that good detective follow-up 

investigations can increase the conviction rate substantially. They encourage detectives 

to verify the victim's story (cases are strengthened by having the victim say the same 

thing twice to different officers), gather additional information, take follow-up 

photographs, and track services the victim receives (medical treatment, shelter, etc.) as 

reported by the victim. 

The SDPD Domestic Violence Unit detectives decide which cases to forward to 

the city attorney's office. Under an agreement with the police department, the city 

attorney's office reviews (1) every arrest case, (2) up to 50 "GOA" cases (where there is 

no arrest since the suspect is "gone on arrival") a month where there are a significant 

number of prior offenses or the suspect is on probation, (3) all choking cases (recent 

research found that 90% of choking cases involved documented or undocumented 

histories of domestic violence), and (4) "any case a detective is nefvous about." 

Approximately 400 domestic violence cases are reviewed each month, and complaints are 

filed in about 75% of them. 

' 

The cooperation between the San Diego police department DV Unit and the city 

attorney's office is reported to be excellent. The city attorney's office provides the Unit 

with regular summary reports on the number of cases cleared, convicted, etc., and 

communicates with detectives on individual cases as needed. 

39 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

t 

I 

I 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

t 

I 

- 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. - .. 

,. . .. 

.. 

-vI 

Appendix 'A 

Lexington: Abuse Reporting Form and Incident Report Form . . 

. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
_- .. 

WILD ABUSE, ADULT ABUSE, AND DOMESTIC ABUSE 

STANDARD REPORT 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
0 Complalnt/Oflenso 0 Auto Larceny G Pcrxrnai Injury 

0 Missin# Person 3 Unlawful Conversion 0 Insurance Only 

HOW 2 In Perwn 0 BY *one C a No. . ..-.-r*; 0 

Reponed AI keM 0 Away from Scene C 3 . *' ' a- 

., e- .--- 0 

I, - - 

'3 - 

> 

. ,ab;v Viclim/Compirmant/ Fttm Murtol stcrrrr DbB wd FW . .a 4 

Riildence Address (Street) Eminess Address * -s 5 a 

RcridcnCe Phone Business Phone I 

2 11 12 * 

Z 

10 !W8'lon . ..+orted by (last. flnt - middle) AUUrcs$ (Streel) Residence Phone Business Phone E XI 

13 14 1s 16 

0 5.sncr*.skct 0 6 HLII 0 7Unhm - 

I 

24. Rmovcd * AcCuk4llIJ 'p 

Lighting 73 c 1 NWr3l C 2 Mwn f: 3 Anihcial Exlermr 

13 4 ArltI1ci3I Interior Ci 5 Unknown 

To Len Where Found 0 Refused Treatment 0 

26 Admitted 0 Treated and Released Cl 

Removed By 

9 FarrrdmQ 0 ' 

Attending Physician 

18 

If Rape. was fxamination Psrformd' 

2¶ .. G Yes... a No 

'008 

'34 

Scx Natl Orig./kce 

31 32 

HPtyhl Weignr Hair 

35 36 37 

Y 

B 

W 

U 

P tition on Ftle P 010 Obtained 3 

o yet o NO a YCS NO 

Clothing Dislinclive Mark5 Glasxa/Javmlry 

$pent5 Where @uloyed Where 

zJ9 4 41 . 

4 41 

2 

Q. 

4 

3 ' 

- 

I 

we bst Seen Q%'e 

, &lalive or Friend $pdrer, 

Vehicle Avallable Dawiption 

53 OYM CJ No 

(1) Wntyol Birlh 

'9 last Schboi Anended 

(b) Mothe<$ Maiden Nume 

(0) County of Last Schml Anended 

+ 

55 KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES. 519 640 (Class A Misdemeanor) 

Will Proucule 0 WOF ,, 0 WWET 0 

Y 

Will Nd f'rwec-ute 0 Warrwt Advise4 0 Grnpiainav's Slenarurr -_ 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
65 

1 

66 

135 1 

OLFA/CM 67 60 69 70 72 

a suspect 

VICTIM WAS: 

1. Bwnb/Rdstrained 

2. LOcked in Roam 

3. Ldld In Floor 

4. AssaultrK1/Kllled 

5. Taken Hostage/Ektored 

6. Oiher 

13 ?4 

1 

Vehicle Identlflcation No (VIN) Epg:ne Size Color Special vehicte FCatiurcs/~smage 

75 71 77 71 

:le Lccation at Time ot Tneh/Enrry Keys In C3I 

Lcin Holder 0 Unknown Adrwtss 

UI b2 

80 

C On Street/Highway 0 In Oriceway 0 Parking Lo! (Fuhll~~Privire] 0 Ottirr , Dyes C1No @llnkcown 

Ptnie Past Due ~nsurance Co. (N3nre) Phone *' ayes ONo 64 a5 

F.FOUND L.LOST R-RECOVEREO $.STOLEN 

- SERIAL FIo./sl>C.SK NO./DISTINC\/ISHING MARKS VALUE 

.* 

.. * '. : 1. 

. . ., ).. . . ... 

.. .' \ ' . .. 1. .. 

I. 

4rreF.teC NaI. Org. Sex A&e D.O.O. , 

a9 90 91 92 93 94 

Color/Length b13if Style facial Hair ConlOle*m Glasses Scars/ Marks/Tattoos 

100 101 102 103 164 

Lch/Ri&nt Hgnced Under Influence of: (Drugs, etc.) Teeth ) Clothing 

* 105 106 10% LOB I 

Weapon: (Include Ty~e and features) Relationship to Victim - .- 1 LO 7- 

Niekr\ainA or Alias (Specify) Address Arresled Nat. Urg. Spx Aqe D.O.B. 

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 

Build I EYCS (Hair Color/Cength IHair Style I Facial Hjir 1 Coniplzxion (Glasses I k~rs/Marks/Tattoos 121 i 12z 1123 L124 1125 I 126. I 127 I128 

Left/Right HJrldecl Under Influence of: (Drugs. etc.) Teeth 

131 . ' 132 ' , ' 130 

F' wn: (Include Type and Fa~tures) Relationship to Viclim 

IN 

SUSPECT'S ACTIONS: SUSPECT USED: SUSPECT WAS: SUSPECT WAS SUSPECT WAS: SUSPECT'S RACE 

2. Threatened force 

3. ImDtIzd Force 

1. Voice Demands 1. Known to Victim 1. Friend 1. Armed Upon Entry 1. Aslan 

2 Used 3 Note 2. Stranger 2. Relative 2. Armed After Entty 2. Black 

I. Weapon Displayed 1. Alone 4. Aquainrance if Armed 4. Pacific Is!andar 

SUSPECT ACTION: 

2. WeJOOn Iinplipd 2. With Others 5. Other 5. Unknown 

SUSPECT WAS 3. Ex.Relativc! 3. IJnarmed/Uoknown 3. Nllive American 

I 

136 

CRIME OCCURED 

1. During Business Hours 

Ahernours 

6. White 

110 137 7. Hispanic 

VICTIM WAS: 

I. Hitchkiking 

2. On a Date 

3. W~lking/Joggifly 

4. Driving a Vchicle 

Location 

1 S~pect's Rcsrdence 

2 Vehicle 

3. Street 

4 Public Park 

5. Plivate Propedy 

6 Victim's Regidence 

7 Other 

VICTIM WAS: VICTIM WAS: VICTIM WAS: 

I Alone 1. Fenisle 1 Not Confronted 

2. WIStrangers 2. Maid 2. Confronted/No Assault 

3. W/Friendl 3. KNW Hoinosnxual-Malo 3. ArsaulIed/No Injury 

4 WV:Others 4. KNW Homosexual-Fwnale 4. ASSJUltEU/lfliUQ 

5 Jlrvenlle 5, Taken Hostaga 

6. Over65 6. 6ound/Rerlrained 

W€APON USED 

1. Firrarni 

2. Knife 

3. Limb5 

4. Club 

5. Othcr 

VICTIM'S RACE. 

1 Asian 

2 Bl~ck 

3 Native American 

1 PJCI~*C l~lander 

5 Unknowr 

h While 

d Killed 

8. Other VICTIM'S ACTION 

1 Resisted-Action 

2 R~xIsM,P~:~Iv~ PROPERTYTAKEN 

. 2. NotArsaultcd 3. Dld Not Resist i Currency 7 Clothing . 3. Inlured W/ Weapdn 

4. lniured No Weapon 

5. Killed W/WceWn 

6. Kllled No Weapon 

141 

METHOD OF ENTRY 

1. Breaking 

1. Jimmy 

3. Pry 

4 Uey 

5. Unsecured 

6. Kick-in 

7. No-Force 

8. Unknown Entty 

3. Other 147 

-. 

PLACE OF ENTRY 

1. Dmr 

7. Window 

3. Other 

5. Unoccupied Building 

I POINT OF ENTRY 

1. Fronf 

2. Side 

3. Rear 

4. Top 4. Occupied Biuilding 

5. Below 

6. O,Fw 

143 148 141 -.._. . 146 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
.. 

I 

Appendix B ’ 

Seattle: Incident and Supplemental Forms 

Lethality Score Information 

. \.. .. 

1 

i 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
0 INCIDENT 

0 INCIDENT AND ARREST 

0 ARREST ONLY 

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT 

INCIDENT REPORT 

INCIDENT NUMBER 

I' 

0 DO NOT DISCLOSE 0 NOT DISCUSSED 0 DISCLOSE 

MEREBY DECLARE THE FACTS HEREIN REPORTED BY ME ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND 

T ey FILINGAFALSE REP OAT,^ MAY BE SUBJECTTO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

0 HAZARD TOOFFICER 

0 WMESTIC VIOLENCE 

TCLASSIFICATION TOOL/WEAPON USED I' METHOD OF TOOLNEAPON USE 

LOCATION 

TYPE OF PREMISE (FOR VEHICLES STATE TYPE AND WHERE PARKED) 

DATEfllME REPORTED DAY OF WEEK 

I 

I 

FIRM NAME CENSUS BEAT 

POINTOF ENTRY 

DATElTlME OCCURRED DAY OF WEEK 

I 

0 EVIDENCE SUBMllTED 0 FINGERPRINT SVIRCH MADE 0 FINGERPRINTS FOUND 0 LAB EXAM REQUESTED DO NOT 

DISCLOSE 

CODE NAME (LAST, FIRST, MIDDLE) RACElSEXlD 0 B (OPTIONAL) ' ' HOME PHONE HOURS i 

CODE C (PERSON REPORTING COMWINANTI V (VICTIM) W (WITNESS) INJURED HAS USABLE TESTIMONY 

v) v: W 

z ~DDRESS ZIP CODE OCCUPATION (OPTIONAL) WORK PHONE HOURS 

50 

3* 

m> CODE I NAME (LAST. FIRST, MIDDLE) 

$Z 

a. 

RACE/SEWD 0 B (OPTIONAL) I HOME PHONE HOURS 

ADDRESS ZIP CODE OCCUPATION (OPTIONAL) WORK PHONE HOURS 

NAME (UST. FIRST. MIDDLE) I RACEISEXID 0 B. HEIGHT WEIGHT HAIR EYES SKINTDNE BUILD 

c 

U # ADDRESS HOME PHONE WORK PHONE WORK HOURS OCCUPATION EMPLOY EWSCHOOL 

RELATIONSHIP TO VICTIM 

I? 

r: CLOTHING. SCARS, MARKS.TATTOOS. PECULIARITIES.A KA. r 

,A/CIT. NO. CHARGE DETAILS (INCLUDE ORDINANCE OR RC.W. NUMBER AND CHARGE NARRATIVES) BOOKED y,s,c, K,C.J. Iz 

0 CITED 0 K.C.J. I1 0 K.C.J. I3 

2 

8 

a 

OSTOLEN SERIAL NUMBER OWNER APPLIED NUMBER MODEL NUMBER 

ORECOVERED 

COLOR, SIZE. DESCRIPTION. CALIBER. BARREL LENGTH, ETC. 

ITEM. 

NO. 

PRIMARY OFFICER SERIAL UNll SECONDARY OFFICER SERIAL UNIT APPROVING OFFICER SERIAL 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I 

1 

I 

I 

i 

I 

1 

i 

I 

I 

i 

I 

b 

1 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT 

DONIESTIC VIOLENCE SUPPLEMENTAL INCIDENT NUMBER 

VICTIM MPEARED: 0 HESITANT 0 HYSTERICAL 0 NERVOUS 0 UPSET 

SUSPECT APPEARED: 

RESlDlNG TOGETHER PARENTICHILD 

I I I 

FORM 0.00 REV. 04/96 PAGE - OF - 

3 : I. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
NAME: MARK THE LOCATION OF ANY VISIBLE MIURIES. USE ARROWS TO POINT TO AREAS OF NON-VISIBLE VICTIM INJURIES/COMPLUKTS 0 SUSPECT OF PAIN 

FIRE PERSONNEL AT SCENE: 

NAMl 

UNIT iWMBER(S): AMBULANCE AT SCENE: WIT NUMBER(S): 

DYES UNO DUNK;. 

EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON FOR VICTIM (NAME & PHONE OF SOMEONE THAT PREFERABLY DOES NOT LIVE WITH THE VICTIM): ;'L . 

OYES UNO 0Llh.K. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Cycles of Domestic Violence 

c:hichael\domviol\dvfields.doc 

June 10. 1996 

Draft 2 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

i 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

I 

Domestic Violence Unit Database Fields 

The purpose of this document is to describe the fields in both the “incident” and “name” 

tables of the Domestic Violence Unit Database. 

F :\database\dvstats.mdb 

Table: DV Incidents 

Fields 

ID 

MC# 

DATE 

TIME 

BEAT 

CENSUS 

PLACE 

OFFENSE1 

OFFENSE2 

WTYPE 

SUSP PRESENT 

ARREST 

MUTUAL 

OTYPE 

EVIDENCE 

PHOTOS 

STMNT 

DET ASSIGNED 

UNIT # 

RECEIVED 

SGT ACTION 

UNIT ARREST 

UNIT PHOTO 

UNIT WARRANT 

SENT TO PROS 

CHARGE DATE 

CHARGE1 

COUNTS 1 

I 

Descrw .. 

Access identification number 

Incident number 

Date of incident 

Time of incident 

Beat where incident took place 

Census tract where incident took place 

Type of premise where incident took place 

Primary incident classification 

Secondary incident classification 

Type of weapon used 

Was suspect contacted by officers? 

Was an arrest made? 

Was there a mutual arrest? 

Type of court order 

Was evidence collected? 

Were photographs taken? 

Were statements taken? 

Initial disposition of case 

Unit number 

Date received by the DVU 

Action taken by unit Sergeant 

Was an arrest made by the DVU? 

Were photographs taken by the DVU? 

Was a warrant served by the DVU? 

Data file was sent to prosecutor 

Date prosecutor charged 

Charge 1 brought by prosecutor 

Number of counts of charge 1 

‘.. . 1 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
i 

1 

I 

I 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

Fields 

CHARGE2 

COUNTS2 

CHARGE3 

COUNTS3 

CLOSE 

DISP 

UNIT EVIDENCE 

RECMOD 

ISCORE 

WSCORE 

PSCORE 

OSCORE 

Table Indexes: 

Fields 

Table: DV Names 

ID 

MC # 

LAST NAME 

FIRST NAME 

MIDDLE NAME 

SEX 

DOB 

CODE 

RELATIONSHIP 

LIVES WITH 

INJURY TYPE 

INJSCORE 

POSCORE 

PHOTOS 

TREATMENT 

PREGNANT 

STATEMENT 

ALCDRUG USE 

RECMOD 

Table of Indexes 

Charge 2 brought by prosecutor 

Number of counts of charge 2 

Charge 3 brought by prosecutor 

Number of counts of charge 3 

Date when case was officially closed 

Final disposition of case 

Did unit take evidence? 

Internal mod flag 

Injury score on Lethality Test 

Weapon score on Lethality'Test 

(?) score on Lethality Test 

Offense score on Lethality Test 

INC #, PrimaryKey 

Descnphn .. 

Access identification number 

Incident number 

Last name of individual 

First name of individual 

Middle name of individual 

Sex of individual 

Date of birth of individual 

VictidsuspecVwitness 

Relationship of parties 

Do parties currently live with one another? 

Type of injury sustained 

Injury score on Lethality Test 

Per other (?) score on Lethality Test 

Where were photographs of the injury taken? 

Type of treatment received 

Was the individual pregnant? 

Was a statement obtained from the individual? 

Did report indicate person may have been under the 

influence of alcohol or drugs? 

Internal register - program use only 

Primary Ke y 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Values Used for- “Lethality Score” 

\- 

Offer we 

Assault 

Burglary 

Trespass 

Cust Inter 

Disturbance 

Harassment 

Homicide 

Menacing 

Prop Dam 

Rape 

Reck Endan 

Stalking 

Susp Circ 

Theft 

Threats 

CO Viol 

Warrant 

0 t her 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

3 

10 

5 

2 

8 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

1 

ii !jcly 

No Compl 

Non-Vis 

Vi s/Mi n or 

Vi s/S e rious 

Death 

No ne/Re f 

Pers Doc 

At Scene 

Trans Hosp 

0 

2 

4 

6 

10 

Weapoi I 

Hand/Feet 

Handgun 

Knife 

Rifle 

Shotgun 

Vehicle 

0 t her 

Locarioii 

2 Apartment 

6 Business 

4 Driveway 

6 Hotelhlotel 

6 House 

4 Park 

1 Parking Lot 

Restaurant 

School 

StreetISide 

Tav/Bar 

Vehicle 

Other 

Iiic Other 

1 NC Order 1 

4 Prot Order 1 

2 

2 No Contact, 

1 No Arrest 2 .. 

3 

3 

4 

3 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Per Other 

Pregnant 

Alc/Drug 

Married., 

Not Living 

3 

4 

4 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
- 

' Lethality Test Report 

darting Date for Incidents: 11/1/94 

Minimum Score to Print: 75 

Ending: 5/1/95 

Last Name First Name DOU Code Incident # 

SUSI'EC1' 

SUSPECT 

SUSPECT 

susrEcr 

susrmr 

SUSPECT 

SUSPECT 

SUSPECT 

SUSPECT 

DO I 

1/23/35 

1/23/35 

I/28/95 

in1195 

2/6N 5 

3/7/95 

31 16/95 

3f20195 

3/22/95 

Tot a Is: 

Off 

7 

7 

4 

7 

4 

4 

4 

4 

7 

48 

-. 

lnj 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

we3 

1 

I 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

5 

Scores . ~ 

Loc 

4 

4 

I 

1 

1 

4 

1 

4 

I 

21 

lOtll 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3. 

3 

I 

23 

rottl 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tut 

IS 

IS 

8 

I1 

6 

'2 ._ 

9 

I1 

10 

97 

Drinted: 5/18/138 at 1:26 Phl Page I of S Pages Conlidcntial- Police Use Only 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
._. Scores __ ___ - __ 

Last Name FirstName DOB Code ' Incident # DO1 OK Inj Wtr LOC 10th POth Tot 

i 

1 

VICTIM 12/13/94 5 0 2 1 2 0 IO 

VICTIM 12/13/94 9 4 0 4 3 4 24 

VICTIM 12114m 9 2 2 2 3 7 2s 

VlCrlM 411115 5 4 Q 2 3 7 21 

VICTIM 4/13/95 4 2 0 4 1 4 15 

Totals: 32 12 4 13 12 22 95 

,. 

___. Scores 

Last Name First Name DOB Code Incident# DO1 OK Inj Wea LOC 10th Poll! Tot 

I 

SusPEc-r 12/13/94 9 0 0 4 3 4 20 

-- 

SUSPECT 12/13/94 5 0 2 I 2. 0 IO 

__ . ____ Scores ___-- 

Last Name First Name DOB Code Incident# DO[ Off Inj \Vcr LOC 10th POlh Tot 

VICTIM llR5/94 9 0 0 I 3 4 17 

VICTIM 2/3/95 4 o o I 3 4 12 

VICTIM 2/18/95 4 o 0 I 3 0 8 

VICTIM 2/21/95 6 0 0 I 2 4 13 

VICTIM 2mm 4 0 0 1 3 4 I2 

. VICTIM 3/3/35 9 0 2 I 3 4 19 

Totals: 36 0 2 6 17 20 81 

Printed: 5/1S/13S ai 1:30 Pbf Page 4 of 5 Pages Confidential - Police Use Only 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
.. 

.. .- 

Duluth Worksheet 

. Appendix C. 

Domestic Abuse Related Incident 1 

.. 

a. .. 

.. .. .. . 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
V Name DO8 Sex Race # ' Address Employer 

,, Name Address 

Sex Race DOE Age Height Weight Hair Eyes 

2. Parties present 

Home Phone 

Business Phone 

Phone 

Employer I 

I 

t 

3. Emotional 

State-wctlm 

I 4. Injury to victim 

I 5. Injury to 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

Relationship 

9. Children 

Children 

involvement 

9. Pictures taken 

IO. Evidence 

callected 

11. Medical 

attention 

Identify facility ~~~~ ~ 

12. Background 

Info 

b Person always 

able to reach 

victim 

Where will vlctim 

be in the next 12 - 

24 hours? 

, 4. Notes for 

narrative 

CR # Incident Location: 

I_ of incident of dispatch 

7 Victim Suspect 0 Child 0 Wtness 0 Person who called police 

of arrival of first contact with victim 

z] angry 0 crying 0 fearful c] nervous 0 calm threatening Oupset 0 sobbing shaking 

1 other 

3 angry Cl crying U fearful U nervous 0 calm threatening U upset t3 sobbing [I! shaking 

0 other 

t] complpain 0 bruises c] abrasion n laceration Ominor cut 0 fracture 0 rednesslswelling 

a concussion 0 loose hair 0 other . ~- 

~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

0 comp/parn 0 bruises 0 abrasion 0 laceration Orninor cut I3 fracture 0 redness/swelling 

0 concussion 0 loose hair a other 

Describe observations relevant to VIS statements or to what occurred 

a spouse [7 former spouse 0 cohabitants a former cohabitants 0 dating other 

3 female 0 #male Ages Relationship to victimkuspect 

a witnessed incident a not present Comments regarding children. e.g. past abuse of children: 

0 none 0 v~ctim injury 0 weapons clothing 0 scene other 

CI none a clothing 0 weapons 0 fingerprints other 

0 none first aid a taken to hospital tf paramedics 0 refused 

Facility 

t] current OFP t] probation a suspect intoxicated 0 victim intoxfcated 

Name, Address. Phone, workplace: 

Name, Address, Phone. workplace: 

Name, Address. Phone. workplace: 

victim statement 0 suspect statement c] witness statement probable cause dements 

0 separate investigation for each arrested party n where both parties lived during the last seven years. List cities 

and slates 

(Note: In cases where both panies used physical force, please make note of who initiated the violence and whether 

or not any acts of violence appeared to have been acts of self-defense.) 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
P there guns or other weapons in the home? (describe) 

1 

1 

Does suspect has access to or carries weapons? (how, what kind) 

Does the suspect drink excessively. or use cocaine. crack heroine or similar drugs? 

