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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Practical Implications of Current Domestic 

Violence Research 

Part II: Prosecution 

Author: Andrew R. Klein 

Document No.: 222320 

Date Received: April 2008 

Award Number: 2007 M-07032 

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. 
Practical Implications of Current 

Domestic Violence Research 

Part II: Prosecution 

Andrew R. Klein 

This is one of three final reports submitted to the National Institute of Justice on 

Contract 2007M-07032 which was awarded to Advocates for Human Potential. Points 

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

the United States Department of Justice. 

National Institute of Justice Program Manager – Bernard Auchter 

 Bernie.Auchter@USDOJ.GOV - April 2008 

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
2

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

Part II: Prosecution 

Andrew R. Klein 

Preface 

The purpose of this work is to describe to practitioners what the research tells us about 

domestic violence, including its perpetrators and victims, and the impact of current 

responses to it and, more particularly, the implications of that research for day to day 

real world responses to domestic violence by law enforcement officers, prosecutors and 

judges. 

While many state and federal statutes define “domestic violence” broadly, for the 

purposes of this work, it is confined to current or former intimate partners, married or 

unmarried, with or without children. 

Most but not all of the research reports used in this manuscript are from National 

Institute of Justice funded studies and/or a variety of refereed journals. For example, 

several studies of women seeking hospital emergency room treatment for injuries 

inflicted by intimate partners are included because, although of primary concern to the 

medical community, these studies underscore victim characteristics found in criminal 

justice related research suggesting how representative the latter research is. 

Less rigorous research reports are also included based on the quality of their data 

collected or because they provide accurate examples of performance measures. For 

example, several performance evaluations of specific programs are included, not because 

they address program effectiveness in terms of reabuse, but they provide concrete 

examples of what specific programs can achieve in terms of important program outputs 

such as arrests rates. Some of the most extensive examinations of prosecution practices 

have been initiated by newspaper-initiated investigations where reporters gained access 

to state court data tapes of thousands of cases. 

While some research findings may be questionable because researchers employed less 

than rigorous research methodology, the research may be cited because it contains 

accurate data illustrating an important phenomenon. The data are unaffected by the 

research design employed by the researchers. For example, while Gottman and 

Jacobson’s findings regarding the typology of batterers1 have been questioned, their 

reported observations, if not their conclusions, have been confirmed.2 They are cited 

supporting the proposition that batterer reaction to their violence is not uniform, not 

their more controversial conclusion that all batterers fall into two distinct categories. 

 

1

 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 2

 Meehan, J., Holtzwoth-Monroe, A. & Herron, K. (2001). Maritally Violent Men’s Heart Rate Reactivity to Martial 

Interactions: A Failure to Replicate the Gottman et. al. (1995) Typology, Journal of Family Psychology13, 409-414.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
3

The policy and practice implications are based on the evidence provided by the research 

and are therefore confined to areas specifically addressed by researchers. Consequently, 

the implications listed do not constitute a comprehensive listing of promising practices or 

even policies and procedures widely recognized to be effective. Whenever possible, policy 

implications are based on multiple studies. However, in some instances, where only one 

study examined an issue deemed to be important to practitioners, the policy implications 

may be drawn from just that one study. In such cases, the narrative will alert readers that 

the research has not yet been replicated. 

 

Performance Measures 

“Performance Measures” include examples of specific programs or specific 

jurisdictions’ achievements or surveys of multiple departments. The performance 

measures are included to provide examples of what at least a specific, real life program 

or jurisdiction(s) accomplished. As jurisdictions vary, these measures may not be 

replicable in all other jurisdictions but suggest what may be achieved in similar 

jurisdictions. 

This is one of three final reports submitted to the National Institute of Justice on 

Contract 2007M-07032 which was awarded to Advocates for Human Potential. Points 

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

the United States Department of Justice. 

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
4

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

for Prosecutors 

I. How widespread is nonfatal domestic violence: 

What percent of police calls are for domestic violence? 

How widespread is stalking? 

 How widespread are intimate sexual assaults? 

 How widespread is fatal domestic violence? 

 How widespread is multiple domestic violence victimization? 

 

II. What domestic violence actually reaches courts? 

When do victims report? 

 Who else reports domestic violence? 

 Are there are other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

Which domestic violence offenses are generally reported to law 

 enforcement? 