Doc!, Vlc viotim boliouo tho cucpoct may corioucly injuro or kill hoR 

- 006s the suspect seem pre-occupied or obsessed with the victim (following, constant phone calling, 

having others check on whereabouts. extreme jeolousy?) 

Has suspect experienced any unusually high stress recently? (loss of job. death in family, health 

problem, work problem, financial crisis) 

1 .l 

Has suspect ever attempted or threatened suicide? 

Is the suspect threatening to kill or severely harm the vlctlm/others? 

Has the victim ever called police prior to this incident? 

3 Narrative . .- 

1 MDT (Temporary Report) 

If a call involves claims of (a) a verbal threat, (b) an assault, (c) violation of a protection order or, (d) trespass or criminal damage 

to property by a current or former partner, a full report must be dictatedm enter the following information on the MDT. Make a 1 one sentence note if call IS dispatched on a domestic but no claim of (a) through (d) above exist. (This MDT printout will sewe as 

a temporary report for following up on cases while waiting for word processing to complete the full report.) 

NarneslPhone numbers/ Address of both parties 

What offense do either party allege (1-2 sentences summary) 

Follow-up: List who you think needs immediate foltow-up. 

A) Detective Bureau, B) Victlm advocate, C) Child protection worker, D) Prosecutor 

2. 

3. 

4. Officers' action taken 

If you have questions or comments to lmomve form. call Mary Armus. City Attorney's Office. at 723-3368 or Ellen Pence at the DAIP. 722-2781. Ext. 110. 

3116ms palea ckl [uwsre 7!96) 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
c 

.. 

Appendix D: . 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Gnvin de Decker Incorporartd 

I 16x4 Ventura Blvd. Suite 440 

Studio City. CA 0 I601 

Phone: 818.505.0177 

Fnx: 8 18,506,0426 

l~'-ii~ail: tnloline(i~fidhinc.com 

During more than 28 years with the Los Angeles Police 

Dcpartment. commanding units siich ils tlic Special 

Investigation Section, Criminal Conspiracy Section, 

Sexual Assault Unit, Detective lieadquarters (which 

investigated officer-involved-shootings), I-lomicide, and 

Personnel, I had seen many philosophies on liow to make 

high-stakes evaluations. When 1 founded the Los Angeles 

Police Department's Threat Management Unit to manage 

cases involving stalking and inappropriate pursuit, I 

embraced the MOSAIC approach to assessments for many 

reasons: 

MOSAIC is a computer-assistcd assessment tool that 

provides guidance in making high-stakes assessments, 

ensuring that they are undertaken with a uniform set of 

initial questions, and with a uniform series of possiblc 

answers. It has been developed over a ten-year period, 

combining the influence of the nation's leading experts in 

several related fields (psychology, law enforcement. 

judicial, prosecutorial, mental health, probation. threat 

assessment, sociology, behavioral sciences, etc.). With 

thousands of cases run through MOSAIC progranis each 

year, we continue to benefit from the suggestions antl 

ideas of users. 'The result is a program that is "debugged." 

and continues to grow. 

The result of more tlian $750.000.00 iii dcvclopnicnt and 

research costs, MOSAIC draws upon significant research 

in related fields. antl upon study of more than a qtiartcr 

million communications and 18,000 cases. It codes and 

assigns value to many inter-related factors in a case and 

then compares that case to thousands of others where tlie 

outcome is known. 

MOSAIC's case-screening results (or Ratings) tell 

evaluators to what degree a case is similar to those that 

involved escalation. This helps guide intervention, 

security, and other case-management decisions. MOSAIC 

ensures that all evaluators are using the same standards. 

perspective and distilled experience. It provides a tinilium 

quality to assessments and avoids the risks inherent when 

people have widely different assessment abilities and 

styles. With MOSAIC. ten people can assess the same 

situation and conic up with tlic same preliminary Itating. 

This does not replace the intuition of an individual 

evaluator, but rather. forms a shared foundation for the 

assessment. 

MOSAIC does three very important things: 

It confirms your intuition 

It tlociimcnts the issiics that were evaluated or 

coiisitlcrctl 

* 11 I>rcpilrcs ;I coiiiprclicnsivc report written in language 

lion-experts can understand. 

MOSAIC systems liiive been used for many years by our 

office and for sis years by the Los Angeles Police 

Department. MOSAIC 7 is risetl by tlie California 

I-lighway Patrol. Kansas I-ligliway Patrol and Missouri 

I ligh\vay Patrol in tlicir assessiiiciits and screenings of 

threats to tlic Governors and other constitutional officers. 

It is iised by the United Statcs Supreme Court Police for 

threats against tlic Jiistices, ;ind by the United States 

Capitol Police l'or screening threats directed toward 

Ilnitetl Statcs Senators and Congressmen. The Federal 

Iteservc Boml. the Central lntclligence Agency, the 

Dcl'cnse Intclligeiicc Agency. Boston University, and Yale 

University all iise MOSAIC systems. The United States 

Marshals Service iiscs MOSAIC 3 to evaluate threats to 

Fetlcral .Iutlicial ol'licials. 

Devclopnient 01' MOSAIC 5 was guided by an Advisory 

Board ol'rcprcscntativcs li.oni tlic California State Police, 

Yale University. I'lizcr. Disney. Kelly Services, Kissinger 

tk Associates. tlic Los Angelcs Police Department, and the 

l'cdcrill Ilcscrvc 130ard. ali1ol1; others. 

MOSAIC 5 evaluatcs the three ma,jor workplace hazards 

o rgn n i za t i oils lhc c : 

- tlie angry employee. 

the angry former employee, 

- the stalker wlio sccks out his victim at work. 

It is used by government agencies, universities, and large 

corporations. 

The MOSAIC: 5 program includcs: 

Tlie MOSAIC 5 soltware disk. including all files 

iicccssary to make it a stand alone program; 

A trailling workshop on liow to use the program; 

All siy evaluation templates: 

Angry Current Employee - Male 

Angry Cuiwii I3iiploycc - Female 

Angry Foi-mer Employce - Male 

,111gry I'oriiicr Employee - Female 

I Jii\v;intctl l'tirsiiit - Miilc 

Unwanted I'iirsiiit - Female; 

FiiII clociiiiientation and training manual; 

One year ol'business-hours telephone support; 

I 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
On-line tutorial and on-line academ!,: 

’The Mercury Video Awards Gold klcdnl winning 

video tape: A Report To Management: Understanding 

and Preventing Workplace Violence. This is ii Iburhour training video that itscll’sells for 5 I .750.00; 

iicw rcIe;isc oii stalking. 

A copy (>i”ro I lave And pro I iarln. wnl-ner nooks’ 

MOSAIC 70 is lor- iisc by local police, prosecutors and 

battered women’s shelters. Tlic program evaluates 

situations of violciicc against woinen by husbantls or 

boyfriends. It helps determine ifn given case has the 

characteristics associated with escalation, continued 

violence, and spousal homicide. (Proceeds from the sale 

of MOSAIC 20 90 to help battered families.) 

MOSAIC iy not ;I compritcr Iproy-aiii that does 

asscssiiiciiks: rLithcr. I\ is ;I sophisricnted asscssnient 

technique tlial has been computerized. With it comes the 

cnllcclivc wi\do~ii ol‘xlvisor!, lward members and users 

skilled iii Iii~li-~t;ikcs ;isscssniciiLs. 

l’hc ?vlOS/l IC ;ipproncli rccoyiixs that one cannot expect 

;I pcrl‘cc~ piulictivc pcrli~imniicc. hut one can improve the 

[, JSIS .’. lor ‘ 

considering ;I wcatlicr report t1i;it says tliere will be a 6Oy0 

cliaiice ol’r;iin. Such ;i report :ictually means that on 60% 

oi’similar days. it Iias rained. It is not a certain prediction, 

but ncvertliclcss. siicli inl’ormntion can be useful in 

deciding wiictliei~ or not to carry ;in umbrella. 

niakin~ ciisc-iiiali;i~ciiicIit decisions. It is like 

Robert J. blartiii 

Vicc Prcsicicnt 

Gavin dc Bcckcr 1ncorpor;ited 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Software Assesses Likelihood of Violence in Home 

Crime: Carson sheriff’s station will be first to use computer program 

that evaluates how much of a threat an abuser poses to family members. 

By TRACY JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE TIMES / Lr,.rAngelrs Times. October 21, 1996 

The battle against domestic violence will 4 go high-tech today in Carson. as the sheriff’s 

station there becomes the first in law 

enforcement nationwide to try out a new 

computer program to assess how dangerous 

a domestic abuser is to his household. 

The program is the brainchild of Gavin de 

Becker. 42, a nationally recognized violenceprediction expert and master of computer 

programs that analyze threats to public figures from obsessed fans and sworn enemies. 

His programs are used by the U.S. marshal’s 

office, California Highway Patrol, CIA and 

US. Supreme Court Police to protect such 

figures as the governor, legislators and 

justices. 

But de Becker’s latest progtam brings his 

computer talents closer to home. 

Authorities will ask domestic violence vietims 48 questions, such as “Does he own a 

gun?’ and “Are there children in the home?” 

The answers will be I’ed into ;I database. 

which will compare the barterer to more than 

100 abusers whose actions esciilated to 

,micide, and then print a report rating the 

level of danger. 

Depending on the level it finds, the program also recommends steps for authorities 

to take, such as referring the case to the 

Department of Children and Family Services 

or recommending a battered-women’s 

shelter. 

“We are very excited about using this pro- 1. gram,” said Sheriffs Lt. Sue Tyler, adding 

rl that the department responded to nearly 

15,000 domestic violence calls in 1995. “The 

courts can’t fight domestic violence alone 

and neither can law enforcement. Now we 

will have another tool to help with a team 

effort.” 

In addition to the county Sheriff’s 

Department. the Los Angeles Police 

Department’s Hollywood Division also has 

been trained to test the progrnm ;ind is schecluled to begin using it within the next month. 

~ The program. called Mosaic-20, is 

designed to make it easier for authorities to 

;ISSC‘SS which C;ISC\ have the highest possihility ot’ ;I fri~al end rewlt. (IC Becker said. The 

program, created to assess male batterers 

hr~atise they :ire xix times more likely th;m 

inen to cornmi! :in ol.lciiae. seis ;I stanclard 

lor dangerous behavior while giving authorities a measuring stick for the potential of 

violence. 

’ I & 

rs 

r) 

J 

In addition, a report of each batterer’s profile will be given to the Los Angeles district 

attorney’s office to document the seriousness 

of the incident and paint a picture of the violent history in each case. The county office 

reports that the number of domestic violence 

felony filings in the county has increased 

220% since 1991. 

“Mosaic will help us understand the context of the violence and its history,” said 

Deputy Dist. Atty. Scott Gordon, who chairs 

the county committee on domestic violence. 

Gordon said his plan is to use Mosaic to 

report when a batterer is up for bail or 

sentencing. 

The program does not determine a batterer’s guilt or innocence. De Becker. of 

Studio City, says its purpose is to diagnose 

the violence and get the woman to safety if 

that is needed. 

After its debut in the Carson station, 

which responds to ;I high number of domcstic violence calls, it will then bc used in the 

Walnut and Lancaster divisions, Tyler said. 

Already the program has attracted attention from other agencies, such as the New 

York Police Department. De Becker, who 

has given the program to the Sheriff’s 

Department and LAPD for free, said other 

agencies will have access to the software at 3 

minimal fee, with proceeds donated to 

domestic violence programs once the prograiii hos been lield-tcstcd in Los Angelcs. 

Mosaic-20 is the most recent in a series of 

Mosaic programs that de Becker has created 

to analyze potential threats. He has developed software to assess stalkers, violence in 

the workplace and threats to federal judges 

and members of Congress. 

Robert Ressler, a criminologist who 

workccl in the FBI Behavior Science Unit for 

16 years, has referred federal agencies to de 

Becker, although the FBI does not use the 

program. 

“It hiis a futuristic ability to predict crime 

and has a proven track record,” Ressler said. 

“You can predict a crime and deal with a 

potantid si(untion h;wd on :I rcncling from ;I 

d:itabase. It will help law enforcement deal 

with si tuat ions successfu I I y.” 

De Becker co-chairs the Los Angeles 

County Domcst ic violence Comm it tee’% 

community advisory board and funds the 

county’s Domestic Violence Hotline, which 

connects victims to the nearest shelter, out of 

his own pocket. He also pays for a newly 

created children’s playroom in the district 

attorney’s oftice. where kids can play so their 

mothers can talk privately and freely with 

prosecutors about being abused. He said he 

believes strongly in “a woman’s right to 

I ive.” 

In 1995, he created a program for the U.S. 

Marshall’s Service designed to evaluate 

which abortion and reproductive health clinics are at highest risk of being attacked. 

Numerous federal agencies have used the 

same threat-assessment software to evaluate 

the seriousness of threats made to public figures. The California Highway Patrol’s office 

of dignitary protection uses a-Mosaic program to protect the governor-and legislators. 

De Beckcr has Icstilied in promincnl stalking cases, including the stabbing of actress 

Theresa Saldana and the shooting death of 

actress Rebecca Schneffer. He also worked 

on ;I C;ISC involving :I threat to Supretnc 

Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. 

Mark Cannon, ex-assistant to former Chief 

Justice Warren Berger, recalled how in 1985 

de Becker alerted the Supreme Court Police 

about a man with a history of mental problems who had written a list of people he 

wanted to kill, including O’Connor. 

The man later was convicted of killing five 

of his family members, including his parents. 

The Supreme Court’s contact with de 

Becker Icd its police arm to purchasc 

Mosaic, which can cost up to $75,000, which 

it became available in 1993. Since then, said 

Dennis Chapas, a former Supreme Court 

security official, at least 2,000 potential 

threats have been run through the program. 

“It is of course invaluable for the purpose 

of evaluating inappropriate letters,” said 

Chapas, who now uses Mosaic at U.S. Courts 

Security, which protects federal judges. “It 

helps us determine which communications 

we should pay close attention to.” 

The CHP’s Special Investigations Unit 

takes letters that threaten the governor or legislators and runs them through the Mosaic 

systcrn. Sgt. Stcvc Wcston said. 

Yale University police use the program ;is 

well because many professors receive threatcning letters, said Assistant Police Chicf 

James Pcrrolti. who praised Mosaic. 

“It gives you ;I reading on how serious the 

situation is and provides consistent guidelines for each case.” Perrotti said. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
.. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
-- 

he DVIS infomation system pinpoints houscholds: whcrc 

domestic violence could escalate. This howledge enables law 

enforcement agencies and social service providers to direct 

T 

their intervention efforts where they are most needed. 

DVIS tracks all individuals involved in domestic violence rcprted 

to the police in a chosen area. It associates prior "91 1" calls and 

criminal information to thcsc familics to determine the pattern of 

violence. DVIS ranks these names and addresses according to 

various sets of critcria, such as, prcvious violcnt crimes and 

wcapns uscd, to idcn'tify high risk individuals and "Holspots." 

DVIS provides reporting and query capabilities for police data, 

intervention attempts, shelter use, and advocacy services. These 

reports can bc customized by user friendly scrcens. 

Crisis terns can invcstigatc an addrcss or person's past incidcnccs 

by querying the system's database by numerous criteria. 

Law enforcement staff can explore crime and call patterns by kat, 

street, or dates. Service providers can track contact efforts. 

For more information or a demonstration of DVIS contact: 

Officer Safety 

Potential to Save Lives 

through Early Intervention 

Identify Hotspots and 

High Risk Individuals 

Track Victims and Offenders 

.- 

Extract Case and "911" 

Details in Seconds 

Records and Summarizes 

Social Services Provided 

Integral Part of 

Community Policing 

InfoMaker Inc. 

950 Milwaukee Avenue 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Phone (w)390-6660 

Social Services 

MORE 

.,,' 

Retrieve Information by: 

Beat 

Crime 

Names 

Dates 

Weapons 

Addresses 

Demographics 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
+2 DVIS Domestic Violence Intervention Software 

DVIS is a complcte information systcm for the support of 

a Domcstic Violence Intervention Unit. This tool enables 

intervention teams to focus on the most violent families 

first. DVIS prepares officers and counsellors with the 

necessary incident history to help evaluate an individual's 

needs. 

From first contact, clients can be tracked and rcceipt of 

social services recorded. Management reports from DVIS 

help funders rcview thc progress and services provided by 

an intervention group. 

DVIS is totally menu-driven. The user can select his 

choice with a few keystrokes and every screen is selfexplanatory. I, 

The system is completely "user friendly" and requires 

minimal computer knowledge to query data, input information or execute reports. 

Major components of the system are: 

General Offense and 

911 Call Data 

Individuals and Households 

Tracked 

High Risk Selection 

Intervention Attempts 

0 Advocacy, Shelter and Referral 

DVIS: COMPREHENSIVE CASE REPORT FOR RD NUMBER: A123456 01 Jan 1994 1054 

RD Number: A123456 

How Cleared: 

Slalus: CLEARED CLOSED 

AdulUJwenile: A 

DVRU Incident Number: loo01 

Original OHense Code: 0440 BATTERY: AGG: BATTERY HANDS, FEET, FIST 

Premise: RESIDENCE - PORCWHALLWAY 

Collapsed Olfense Code: 04 Baltety 

Location 01 Occurrence: 6151 S. Normal Ave 

Dale of Occurrence: 18 Apr 1992 

Dale R/O Ollcer Arrived: 18 Apr 1992 

Zme of Occurrence: 21 50 Beat of Occurrence: 0320 

lime RfO Ollicer Arrived 22m Unit Assigned: 00320 

Weapon Typo: HANDYFEET ReporlSigned: Y Domeslic Incident: Y 

INVOLVED DVRUI NAME ADDRESS SEXRACUAGE RELATIONSHIP INJURY HOMEPHONE 

OFFENDER 1009 X)NES.JOHN' 6151 S. NORMAL AV MIWHITELX BOYFRIEND 312-55s 12 t 2 

VlCTlM 1007 KELLY, MARY 6151 S. NORMALAVE FhVHmR9 GIRLFRIEND Y 312-555121 2 

VICTIM 1008 KELLY.EDITH 5426 W. DEVON AVE FhVHlTEK2 MOTHER Y NONE 

APT.% 

1015 KELLY, JANE 5426 W. DEVON AVE FIWHTTVLS SISTER 

APT. 4N I 312-555-9999 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
+ DVIS Domestic Violence Intervention Software 3+ 

You want to know what has happen at a selected address 

or with a specific person. Have they called 91 1 bcforc? 

Why? Has this perSon been involved in any prcvious 

crimes? Is he violent? Have weapons been used at that 

address? DVIS answcrs these queslions and more in 

exploring the history behind a household. 

DVIS uses incidence history already collcctcd by the law 

cnforcement agency. It links 911 calls and casc history 

to provide detailed background information for an 

intervention team. 

DVIS Uicn augnicnts this incidcnt information with 

spccific domestic violcncc data for individuals and locations to form a complete picture to track and cvaluatc 

Pmilics at high risk of domestic violence. 

DVIS cnnblcs officcrs aid counscllors to cvaluatc thc 

risk for ;ui individual or location Uirough Uic High Risk 

modcls. Thcsc modcls consitlcr past criniinal and noncriminal incidcnccs, along with arrcsls and violations of 

ordcr of protcction. Tic ranking niclhods assigns 

"points" to many factors to compute a composite scorc. 

A high resultant scorc points to a "Hotspot" address or 

individual who would benefit from intervention. 

The High Risk Models reports are available by: 

Comprehensive Individual Asscssment 

' Comprchcnsivc Houschold Asscssmcnt 

Ranking of Indivicluals wiUi Rcccnt 

Domestic Activity 

Ranking of Locations wilh 

Domestic Activity 

These reports delineate all Uie 911 and general offcnsc 

information for the individual or location. They display 

and rank the selccted information by the fourteen high 

risk factors. 

DVIS also helps Uic depmicnt supervise its effectivciiess and outreach Uirough conibining thc information availablc on thc high risk models wiUi interventions 

efforts. Onc powcrful tool is thc "Hotspots Contactcd 

Rcport" (shown below). It indicates which addresses 

havc bccn callcd or visitcd. 

DVIS HIGH RISK MODELS: HOTSPOTS CONTACTEC REPORT 

SORTED BY TOTAL SCORE 

Lasl 

Building &a! Model Apt. Conlac! Conlac! Individual 

Address Type&Unit Num Score Num Allempled Made? Conlacled 

9525 S. HALSTED APT 8-12 31 1 234 9 01 OCT1993 YES TONYA WOODSON 

12 02 FEB 1994 NO NANCY ALBANY 

5150 N. KIMBALL RES 2 333 101 - - - NONE 

501 E. 9oTH ST RES 1 32 1 22 1 22 AUG 1993 NO TOM TULEY 

5724 W. NORTH RES 2 32 1 19 2 22 SEP 1993 YES JANE AUSTIN 

., . 

18 

@InfoMaker Inc. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
This report provides a detailed cse history of all the cases assigned to detective personnel. 

The repon displays the following data: 

+ Case Number 

4 Incident Date 

4 Locatio& District & Grid 

+ Offensflncident (-Primary & Secondary) 

+ Detective & Badge Number 

4 Case Cdl-Out'Status 

+ 

4 Charge (Primary & Secondary) 

+ Relationship 

+ Weapon 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

4 

+ 

+ Additional Victim Information 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ Additional Subject Lnformation 

+ SAO/HRS Referral Status? 

+ 

4 Filed Primary Charge 

4 

Case Assignment Status gL Assignment Date 

Additional / Miscellaneous Case Information 

IVctim Name, Address, State & ZIP 

Victim DOB or Age, Race, Sex & Ethnicity 

Victim Home & Business Phone Numbers 

Injury Types (Primary & Secondary) 

Treatment Type & Treatment Location 

Subject Name, Address, State & ZP 

Subject DOB or Age, Race, Sex & Ethnicity 

Subject Home & Business Phone Numbers 

Subject on Scene?, Subject Arrested? (on scene), Subject Injury? 