III. Is arrest the best response? 

What should the response be when the suspect is gone when law 

 enforcement arrives? 

Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

IV. Who are the Perpetrators? 

What is their gender?

What age are they? 

Are they likely already known to the criminal justice system? 

 Are they likely to be drug and/or alcohol abusers? 

 Are they likely to be mentally ill? Or have certain personality types? 

Do abusers stick with one victim? 

 

V. Who are their victims? 

Are victim characteristics relevant in assessing abuse likelihood? 

 Is victim substance abuse associated with victimization? 

Why do some victims behave as they do? 

 Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
5

VI. How many abusers are going to do it again?

Are abusers at risk for committing new non-domestic violence 

 crimes, too?

When will abusers reabuse? 

VII. Which abusers are likely to do it again in the short-term? 

Is gender important? 

Is age important? 

Is prior arrest history important? 

 Is substance abuse important? 

Are victims accurate predictors of reabuse?

Are there other common risk factors associated with reabuse? 

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

 Do the widely used risk instruments accurately predict reabuse? 

VIII. Which abusers are most likely to try to kill their victims? 

How critical are firearms and other weapons?

What are other lethality risk markers? 

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

IX. Does prosecuting domestic violence offenders deter reabuse? 

 

X. What is the current level of domestic violence prosecution across the 

country? 

Can most domestic violence arrest cases be successfully prosecuted 

in court? 

 Will aggressive prosecutions increase the demand for trials? 

 Do victims want their abusers prosecuted? 

 Why do a minority of victims oppose prosecution? 

 Is victim fear of prosecution well founded? 

Can prosecutors increase victim cooperation? 

Should prosecutors follow victim preferences in terms of prosecution 

 and sentencing? 

 

XI. What evidence is typically available to prosecute domestic violence 

cases? 

Can cases be successfully prosecuted without the victim? 

 Can successful prosecutions be increased? 

What does adoption of “no drop” policies actually mean? 

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
6

XII. What kind of dispositions do most suspects receive? 

Why sentencing of domestic violence defendants may not prevent 

 reabuse? 

XIII. Do Specialized Prosecution Units Work? 

What characterize specialized prosecution units? 

XIV. What should be considered in recommending sentences for 

convicted batterers? 

Are defendants who don’t show in court more at risk for reabuse 

 than those that do? 

Should “first” offenders be diverted/discharged? 

XV. Do Batterer Intervention Programs Prevent Reabuse? 

 Does the type or length of batterer intervention programs make 

 a difference? 

Do couples counseling or anger management treatment programs 

 prevent reabuse? 

Does alcohol and drug treatment prevent reabuse? 

 Are court referred batterers likely to complete batterer 

 programs? 

 Do batterer program completers do better than those who fail? 

 Can batterer program attendance be enhanced by court 

 monitoring? 

 Which batterers are likely to fail to attend mandated batterer 

 treatment? 

When will non-compliant abusers drop out of batterer programs? 

What should the prosecutor’s response be if court referred 

 abusers are noncompliant with programs? 

What should the prosecutor’s response be to abusers who 

 reoffend while enrolled in a batterer program or after 

 completion?

 What effect do batterer program referrals have on victims? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
7

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

For Prosecutors 

I. How widespread is nonfatal domestic violence: 

 According to the latest 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), over 

the decade from 1993 to 2005, the average annual domestic violence rate per 1,000 

population (age 12 or older) for intimate partners and/or relatives was 5.9 for females and 

2.1 for males. About a third of the victims reported they were physically attacked; twothirds were threatened with attack or death. A little more than half of the female victims 

suffered an injury, but only 5% were seriously injured. A little over 3% were sexually 

assaulted. Fewer male victims, 41.5%, reported injuries, less then 5% seriously. Those 

who were separated (or divorced) experienced more nonfatal domestic violence than 

those who were together.3

 Victimization rates vary among different subpopulations. The highest reported 

rates are for Native American women.4

 

What percent of police calls are for domestic violence? 