Type of Crime (Information, Felony, Misdemeanor) 

Clearance Type & Exceptionally Cleared Type 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
3 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I 

.. 

Appendix H: 

San Diego: 

Data base 

Incident Report, Supplemental Form, 

Variables, and Case Assignment Logic Chart 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
CRlME!lNCIDENTREPORT 

i 

c 

Q 

r 

r 

f 

P 

I 

I 

P 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

1 

V 

I 

C 

T 

I 

M 

/ 

W 

I 

T 

N 

E 

S 

S 

- 

U. 

3. 

MONTH DAY YEAR 

LOCATION OF INCIDENT (OR ADDRESS) CITY 

F 

F 

DAY OF WEEK TIME 

BEAT DISTRICT 

SEE RACE CODE RACE 

LEGEND ON TOP 

OF BACK PAGE 

I -~-__ I I 

USINESS PHONE 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMA1 ION (VICTIM VEHICLE INFO IF APPLICABLE) 1 VIWASSIST 

RELATION TO 

VICTIM / SUSPECT lNTERPnETER 

E3 

CI ry STATE ZIP 

REOUIRED 

TATUS EMPLOVEH (IIANK lk MlLlrAllY) ciiy STATE ZIP 

R I A 1 s R I I\ ] s DAYS OFF WOflK HllS 

rwE OF STRUCTURE __ HI 0W.RESIDENTIIL 

, ... ESIDENCE PHONE RACE SEX DATE OF nm mi 

1 I low USED 

ID TYPE ID NUMQEfl RELATION TO 

INTERPRETER VICTIM I SUSPECT 

SUSPECT ACTIONS __ 

REOUIRED 

TATUS EMPLOYER (RANK II- MIL11 ARY) BUSINESS OH MlLll AHY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 

I1 I LOC%(O ooiis 

lo I LOCVED WINOWS 

191 NElGllllORlWATCll 

I7 I lll’l’tl~llv~.L 

IbI DOOll 

- 

191 DUCTNFNT 

R I A I s R I A 1 s 

DAYS OFF WORK HRS 

Pll IlInFoUl 1rClINII)uI 

1731 ofrcnco ASSISIANCE 

P4l ormm oriucs 

Psi vrrrnfo GAMI~LINC; 

PSI n1rrnFo:;~x 

hll (ilticii!xxAcr:, 

Pal I’ICKLD IVCKET 

R91 MEPARED EXIT 

bOl PURSE SNATCH 

PI1 PUSHEDISHOVED VICTIM 

hl RANSACKC0 

!35I SHORIf TED 

R61 SMOKED ON M(EMISE5 

e71 TAMPfA WITH VFNICLE 

tlltl 111111 All?ll 1l111 IAI IN 

tJSl TOOU ANIMALS 

NO1 TOOK CASH FROM 

!4rl TOOK ONLV JEWELRV 

’$71 TOOK ONLY MONEY 

431 TOOK ONLV TOOLS 

t,?! INrLICTF.0 INJUIIY 

D71 WT cAsn IN rtAGiPunsF 

h4 IIAPLD 

REGISTER PEflSONALLV 

1441 loom miv ivIvcncn/ 

bl TOOK rnoPEnTv rnw 

CMALlIA 

Pf RSOII 

VftIICL E 

bGl TOOK PROPEIIIV FnOM 

b7l TOOKVEH I*ISACCES 

bill TOOK VICTIMS VFIIICLC 

I491 USED DEMAND NOTE 

kll USED LEFT NAND 

hll US€D LOOKOUT 

lS7l USED IAATCtIES 

hll USLD RIONC 

&SI USED STOLEN VEHICLE 

r,nI 511USED vANnAi VICTIMS i/rn TOOL 

691 VEHICLE NECDtOlO 

rdi USCDI~IC~T IIANI) 

kl USED THREATS 

REMOVC PROPERTY 

OTHER 

PRETENDED TO BE 

I 

MISCELLANEOUS DESCRIPTION VALUE IDENTIFICATION tlRAND. MAKE OR MODFL NAME AND H- I MANUFACTUblEn 1 MODLL NUMUEl1 NUMOEIIS 

- 

AllTlCLE NAMF 

-- 

Ll 

I I I I I I 

CASE AGENCY CRIME TYPE STATUS 

, ’roE AND TIME OF REPORT 1 

DAY YEAR TIME 

ARJIS-2 (REV. 7.91) ‘,* I 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
PAGE 

OF 

RACE Ai OTHER ASIAN 0- I CAMUOOIAN *I. HISI'ANIC I(- UOREAN P PACITIC U- HAWAIIAN Z i ASIAN CASE )I 

COOE U'BLACU F ~-FlLlPlNO I - INDIAN La LAOllAN ISLANOEA V- VIETNAMESE INDIAN 

LEGEHD C= CHINESE G* GUAMANIAN J 2 JAPANESE 0' OTHER S. SAMOAN W. WHITE 

SUSPECT 

VEHICLE 

I ~ ARRESTED SUSPECT I1 (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLE) NICKNAMWAKA RACE SEX AGE 000 HT. WT. BUILD HAIR EYE COLOR COLOR 

EIEl I 

! 

SUSPECT'S ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE IO TYPE IO NUMBER 

GENERAL 

LI 

S 

p 

101 UNKNOWI 

I I1 ACNE 

I? 1 DARK 

I1 I fRECULEO 

(51 h<fMlIM 

11 1 POCKED 

I0 1 RUOOY 

19) SALLOW 

)IO/ IANNFO 

I4 1 LIGIIT 

IS I PALE 

1111 ~IIICII 

I 

SUSPECT'S CLOTHING I ARRESTED SUSPECT 12 NICKNAMI7IAKA IlACC SEX AGI: riou 1-1 1 WT UUILO i+Airi 1 EYE 1 (CAST. FIRST, MIUOCE) 

COLOn COLon 

r'liONE 10 TYPE IO NUMOEII SUSPECT'S 

Elm 

ADDRESS CITY 

- STAlE LII' 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1 FUR1Hcfl SUSPECT DESCI1II'TION (1.E.. CLASSES. TA1100S. lEE<I. UII~TIiMAnK:i, JEWELRY, SCAIlS, E1C ) 

SUSPECT'S CLOTHING 

-I 

)ISPOSITION OF EVIDENCE 

MODEL 

TAG NOS- AODN'L PEHSONS WITNESS CHECK 

LISTED 

Elm 

DEMEANOR 1 SPEECH 1 VOICE , I SUSPECT 21 1 SUSPECT 21 1 SUSPECT 2 

I I 

OLOR TYPE LICENSE NO. LIC STATE 

I 1- -1 1.- I I I 

ADDITIONAL VEHICLE IocNririLns (OAMAGE. CiirioMc W)I~.I:LS. ETC J 1 VEHICLE I TOWING COMPANY 

HEADINGS CRIME OESCRIPTION. VICTIMIS1 STATEMENT. OFFICER'S STATEMENT I INVESTIGATION. EVIOENCE/OISPOSITION: WITNESS STATEMENT / WITNESS CHECKS: 

INJURIES I PROPERTY DAMAGE 

............................................................................................... ....................................................................................... 

..................................................................... ............................................................................................ 

..................................................................................... ........................................................................... 

................................................................ ............................................................................ 

......................................................... .................................................................. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
I I ' 1 ' I responded to a call of at (SDPD Dispatch Center ## 7 found the victim The victim displayed the following emotional and physical conditions: 

i VICTIM 

ANGRY COMP OF PAIN 

APOLOGETIC OnlJlSE (S) 

AOnASION (S) 

MINOR CUT (S) 

FRACTURE (S) 

HYSTERICAL LACERATION (S) 

AFRAID CONCUSSION (S) 

IRRATIONAL OTHER: EXPLAIN 

NERVOUS 

THREATENING ALWAYS explain 

OTH~R: €xpLAIN OPPOSITFS in narrative. 

DESCRIBE ALL CONDITIONS OBSERVED 

PHYSICAL: 

EMOTIONAL: 

L 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTIM AND SUSPECT 

MARKALL THATAPPLY PRIOR HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? 1-1 YES n NO 

SPOUSE LENGTH OF RELAT'oNSHIP PRIOR HISTORY OF VIOLENCE DOCUMENTED? cl YES u NO 

NUMBER OF PRIOR INCIDENTS: n MINOR n SERIOUS 

CASE NUMBER(s) 

FORMER SPOUSE 

FORMER COHAOITANTS 

DATING / ENGAGED 

COHABITANTS -YEAR(s) __ 

FORMER DATING IF APPLICABLE, 

SAME SEX DATE RELATIONSHIP ENDED: 

EMANICIPATED MINOR ~~ 1 INVESTIGATING AGENCY: PARENT OF CHILD FnOM 

RELATIONSHIP 1 PARAMEDICS AT SCENE: 1.2 YES 0 NO 1 HOSPITAL: 

NONE 

WILL SEEK OWN DOCTOR 

FIRST AID NAME(S) IDII: 

PARAMEDICS 

HOSPITAL 

REFUSED MEDICAL AID Alcohol [.I Drugs I3 N/A Ill 

NUMBER: ---__ ATTENDING PHYSICIAN(s): 

Suspect Under the influence of: 

EVIDENCE COLLECTED: 

FROM: 

PHOTOS: 0 Yes 3 No Number: 

TYPE: fl 35mm n Polaroid 

TAKEN BY: 

Photo's of victim's injuries: fl Yes No 

Photos of suspect's injuries: C1 Yes El No 

Weapon used during incident 0 Yes U No 

Type of weapon used: 

Weapon(s) impounded: ill Yes cL1 No 

Firearm(s) impounded for safety: 0 Yes 0 No 

DESCRIBE ALL EVIDENCE AND DISPOSITION 

Crime Scene n Hospital El Other: Explain 

DESCRIBE ALL PHOTOGRAPHS 

PROPERTY TAG NUMBER: 0 CONTINUED 

REPORTING OFFICER ID NUMBER DIV-WATCH DATE a TIME APPROVED BY: NAME & ID 

This information is available in alternative formals upon requesl 5's 3-965-FOS (Rev. 4-96) 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
SDPD DV UNIT ASSIGNMENT LOG DATA BASE 

.__ 

SiZf 

9 

- 

___. 

A/bI 

.- 

-- Comments 

*= Can not be duplicated 

Datc Usually 1 or 2 days after 

20 codes would be enough 

- -- .. - -. 

---__ - A/N 

A/N 

7 

2 

____ 

A/N 3 

- 

Anprox 70 Patrol Beats 

A/N 20 

Disposition A/N 7 

Date 

AN 

A/bJ 

__ --- 

20 

20 

None Victim Identification 

-__ 11 V. First Nanie None 

None 

.- _- ___-__ 

-___--.--__-__---_________~_-_ 

B LK , W H I, HI SI F I P, IN D, CHI, K 0 R, CP. MI H MO, LA 0, VI ET, OTHER , U N K 

TELEPHONE, PJ ON E 

_-___- -__- __I_-___

. _ 

V. E. of E. late II 

d. Race( Et hnici ty) A/N 5 11 

A/bI 

A/N 

__ 9 -__- Could Be: Y,N,UNK 

From DV supplemental; 

--__- 

25 Spouse Former Spouse , Co h a bi t an t s, Form e r Cohabit ant! 

lating/Engaged,Former Dating,Pai ents of Child,Emancip. Minoi' 

___ ____ 

__._-I___~-__- 

-_ 

Could be abbreviated 

20 

2 

VO N E : SPAN ISH ,CAM B , VI E T , LA OT, kI M 0 N GI OTH E R Vi __~___________- c t i m I de ri t if i c a t ion 

I, 

_ 

________-__ l/I,FIUN 

4 ALE / F E M A LE ; MAL E / M ALE ; F E MAL E / F E bl ALE ; U N K ; N/ A 

MLDRE td, NONE 

-__ - - 4/N 20 lould Be: M/F, M/M, F/F 

15 

20 

20 

__ 

kuld Be: Y,N,UNK:or, a number - 

done 

~-_ 

Suspect Id en t i f i ca t ion 

;. First Name __ -____-- done 

done 

_____~ - 

ILK , W H I, HI SI F I P, IN D , CHI, K 0 R , C A MI H M 0, LA 0, VI ET, OT H E R , IJ N K 

__---__ --_ 

dONE : SPAN1 SH I CAM B,VIET, LAOT, H MONG. OTt-lE R 

;. D. of B. )ate 

;. Race(Ethnicity) __ 

). Ti-anslator .- 

5 

20 

2 

____ 

___ 

L_ 

11 

~- 

i. Sex (Gender) _--_ It 

- 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
%RIMtN;AL -? NO v. J,P. I 

1 -3 7 3 0 (i -> “NONE” 

Suspect in Custody ? YES DFTECTlVE 

F+M c 

FELONY ? 

I No 

, 

YES DETECTIVE ” 

F 

Light Duty 1 Metz 1 

Susp. on DV Probation ? YES DETECTIVE 

Victim Refuses Cit. Arrest ? YES V.I.P. 

“NONE” 

Detective had Priors; 

or 3 or more Priors 

YES DETECTIVE 

- 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
- 

31% 

- 

58% 

- 

11% 

- 

FELONIES 

MISDEMEANORS 

NON-CRI MI NAL 

DV 94 ASSIGNMENTS 

Not in Custody 

Dect in CustoCiy 

S. in C. 

Susp. on DV Probation 

Detective Priors 

3 or more priors this Yr 

(Victim agrees to Arrest) 

Act. does not Refuse Arres 

Susp. not on DV Probation 

Victim Refuses Cit. Arrest 

Susp. not on DV Probation 

13730(i) 

Detectives 

Metz 

Lt. Duty 

V.I.P. 

I' NONE I' 

- 

60% 

- 

16% 

- 

24% 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix A 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

TARGETING CYCLES 

SUMMARY 

OF DOMESTIC€3!$: 

REPORT 

& 

Date: 

Overview 

The Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence project was a collaborative effort between the 

Seattle Police Department (SPD), both their Grants and Research Office and Domestic 

Violence Unit (DVU), and the University of Washington’s Harborview Injury Prevention and 

Research Center. This project was the first collaboration between these agencies. The 

Seattle Police Department spearheaded the project which included five subprojects 

addressing the following questions: 

Assessing the state-of-the-art in Domestic Violence @V) prevention, 

enforcement and research (a separate subcontract); 

Assessing the effects of the SPD DVU’s training on the improvement in 

completeness of incident report at the scene; 

Evaluating prior cases to identify potential factors that place misdemeanor cases 

at higher risk of generating future felony cases; 

Examining victim perceptions of police response to DV and barriers to contacting 

police for help with DV; 

Assessing scope and capacity of SPD DVU information system and making 

recommendations and improvements. 

The first subproject involved a subcontract with the Justice Research Center and the other 

four subprojects were in collaboration with the University of Washington. This report 

summarizes the work conducted addressing the five aims. 

Subproject 1: Information Systems at Select Police Departments 

This subproject was subcontracted to Justice Research Center to find and document domestic 

violence data collection schemes used by at least six other police departments. The search 

focused on police departments which have experimented with expanded databases for a 

variety of purposes, including prioritizing cases for specidcoordinated response, treatment, 

investigation, and/or prosecution; improving data collection; and determining “lethality” @e. 

identifying high-risk cases). 

The report (Appendix A) provides information on the domestic violence information systems 

developed and utilized by a select sample of U.S. cities. Problems encountered in the 

development and maintenance of these specialized databases are presented. The report draws 

on the experiences of the other police departments to lessons and suggestions regarding 

database content, lethality tests, and evidence gathering. The report also contains examples 

of incident reports, supplementary forms, and data screens from the surveyed police 

depart men ts. 

Subproject 2: Evaluation of Changes in Completeness of Incident Report 

The purpose of this subproject was to assess whether there was an improvement in patrol 

officer‘s completing the police incident report for domestic violence cases. The rationale for 

this evaluation was to see if the domestic violence training, which was conducted for all 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
patrol officers and emphasized evidence collection and documentation of the incident at the 

scene, had improved the completeness of the recording of items on the incident report. 

A brief summary of this project (Appendix B) includes the background, study question, 

design and methods, and table with results. Overall there was an improvement in many items 

on the police incident report including important ones like victim statements and suspect 

excited utterance. However even with the improvement, many items on the incident report 

were only completed less than half the time by the officers. 

Subproject 3: Evaluating Misdemeanor Cases for Recidivism and Escalation to Felony 

The Seattle Police Department created a Lethality Scale that they wanted evaluated for its 

scientific usefulness in screening misdemeanor cases and assigning detectives for follow-up. 

Detectives are routinely assigned to follow felony incidents, but the majority of DV incidents 

involve misdemeanor cases. Assigning detective follow-up for all misdemeanor cases is not 

practical, so the SPD DVU were interested in identifying the misdemeanor cases at greatest 

risk for escalating violence and becoming a felony incident. Thus, an evaluation of the 

Lethality Scale was conducted. However it should be noted that name “Lethality Scale” is a 

misnomer since it does not look at only lethal outcomes, but is really being applied to 

misdemeanor cases and reflects the confusion within the police of the purpose of the scale. 

A summary report (Appendix C) provides an overview and detail of the evaluation of the 

Lethality Scale. The report includes a description of the scale, the methods, data sample, 

incident characteristics, recidivism characteristics, and statistical methods and results with 

tables. The Lethality Scale was not useful as a predictive tool. The scale as originally 

derived, with all the scoring and weighting, merely reflected recidivism. If one only wanted 

to know recidivism, one could more easily count the number of past incidents without 

bothering to make the calculations necessary in using the scale. Even after assessing the 

natural history of domestic violence from the database and testing whether the scale could be 

modified to be a better predictive tool, it was found that scale could not be made more useful. 

Subproject 4: Focus Groups to Identify Barriers to Contacting Police for Help for 

Intimate Partner To address the issue that intimate partner violence is underreported to 

police, a study was conducted utilizing focus group methodology to identify women’s 

perceptions of the barriers to seeking police help for intimate partner violence (IPV). The 

project report can be found in Appendix D. 

Facilitators used a structured format with open-ended questions for five focus groups 

sessions that were recorded and subsequently analyzed using Ethnograph software. 

Participants were women identified from social service agencies in an urban setting serving 

IPV women with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Participants identified many 

barriers for victims which fell within the following three themes: 1) Predisposing 

Characteristics: Situational and Personal Factors; 2) Fears and Negative Experiences with 

Police Response; and 3) Fears of Possible Repercussions. Participants also described 

positive experiences with police and generated a ‘wish list’ for improving police response to 

IPV. Policies and actions that can be taken by police and social service agencies to address 

the barriers IPV victims face in seeking police help are discussed. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Subproject 5: Assessing scope and capacity of SPD DVU information system and 

making recommendations and improvements The SPD DVU database (Access database) 

had limited capaeity for use by the DVU for case tracking. The database had become so 

slow and cumbersome that detectives were not using it. (Some suggestions for improvement 

in the data information system are discussed at the end of Appendix C.) Thus the database 

was redesigned with improved speed, search facility, and data validation. In addition, 

password protected database utilities were added along with help screens and a manual. 

The speed of the database was vastly improved with several changes. The data table 

architecture was improved. The slower macro programming was removed and replaced with 

faster Visual Basic code. Many variables were changed from slower text to faster numeric 

codes. The front-end interface of the database was split off to run from the user's personal 

computer (PC), removing it from the back-end data on the server, thus allowing much of the 

processing to be more quickly distributed across the many individual PCs. In data entry, 

speed was attained by making it possible to enter only a first letter of a response to a variable. 

For example in entering the Relationship "married", the user only has to press the "m" key 

and the rest of the word is automatically filled in. 

The old search facility was slow and basically unusable. It has been replaced with a new 

search facility that performs more quickly, and now includes wildcard characters (e.g. search 

for Ken* would find Kenneth or Kenny) and Soundex codes (a system based on how the 

word sounds and consonants). A search report that details all incidents involving that 

individual can be printed now. This new search report is now being used regularly for 

"vertical assignment" of cases. 

Data quality and validation have been improved by changing many fields from text to 

numeric codes. For example instead of the relationships "Married", "married", and "maried" 

appearing as separate values, they are now stored as one value when entered as ''m'' in data 

entry for the variable Relationship.' Specific changes were also made to particular fields for 

consistent and valid data. For example, the Incident Number (which has the year as part of 

the number) must be a valid one for the Incident DateNear in order to be accepted. Thus 

now logically impossible dates or inconsistent responses for specific variables are not 

allowed. 

A password protected database utilities section was created with three functions for future 

changes and improvements to the database. One function is the allowed value of variable can 

be altered. The front-end interface of the database can be relinked with a button if the backend data is moved by the SPD Information Technology staff. 

Help and documentation are now available for the database. Help screens have been created 

and are available within the database to aid users. An elaborate manual (Appendix E) was 

written that functions both as a user's guide and a guide to the database architecture if a 

programmer needs to update or alter the database. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix B 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
COMPLETENESS OF RECORDING ON POLICE INCIDENT REPORTS 

Background: With the creation of the SPD Domestic Violence Unit, training was 

conducted to train all SPD officers in the area of domestic violence. The purpose of the 

training was to inform officers of the current mandatory arrest laws and procedures and 

policies in handling domestic violence cases. One area of emphasis in the training was 

on evidence collection and documentation of the incident at the time they go out on call 

to help with prosecution of cases whether or not the victim later testified or cooperated. 

Study Question: How has the completeness of recording of variables on the incident 

report changed or improved since the creation of the Domestic Violence Unit and the 

training of patrol officers? 

Design and Methods: A cross section sample was taken from two time periods, one preand one post - creation of DVU. Since much of the evidence information was contained 

in the descriptive portion of the incident report that was not computerized, hard copy 

incident reports were pulled and abstracted about the completeness of variables from the 

incident reports. 

Since domestic violence cases can not be identified reliably from the large police 

relational database (RMS), a programmer met the challenge of identifying potential 

domestic violence victims from the complex SPD relational database. He identified the 

incidents which were two of the more common offenses for domestic violence: 1) 

assaults for female victidmale suspect or 2) threatsharassments. A random sample of 

these identified assault and violation of court order incidents were selected for a record 

pull of hard copies. However not all these incidents would be expected to be intimate 

partner incidents; thus the hard copy reports’ descriptions of the incidents are first 

reviewed for determination of inclusion as an intimate partner domestic violence incident. 