Reflecting the extent of domestic violence, domestic violence-related police calls 

have been found to constitute the single largest category of calls received by police, 

accounting for between 15 and more than 50% of all calls.5 Not all domestic violence 

calls are for activities that constitute crimes. Several New York studies, for example, 

found that 65% of such calls in upstate New York pertained to criminal conduct. In New 

York City, the police department found that 35% of reports pertained to specific 

chargeable index or other criminal offenses.6

 In San Diego, approximately 25% of calls 

for service in domestic violence cases result in an arrest.7

 

Implications: Given the large numbers adversely affected by domestic violence, the 

fact that victims’ prime countermeasure, separating from their abuser, does not 

stop the abuse, coupled with the amount of time committed to responding to 

domestic violence calls, arresting and prosecuting alleged offenders, prosecutors 

 

3

 Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 4

 Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of Low-Income Native American 

Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703. 5

 Hendricks, J. (ed.) (1991). Crises Intervention in Criminal Justice and Social Services. Springfield, Il: Charles C. 

Thomas Publishers; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized 

Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 215916. 

6

 ___(2001). Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: Evaluation of the Mandatory Arrest 

Provisions, Final Report, Albany, NY: Division of Criminal Justice Services and Office for the Prevention of Domestic 

Violence; Raiford, L. (2002). Report, New York City, NY: New York City Police Department, Domestic Violence Unit 

cited in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. 7

 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
8

must commit sufficient resources and attention to assure domestic violence cases are 

handled efficiently and effectively. 

Research Basis: Disparate national surveys, supplemented by local police department 

and prosecution studies.

 How widespread is stalking? 

 Estimates of stalking vary depending upon how it is defined. A 1995-1996 

National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) found that 5 per 1,000 females (18 

and over) and 2 per 1,000 males report being stalked annually using a conservative 

definition that requires victims to suffer a high level of fear. Eighty percent of stalking 

victims are women, 87% of stalkers male. Most women were stalked by spouses/exspouses (38%), current or former intimates (10%), dating partners (14%), other relatives 

(4%), acquaintances (19%), and strangers (23%). Males were more likely than females to 

be stalked by strangers (36%) and acquaintances (34%).8 Further, research suggests a 

close association between stalking and femicide. One study, for example, found more 

than half, 54%, of female intimate partner murder victims had reported stalking to police 

prior to their murders by the stalkers.9 

 

Implications: It is important for prosecutors to correctly identify stalking behavior 

in order to invoke stalking laws appropriately that may afford victims increased 

protection against potentially lethal abusers. 

Research Basis: National study of 141 femicides and 65 attempted femicides, confirmed 

in other stalking studies.

 How widespread are intimate sexual assaults? 

If there is physical abuse in domestic violence, studies suggest that there is most 

probably sexual abuse, also. A Texas study found almost 70% of women seeking 

protective orders were raped, most (79%) repeatedly.10 Though lower, an earlier 

Massachusetts study found 55% of female restraining order petitioners reported to 

interviewers that they had been sexually assaulted by their abusers, although none

included this in her affidavit requesting a protective order.11 Female victims similarly 

underreported sexual abuse in a Colorado study. While 20% to 50% of women seeking 

protective orders had been subject to a variety of abuse, including forced sex within the 

preceding year, only 4% listed forced sex on the complaint form requesting the temporary 

restraining order.12

 

8

 Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women 

Survey, Research in Brief, Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 169592.; Winn, R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A Comparison on Men and Women who Kill, Violence and 

Victims, 5(4), 236., 9

 McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Wilt, S. (1999). Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide. Homicide Studies 3

(4):300-316. 

10 McFarlane, J. & Malecha, A. (October 2005). Sexual Assault Among Intimates: Frequency, Consequences and 

Treatments. Washington D. NCJ 155284 C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-0003, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 11678. 

11 Kramer, R. (1989). Alcohol and Victimization Factors in the Histories of Abused Women Who Come to Court: A 

Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services. 12 Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. 

Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243.\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
9

Implications: Prosecutors should be aware that sexual abuse is often part of 

domestic violence although victims may not report it or be prepared to cooperate in 

its prosecution. Even if prosecutors cannot file or prosecute, evidence of sexual 

assaults should be taken into account when prosecutors consider abuser risk and 

victim vulnerability in terms of filing other charges and making appropriate 

sentencing recommendations. 

Research Basis: National survey as well as disparate individual studies from multiple 

regions.

 How widespread is fatal domestic violence? 