Then the incident reports for the sample of intimate partner violence were abstracted to 

assess completion of recording of information on incident reports. Abstracted data was 

computerized and analyzed for differences in variables of interest (e.g. photos, excited 

utterances, etc.) and completeness of the incident form (name & address of victidperp, 

etc.) during the two time periods before DVU training of all SPD police officers to time 

period after. The variables of interest were the type of information emphasized in DV 

training as important to evidence collection and documentation at scene of incident such 

as taking victim statements and photographing victim injuries. 

Results: Differences in the completeness of some variables were found for pre- and 

post- training for assaults and for threatsharassment as shown in Table 1. For many of 

the variables, there was an increase in recording information on the incident report, but 

the increase was usually less for threatsharassment than for assaults and sometimes it 

even decreased for threatsharassment. Increased recording was found for important 

variables including written statement obtained from victim, photograph of victim’s 

injuries, emotional condition of victim, and excited utterances of suspect (for 

threatsharassment). Many variables on the incident report are left blank more than half 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
the time by the officers with two exceptions: 1) the variable to note whether the incident 

was domestic violence or 2) whether the witness was willing to testify (for assaults only). 

Thus, much work needs to be done to improve the completeness of recording information 

on the police incident report. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Incident Report Completeness Improvements for 

Assaults and ThreatdHarassments: 

Pre and Post Domestic Violence Unit Training 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix C 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
LETHALITY SCALE ANALYSES 

OVERVIEW 

The specific aim of this subproject was to evaluate the usefulness of the Lethality Scale in 

identifying misdemeanor cases that might be high risk for escalating violence and subsequent 

felony incidents. This report summarizes the database used, the scale itself, the patterns of 

violence identified in the data and natural history of the reported domestic violence, tests and 

alterations to the lethality scale and suggested improvements to the database. 

Domestic Violence Unit Databases 

The Seattle Domestic Violence Unit’s Database includes 2 components. The first component is 

the Names Database. This database includes 1 record for each person involved in a domestic 

violence incident. Each record includes personal information such as name, date of birth, 

gender, injuries resulting from the incident and treatment of those injuries, relationship and 

cohabitation status of the individuals involved in the incident, pregnancy status of each 

individual, alcohol and drug use at time of incident, whether or not a statement was given or 

photos were taken, and the incident number. The second component of the Seattle Domestic 

Violence Unit’s Database is the Incidents Database. This database includes 1 record per 

incident. Each record includes incident information such as the incident number, date, time, 

census tract, place where the incident occurred, type of primary and secondary offense, weapon 

type used, presence of the suspect, arrests made, court order information, evidence collected, 

statements and photos taken, and sergeant action. 

Seattle Domestic Violence Unit Lethality Scale 

DESCRIPTION OF SCALE 

The Seattle Domestic Violence Unit developed the Lethality Scale based on their knowledge and 

experience in handling domestic violence cases. They wanted to use the scale as a means to help 

allocate scarce detective resources among the misdemeanor incidents. Although the scale was 

intended to be used in help in identifying high risk cases, the name lethality scale does not 

accurately reflects its purpose. 

The Lethality Scale is derived from the data in the DVU database. The Lethality Scale is 

composed of 6 incident characteristic components with varying values that contribute to an 

overall score. The six components of the scale are summarized in Figurel. The Total Lethality 

Score is the sum of the values from the 6 individual components listed in Figure 1. Note that the 

Offense Score is a sum of the values for the primary and secondary offenses and the Injury Score 

is a sum of the injury and treatment components. 

Note that the lethality score values refer to an individual only and do not include information 

about other people involved in that particular incident. For example, the Injury Score for a 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
suspect refers to the suspect’s injury and treatment and does not include information on the 

victim’s injuries or treatment. The minimum possible score for a suspect is 2 (assuming there 

are no missing data values) and the maximum possible score is 53. In the 1995-1996 Domestic 

Violence Unit data, the average Total Lethality Score for a suspect was 8.93. The minimum 

score for a suspect was 0 and the maximum score was 25. 

2 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Figure 1. Components of the Seattle Police Department Domestic Violence Unit Lethality Scale 

Corresponding score values are adjacent to incident characteristics. 

INCIDENT/ 

OFFENSE INJURY WEAPON LOCATION OTHER PERSONAL 

SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE 

VALUES VALUES VALUES VALUES VALUES VALUES 

Assault 

Burglary 

Trespass 

Custodial 

Interference 

Disturbance 

Harassment 

Homicide 

Menacing 

Property Damage 

Rape 

Reckless Endangerment 

Stalking 

Suspicious 

Circumstances 

Theft 

Threats 

Court Order 

Violation 

Warrant 

Other 

5 

5 

I 

1 

1 

3 

10 

5 

2 

8 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

1 

INJURY 

No Complaint 

Non-Visible 

Visible - Minor 

Visible - Serious 

Death 

TREATMENT 

Noneme fused 

Personal Doctor 

At Scene 

Transported to 

Hospital 

HandlFeet 

0 Handgun 

2 Knife 

4 Rifle 

6 Shotgun 

10 Vehicle 

Other 

0 

1 

3 

4 

Apartment 

Business 

DrivewayNard 

Hotelhlotel 

House 

Park 

Parking Lot 

Restaurant 

School/College 

StreeVSidewalk 

Tavernmar 

Vehicle 

Other 

1 No Contact Order 1 Under Influence 

4 Protection Order 1 of Alcohol/Drugs 3 

2 Pregnant 4 

2 No Contact with Married and Not 

1 Suspect and No Living Together 4 

3 Arrest ofsuspect 2 

3 

4 

3 

4 

3 

2 

1 

4 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF DW LETHALITY SCALE 

We began to investigate the predictive ability of the Lethality Scale, proposed by the Seattle 

Police Domestic Violence Department, by determining the frequency and completeness of the 

components of the Lethality Scale. This information is summarized in Table 1. A total of 12228 

incidents occurring between January 1, 1995 and December 1996 involving intimate couples, in 

which the suspect is at least 18 and the victim is at least 16, and where the suspect and victim are 

clearly defined are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1. Frequency and Completeness of Lethality Scale Components for All Incidents in 1995-1996 DVU Data 

(for incidents in which a suspect and victim were clearly defined) 

Total of 12228 Incidents 

~~ 11 No Complaint-Assumed 52 No Complaint - Assumed 

No Complaint 9 NO- Complaint 1 

Complaint Non-Visible 10 Complaint Non-Visi ble <1 

Visible-Minor 26 Visible-Minor 2 

Visible-Serious 3 Visible-Serious <I 

Death <1 Death 0 

Assaul t(Harassment) 

Assault(None) 

Assault(other) 

Assault(Prop Damage) 

Assault (Threats) 

Assault (Viol of CO) 

Assault (Warrant) 

Custodial Int.(None) 

Disturbance(None) 

Harassment( None) 

Harassment(Threats) 

Harassment(Vio1 CO) 

Other(None) 

Property Dam(None) 

Susp Circum (None) 

Threats (None) 

Viol of CO (None) 

Viol of CO(Assau1t) 

1 

39 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

9 

7 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

16 

1 

NoneRefused 34 Nonemefused 2 

Personal Doctor 1 Personal Doctor 0 

At Scene 2 At Scene <I 

Transport to Hospital 4 Transport to Hospital <I 

Missing 58 Missing 97 

RifleIS hotgun 

Stabbing Instrument 

Other 

Missing 

Dating 61 

Divorced 6 

Married 22 

5 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Dating -41 

Divorced 6 

Married 9 

Public Place 

Missing 

Dating 20 

Divorced <1 

Married 13 

Anti-Harassment 1 Present and Arrested 33 

No Contact 12 Present and Not Arrested 6 

Protection 7 Not Present and Arrested 2 

Other 1 Not Present and Not 59 

Arrested 

Restraining 1 

NonelMissing 79 

Define private place as apartment, house, driveway/yard, hoteVmotel, vehicle. 

As suggested by the frequency distributions in Table 1, the lethality scores are based on only a 

few of the 6 components. Information represented in the lethality score is often missing. The 

offense score values are displayed as the primary offense followed by the secondary offense in 

parentheses for each incident. The primary and secondary offense pairs, which were observed in 

at least 1%, of the incidents are listed in Table 1. Note that assaults are present in nearly half of 

the offense combinations. Information on weapon type was often omitted from the incident 

report. As noted in Table 1, 55% of the incidents in the 2 year period were missing information 

on the type of weapon used in the incident, if any. For offenses such as harassment and threats, 

it is appropriate to have no information on weapon use. Assaults, on the other hand, should have 

a corresponding weapon recorded. Among 6087 incidents in which the primary or secondary 

offense was assault, 3 1 % of these incident reports were missing the type of weapon. 

Incidents appear to occur most often in a private place, where a private place is defined as an 

apartment, house, driveway/yard, hoteVmote1, or vehicle. Limited information is recorded on 

injuries. Less than half of the victims offer a complaint of injury. Similarly, there is limited 

information on the type of treatment for injuries. In only 7% of the incidents is treatment 

accepted and recorded for the victims. Among the 4778 complaints of injury by the victims, 

78% of these victims received no treatment or refused any treatment, 11% were transported to 

the hospital, 6% were treated at the scene, 3% were treated by a personal physician, and 3% were 

missing information on the type of treatment. The frequency of alcohol and drug use by the 

suspects and victims is small. Pregnancy is not commonly observed in the incidents. It is 

interesting to note that there are some instances of pregnant suspects. In about one-third of the 

incidents, the suspects and the victims are living together. The couples are most likely to be 

dating. Note that a couple who is married and has children in common is recorded as married, 

and similarly for divorced couples, while a couple who is dating with a child in common is 

recorded as child in common. Nearly 80% of the incidents had no information on the type of 

court order, if any, that was in place at the time of the incident. For those 2633 incidents in 

which there was a primary or secondary offense of Violation of a Court Order, 51% had a No 

Contact Order, 28% had a Protection Order, 5% had a Restraining Order, 4% had an Antiharassment order, 1% had an Other Type Court Order, and 11% were missing information on the 

type of court order in effect. For those 2604 incidents in which a court order type was recorded, 

6 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
90% had either a primary or secondary offense of Violation of Court Order. Finally, note that 

suspects were most likely not to be present and not arrested. 

To investigate the predictive ability of the Lethality Score, we must first explain our 

interpretation of the use of the score by the Seattle Domestic Violence Unit. The DVU specifies 

a period of time, for example 6 months, and computes lethality score values for every person 

involved in an incident during ths period. An individual’s Total 6 Month Lethality Score is the 

sum of the Total Lethality Scores for every incident in which he/she was involved in over the 

period of 6 months. Information on individuals with a Total 6 Month Lethality Score over a 

certain cut-off value, say 50 points, is printed and reviewed by the detective. We simulated this 

approach using the 2 years of DVU data. Specifically, we used the DVU data to compile 6 

month scores over the period 1/1/95-6/30/95 for every suspect whose first incident was a 

misdemeanor. 

The resulting scores, which are displayed in the attached Figure 2 and Figure 3, suggest that the 

Total 6 Month Lethality Scores are closely related to the number of incidents the individual was 

involved in during that 6 month period of time. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, a suspect 

would need to be involved in at least 4 incidents during the 6 month period before he/she would 

be identified by the Lethality Scale at this particular calculation of the scores. The predictive 

ability of the scale is displayed in Figure 3. Figure 3 is a plot of the Total 6 Month Lethality 

Score by the number of incidents in which the suspect was involved for the remaining 18 months 

of follow-up time. The plotting symbols represent the number of incidents in which the suspect 

was involved during the 6 month period in which the scores were calculated. The suspects who 

fall above the 50 Total Lethality Score point would be looked at more closely by a detective. 

The row of symbols corresponding to 0 incidents in 7/1/95-12/31/96, i.e. the symbols 7, 4, 6, 7, 

6, 8, and 8 in the lower right comer of the plot, represent individuals who would be followed up 

on, but would not go on to have any subsequent incidents in the following 18 months. Note that 

these individuals may be in prison during the follow-up period, and would not be at risk to reoffend. We did not have sentencing information in our data sample. On the other hand, those 

suspects with 8 to 10 incidents remaining in the 18 month follow-up period, those who are in the 

upper left hand side of the plot, would not have been identified as a problem through this 

snapshot of the data. These individuals would need to be involved in several more incidents, 

most likely, before they would be identified by the Lethality Scale. In summary, based on the 

descriptive statistics and plots, it appears that the Lethality Scale reflects recidivism. 

Study Data 

DATA DESCRIPTION 

Before altering the Lethality Scale to see if it could be more useful than only predicting 

recidivism, we were interested in looking at the history of reported incidents between intimate 

couples. Our study data included the subset of incidents which occurred over the period from 

January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1996. We reformatted the databases to reflect the history of 

violence between unique couple members. We considered only intimate couples, meaning 

suspects and victims who were married, divorced, had children in common, or were dating. We 

only considered couples in which the victim was at least 16 years old and the suspect was at least 

7 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
18 years old. To form a history of reported domestic violence between individuals, we linked 

incidents together in which the same 2 individuals were involved. To do this we linked the 

personal information for each suspect and victim involved in the same incident by the incident 

number. Then we linked the suspect and victim personal information to the incident information 

by using the incident number. Next, we corrected typographical errors in names and birth dates 

for individuals with more than 1 reported incident using a SOUNDEX program. Finally, we 

linked together personal and incident information for all incidents involving a single couple. 

PATTERNS OF VIOLENCE 

After forming a 2-year history of reported domestic violence for all intimate couples in which the 

victim was at least 16 years of age and the suspect was at least 18 years of age, we investigated 

the suspect and victim role that each person played in each incident for which they were 

involved. We also investigated the number of unique couples each individual was involved in 

over the 2 year period. 

In the following descriptions, only individuals from intimate couples (dating, child in common, 

manied, or divorced) in which the victim was at least 16 years of age and the suspect was at least 

18 years of age are summarized. There were a total of 16074 individuals with reported incidents 

in 1995-1996. Most individuals were involved in only 1 incident over the 2 year period. 

Specifically, 72% of the 16074 individuals with reported incidents in 1995-1996 were involved 

in only 1 incident, 16% were involved in 2 incidents, 6% were involved in 3 incidents, 3% were 

involved in 4 incidents, 3% were involved in 5 up to 23 incidents over the 2 year period. 

An individual's role as suspect or victim sometimes changed from incident to incident, meaning 

in one incident the individual was a victim and in the next incident, the individual was a suspect. 

The following descriptions are at the individual level meaning that if a person was a suspect in 

their first incident and a victim in their second incident, these could have happened with 2 

separate people. In other words, there is no pairing between individuals of a unique couple in the 

following summaries. In some incidents an individual is coded as victidsuspect if their role 

could not be easily dichotomized. 

For those 11689 individuals involved in only 1 incident over the 2 year period, 48% were 

victims, 48% were suspects, and 4% were victidsuspects. For those 2543 individuals involved 

in 2 incidents over the 2 year period, 39% were victims in both incidents, 39% were suspects in 

both incidents, 8% were victims in the first and suspects in the second, 8% were suspects in the 

first and victims in the second, 2% were victims/suspects in their first and victims in their 

second, 2% were victims/suspects in their first and suspects in their second, 1% were victims in 

their first and victims/suspects in their second, 1% were suspects in their first and 

victims/suspects in their second, and less than 1% were victims/suspects in both incidents. For 

those 1027 individuals involved in 3 incidents over the 2 year period, 34% were victims in all 3 

incidents; 35% were suspects in all 3 incidents; 5% were suspects in the first 2 incidents and 

victims in the 3rd incident; 5% were victims in the first 2 incidents and suspects in the 3rd 

incident; 3% were suspects in the lSt, victims in the 2nd, and suspects in the 3rd incident; 4% were 

victims in the lS', and suspects in the other 2 incidents; 3% were victims in the lSt, suspects in the 

2"d, and victims in the 3rd incident; 3% were suspects in the lS', and victims in the other 2 

8 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
incidents; and 8% were the remaining combinations of suspect, victim, and victidsuspect. For 

those 478 individuals involved in 4 incidents over the 2 year period, 30% were victims in all 4 

incidents; 33% were suspects in all 4 incidents; 3% were victims/suspects in the lst and victims 

for the other 3 incidents; 3% were suspects in the 1' and victims for the other 3 incidents; 4% 

were suspects in the 1" and 2nd, victims in the 3", and suspects in the 4*; 2% were suspects in 

the lSt, victims in the 2nd, and suspects in the other 2 incidents; 2% were suspects in the first 3 

incidents and victims in the 4* incident; 3% were victims in the first 3 incidents and suspects in 

the 4* incident; 2% were victims in the Is', suspects in the 2nd, and victims in the other 2 

incidents; 2% were victims in the first 2 incidents, suspects in the 3rd, and victims in the 4"; 3% 

were victims in the 1" and suspects in the other 3 incidents; and 10% were the remaining 

combinations of suspect, victim, and victidsuspect. 

The coding of victim, suspect, and victidsuspect may correspond to whether or not there is a 

mutual arrest in the incident. To examine this relationship, all 12,762 incidents between 1995- 

1996 were investigated in terms of the resulting arrests. There were 39 incidents (0.3% of the 

total number of incidents) in which a mutual arrest was made. Of these, 64% were incidents in 

which the individuals were both coded as victidsuspect, 5% were incidents in which both 

individuals were coded as suspects, 26% involved incidents in which a suspect and victim were 

clearly defined, and 5% involved incidents in which one individual was coded as a suspect and 

the other was coded as a victidsuspect. There were 38 incidents (0.3% of total number 

incidents) in which both people involved in the incident were coded as suspects. Five percent of 

the incidents in which both individuals were coded as suspects resulted in a mutual arrest. There 

were 414 incidents in which both individuals were coded as a victidsuspect. Only 6% of the 

incidents in which the individuals were both coded as victidsuspect resulted in a mutual arrest. 

There were 24 incidents in which an individual was coded as a suspect and the other was coded 

as a victidsuspect. Of these, 8% resulted in a mutual arrest. 

Some individuals are involved in incidents with more than 1 other individual over the 2 year 

period. Specifically, 95% of the 16074 individuals with reported incidents in 1995-1996 were 

involved in only 1 couple. Five percent of the individuals were involved in 2 different couples. 

Of these, 47% had 1 incident with 2 different partners, 22% had 2 incidents with 1 partner and 1 

incident with another, 12% had 3 incidents with 1 partner and 1 incident with another, 5% had 4 

incidents with 1 partner and 1 incident with another, to name those groupings most often 

observed among those involved with 2 different partners. Less than 1% of the individuals were 

involved in 3 up to 5 couples. We investigated the suspecthictim assignment for those 

individuals involved in 4 or 5 different couples. There were 5 individuals having reported 

domestic violence with 4 separate partners. Of these, two were males who were suspects in 3 

incidents, each with a different partner, and victims in 1 incident, with a fourth partner. One was 

a female who was a victim in 3 incidents, each with a different partner, and a victim in 2 other 

incidents with a fourth partner. Another female was a victim in 3 incidents, each with a different 

partner, and a victim and a suspect in 2 incidents with a fourth partner. The final female was a 

victim in 2 incidents, each with a different partner, a victim in 3 incidents with a third partner, 

and a victim in 7 incidents and a suspect in 2 incidents with a fourth partner. There were 3 

individuals who were involved in incidents with 5 different partners. The first was a female who 

was a victim in 4 incidents, each with a different partner, and a suspect in an incident with a fifth 

partner. The next was a female who was a victim in 3 incidents, each with a different partner, 

9 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
and a victim in 2 incidents with a fourth and 2 incidents with a fifth partner. The last individual 

was a male who was a suspect in 2 incidents, each with a different partner, a suspect in 2 

incidents with a third and 2 incidents with a fourth partner, and a victidsuspect in 1 incident 

with a fifth partner. 

Alterations to Lethality Scale 

DATA SUMMARIES 

In order to alter the lethality scale, we began by observing the natural history of police reported 

domestic violence between couple members. We looked at the history of incidents among 

intimate heterosexual couples in which a suspect and victim were clearly defined. We had 

limited information concerning the history of domestic violence between couple members as we 

were not able to link the DVU data to the RMS history data. Therefore, to attempt to look at the 

beginning of reported domestic violence between couple members, we focused on those couples 

without reported domestic violence incidents in 1995, without any court order recorded on their 

first incident in 1996, without a primary or secondary offense of Violation of Court Order on 

their first incident in 1996, and including those whose first incident was referred to another 

agency outside the DVU. We then followed these couples for 12 months after their first incident 

in 1996 and described the history of domestic violence between the couple members. 

Few of the 2935 couples described above had subsequent incidents in the 12-month period 

following the first incident. Specifically, 82% of the couples had no subsequent incidents in the 

12-month follow-up period, 12% of the couples had 1 subsequent incident in the 12-month 

follow-up period, 4% of the couples had 2 subsequent incidents in the 12-month follow-up 

period, 1% had 3 subsequent incidents in the 12-month follow-up period, and 1% of the couples 

had 4 to 10 subsequent incidents in the 12-month follow-up period. Therefore, because of 

limited information on multiple incidents per couple members, our analyses focus on 

characteristics of the first incident between couple members. 

We also investigated the time between consecutive incidents for each couple. Among the 2935 

couples described above, 7% had a second incident within 1 month of their first incident, 12% 

had a second incident within 3 months of their first, 15% had a second incident within 6 months 

of their first incident, and 17% had a second incident within 9 months of their first incident. 

Among the 529 couples that have at least 1 subsequent incident reported in the 12-month followup period, 4 1 % of the second incidents occur within 1 month of the first incident and about 90% 

of the second incidents occur within 7.5 months of the first incident. Among the 174 couples 

that have at least 2 subsequent incidents reported in the 12-month follow-up period, 49% of the 

third incidents occur within 1 month of the second incident and about 90% of the third incidents 

occur within 5.7 months of the second incident. Among the 71 couples that have at least 3 

subsequent incidents reported in the 12-month follow-up period, 51% of the fourth incidents 

occur within 1 month of the third incident and about 90% of the fourth incidents occur within 4.6 

months of the third incident. When interpreting the time between incidents, it is important to 

note that the follow-up period is 12 months, so those with multiple incidents are under a time 

between incident time constraint. 

10 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
PREDICTIVE MODELING 

Through discussions with the Seattle Police Domestic Violence Unit Lieutenants and Detectives, 

it was decided that the lethality scale should be altered to reflect both recidivism and escalation 

of violence. To do this, we defined escalation of violence as a history of domestic violence 

which included a “serious” offense of assault, menacing, rape, reckless endangerment, or 

stalking. We analyzed couples separately according to whether or not their first incident was 

“serious”. To identify predictive characteristics of incidents, we compared first incidents among 

several groups of individuals. Specifically, we made the following 4 comparisons: 

A. “Non-serious” First Incidents: Compare first incidents for those with 

I. “Non-serious” first incidents and any subsequent incident to those with 

“Non-serious” first incidents and no subsequent incidents. 

Then, among those with more than 1 incident, we compared first incidents for those with: 

11. “Non-serious” first incidents and a “serious” subsequent incident to those with 

“Non-serious” first incidents and only “non-serious” subsequent incidents. 

B. “Serious” First Incidents: Compare first incidents for those with 

I. “Serious” first incidents and any subsequent incident to those with 

“Serious” first incidents and no subsequent incidents. 

Then, among those with more than 1 incident, we compared first incidents for those with: 

11. “Serious” first incidents and a “serious” subsequent incident to those with 

“Serious” first incidents and only “non-serious” subsequent incidents. 

To identify predictive characteristics of the first incidents and the appropriate weights for a 

lethality type score, we fitted a logistic regression model for each of the outcomes described 

above (Y es/No subsequent incidents and Yes/No “serious” subsequent incidents) for both the 

“serious” first incident group and the “non-serious” first incident group. For each comparison, a 

portion of the data was used as a model building set and the remaining portion of the data was 

used as a model validation set. By splitting the data in this fashion, we were able to investigate 

the predictive ability of each model. Observed outcomes for the individuals in the model 

validation sets were compared to the predicted probability of re-offense or “serious” re-offense 

from the fitted model. Statistics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and 

negative predictive value were calculated to summarize the predictive ability of the models. 

In each comparison, very few couples, if any, were predicted to re-offend or have a “serious” reoffense. It appears that the information included in the DVU database, over a 12 month followup period, alone is not sufficient to use in a prediction of recidivism and escalation of violence. 

It would have been helpful to have more criminal history information for each couple member as 

well as enough data to allow for a longer follow-up period for each couple. With a longer 

follow-up period, a better picture of the sequence of events over time should emerge. 

11 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Natural History of Reported Domestic Violence 

As discussed above, a lethality score to predict recidivism and escalating violence is not 

attainable with such Iimited information. Instead, we felt that a summary sheet of possible risk 

factors, for each outcome discussed above, would help detectives identify couples in need of 

focused attention. 

COMPARISON OF SERIOUS AND NON-SERIOUS J?IRST INCIDENTS 

We are interested in identifying possible risk factors for subsequent, escalating police reported 

domestic violence for the group of couples who appear to begin their cycle of reported violence 

with a “non-serious” first incident and also identify possible risk factors for those couples who 

appear to begin their cycle of violence with a “serious” first incident. As mentioned above, we 

looked at these two groups of couples separately. Characteristics of the first incidents which 

appeared to differ for these two groups of couples are summarized in Table 2. There were 1833 

couples in our sample who had a “serious” first incident compared to 1102 couples in our sample 

with a “non-serious” first incident. Note that alcohol and drug use by suspects and victims in 

both groups is surprisingly low. Couples with “serious” first incidents do appear to have more 

recorded drug and alcohol use by the suspects and victims as compared to those couples with 

“non-serious” first incidents. Relationship is stratified according to whether or not the suspect 

and victim were living together at the time of the incident. A greater percentage couples with 

“serious” first incidents lived together at the time of the first incident than those with “nonserious” first incidents (51% and 26% respectively). A victim injury was reported more often 

among those couples with a “serious” first incident, 68% of incidents compared to 4% among 

those with “non-serious” first incidents. The indication of victim injury and treatment of victim 

injury are lower than would be expected from “serious” offenses, of which 98% involved a 

primary or secondary assault offense. Suspects were more likely to be present at the scene of a 

“serious” first offense, 51% of the time compared to only 23% of the time for suspects with 

“non-serious” first offenses. Similarly, suspects involved in “serious” first incidents were more 

likely to be arrested than suspects involved in “non-serious first incidents (53% compared to 

12% respectively). Finally, a weapon was more likely to be recorded for “serious” than “nonserious” first incidents (7 1% compared to 26% respectively). 

12 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table 2. Characteristics of First Incidents for those with Serious First Incidents and those with Non-serious First 

Incidents 

Incident Characteristic 

Group Size 

Alcohol and Drug Use: Suspect 

Victim 

Suspect and Victim Live Together: 

Relationship: Child in Common 

Relationship: Dating 

Relationship: Divorced 

Relationship: Married 

Suspect and Victim Do NOT Live Together: 

Relationship: Child in Common 

Relationship: Dating 

Relationship: Divorced 

Relationship: Married 

Indication of Victim Injury 

Indication of Treatment of Victim Injury 

Suspect Present and Not Arrested 

Arrested 

Suspect Not Present and Not Arrested 

Arrested 

Weapon: Any 

Type of 

“Serious” First Incident 

1833 

11% 

5% 

4% 

28% 

<1% 

19% 

6% 

36% 

1% 

5% 

68% 

12% 

2% 

49% 

45 % 

4% 

71% 

irst Incident 

“Non-serious” First Incident 

1102 

7% 

2% 

2% 

12% 

<1% 

12% 

10% 

47% 

8% 

9% 

4% 

0% 

12% 

11% 

76% 

1% 

26% 

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS OF SUBSEQUENT, ESCALATING 

VIOLENCE 

To identify such risk factors, we fit logistic regression models for each outcome discussed above. 

The models were fit to the entire groups of couples described above. Incident characteristics, 

which appeared to be related to the probability of each outcome of interest univariately, were 

entered into the multivariate logistic model. Variables were excluded from the model until each 

of the remaining covariates was significantly related to the probability of the outcome of interest 

at the alpha=0.05 level, independently of the other covariates in the model. Variables also 

remained in the model if they acted as a confounder of the relationship between the outcome and 

a risk factor of interest. The resulting apparent risk factors are described by odds ratios and 95% 

confidence intervals of the odds ratios. 

Comparison of Non-serious First Incidents between Repeaters and Non-repeaters 

The first incident for those with “non-serious” first incidents and any subsequent incident were 

compared to the first incident for those with “non-serious” first incidents and no subsequent 

incidents. The incident characteristics which appeared to differ between the repeaters and nonrepeaters are summarized in Table 3. Note that there were 202 repeaters with “non-serious” first 

incidents and 900 non-repeaters with “non-serious” first incidents in our data sample. Note that 

information was not complete for all incidents, and the non-repeaters appear to be more likely to 

be missing information on suspect age and hour of the incident. The distribution of suspect age 

appeared to differ between the groups. Specifically, it appeared that the repeaters were younger 

13 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
than the non-repeaters. It also appeared that suspect age was related to victim age, meaning 

young victims were paired with young suspects. Therefore, since we believe that victim age 

could be related to the probability of recidivism, it will be important to control for the victim age 

when investigating the suspect age as a possible risk factor for recidivism. In other words, 

victim age may confound the relationship between suspect age and the probability of recidivism. 

Note that although the percentages of pregnant victims are very low in each group, repeating 

couples are more likely to involve a pregnant victim. The time of the incident also appeared to 

differ between the repeaters and non-repeaters. Specifically, repeaters appeared to be more 

likely than non-repeaters to have incidents in the morning and afternoon. 

To identify possible risk factors for recidivism, a logistic regression model was fit. When victim 

age was controlled for, suspect age no longer appeared to be significantly related to the 

probability of repeat incidents. A couple in which the victim was pregnant was at an increased 

risk of subsequent incidents. Specifically, controlling for the time period of the day, the odds of 

subsequent domestic violence for a couple in which the victim was pregnant are 3.74 times the 

odds for a couple in which the victim was not pregnant during the frrst reported incident (95% 

confidence interval: 1.12 to 12.46). Also, a couple whose first incident occurred during the 

morning was at an increased risk of subsequent incidents. Controlling for pregnancy status of 

the victim, the odds of subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose first incident occurred 

between 4am and noon are 1.60 times the odds for a couple whose first incident occurred 

between 8pm and 4am (95% confidence interval: Similarly, the odds of 

subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose first incident occurred between noon and 8pm 

are 1.36 times the odds for a couple whose first incident occurred between 8pm and 4am (95% 

confidence interval: 0.96 to 1.94). Note that this increase in the odds of subsequent incidents is 

not significant for this comparison as the confidence interval contains 1. 

1.06 to 2.40). 

Table 3. Comparison of Characteristics of First Incidents between Repeaters and Non-repeaters among those with 

Non-serious First Incidents 

Incident Characteristic 

Group Size 

Victim Age: 16-24 

25-34 

35-44 

45- 

Missing 

Suspect Age: 18-24 

25-34 

35-44 

45- 

Missing 

Pregnant Victim 

Hour of Incident: 8pm-4am 

4am-noon 

noon-8pm 

Missing 

Repeaters Non-repeaters 

202 

25 % 

34% 

20% 

95 

11% 

21% 

42% 

17% 

9% 

11% 

2% 

36% 

24% 

39% 

1% 

900 

23% 

30% 

24% 

11% 

12% 

18% 

30% 

24% 

12% 

16% 

1% 

42% 

18% 

33% 

7% 

Odds Ratio 

3.74 

1 .00 

1.60 

1.36 

95% Confidence 

Interval 

(1.12, 12.46) 

Reference 

(1.06, 2.40) 

(0.96, 1.94) 

14 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Comparison of Non-serious First Incidents between “Serious” Repeaters and ‘“onserious” Repeaters 

Incident Characteristic 

Group Size 

Suspect and Victim Live Together 

Primary or Secondary Offense 

Harassment or Threats 

Other Non-serious 

Among those with at least 1 incident in the follow-up period, we compared first incidents for 

those with “non-serious” first incidents and a “serious” subsequent incident to those with “nonserious” first incidents and only “non-serious” subsequent incidents. The incident characteristics 

which appeared to differ between the “serious” and “non-serious” repeaters are described in 

Table 4. There were 88 “serious” repeaters and 114 “non-serious” repeaters among those with 

“non-serious” first incidents. Note that “serious” repeater couples were more likely to be living 

together at the time of the first incident than those couples with only “non-serious” subsequent 

incidents (49% compared to 14% respectively). Also, couples with “serious” repeat incidents 

were less likely to have primary or secondary offenses in their first incident which included 

harassment or threats (22% pmpared to 54% respectively). The “serious” repeater group was 

therefore more likely to have primary or secondary offenses including trespassing, custodial 

interference, disturbance, property damage, suspicious circumstances, theft, warrant, or burglary. 

Serious Non-serious Odds Ratio 95% Confidence 

Repeaters Repeaters Interval 

88 114 

49% 14% 5.34 (2.54, 1 1.24) 

22% 54% 0.48 (0.25,0.91) 

78% 46% 1 .oo Reference 

To identify possible risk factors for escalation of violence, a logistic regression model was fit. 

Among couples with repeat incidents, couples who lived together at the time of their first 

incident were at an increased risk of “serious” subsequent incidents. Alcohol use by the suspect 

also appeared to be related to the cohabitation status of the suspect and victim, so when 

examining the effect of living together, it is important to control for suspect alcohol and drug 

use(how are they related?). Controlling for the type of offense and alcohol use by the suspect, 

the odds of ”serious” subsequent domestic violence for a couple who live together are 5.34 times 

the odds for a couple who did not live together at the time of the first incidents (95% confidence 

interval:2.54, 1 1.24). Among couples with subsequent incidents, a couple whose first incident 

involved a primary or secondary offense of threats or harassment was at a decreased risk of 

“serious” subsequent incidents. Controlling for cohabitation status, the odds of ”serious” 

subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose first incident included a primary or secondary 

offense of threats or harassment were 0.48 times the odds for a couple whose first incident 

involved other “non-serious” offenses (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.9 1). 

Table 4. Comparison of Characteristics of First Incidents between Serious Repeaters and Non-serious Repeaters 

among those with Non-serious First Incidents 

Comparison of Serious First Incidents between Repeaters and Non-repeaters 

The first incident for those with “serious” first incidents and any subsequent incident were 

compared to the first incident for those with “serious” first incidents and no subsequent 

15 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
incidents. The incident characteristics which appeared to differ between the repeaters and nonrepeaters are summarized in Table 5. There were 327 repeaters with “serious” first incidents and 

1506 non-repeaters with “serious” first incidents in our data sample. Again, information was not 

complete for all incidents, although it does not appear to be much of a problem for this 

comparison. The repeaters appeared to be more likely to have a first incident in a private place, 

86% compared to 8 1 % for the non-repeaters where a private place was defined as a hotel/motel, 

apartment, house, driveway/yard, or vehicle. Also, the repeaters appeared more likely to have 

morning or afternoon first incidents than the non-repeaters. 

Incident Characteristic Repeaters Non-repeaters 

Group Size 321 1506 

Private Place 86% 81% 

Hour of Incident: 8pm-4am 40% 50% 

4am-noon 20% 16% 

noon-8pm 40% 31% 

Missing 0% 3% 

To identify possible risk factors for recidivism, a logistic regression model was fit. A couple 

first incident occurred in a private place was at an increased risk of subsequent incidents. 

Specifically, controlling for the time period of the day, the odds of subsequent domestic violence 

for a couple whose first incident occurred in a private place are 1.54 times the odds for a couple 

whose first incident occurred in a public place (95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 2.17). Also, a 

couple whose first incident occurred during the morning was at an increased risk of subsequent 

incidents. Controlling for place, the odds of subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose 

first incident occurred between 4am and noon are 1.54 times the odds for a couple whose first 

incident occurred between 8pm and 4am (95% confidence interval: 1.1 1 to 2.15). Similarly, the 

odds of subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose first incident occurred between noon 

and 8pm are 1.61 times the odds for a couple whose first incident occurred between 8pm and 

4am (95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.11). 

Odds Ratio 95% Confidence 

Interval 

1.54 (1.09, 2.17) 

1 .oo Reference 

1.54 (1.1 1, 2.15) 

1.61 (1.23, 2.11) 

Table 5. Comparison of Characteristics of First Incidents between Repeaters and Non-repeaters among those with 

Serious First Incidents 

Comparison of Serious First Incidents between “Serious” Repeaters and “Non-serious” 

Repeaters 

We compared first incidents for those with “serious” first incidents and a “serious” subsequent 

incident to those with “serious” first incidents and only “non-serious” subsequent incidents 

among those with at least 1 incident in the follow-up period. The incident characteristics which 

appeared to differ between the “serious” and “non-serious” repeaters are described in Table 6. 

Among those with “serious” first incidents, there were 169 “serious” repeaters and 158 “nonserious” repeaters. As shown in Table 5, those with “serious” repeat incidents were less likely to 

have first incidents which occurred on the weekend (39% compared to 49% respectively). The 

age distribution of the victims appeared to differ between the “serious” and “non-serious” 

repeaters. Specifically, there appeared to be more victims older than 45 in the “non-serious” 

16 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
repeater group, and more younger victims in the “serious” repeater group. The time of incident 

also appeared to differ between the “serious” and “non-serious” repeaters. It appears that the 

“serious” repeaters were more likely to have incidents during the night time hours. 

To identify possible risk factors for escalation of violence, a logistic regression model was fit. 

Among couples with repeat incidents, couples whose first incident occurred on the weekend 

were at an increased risk of “serious” subsequent incidents. Specifically, controlling for the age 

of the victim and time of incident, the odds of ”serious” subsequent domestic violence for a 

couple who whose incident occurred on the weekend were 0.58 times the odds for a couple 

whose first incident did not occur during the weekend (95% confidence interval: 0.36 to 0.93). 

The odds of “serious” repeat incidents were increased for couples in which the victim was in 

any age group younger than 45 years compared to those couples in which the victim was 45 

years or older. Specifically, controlling for the day and time of incident, the odds of ”serious” 

subsequent domestic violence for a couple who in which the victim was 16-24 years of age were 

5.91 times the odds for a couple in which the victim was 45 years or older (95% confidence 

interval: 2.17 to 16.09). The other odds ratios related to victim age may be interpreted in a 

similar fashion. Finally, the odds of “serious” repeat incidents were reduced when comparing 

couples with incidents in the morning or afternoon as compared to couples with incidents in the 

night. Controlling for the day of the incident and the age of the victim, the odds of ”serious” 

subsequent domestic violence for a couple whose incident occurred between 4am and noon were 

0.40 times the odds for a couple whose first incident occurred between 8pm and 4am (95% 

confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.75). The other odds ratio related to time of day may be interpreted 

in a similar fashion. 

Table 6. Comparison of Characteristics of First Incidents between Serious Repeaters and Non-serious Repeaters 

among those with Serious First Incidents 

Incident Characteristic 

Group Size 

Weekend Incident 

Victim Age: 16-24 

25-34 

35-44 

45- 

Missing 

Hour of Incident: 8pm-4am 

4am-noon 

noon-8pm 

Missing 

~~ 

Serious Won-serioii 

ReDeaters ReDeaters 

169 I 158 

39% 

29% 

40% 

23% 

4% 

4% 

48% 

17% 

36% 

0% 

32% 

23% 

45 % 

0% 

Outcomes for Couples with Incidents in 1995 

Odds Ratio 

0.58 

5.91 

2.94 

4.02 

1 .oo 

1 .oo 

0.40 

0.49 

95% Confidence 

Interval 

(0.36,0.93) 

(2.17, 16.09) 

(1.15, 7.54) 

(1.48, 10.95) 

Reference 

Reference 

(0.21,0.75) 

(0.29,0.82) 

Note that the above analyses focus on those couples without any incidents in 1995. We made a 

few comparisons of the couples with and without incidents in 1995. The couples with incidents 

in 1995 appear to represent couples for whom we have no information on the beginning of their 

cycle of reported domestic violence, meaning the data we have represent incidents somewhere 

within the couple’s true pattern of reported violence but we cannot determine where in the 

17 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
sequence. The couples without incidents in 95 are couples for whom we are assuming we have 

data for the beginning of their sequence of reported domestic violence incidents. We wanted to 

determine if there is any indication that the pattern of violence differs for these 2 groups of 

couples. To do this, we compared the percentages in each of the outcome groups described on 

the previous pages for those with and those without incidents in 1995. 

Incidents in 1995? 

Yes 

(443 1 couples) 

No 

(2935 couples) 

For each group, a 12 month follow-up period was used after the first incident in 1995 or the first 

incident in 1996. The group with first incidents in 1995 included only heterosexual couples in 

which a suspect and victim were clearly defined while the group with first incidents in 1996 

included those couples without reported domestic violence incidents in 1995, without any court 

order recorded on their first incident in 1996, without a primary or secondary offense of 

Violation of Court Order on their first incident in 1996, and including those whose first incident 

was referred to another agency outside the DVU. The percentages of couples in each outcome 

group are summarized in Table 7. The “index” incident for those with incidents in 1995 is the 

first 1995 incident recorded in the database. The “index” incident for those with clean histories 

in 1995 is the first incident in 1996. 

“Serious” Index Incident “Non-serious” Index Incident 

% Repeaters Of the Repeaters, % Repeaters Of the Repeaters, 

% Serious Repeat % Serious Repeat 

27 62 31 38 

. 18 52 18 44 

Table 7. Percentage of Couples with Subsequent Incidents and “Serious” Subsequent Incidents 

in a 12 Month Follow-up Period According to Dates of Reported DV 

The couples whom we are assuming to be further along their sequence of violence, those with 

incidents in 1995, appear to be more likely to have repeat domestic violence incidents in the 12 

months following their index incident, regardless of the severity of the index incident. Also, 

among those couples with “serious” index incidents followed by repeat incidents in the 12 

months after their index incident, those with incidents in 1995 appear more likely to have 

“serious” repeat incidents than those with a clean history in 1995. On the other hand, among 

those couples with “non-serious” index incidents followed by repeat incidents in the 12 months 

after their index incident, those with incidents in 1995 appear to be less likely to have “serious” 

repeat incidents than those with a clean history in 1995. So, it does appear that the groups differ 

in terms of their cycle of violence. 

Suggested Alterations to the Seattle Police Department DVU Database 

LINKAGE AND ERROR CHECKING 

There are a few alterations that we would suggest for the Seattle Police Department DVU 

database. These changes will allow for better descriptions of repeated violence over time. The 

first suggestion is that certain typographical errors be checked. It would be helpful to instruct the 

18 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
data entry person to check that the first 2 values of the incident number correspond to the year of 

the incident date. This would help minimize errors in the incident date variable which is useful 

when describing incidents over time for individuals. Also, there were many errors in the date of 

birth variable. It would be helpful if ACCESS could be programmed to post a warning message 

if the date of birth for an individual would imply that the person is less than 13 or more than 80 

years of age at the time of the incident. This correction would allow for more accurate 

identification of individuals, particularly for individuals with common last names or several 

nicknames. 

It would be helpful include an option to update an incident report that has already been entered 

into the database. This option would be helpful for both detectives and data entry people. 

Similarly, an option to update incident number changes without reentering incident information 

would help minimize duplicate information. It would also be useful to check that information on 

a single incident has not been entered more than once in the database. In order to describe the 

history of reported domestic violence among couple members, it is necessary to link information 

involving a specific couple. To do this, it would be necessary to correct name and date of birth 

typographical errors, link records for suspects and victims involved in same incident, and finally 

to link the history of records for each couple. It may also be helpful to link records for any 

suspects involved with more than 1 victim, noting that suspecthictim roles often change over the 

history of incidents. Finally, it would be very useful to link domestic violence unit data with 

criminal history data. 

There are several suggestions for the ACCESS data base and how data is entered. Omitted 

information should be categorized as None, Missing, or Not Applicable. For example, omitted 

information about a weapon may be coded as Missing for an assault, and Not Applicable for 

harassment. Similar coding would be useful for type of court order and treatment of injury. 

Also, a weekend/weekday variable should be created based on the incident date and place should 

be dichotomized as private or public, where private place is defined as apartment, house, 

driveway/yard, hotel/motel, or vehicle. A dichotomous variable representing whether or not the 

individual is currently employed should be included. This would be based on the Occupation, 

Work Phone, Work Hours, and Employer variables from the incident report. Note that the 

variables mentioned which relate to employment status are often not filled out in an incident 

report and in some instances, “none” is recorded for occupation. This is another case where the 

missing value should be categorized as missing or no current occupation. A drop-box should be 

added to indicate if the case was followed-up on by a detective (yedno). 

INCIDENT REPORT SUMMARY SHEET 

Instead of a lethality score, we suggest that a summary sheet of incident characteristics be printed 

out for each suspect. This summary sheet should include the following information on every 

incident in which the suspect has been involved: suspect name, victim name, incident number, 

incident date, incident location: private/public, time of incident, day of incident: 

weekend/weekday, victim age: 16-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45, relationship and living together status 

of victim and suspect, detective name for assigned cases, and sergeant action: possible 

misdemeanor, felony, unassigned. It would be helpful to identify those suspects and victims that 

are in the database multiple times over a given time period, say 3 months. The suspects with 

19 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
multiple incidents and multiple victims would represent chronic offenders. The victims involved 

in multiple incidents would be of interest to support service individuals. 

ADDITIONAL INCIDENT INFORMATION 

We also had several suggestions for additional information which could be collected in the 

incident report or added to the database. Information from the Supplemental Report is not 

currently entered into the database. This supplemental information may be useful. It was 

suggested, though, that the Supplemental Report is not always filled out by an officer, 

particularly for harassment/threats type incidents. The names and dates of birth for any children 

present at the incident should be recorded in the incident report and databases. This information 

would be valuable for researchers looking at the effect of domestic violence on children. 

20 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix D 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
BARRIERS TO SEEKING POLICE HELP FOR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 

Marsha E. Wolf ', 

Uyen LY 3.4 

Margaret A. Hobart' 

Mary A. Kernic 

Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology', Harborview Injury Prevention and 

Research Cente?, Department of Health Services3, School of Medicine4, and Department 

of Political Science', University of Washington 

Running head: Barriers To Seeking Police Help For Intimate Partner Violence 

This work was supported by a subcontract with the Seattle Police Department with 

funding from the National Institute of Justice Grant 95IJCX0097. 

Corresponding Author: MarshaE. Wolf 

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center 

325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359960 

Seattle, WA 98 104 

1 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Abstract 

Intimate partner violence is underreported to police. A study was conducted utilizing 

focus group methodology to identify women’s perceptions of the barriers to seeking 

police help for intimate partner violence (IPV). Facilitators used a structured format with 

open-ended questions for five focus groups sessions that were recorded and subsequently 

analyzed using Ethnograph software. Participants were women identified from social 

service agencies in an urban setting serving IPV women with diverse ethnic and cultural 

backgrounds. Participants identified many barriers for victims which fell within the 

following three themes: 1) Predisposing Characteristics: Situational and Personal Factors; 

2) Fears and Negative Experiences with Police Response; and 3) Fears of Possible 

Repercussions. Participants also described positive experiences with police and 

generated a ‘wish list’ for improving police response to IPV. Policies and actions that 

can be taken by police and social service agencies to address the barriers IPV victims face 

in seeking police help are discussed. 

Key words: intimate partner violence, domestic violence, barriers, police, help 

2 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Background 

Calling the police for intimate partner violence (IPV) has been reported to be 

associated with lower rates of subsequent violence.(Langan & Innes, 1986), (Sherman & 

Berk, 1984) While hundreds of thousands of emergency calls for IPV are made to police 

each year in the United States, many abused women do not contact the police. The 

proportion of intimate partner violence incidents estimated to be reported to police vary 

widely from 2% to 52% (Dobash et al., 1992), (Dunford, 1990), (Kantor & Straus, 

1990),(Langan & Innes, 1986), (Johnson, 1990), (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998) IPV 

victims’ police reporting behavior constitutes a pivotal point for the initiation of the 

criminal justice response to IPV. Factors influencing IPV victims to avoid contacting 

police are poorly understood. 

Much of the past research has focused on characteristics of victims who call the 

police or other agencies for help. (Hutchison & Hirschel, 1998), (Dutton, 1987), (Berk et 

al., 1984), (Johnson, 1990), (Bachman & Coker, 1995), (Kantor & Straus, 1990), 

(Bachman & Coker, 1995), (Gondolf et al., 1990), (Langan & Innes, 1986) Researchers 

for these studies have reached contradictory findings regarding which factors (such as 

marital factors or ethnicity) increase the likelihood of IPV victims calling the police and 

which factors apparently have no bearing on this decision. However, comparisons 

between studies is limited because of methodologic issues of study design, sampling 

frame, and type and source of data. Only the National Crime Survey, (Langan & Innes, 

1986), (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998) has specifically asked abused women why they 

did not call the police, thus shifting the focus from demographic characteristics to 

women’s perceptions and reasoning. From two surveys conducted in the 1980s and 

1990s, the most common reasons women gave for not reporting IPV were: feeling the 

3 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
violence was a private or personal matter, fear of reprisal, deciding the crime was not 

important enough, anticipation that police would not or could not do anything, they 

reported the IPV to someone else and other reasons. 

In recent years, federal agencies and local police departments have developed new 

service and research programs to address violence against women. In November 1994, 

the Seattle Police Department created a Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) to better serve 

domestic violence victims and hold batterers accountable for their violence. As part of a 

mutifaceted approach to address these goals, the DVU wanted to identify how to improve 

services to victims who did not contact police and develop targeted programs to address 

identified barriers. To address this goal, we sought to identify IPV victims' perceived 

barriers to seeking help from the police by conducting focus groups. 

Methods 

Design 

The qualitative research method of focus groups has been found to be useful for 

developing ideas and strategies for prevention programs. At the initiative of the Seattle 

Police Department's DVU, five focus groups were conducted by the investigators to 

identify the barriers for women to contacting police for help for intimate partner violence. 

Social service agencies from which participants were subsequently identified contributed 

to the development of the questions and the protocol for conducting the focus groups. 

Research or study staff facilitated the focus groups. The structure of the focus 

groups included an introduction and ground rules, and then discussion of case scenarios. 

The first scenario described a friend who was abused and asked what type of advice and 

help they would recommend. The second scenario asked what help participants would 

seek if they experienced various types of abuse. Participants were also asked what type 

4 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
of agencies (police, courts, social services) they would seek help from and the perceived 

barriers to their use of these agencies. They were asked about actual experiences with 

these agencies, whether they would use them again, and any changes they would 

recommend to better meet their needs, and to better help children. In addition, they were 

asked specifically about their recent experiences with Seattle police. Finally, groups 

generated a 'wish list' of how the police might better respond to the needs of victims of 

intimate partner violence. This study was conducted with approval from University of 

Washington's Human Subjects' Committee and informed consent was obtained from all 

participants. 

Participants 

Focus group participants were women who obtained social services in Seattle 

from local community agencies. The agencies were specifically chosen to include a 

culturally diverse population of women who may be less likely to contact police. Two of 

the agencies exclusively served battered women. The remaining three agencies, each had 

a specialty client focus for Native Americans, lesbians, and refugee women. Each of 

these agencies, except for one, had a separate support group for battered women from 

which we recruited study participants. Each agency facilitated recruitment by providing 

all individuals in a selected support group (IPV group if possible) with the study 

introductory letter and consent form. Individuals had the option of not participating in 

the focus group and were told their participation (or lack of) would not affect the services 

they received from the agency. Although one agency did not have a designated battered 

women's group, the majority of the clients in the group that participated in the study were 

victims of IPV. Only participants' first names were used during the focus groups and 

5 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
women were given the option of using another name during the session if they preferred. 

A small monetary renumeration was given to each participant after each focus group. 

Data Collection 

The focus group sessions were held on-site at each of the participating agencies 

with study staff members always in attendance. Using the study discussion guide, each 

group was led by a facilitator, either from the participating social service agency or from 

the study staff. In an effort to standardize the facilitation of each group, when the group 

was led by the agency personnel, the research staff trained the agency facilitator in 

advance how to use the focus group protocol and discussion guide. Each session was 

audio-recorded and, for non-English speaking participants, agency interpreters provided 

simultaneous interpretation in Vietnamese, Russian and Ethiopian. Study participants 

also completed a short, anonymous written questionnaire to gather basic demographic 

characteristics. 

Analysis 

Audio recordings for each group were transcribed. The software, Ethnograph, 

was used to code the transcripts. (Seidel et al., 1994) One researcher coded all the 

transcripts using codes jointly developed by the researchers, based on the goals of the 

project and the series of questions posed in the focus groups. With the coded data, the 

researchers reviewed and organized the women’s responses according to topics and 

themes. 

Results 

Participants 

Forty one women participated in the five focus groups with the size of the group 

ranging from six to thirteen participants. Demographic characteristics of the participants 

6 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
are shown in Table 1. The women’s ages ranged from 21 to 68 years with 85% between 

the ages of 21-44. The participants were ethnically diverse with 37% white, 22% Asian, 

17% Native American, and 10% African American. Seventeen percent of the participants 

were married and a total of 64% were involved in a current relationship. Almost 85% of 

the participants reported they had previously experienced abuse by an intimate partner, of 

which 65% experienced the most recent abuse within the last year. Almost 40% reported 

previous contact with police. 

Barriers 

The participants identified many distinct barriers women face in contacting police 

for help with IPV. Barriers were grouped into three themes: 

- Victim’s Situational and Personal Factors 

- Victim’s Fears and Past Negative Experiences with Police Response 

- Victim’s Fears of Possible Repercussions 

Figure 1 summarizes the specific barriers women identified. 

Predisposing Characteristics of Victims: Situational and Personal Factors 

Before a woman considers contacting police for help, situational and personal 

factors already in place affect her decision to consider or seek police help. The factors for 

this category of Situational and Personal Factors barriers are as follows: 

Perception That Abuse Must Be Physical With Proof 

In discussing the types of abuse for which they would seek police assistance, 

women felt that they needed to have “physical evidence” to prove that they had been 

abused to elicit a response from police. They feared that police would either not believe 

them or not be able to help them without this evidence. 

7 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Women believed that physical evidence also provided a clear line of distinction in 

when to seek police assistance. Emotional abuse, on the other hand, was viewed as a 

much grayer area and it was more difficult for women to identify the point at which they 

considered that abuse had occurred and when they would seek help. This insecurity was 

furthered by a belief that the police do not consider emotional abuse to be a form of 

domestic violence. 

“Would I call the police? If I’d been beaten up and there were a lot of marks left, that‘s the only thing that 

really gets them (the police) going. ” 

Rape And Injuries to Private Parts of Body 

Women identified additional challenges to seeking help when abuse involved rape 

or injuries to private parts of the body. Revealing the location of these injuries would 

require being subjected to a physical examination of intimate areas of the body and 

recounting humiliating details. They reported the potential humiliation and 

embarrassment might be enough to prevent them from seeking police assistance. 

“Well, I was raped by my husband. There was no evidence except for bruises on the inside of my legs or 

pain on my breasts, and you just can’t prove it ... there was n0 way I was going to have some man come to my 

house that I didn’t know and tell him that my husband had raped me and show him bruises ... I’d have to pull 

down my pants ... ” 

Cultural Attitudes 

Cultural differences regarding marriage, a woman’s role and rights in the 

relationship, and her partner’s rights influence perceptions and/or acceptance of domestic 

violence. This may result in women from some cultures tolerating abuse for longer 

periods before seeking outside help. 

“It has to be many levels before I do that (call the police). The first I’m gon nu... I would talk to him, tell 

him nor to do it. ” 

8 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Women from refugee communities discussed the multi-level network within their 

community that they customarily engage before seelung assistance from an external 

source, such as the police. The degree to which family honor, one’s reputation, and 

preserving harmony are valued plays an important role in their decision whether to 

involve the police. For these women, if police were involved or contacted at all, it would 

be only in the most extreme cases. 

An interpreter summarized, ‘‘?;hey say that in our culture, they say that they have to talk to closest friends 

and leaders to help them out with these things, but if it is worse, than they can go to other services. ” 

Cultural norms regarding avoiding police involvement were also an influencing 

factor for some women of color. 

(Interpreter) “...she will never call the police, she will manage by hersev ” 

“I was taught you don ’t deal with the police, you take your matters in your own hands. ” 

“...I didn’t call the police because I was raised not to call the cops.” 

Victim‘s Psychological and Emotional State of Mind 

Women discussed the damaging cumulative effect of physical violence, emotional 

abuse, and manipulation on their self-esteem, which thereby limited their ability to break 

free of their abuser. The resulting low self-esteem and self-doubt lessened the chances 

that a victim would seek help from the police. 

Victims are often emotionally entrapped by their abuser’s professions of caring, 

promises that things would change for the better, or convincing arguments that she 

brought the abuse upon herself or that the abuse did not really occur. 

“I think of the kind of emotional, verbal abuse, the kind of brainwashing, that goes on where you may have 

a big bruise on your cheek and blood out of your nose, but your really truly believe he never hit you 

because he’s telling you that he didn‘t hit you, and that you started it. ” 

Economic Dependence 

9 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Poor access to economic resources for leaving and starting a new life in 

combination with being in a state of crisis and poor self-esteem made taking the step of 

calling the police seem impossible for some women. 

“I was abused by former boyfriends and the thought of calling the police would never, ever cross my mind 

because they had me down so far that I thought, ‘Well, I have a baby, I have nowhere to live, I don’t have a 

job’.. it was suggested to me by a few people to call the police, but I would never, ever do it and I think 

sometimes it depends on.. what stage (a victim is) in. ” 

Batterer Prevents Victim From Calling Police 

Women reported situations in which they did attempt to contact the police but the 

batterer physically prevented them from calling or threatened them if they called. 

“He justflipped.. it started with him pulling my hair, I tried to call the police, he wouldn’t let me call them, 

kept pulling my hair, had me on the couch, hit me on the head. ” 

In one group, a couple of women expressed fear that their batterers would kill 

them before they even got to the phone to call the police. 

Lesbian Batterer Threatens Using Police Homophobia Against Victim 

Battered lesbians spoke of perpetrators playing on their fear that police 

homophobia, butcldfemme stereotyping and ignorance regarding lesbian battering could 

potentially result in misidentification of the victim as batterer and subsequent wrongful 

arrest. As a result, the threat of calling the police became a tool of control for the batterer 

because victims feared public exposure of sexual orientation and possible police biases 

that could lead to their being arrested. 

“I alwaysfigured if the police showed up-because I was bigger than her- that I would be the one to go (to 

jail), and she made it seem that way too, when she said she was going to call the police. I’ 

Victims’ Fears and Negative Experiences with Police Response 

10 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The second theme regarding barriers that influence battered women seeking police 

help included negative past experiences with police. 

Batterer Not Arrested 

Some victims, who have called expecting that a police response would result in 

arrest, have felt that their efforts were wasted and may have left them in a more 

dangerous environment when their batterers were not arrested than if they had not called 

the police. As a result, they are reluctant to call again. This was especially true in cases 

where women called because their batterers violated a protection order but received no 

punishment. 

“He does this (violates protection order), he h a record of this, they’re going to take him. And they 

didn ’t. ” 

Mistaken Identification of Victim os Batterer (or Failure to Identlfy the Primary 

Aggressor) 

Prior experience caused some women to express hesitation in calling the police 

because they feared arrest if police misidentify them as the abuser. Misidentification 

occurs when victims leave marks on the batterer in the course of self-defense. Victims 

voiced the concern that police may not take the time to get a statement from them and 

thus did not glean that self defense may have been an element in a domestic altercation. 

“I had no physical (marks) like on my face or whatever, my hair was pulled. ..but he was bleeding because 

I’d hit him with the chair (after being choked and beaten by her batterer) and the police seemed to be more 

concerned why he was bleeding ... well, I was defending mysev.. We both ended up going to jail. ” 

Batterers sometimes attempt to make the victim appear drunk or as the aggressor 

with the intent of manipulating the police into misidentifying the ’drunk’person as the 

alleged perpetrator. Native American victims also felt that misidentification of victims 

can result when police believe in a “drunken Indian” stereotype. 

11 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
+4 DVIS Domestic Violence Intervention Software + 

1 

DVIS tracks individuals and addrcsscs advc in 

domestic violence. Thc system reports which households and comp1;Linanls have rcpor-lcd domcstic 

violcncc through 911 calls. In addition, DVIS 

rcports all daily gcncral oflcnsc activity. Suspicious 

battery, assault, or other crimes can be furlher 

invcstigatcd wilh DVIS LO d&crminc if lhcsc 

incidcnccs indicntc family violcncc. 

When a specific individual is followcd in grcatcr 

detail that person is assigned a tracking number. A 

personal "file" containing demographic, rclationship, 

various addrcssc$phone numbers, arrest luslory, and 

intervention history is started. (Two reports which 

prcsent this information are shown.) 

DVIS enablcs crisis Lcams Lo continually monitor a 

family to dctcrminc if tlicrc is a progrcssion of 

violcncc. Thc systcm will associatc Lhesc individuals 

through thc Violcnt Circlc Report. Wilh lhis 

information law enforcemcnt ofliccrs and counscllors 

can detcrminc if intcrvcntion is ncccssary. 

DVlS RELATIONSHIP INFORMATION 

DVlS INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION 

IONES, JOHN Sex: M Individual # : 1009 

lace: WHITE 

lalo 01 Birth: 10110159 

Crcsls as of 01 Jan 1994: 

Narranls as 01 01 Jan 1994: 

WPs as 01 01 Jan 1994: 

4DDRESSand PHONE 

Age: 35 

2 

1 

1 

-- 

Address and Phone lor HOME 

5151 S. Normal Avo 

Zhicago IL 

Phone Number: 312-555-1212 

9ddress and Phone lor WORK 

121 N. LaSalle 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Phone Number: 312-444-4444 

Address and Phone for MOTHER 

5426 W. Devon Apl. 5s 

Chicago IL 

Phone Number: None 

JONES, JOHN Sex: M 

Race: WHITE Dale 01 Birth: 10110159 

Individual # : 001009 

Age: 35 

DVlS Number Name Relation DVlS Number Name I 

1009 JONES, JOHN is SON of 52 JONES, MARY 

1009 JONES, JOHN is BOYFRIEND 01 1007 KELLY, MARY 

I I 

@ InfoMaker Inc. 7 ~ 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
DVIS Domestic Violence Intervention Software 5. 

Sheller: Y Financial Assessmenl: Y 

Trans portalion: Y Other Legality Assessmenl: Y 

Emergency Service Units: Y 

Individual Counselling: Y Group Counselling: N 

Inlormalion 6. Relerral: Y Salely Plan: Y 

~ 6. COUNSELLING 2.00 

DVIS uacks the numerous attempts 

and plans for future follow-up contacts 

to offer social services. The system 

captures the various types of advocacy 

counselling, referrals, and other F 

protective services that are provided to 

each individual. AU efforts of the 

domestic violence intervention team are 

summarized in management reports 

specifically tailored to the individual 

users needs. 

Thus, DVIS does not only track intervention by individual, but also will 

present the intervention teams total 

efforts for all individuals. This 

information is invaluable in reporting to 

lunding organizations and local and 

federal governances. 

The upper right screen illustrates the 

straight forward input of contact 

anempts. The report below can be 

customized to capture and summarizc 

the services provided. 

VEW CONTACT LOG: Add 

4dd an entry lo this Conlact Log 

DVIS Individual Number: [ 

DVIS lncidenl Number: [ 

1 Name: [ 1 

1 Case Number: [ I 

FOLLOW-UP NBR: [ 1 STAFF INITIAL: [ 1 

CONTACT METHOD:[ 1 

CONTACT: DATE: [ ] TIME [ ] PHONE: [ 1 

OUTCOME: CONTACT MADE: [ ] SERVICE ACCEPTED:[ 1 

FOLLOW UP: DATE: [ ] TIME: [ ] PHONE: [ I 

COMMEKT. [ 1 

DVIS: SOCIAL SERVICES PROVIDED 

Clienl Name: Kelly, Mary Sex: F Race: While 

Individual Number: 1007 Dale of Birth: 4-65 Age 29 

Slalf Name: ADAMS, BARBARA C 

Dale 01 Conlacl: 23 Dec 1993 

Intake Tape: INITIAL 

Time of Conlacl: 12:15 pm 

Contacl Melhcd: WALK IN 

SERVICES PROVIDED 

1. IDVA 1 .Do 2. LEGAL ADVOCACY 

3. CRISIS HOTLINE 1.00 4. FOLLOW UP 

1 .M) 

.2 5 

5. ADVOCACY 1 .oo 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
+6 DVIS Domestic Violence Intervention Software + 

Thc DVIS information system can bc tailored to a city, 

town, county or social agency's particular needs. DVIS 

runs on ;I personal computer or workstation and uses the 

latest relational dalabrsc technology. 

DVIS can be interfaced with various mainframes and 

minicomputers. 

The suggested minimum computer configuration is: 

486,586 or RISC technology 

16 Megabytes of RAM 

400 Megabytes Hard Drive 

WindowsTM or UNIX" openting system 

I 

(Windows is tlic rcgislercd t.mdanark of MicroSoft Corpodion nnd 

UNlX is UIC rcgistcrcd lndemark of AT&T Corpontion.) 

For more information contact: 

InfoMaker Inc. 

950 Milwaukee Avenue 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Phone (%) 390-6660 

sLc7 

+ 

How do you kccp civilian counsellors from secing 

sensitive policc data in DVIS or keep officers from 

viewing privatc social service data? DVIS distinguishcs bctwecn "classcs" ol' uscrs to cnablc ;u1 individual to see and modify only thc data appropriate for 

his authority. 

In addition, Federal Level (C2) security is available 

when DVIS is executed using selected UNIXM 

operating systems. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
5 ' DO(r(LmC ILLATlOfUSHPCODFS 

01 -WIR 

02. HUSBAND 14-FA7Htll.W LAW 

03-FORMERWE 15 -MNWLAW 

04- FORMEIHUSMtQ 16-0AUGHTERIN-iAW 

OS - MOIHE R 

06 -FATHER 

07 ION 

01- DAUGMTER 

Ds- BlOrHfR 

I3 - hl3THER IN-LAW 

17- BROIHER4H.LAW 

0-OCEAN ADVrSEOUGMHELT 

P. CAUL 0144E11WLKEIER\ntE 

I- qOBEW ARREST WE (c.q. Dlsg&~iyyl 

x-X-RAY UIX WC4%7~E?llOMREMKT 

B 

B 

D 

B 

I 

D 

B 

0 

0 

a 

0 

Interview the padn separately to determine Ha m'mt has in fact occurred. 

consultation with tha 

nssf orBen of protertion and violations of the 72-hour 

turns home or has any contact with the victim. (A victim 

You a make an arrest far 

prohibition, wherein M offe 

_I cannot be arrested for allowing the respondent bark Into the houreho!d) 

Vidirns mbe offered referral information about advocacy agencies who can assist them. 

You must. provide victims with 

tf victim requests tramportation from the scene, youewirt. 

the VIN and a Domestic crime Victlm Information sheet. 

i -' 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
One victim recalled an incident in which the police believed the batterer when he told them that she was 

drunk and was the aggressor. ‘‘I was the victim and I wasn’t drinking, (but) he popped a beer can open and 

poured it on my head so I’d smell like beer. ..I was willing to take a breathalyzer and they wouldn’t agree to 

it. ” 

Victim Not Listened To or Situation Trivialized 

Women stated that when they are in contact with the police for domestic violence, 

it is for a crisis situation. Thus police responses which seemed to trivialize their 

experience have left some women feeling that the police do not understand the profound 

impact of domestic violence on their lives and the importance of the need to be heard and 

supported. 

“...(some oflcers) make me feel bad because they will be like, ‘Oh, stop all this crying stufl.. ” 

Batterer Manipulation and Apparent Bonding with Oficer 

Victims viewed their batterers as very smart and manipulative in being able to 

convince others, including the police, that they had not committed any abuse or that the 

victim had been at fault. The victim’s fear that she would not be believed is further 

aggravated by a perception that the police may identify and bond with their abuser. As a 

result, victims perceive calling the police as a gamble that they would sometimes rather 

not take. 

“ ... hefbatterer) just puts on the drama and (says), ’I do this for her and I buy the baby this, ’ and take them 

in the room and will show them all the stuff ... and (says), ‘She pushed me to do this ... she keeps nugging me 

and I don’t know what to do, oflcer. “And I swear, they (the police) will that (to be) right ... ” 

Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Homophobic Stereotyping 

In discussing their experiences with police response, women expressed concern 

that police biases about race, neighborhoods, or sexual orientation affected response time, 

how seriously a situation was taken, and correct identification of the batterer. 

12 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Participants who were White and staying in more affluent neighborhoods reported they 

received prompter responses to calls for help and that officers were more courteous and 

took time to listen to them. 

’I.. . I was staying at my mom’s house and the police came out there and like they were so cool, I mean he 

(batterer) kept calling and threatening me, they were like, ’He calls (you). . . call us. ‘ . . .and I called.. . they 

showed up in like a minute ... they were just so nice to me... my mom lives in a nice condo.. . lot of money OU~ 

there ... lle never had it (treatment by police) like that. ” 

Victims did not &st that they would receive appropriate treatment if they were 

from less affluent neighborhoods or were ethnic and sexual minorities, anticipating 

racism and discrimination if they did call for help. Their experiences convinced them 

that police took much longer to respond to their calls and did not seem to believe them as 

they would a white or more affluent victim. 

“...SO the trust for the cops ... for doing anything with Natives, myself personally, 1 feel they’re not going to 

do anything good or right for us, even if we do call. ” 

Victims also expressed concerns of how police discrimination might cause 

batterers to be unduly punished. When victims seek help from the police, they want the 

violence to stop and expect to have their batterers punished for the abuse which they 

committed. However, victims sometimes hesitate to seek police help because they 

believe their abusers may be subjected to excessive punishment or police brutality due to 

their race, class or sexual orientation. 

“...when there’s domestic violence, they be giving these black men years ... Sometimes with the police, 

you ’re damned if you do (call) and you ’re damned if you don ’t. ” 

Language Barrier and Lack of Adequate Interpretation 

Limited knowledge of English or an inability to speak English was an evident 

barrier for victims to communicate their experience to the police. Some non-English 

13 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
speaking women felt very disadvantaged by their language skills and felt that because of 

this the police dismissed them. Their sense of alienation and despair was worsened when 

police would speak only to the batterer, who is often the only one to speak English. 

“(She) says that because of her limited English, she thinks that the police won’t listen to her, instead (they) 

listen to otherpeople who can speak English better. So whatever she says, it doesn‘t matter ... they are more 

likely to listen to otherpeople’s side. They won’t listen to (her) due to (her) limited English. ” 

9 Response Time Too Slow 

Victims generally felt that police response to domestic violence calls were too 

slow considering that they are usually calling in crisis situations and need help 

immediately. One consequence of a delayed response is that a batterer then has the 

opportunity to flee the scene and the victim is still endangered. 

“...they did not come. And they were getting annoyed with me like, will you please stop calling, you know? 

Yeah. They’re on their way. And like, well, it doesn’t seem like they’re on their way, it’s been 45 minutes. ” 

Victims’ Fears of Possible Repercussions 

The third category of barriers to women seeking police help is the subsequent 

outcomes or repercussions. The factors include the following: 

9 Criminal Justice: Minimal or No Penalty 

Victims’ prior experiences with the criminal justice system led to their perception 

that often minimal or no penalty is imposed on their batterer. The punishment, if any, 

appears grossly inadequate to victims in light of the abuse they endured, and the effort 

and risk necessary to come forward and seek police assistance. As a result, women 

reported that they would be unlikely to contact the police if they believe that the 

consequences of calling will not result in just punishment or an end to the battering. 

“...he already went to court on it (an assault) and nothing happened, so I didn’t call (again). ’’ 

14 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
9 Batterer: Retaliation on Victim 

Women saw the potential costs of calling the police as greater than the benefits. 

Some women anticipated their batterers becoming more enraged as a result of police 

contact and eventually punishing the victim, while some women reported experiencing 

violent beatings after the abuser was released from jail. Victims did not feel that their 

level of safety would increase proportionately by involving the police but rather, they 

would have increased fear for their lives. Several women reported their batterer 

threatening to kill them if they ever called police. 

“My husband said he’d kill me if1 called the police on him, so I never did. ’I 

Children: Child Protective Services(CPS) Involvement and Removal of Children 

Many women did not contact the police for fear that their children would be 

removed from the home as a result of domestic violence. Women did not want to be 

perceived as unfit mothers or have their home situation considered unfit for children. 

They believed that once CPS was contacted, they would lose control of the situation and 

subsequently, their children. It is important to note that Native American women were 

especially concerned regarding this issue and mentioned removal of Native American 

children from their families when they were growing up. Consequently, they are even 

more reluctant to enlist police assistance. 

One women recounted an ofleer’s response to her call for help: “...‘Lady, if we come out here one more 

time for this domestic violence situation, we‘re calling CPS.‘ So it was like every time it (violence) would 

happen, I’m like oh no, if1 call the police, then they’re going to report me to CPS ... I sat there and took the 

beating instead of calling the police because I was afraid they would take my child ... I still had that fear my 

daughter would be taken away because of the abuse.. . (and) I didn‘t know where to go to get help. ” 

Positive Experiences 

15 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Although the women were able to identify barriers to contacting police for help, 

they also reported specific positive experiences with the Seattle Police Department. 

(Table 2) These positive experiences included the police taking the abuse situation 

seriously, telling the victim she did not deserve it, handling the incident well by arresting , 

the offender, not leaving the choice up to the women about whether to take the offender 

to jail, being sympathetic to the victim, and providing follow-up on the incident. 

Women’s Wish List 

In addition to asking the participants about barriers, this study also took another 

approach by asking the women to generate their ’wish list’ for ideal police response to 

intimate partner violence calls. The wish list (Table 3) reflects the women’s desires to 

have responsive police who treat victims with dignity, listen to them, and send 

appropriate messages to victims and to batterers. 

Discussion 

This study reports women’s positive experiences with police and a ’wish list’ for 

police response, as well as providing important information about specific barriers IPV 

victims face when seeking police help. The first set of barriers to contacting police for 

IPV were personal and situational factors which included: perception that abuse must be 

physical with proof; rape and injuries in private parts of body are too humiliating; 

victim’s cultural attitude; victim’s state of mind; economic dependence; batterer 

physically prevents victim from calling police; and police homophobia and ignorance 

about lesbian battering. The second type of barriers were victims’ negative experiences 

with police response which included batterer not arrested; mistaken identification of 

victim as batterer; victim not listened to or situation trivialized; batterer manipulation and 

16 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
apparent bonding with officer; racism, socioeconomic status, and homophobic 

stereotyping; language barrier and inadequate interpretation; and response time too slow. 

The third type of barriers identified by the study participants were victims’ perceptions 

and fears of possible repercussions which included minimal or no criminal justice action 

or penalty; batterer retaliation on victim; and fear of CPS involvement and removal of 

children from home. 

The perception that IPV is a personal and private matter was the most common 

reason women gave for not contacting the police in two previous national crime surveys, 

but the percent reporting this reason decreased from 49% in the earlier survey to 32% in 

the later survey.(Langan & Innes, 1986) (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998) Although the 

subgroup of immigrant women in our study reported privacy as an important barrier, this 

was not heard repeatedly among the other focus group participants. Thus, the fact that 

many of the women in the study did not consider IPV a private matter may reflect a 

cultural shift. 

Women in our study felt that they must have physical proof of the abuse to 

warrant calling the police. This finding concurs with Reed who reported that a beating 

needs to be ‘serious enough’ to call for police help.(Kantor & Straus, 1990) In the 

National Crime Survey, around 10% of the women did not report IPV to police because 

they thought the crime was not important enough.(Langan & Innes, 1986) (U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1998)The severity of abuse has been found to be a factor 

associated with the police decision to arrest. 

Other studies have also reported that fear of retaliation by the batterer prevented 

the victim from calling the police (Langan & Innes, 1986) (Singer, 1988) (Ewing, 1987) 

and that the batterer sometimes physically stopped the victim from calling.(Langan & 

17 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Innes, 1986) One study that looked at barriers to obtaining help for IPV in the health care 

system reported the most common reason for not telling health care providers about abuse 

from the partner was the fear of escalating violence and abuse from the 

partner.(Rodriguez et al., 1996) In addition, women’s perceptions that batterers would not 

be arrested, or there would be a minimal penalty, have also been reported. (Langan & 

Innes, 1986) 

The women in our study expressed concern that police did not listen to them or 

trivialized their feelings and situation. This echoes a finding by Symonds (Symonds, 

1980) who found that victims of violent crimes expect police or responding emergency 

personnel to exhibit nurturing and non-blaming behavior. In our study, women perceived 

calling the police as a gamble because of potential batterer manipulation of and malebonding with the officer. Others have reported that police often spend more time with the 

offenders than with the victims of IPV.(Websdale, 1995), (Erez & Belknap, 1998), 

(Brown, 1984) 

Economic dependence has been reported to be associated with a victim’s decision 

not to leave, but can also play a role in the first steps of getting help.(Gelles, 1976) 

Kantor and Straus (1990) noted that economic factors can undermine decisions to call 

police and also play a role in determining whether the woman stays or leaves an abusive 

relationship. 

Women in our study found the occurrence of spousal rape and its concomitant 

humiliation and embarrassment are a barrier to contacting police. Studies in the literature 

have reported that women sexually assaulted by a known assailant are less likely to seek 

professional help than women sexually assaulted by strangers.(Mahoney, 1999) It is 

interesting to note that the reasons suggested for not reporting a sexual assault include 

18 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
feelings of shame, fear of being blamed, feelings of helplessness, fear of retaliation from 

perpetrator, and whether the incident is considered serious enough (Mahoney, 1999) 

(Bergen, 1996) are similar to the barriers to contacting police for IPV reported in our 

study. 

Although other studies have reported the presence of children or other family 

members as factors associated with IPV victims being more likely to call the police, no 

other study has reported women's fear of losing her children as a barrier to contacting 

police. (Berk et al., 1984) (Johnson, 1990) (Henderson, 1990) 

The limitations of the study should be noted. Although the numbers are small, the 

participants were identified from diverse ethnic groups. The racidethnic composition of 

the participants is not representative of Seattle, but reflects our successful effort to 

oversample women of color and diverse backgrounds. Focus group methodology was 

utilized for this study since we were interested in having women identify and generate a 

range of barriers. However by definition, qualitative research is limited in its ability to 

generalize the relative importance or prevalence of the factors identified in the larger 

population at risk. Another inherent limitation of focus groups is the lack of 

confidentiality for the individuals in the group to discuss sensitive matters; however, it 

was reassuring that participants were vocal and participation was uniform by members. 

The study findings have implications for police, social service agencies and public 

education. Police can potentially address some of the barriers identified by modifying 

policies and conducting police training. New practices can be developed for obtaining 

sensitive information about the type and site of bodily injury that best facilitate women 

reporting and describing rape and 'unspeakable' injuries. Police may want to explore 

replication of the models used for children to describe abuse by using an inanimate object 

19 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
or picture book (e.g. pointing to a drawing of body outline on police supplemental 

report). 

To address the language barrier for non-English speaking victims, an adequate 

and easy to use on-call system with professional interpreters is needed. Police policy 

should discourage use of the batterer, children or other non-professionals as interpreters 

in domestic violence situations. Ongoing training of police officers can be conducted to 

specifically address the areas of cultural sensitivity for immigrant, raciaVethnic 

minorities, and lesbian populations. 

Police policy and ongoing training should also include and emphasize the 

importance of listening to a victim at the scene, taking victim statements, telling victims 

abuse is not their fault and they do not deserve it, and holding the batterer accountable by 

knowing the arrest laws and arresting the batterer accordingly. Using computerized 

incident report data, the police department can routinely monitor and review trends for 

police actions such as the percentage of victim statements taken and appropriate arrests. 

To reduce the appearance of ’male bonding’ between the batterer and officer and 

to increase victim’s trust in police officer, a shift in thinking is needed in the use of the 

’cozying up’ technique with batterers. Although the technique may be necessary for 

police to assess a situation, disarm a batterer, and/or get the batterer to talk, officers 

should minimize the opportunity for victim to misunderstand what is occurring. Keeping 

the victim and perpetrator separate while this technique is being used and also appraising 

victim of the rationale and necessity of this technique after the situation is under control 

are two steps that police can take to help victim understand and reduce the appearance of 

’male bonding’. 

20 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Victims are sometimes physically prevented from calling the police for help. 

Although some high risk’ victims are sometimes given an emergency beepedpanic button 

device, consideration should be given to the development and testing of a more extensive 

intervention program for a greater number of victims. For victims afraid of retaliation, an 

emergency /panic button beeper, cell phone system or a program that utilizes new 

technologies to monitor batterer’s actions after arraignment or release from jail might also 

be useful. 

One of the identified barriers to contacting police is the perception that there is 

minimal or no criminal justice penalty for perpetrators. Charges and penalties need to be 

imposed and enforced that reflect the seriousness of the IPV related crime, sending a 

message to batterers, victims, and society at large that batterers will be held accountable 

and victims do not deserve abuse. A multi-faceted response to address this barrier 

includes conducting IPV training for judges and prosecutors so that once the police make 

the necessary arrests, then the prosecutors will consistently charge batterers resulting in 

conviction and sentencing (if guilty). Such policies and programs should be evaluated to 

determine the most effective intervention and explore possible legislative action to 

address current limitations. 

In Seattle, police routinely distribute a pamphlet and resource information about 

IPV to victims each time they are called to the scene of an IPV incident. It is important 

that any resource material about IPV specify that, not only are physical abuse and assault 

unlawful acts and legitimate reasons to call police, but so are threats, harassment, and 

stalking. 

The study findings also have important implications for social service agencies. 

For many women, leaving the abusive relationship is not an option unless they have 

21 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
economic independence and the ability to survive financially. To increase economic 

independence, programs that provide job training (for,jobs with a family wage) and 

educational opportunities coupled with housing options and daycare facilities are crucial. 

Women’s fears of CPS involvement and removal of children can be addressed by social 

service agencies that can help educate women about how to protect themselves and their 

children. To the degree that these fears are legitimate, they can also be alleviated by 

training for CPS workers which emphasizes that children’s safety can be increased most 

effectively by helping the mothers escape the abuser. (Schecter, S. & Eldeson, J., 1999) 

Public education is another approach that may also help address some of the 

barriers to contacting police for IPV. Community education campaigns, coupled with 

police and social service efforts, can send the message to community at large that abuse is 

wrong, victims did not cause and do not deserve abuse, and that batterers willhhould be 

held accountable. Other messages community campaigns can highlight are the 

guidelines and circumstances for calling police for IPV. 

Barriers to contacting police for IPV are numerous with far reaching implications. 

Police and social service agencies can each work together to address some of the barriers. 

Continued development and testing of interventions and policy changes to address 

barriers are needed. 

22 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF 

~ 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS 

Characteristic Frequency 

N=41 

% I 

7 1 

17 

24 

22 

15 

15 

17 

15 

32 

17 

15 

< 

37 

22 

17 

10 

5 

5 

23 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
TABLE 2. POSITIVE EXPERIENCES WITH SEATTLE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT 

"I've had a couple of different experiences with Seattle Police and with the [name of other local] 

police. The Seattle Police were really good." 

"I've noticed that since I've lived in Washington (and) I've had domestic violence issues ... when I 

call, even if I hang up the phone, they come immediately and they don't lie, they're not blaming and stuff, 

and they try to look at both sides of it,.." 

"It's like I've seen girls go through worse situations, police get called and nothing's done, and mine 

wasn't all that bad, but it's like they really handled it really good." 

"...(police said) and next time if you do abuse her, we will come and take you and he did (abuse her 

again), and he just thought I was really stupid like and was just going to say oh, okay, but he pulled the 

phone out of the wall and I went out and go a cop and they called the police and they took him to jail." 

"...but I know they were there for like two minutes with me, they didn't even waste time to get any 

(extra) information. They were like oh, he hit you? Oh, he did this to your VCR? Oh, okay, bye . And they 

just jumped in their cars and went looking for him." 

"...so when the police did intervene that night, they made it pretty clear that I didn't deserve it (the 

abuse) either because they talked to me and I filed a report with them, and that's the last I saw of my 

husband." 

"But I think the police did help me when I called them and they helped me realize that you know, if 

you continue to stay with this man, you might even get to the point where you might not be able to get to the 

phone to call us, the next time, and they made that clear. So I believe in my efforts to call the police. I'm 

glad I did. Because they really did help." 

"I'm glad that they're doing something now.. .'I 

"And when he called the police on me, those cops were pretty decent, the Seattle cops. ... The 

second time I called the police on him, they were really good, I mean, they were really good and they gave 

the pamphlet on New Beginnings- they were just really good, I was completely shocked that they could 

have been so good and decent. And I was so afraid that, I thought maybe they were going to take me to jail. 

I didn't really know. I thought, I'm not on the lease, they might take me to jail, but they took him and Ijust 

thought it was really, really excellent. I was shocked." 

"I think Seattle's good because it's like you're going to jail. There's not no let's talk about it or 

whatever, just like you're going to jail. ... And I figure it's good that they don't leave the choice up to the 

woman and stuff. but just send him off. " 

"The only thing I've heard is just generally since Norm Stamper's been here that they've taken a lot 

stronger stand towards domestic violence and I think there's a lieutenant, Debbie Allen or something, in the 

police department that's doing - but these are just things that you read. So I definitely get a feeling that they 

take domestic violence - generally, at least as a goal, they take it seriously. 

" ... and I found the cops in Seattle do be the most sympathetic that I've ever seen them, the followup was exemplary, an example for any city the country, the follow-up that I've had in Seattle has been 

magnificent. _.." 

24 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
TABLE 3. BATTERED WOMEN'S "WISH LIST" FOR POLICE RESPONSE 

Have quick police response 

Provide consistency in response and take time to listen to women- take 

victim statement 

Have more female officers 

Avoid questioning parents in front of children 

Get translators for non-English speaking victims; (do not use the batterer 

or children as translators) 

Send strong message to batterer that battering is wrong, he will be watched, 

caught and prosecuted 

Tell women that battering is wrong, it can escalate, and it will not stop 

without help; take time to inform them of rights and resources 

Arrest appropriate person 

Arrest on felony charges when possible 

Enforce protection orders 

If needed, have advocate at scene who can help victim after police leave 

Provide follow up with victim 

25 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Figure 1. 

Identified Barriers to Contacting Police for Intimate Partner Violence 

Barriers for Victims 

I I 

Predisposing Characteristics: 

Situational and Personal Factors 

Perception that abuse must be physical 

Rape and injuries to private parts of 

Cultural attitudes 

Psychological and emotional state of 

Economic dependence 

Batterer prevents victim from calling 

Lesbian batterer threatens using police 

with proof 

body 

mind 

police 

homophobia against victim 

Fears and Negative Experiences 

with Police Response 

Baltet-er not arrested 

Mistaken identification of victim as 

Victim not listened to or situation 

Batterer manipulation and apparent 

0 Race, socioeconomic, and homophobic 

Language barrier and lack of adequate 

Response time too slow 

batterer 

trivialized 

bonding with officer 

stereotyping 

interpretation 

I 

Fears of Possible Repercussions 

Criminal justice: Minimal or no 

Batterer: Retaliation on victim 

Children: CPS involvement and 

penalty 

removal of children 

26 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Reference List 

Bachman, R., & Coker, A. L. (1995) Police Involvement in Domestic Violence: The 

Interactive Effects of Victim Injury, Offender’s History of Violence, and Race. 

Viol Vict, lO(2): 91-106. 

Bergen, R. K. (1996) Defining and ending the violence. In Bergen, R.K.(ed.) Wife Rape: 

Understanding the Response of Survivors and Service Providers, Sage 

Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 37-171. 

Berk, R. A., Berk, S. F., Newton, P. J., & Loseke, D. R. (1984) Cops on Call: 

Summoning the Police to the Scene of Spousal Violence. Law & SOC Review, 

18(3): 479-498. 

Brown, S. E. (1984) Police Responses To Wife Beating: Neglect of a Crime of Violence. 

J Crim Justice 12: 277-288. 

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992) The Myth of Sexual 

Symmetry in Marital Violence. Soc Problems 39( 1): 7 1-90. 

Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990) The Role of Arrest in Domestic 

Assault: The Omaha Police Experiment. Criminol28: 183-206. 

Dutton, D. G. (1987) The Criminal Justice Response to Wife Assault. Law & Hum 

Behavior 1 l(3): 189-206. 

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998) In Their Own Words: Battered Women’s Assessment of 

the Criminal Processing System’s Responses. Viol Vict 13(3): 25 1-268. 

Ewing, C. P. (1987) Battered Women Who Kill, Psychological Self-Defense as Legal 

Justification, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 

Gelles, R. J. (1976) Abused Wives: Why Do They Stay. J Marriage & Fam November, 

659-668. 

Gondolf, E. W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, J. R. (1990) The Helpseeking Behavior of 

Battered Women: An Analysis of 6,000 Shelter Interviews. In Viano, E.C. (ed.), 

The Victimology Handbook, Garland, New York. 

Henderson, A. (1990) Children of Abused Wives: Their influence On Their Mothers’ 

Decisions Canada’s Ment Health 38: 10-13. 

Hutchison, I. W., & Hirschel, J. D. (1998) Abused Women, Help-Seeking Strategies and 

Police Utilization Violence Against Women 4(4): 436-456. 

Johnson, I. M. (1990) A Loglinear Analysis of Aubsed Wives’ Decisions to Call the 

Police in Domestic-Violence Disputes J Crim Justice 18: 147-159. 

27 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Kantor, G. K., & Straus, M. A. (1990) Response of victims and the police to assaults on 

wives. Straus, M. A. & Gelles R. (eds.) Physical Violence in American families: 

Risk Factors and Adaptation To Violence In 8,145 Families, Transaction 

Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 473-486.' 

Langan, P. A., & Innes, C. A. (1986) Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington D.C. 

Mahoney, P. (1999) High Rape Chronicity and Low Rates of Help-Seeking Among Wife 

Rape Survivors in a Nonclinical Sample Violence Against Women 5(9): 993-1016. 

Rodriguez, M. A., Quiroga, S. S., & Buer, H. M. (1996). Breaking the Silence, Battered 

Women's Perspectives on Medical Care Arch Fam Med 5: 153-158. 

Schecter, S. & Eldeson, J. (1999) Eflective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child 

Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice. U.S. Department of 

Justice & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C. 

Seidel, J., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1994) The Ethnograph: A User's Guide Qualis 

Research Associates, Littleton, CO. 

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984) The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest For 

Domestic Assault Am SOC Review 49: 26 1-272. 

Singer, S. (1988) The Fear of Reprisal and the Failure of Victims to Report a Personal 

Crime J Quant Criminol4(3): 289-302. 

Symonds, M. (1980) The "Second Injury" to Victims. Evaluation and Change Special 

Issue: 36-38. 

U.S. Department of Justice (1998) Violence by Intimates, Analysis of Data on Crimes by 

Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, Washington, D.C. 

Websdale, N. (1995) An Ethnographic Assessment of the Policing of Domestic Violence 

in Rural Eastern Kentucky SOC Justice 22( 1): 102- 122. 

28 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix E 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Seattle Police Department: 

Domestic Violence Unit Database 

Incident and Individual Tracking 

For Field and Research 

This product was designed in MicrosoftB Access 95 and Visual Basic for Applications. Access 95 must be 

available from the user’s machine for the NEWDB database to run. 

Page I Of30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table of Contents 

Getting Started 

Enter New Incident 

Edit Old Lncident 

Search for Incident 

Search for Individual 

Utilities 

Edit Variables 

Link & Backup 

Technical Information 

Troubleshooting 

Installation 

Table Layouts 

Glossary 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................... 

Contact: 

Christopher Mack: 

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center 

325 Ninth Ave. 

Box 359960 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Email: cdmack6.u. washinrrton.edu 

Voice: 206-52 1 - 1520 

Fax: 206-521-1562 

3 

6 

8 

10 

11 

13 

14 

16 

17 

17 

19 

20 

31 

Documentation version 1.1 1 

June 22, 1999 

Page 2 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Getting Started 

The SPD/DW Database is nothing more than a fancy data entry and retrieval method. It operates on the 

same principals as Incident Reports in a filing cabinet. Data about the incident and individuals involved is 

written out, and this information is filed in the cabinet in such a way that it can be pulled back out as 

necessary. 

The SPD/DVU Database does the same thing, but in a more powerful way. Data entry has been 

streamlined in electronic form. Instead of filing the information in only one way (by incident number, or 

by date) as with a filing cabinet, information can be retrieved on any number of criteria. 

New Incident Old Incident 

I Domestic Violence Unit I 

Find Cases Find People 

Page 3 of30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
All of the SPD/DW Database operations are accessed through the Switchboard. 

Edit 

This is the data entry, the inputs, the individual files in the cabinet. Users who need to enter new data or 

make changes to old data should use these methods. Users who only wish to examine previously entered 

lnformation should use the Search facilities below. 

Enter New Incident 

Enter the lnformation from an incident and for all the involved individuals for an entirely new incident. 

Edit Old Incident 

Pull up the information from a previously entered incident in order to make changes. 

Page 4 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Search 

By default, the Search facilities do not allow changes to be made. For this reason, they are ideal for users 

who only wish to examine previously entered information. Although changes can be made to the data 

through a circuitous route, that is not the primary hction of the Search facilities. 

Search for Individual 

Find an individual and all the incidents he or she has been involved in. 

Search for Incident 

Pull up the information fiom a previously entered incident and do not allow changes. 

Other 

This is a catchall category which includes-everythmg else. 

Exit Database 

Close the SPDDW Database. Although you can close the database in other ways, this is really the best 

way to do it. 

Utilities 

Add values to already existing variables in the database, rellnk the back-end database to the fiont-end, or 

make a backup of the current database. Some caution should be exercised in using this facility, because 

changes made in this way will be permanent. These utilities will be discussed in more detail below. 

Page 5 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Enter New Incident 

Offense #l Offense #t 

Detective Assianed Unit Number 

Incident Number 

___- 1 jfoolWeapon Usedd Sergeant Action 

1 Twe of Premises 

. - - . . . a I <unassigned, - __..- - 

7 

Census 

- .A r 

Tqpe of Relationship Len , a th of ,, Relationshi 5 iiktomof DI Chi/drenPres;? I -. __ -- - __ I I 

Court Order Evidence Taken? Photos Taken? Mutual Arrest? Suspect Contacted? 

.- - - . -. 1____rIz3iilI__ 

When this form is opened, the cursor starts in the Incident Number box. After entering an Incident 

Number, the SPD/DW database checks to make sure that that Number has never been entered before. If 

the Number has been entered previously, the database asks if you would Like to make changes - in other 

words, to edit - that incident. Otherwise, you are returned to the Enter New Incident screen to try again 

with a new Incident Number. 

Page 6 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
About the buttons at the bottom of the form: 

Next Incident: Saves the current incident information and allows a new incident to be entered. 

Clear Form: Erases all the current incident donnation and allows a new incident to be entered. 

Save & Exit: Saves the current incident information and returns to the Switchboard. 

Cancel & Exit: Erases all the current incident information and returns to the Switchboard. 

Notice that each button has a letter that is underhed. To enact that button without cliclung it with the 

mouse, all you have to do is press the ALT key + that letter. For instance, to clear the form from anywhere, 

press ALT+C. 

The Clear Form button is special in that the Escape key (ESC) can also be used to clear the form. This can 

be especially helphl when the database appears to be frozen, or will not allow you to press a button. 

The blanks in the white area are variables that refer to the incident as a whole. The blanks in the dark red 

area are variables that refer to individuals involved in the incident. Multiple individuals can be entered for 

each incident. 

You can scroll up and down through the individuals, or use the buttons at the top of the Persons section. 

The Up button goes to the first individual in the incident, the Down button moves to the last individual in 

the incident, and the sparkling New button allows a new individual to be added. 

See the Database Structure Appendix for detailed information about particular variables 

Page 7 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Edit Old Incident 

The Incident Number to be edited must be entered first. If a match cannot be found for that Incident 

Number, you are offered the option of entering the incident as a new incident. Othenvise, you are returned 

to the Edit Old Incident screen. 

Page 8 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The Edit Incident screen looks almost identical to the New Incident screen. 

Twe of Relationship 

--__- Child-in-Common ____ ______I 

Court Order Evir Takeg? Ph,otor Taks? I Mutual2 Suspect D Contacted? 

The only differences are the buttons at the bottom. 

New Incident: Saves the current incident donnation and allows a new incident to be entered, 

Save & Exit: Saves the current incident information and returns to the Switchboard. 

Cancel & Exit: Erases all the current incident information and returns to the Switchboard. 

There is no Clear Form button. Since a record has previously been entered for this incident, it should not 

be easy to delete all that information. 

Note that, as with the New Incident buttons, the buttons at the bottom of the Edit Incident form can be 

accessed by shortcut keys. Press ALT + the underlined letter. 

Page 9 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Search for Incident 

The interface for the Incident Search looks identical to the Incident Edit. The only difference is that when 

the Incident is found, the information that is retrieved cannot be edited. This is ideal when Incidents are 

being pulled up for consultation only. 

If no Incident matches the number that was entered, a message tells you so. 

If the re ord was suc essfully found, the Search Incident screen is brought up. This creen is again almost 

identical to the New Incident and Edit Incident screens, except for the butto& at the bonom. 

I ToollVea onUssd Ser cant Action Detective Assianed Unit Nurabcr 

1 

I 1-2 

Tipe 

- - 

of 

__ Premises _. I_ 

ihte Reported I ji,. ReDorted; ,Census peat , ' House & 31311399 

k2nded _- Stow - 

I I---------I: 

1 Tim of Relationship rof$$tionshi~~ Histor , w of DV? ~ Children INO - Present? ~. 

1 IChdd.m-Common 

Court Order Evidence Taken? Photos Taken? Mutual Arrest? Suspect Contacted? 

-_- GJ 17 I-__- I 

The only bunon options are Close, which returns you to the Switchboard, and Edit Record, which allows 

you to make changes to the record. 

Page 10 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Search for Individual 

This is the most powerful search utility in the SPD/DW database. It allows you to find a specified 

individual by entering all or part of his or her last name. To further refine the search, you can also enter all 

or part of the individual’s first name, date of birth, or age. 

The more specific the criteria that are entered, the better the matches that will be retrieved. On the other 

hand, if you are not getting a match, you may want to relax your search criteria. You can use the asterisk 

(*) as a wildcard character, and retrieve all names that begin with the letters preceding the asterisk That is, 

to search on Last Name: John* and First Name: Steve*, you could get the following matches among 

others: 

Steve Johns 

Steven Johnson 

Stevenson Johnston 

Another way of retrieving “fuzzy” matches is to use the SOUNDEX hction. Instead of matctung on the 

exact last name, SOUNDEX lets you match on all last names that are close. A seach on Last Name: John 

with the SOUNDEX turned on could produce the following matches: 

John 

Johnny 

Jaime 

Jaeyim 

It is mandatory to at least enter part of the subject’s last name for the search to proceed. 

Page 11 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The Search Results screens provides information about each individual who matched the search criteria. 

Select one record and press the Look Up Incident button to bring up all information about a particular 

incident. Or press the Print Report button to print out a report that contains all of the above information for 

all the individuals that matched your search. 

Page 12 of30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Utilities 

There are three utilities included in SPD/DW Database. They should be used with caution. To remind 

you that any changes made to existing variables are serious, the Utilities screen is password protected. 

Changes to the variables are permanent. 

To protect the data from unauthorized tampering, 

please enter your password now. 

It’s not a difficult password to crack: The code word is ‘‘permanent.” But it’s a reminder that if you don’t 

how what you’re doing, or you haven’t talked to anyone about malung changes, you probably shouldn’t 

be in there. 

Assuming you entered the password properly, the Database Utilities screen will be displayed. 

Page 13 Of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Edit Variables 

This screen will let you add new values to existing variables. 

You’re provided with a list of modifiable variables and the values currently associated with those variables. 

Select the variable you are interested in modifymg fiom the selector box at the left. The values for that 

variable, the text associated with those values, and the status of that value are in the box to the right. The 

“Quote” box gives a better description of the variable. 

Scroll down the list of values at right to a blank row in order to add a new value. Press the Close Form 

button to exit and renun to the Switchboard. 

The Value Edit form does not let you delete or change values once they have been added. If it did, by 

changing the meaning of a value, the value would have one meaning before the change, and a different 

meaning after the change. This isn’t acceptable. 

However, you can do the next best thing. By changing the status drop-down box firom “Active” to 

“Inactive,” the selected value will not show up in combo boxes during data entry and data editing. Only 

use th~s feature when a value is really being permanently retired! Otherwise, you’ll be eliminating a useful 

value. 

Page 14 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Relink Tables 

This utility should be used if the kont-end database (NEWDB-fe.mdb), housed on the user’s machine, 

cannot find the back-end database (NEWDB-be.mdb), housed on the server. This could happen if the 

front-end table that holds the location of the back-end database (in tbllookup) is lost or damaged, or if the 

back-end database is moved or renamed, or if the network is reconfigured so that the workstation cannot 

find the back-end database., 

Backup & Compact 

This utility will make a backup of the back-end database, then repair and compact it. Because the database 

cannot be open during tlus procedure, it checks whether there are any other users currently using the 

database. These users must exit before the backup will proceed. 

Page 15 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Troubleshooting 

1. Table links problems 

Couldn’t find file <name>. (Error 3024) 

Possible causes: 

The specified file doesn’t exist. 

You misspelled the filename. Check for missing underscores ( -) or other punctuation, and make sure you 

didn’t enter leading spaces. 

Links between the fiont-end (NEWDB) and back-end (NEWDB-BE) should be handled automatically. If 

thls link becomes somehow severed (e.& NEWDB-BE is moved to another server), NEWDB can be 

relinked to it by using the Relink Table Utility from the Utilities screen. If the back end has been moved, 

you may be forced to manually find NEWDB-BE yourself. Not a pretty proposition, but nobody should 

have moved it in the first place. 

2. Multiple users problems 

“Write Conflict” 

This record has been changed by another user since you started editing it. If you save the record, you will 

overwrite the changes the other user made. 

Saverecord 

Copy to clipboard 

0 Dropchanges 

I recommend that the user press the “Drop changes” button, then try to edit the record again. Thls ensures 

that the previous data is unaffected, and allows the user to compare her data to the newly refeshed record. 

Generally speaking, there should be minimal trouble with having multiple users accessing records. 

Because new records are stored on the local machine before being written to the back end database, it is 

possible that two users could simultaneously work on the same new record, then attempt to post those 

records to the back end database. But thls seems unlikely. 

3. Network problems 

“Couldn’t find file ‘<database location>’.” 

Th~s could be followed by a “Object variable or With block variable not set.” Keep hitting “OK’ - and it 

could take a number of times - until the message disappears. Or if it fails to disappear, you’ll have to shut 

down the program via the Task Manager. Right-click on the task bar and select Task Manager. Select the 

“Applications” tab, highlight “Seattle Police Depamnent: Domestic Violence Unit”, and press the “End 

Task” button at the bottom. A dialog box will appear that asks if you really want to close the application 

right now. Press the “End Task’’ button, then close the Task Manager window. 

Page 16 of30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
4. DB corruption 

MS Access 95 is not an infallable product, and is not always stable. Sometimes the database will become 

corrupted and is no longer usable. 

If the front end is corrupted, download a new copy of NEWDBMDB from the server. Copy the new front 

end over the old front end. 

If the back end is corrupted, you can restore it from the backup. The backup is called BACKUPDB.MDB 

and resides in the Backup folder in the same location as the current NEWDB-be.MDB. Just move 

BACKUPDB.MDB to the same location as NEWDB-be.MDB, and rename the backup to the current back 

end’s name. Note that any changes made to the data since the last backup was performed will be lost. 

Page 17 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Installation 

The SPDDW Database required that Microsoft@ Access 95 can be run from the user’s machme. The 

database will fail to run with the Access 2.0,97 or 2000 versions. Unlike most Microsoft@ products, 

Access is not backwards compatible; that is, later versions of Access will not run databases created in 

earlier versions without being converted by a trained programmer. 

The SPDDW Database really exists as two files, a fiont-end user interface and a back-end data file. The 

back-end data file (NEWDB-BE) should never be opened, manipulated or referenced directly, but instead 

only be accessed through the front-end interface (NEWDB). The only exception to th~s is for occasional 

repair, compaction or backup, which will be explained below. 

NEWDB is set up to be installed as a Runtime file for maximum performance and security. Rather than 

opening NEWDB through the usual MS Access interface, NEWDB should be opened by a shortcut on the 

desktop or Start menu with the following command line: 

‘‘ fMS Access Location] ” ‘’ [NE WDB Location] ” /runtime 

where [MS Access Location] is where the MS Access file MSACCESS.EXE is stored, and [NEWLIB 

Location] is where the SPDDW fiont-end database NEWDB is stored. On my machine, the command 

line looks as follows: 

“C:\MSOffice95\Access~SACCESS.EXE” “D:\Database\DVUWEWDB.mdb” /runtime 

The Backup utility requires a folder named “Backup” to exist in the same location as the back-end data me. 

Ths folder must contain the BACKER.MDB file which actually executes the backup, repair and 

compaction, and any file called BACKUPDB.MDB, which will be the backup back-end data file. There 

must be me file called BACKUPDB.MDB, even if it is not a valid MS Access database, to seed the 

backup utility. 

For the Link Tables utility to work, the MSLDBUSR.DLL file must be installed in C:\wMNT on the 

user’s machme. 

Page 18 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table Definitions 

tblhcid (on the server) and tmpIncid (on the workstation) contain all the incident-level data. tblhdiv (on 

the server) and tmpIndiv (on the workstation) contain all the individual-level data. tblLookupNames lists 

all the variables that can be edited by users. tblbokup contains all values of common variables, including 

(but not limited to) those included in tblLookupNames. 

The tables tblIncid and tmpIncid have the same structure. Similarly, tblindiv and tmphdiv have the same 

structure. tblhcid has a one-to-infinity relationship with tblhdiv, just as tblIndiv has to tmphdiv. 

Table: tblIncid 

Properties 

Attributes: Linked 

Columns 

Name 

INC-DT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Format: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

INC-TM 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Format: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

CENSUS 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

UNITNUM 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Connect String: 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

mmlddlyyyy 

0 

False 

Datenime 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Medium Time 

1 

False 

Text 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

2 

False 

Text 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

:DATABASE=D:\Database\DVU\ 

NEWDB-bemdb 

Size 

8 

8 

4 

6 

Page 19 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

INCNUM 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attn butes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

E NTRY-DT 

Allow Zero Leqath: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Format: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

UPDATEDT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Format: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

ARREST 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

EVIDENCE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

MUTUAL 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

3 

False 

Text 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

4 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

mmlddlyyyy 

5 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

mmlddyyyy 

6 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

7 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

False 

a 

DateKime 

Date!Time 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Sue 

9 

8 

8 

1 

1 

Page 20 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

PHOTOS 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

SUSCON 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Rewired: 

BEAT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

PREMISES 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Posiiion: 

Required: 

OFFENSE1 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attnbutes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

OFFENSE2 

Allow Zero Length: 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

9 

False 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

10 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

11 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

12 

False 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Text 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

13 

False 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

14 

False 

False 

Number (Byte) 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

Page 2 1 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinat Position: 

Required: 

DETASSGN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

ORDTYPE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

SGTAXN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

WTYPE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

RELLEN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

15 

False 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

16 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

17 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

18 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

19 

False 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Integer) 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

255 

Text Box 

20 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Page 22 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Required: False 

RELUNIT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order. 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

RELSHIP 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order. 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

DVHIST 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

CHILPRES 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Defauit 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

21 

False 

False 

Fixed Sie 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

22 

False 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

23 

False 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

24 

False 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Page 23 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table: tblIndiv 

Properties 

Attributes: Linked 

Columns 

Name 

IN-DOB 

Allow ZerwLength: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Format: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

IN-LN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

IN-FN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

IN-MN 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

IN-SEX 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

mmlddlyyyy 

0 

False 

Connect String: :DATABASE=D:Database\DVU\ 

NEWDB-bemdb 

Text 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

1 

False 

Text 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

2 

False 

Text 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

3 

False 

Text 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Size 

8 

40 

35 

25 

1 

Page 24 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

INCNUM 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

PERCODE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order. 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

RELSHIP 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

INJlYPE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Ordw 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

TREATMNT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

LIVEWITH 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Default 

Text Box 

4 

False 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

5 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

6 

False 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

7 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

8 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

9 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

Text 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

9 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Page 25 of 30. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

INJPHOTO 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

PREGNANT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

STATEMNT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

ALCDRUG 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

PERNUM 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

10 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

11 

False 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

12 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

13 

False 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

False 

14 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

15 

False 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 

Number (Byte) 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Page 26 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
SOUNDEX 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

IN-RACE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

EMPLOYED 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

Source Field: 

Source Table: 

False 

Fixed Sire 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

16 

False 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Text Box 

17 

False 

False 

Fixed Sue 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Text Box 

18 

False 

EMPLOYED 

tbllndiv 

Text 4 

Text 

Number (Byte) 

1 

1 

Page 27 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table: tblLookup 

Properties 

Attributes: Linked 

Columns 

Name 

VARIABLE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Description: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

TEXT 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Description: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

VALUE 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Decimal Places: 

Description: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

Source Field: 

Source Table: 

Connect String: ;DATABASE=D:\Database\DVU\ 

NEWDB-be.mdb 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

1 

Default 

Variable that takes on values to be looked up 

Text Box 

0 

True 

Text 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

Default 

2610 

Meaning of the value 

Text Box 

1 

False . 

Number (Byte) 

False 

Fixed Size 

General 

False 

Default 

Default 

Ascending 

Values that have more specific meanings 

Text Box 

2 

True 

VALUE 

tblLookup 

Size 

15 

40 

Page 28 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Table: tblLookupNames 

Properties 

Attributes: 

Columns 

Linked 

Name 

LookupName 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

Collating Order: 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Description: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

Source Field: 

Source Table: 

LookupText 

Allow Zero Length: 

Attributes: 

. Collating Order 

Column Hidden: 

Column Order: 

Column Width: 

Description: 

Display Control: 

Ordinal Position: 

Required: 

Source Field: 

Source Table: 

Connect String: ;DATABASE=D:\Database\DVU\ 

~ NEWDB-be.mdb 

Type Size 

Text 10 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

1 

Default 

Name of a variable in the Lookup table 

Text Box 

0 

True 

LookupName 

tblLookupNames 

Text 

False 

Variable Length 

General 

False 

Default 

2010 

The text assodated with the above variable 

Text Box 

1 

False 

LookupText 

tblLookupName 

25 

Page29of30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Glossary 

Back-end Database: A MS Access database that resides on the server. It contains only data, and none of 

the files and utilities required to run the database normally. 

Form: Any unique screen in the database. 

Front-end Database: A MS Access database that resides on the user's machine. It contains all the files 

required to access and manipulate the data, but contains no data itself. 

Linked Table: A table that actually resides in a different location, but that the current program is able to 

access by referencing that location. 

Record: One unique incident, person or item. 

Shortcut Key: A combination of keystrokes that allows some fimction to automatically be performed. On 

screens containing a button with an underlined letter, the button can be activated by pressing the ALT key + 

the letter that is underlined. 

Soundex: A 4-character code that allows names with similar, but not identical, spellings to be matched 

together. Very useful for names that have multiple correct or incorrect spellings. 

Switchboard: The main screen that allows other functions. 

Variable: A characteristic of a record that can take on several possible values. 

Value: The particular characteristic of a variable. 

Page 30 of 30 

U.S. Department of Justice.

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report