According to the Supplementary Homicide Reports of the FBI’s Uniform Crime 

Reporting Program in 2005, 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate 

partners.13 The number of men killed has dropped by almost three-quarters since 1976 

while the number of women killed has only dropped by a quarter. The number of white 

females killed has declined the least, only 6%. Intimate homicides constituted 11% of all 

homicides between 1976 and 2005, about a third of all female murders and 3% of all 

male murders. The proportion of female homicide victims killed by an intimate is 

increasing. Unlike nonfatal domestic violence, most intimate homicides (54%) involve 

spouses or ex-spouses although intimate homicides for unmarried couples are 

approaching that for married or divorced couples. 

 Intimate partner homicides may also involve third parties, including children, 

bystanders, employers, and lawyers among others. For example, according to the 

Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review, between 1997 and 2004, there 

were 313 domestic violence fatalities cases in that state involving 416 homicides, 

including 23 children, 32 friends/family members of primary intimate victims, 19 new 

boyfriends of primary intimate victim, one co-worker of primary intimate victim, three 

law enforcement officers responding to the intimate homicide, 9 abusers killed by law 

enforcement, 10 abusers killed by friend or family of victims, as well as 93 abusers who 

committed suicide.14

 

Implications: To reduce female homicides generally, prosecutors must give priority 

to the protection of female intimates. Reduction of female intimate homicides will 

also reduce collateral homicides of children, other family members, abuser suicides, 

as well as responding law enforcement officers.

Research Basis: National data collected by Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 How widespread is multiple domestic violence victimization? 

Analysis of NVAWS data reveal that 18% of women who experienced abuse, 

experienced “systemic abuse,” meaning they were likely to suffer physical attacks, with 

and without weapons, and strangulation, with a quarter also experiencing sexual assaults, 

 

13 Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 14 Starr, K., Hobart, M., & Fawcett, J. (2004). Findings and Recommendations from the Washington State Domestic 

Violence Fatality Review, Seattle, WA: Washington Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
10

and almost half experiencing stalking.15 A study of dating violence similarly found 

substantial overlap between physical and sexual victimization.16

Implications: A post-arrest investigation by the prosecutor may indicate additional, 

even more serious incidents of domestic violence than the one specifically noted by 

law enforcement officers. Rarely does the reported abuse incident represent a single 

isolated, atypical act. Appropriate charges should be filed covering the range of 

criminal behaviors of abusers. In light of Crawford’s increased demand for live 

victim testimony, prosecutors must work with law enforcement to uncover any 

evidence of abuser intimation of victims that would inhibit her testifying. Such 

evidence may also be used in terms of preparation of victim impact statements. 

Research Basis: National survey and five year longitudinal study of college students 

from school considered representative of state colleges where 80% of all U.S. college 

students attend.

II. What domestic violence actually reaches courts? 

 As with any crime, not all incidents of domestic violence are reported to law 

enforcement and not all that are reported to law enforcement are forwarded to 

prosecutors. Finally, even less is generally prosecuted in court. 

 Both the older NVAWS and the more contemporary NCVS reports agree that 

victims do not report all cases of their victimization to police. According to NVAWS, 

27% of women and 13.5% of men who are physically assaulted by an intimate reported 

their assault to law enforcement. Less than 20% of women reported intimate partner rapes 

to police. Reporting rates for stalking are higher with 52% of women and 36% of men 

reporting them to law enforcement. 

 A succession of NCVS surveys over the last several decades finds much higher 

reporting rates (but for a far lesser number of victimizations). According to these surveys, 

reporting to police of nonfatal partner victimization has increased for all victims, male 

and female to over 62% with no gap between male and female victim reporting rates. The 

highest reporting is for black females (70.2%) and the lowest is black males (46.5%).17

 Comparing hundreds of actual police domestic violence incident reports with 

victim statements in four sites in three different states, researchers found a proportion of 

victims deny abuse documented by police. Researchers found 29% of victims reported 

“no assault,” contradicting police findings. Ironically, their alleged assailants were more 

likely to admit to the assaults with only 19% reporting “no assault” Suspects, however, 

were more likely to minimize the severity of the assaults compared to their victims.18

Researcher also finds that some victims do not report repeated incidents of abuse to 

police. A review of NCVS data from 1992 through 2002 found that although 60% of the 

victims had been assaulted by their intimate partners before, only half of the subsequent 

 

15 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 16 White, J. & Smith, P. (2004). A Longitudinal Perspective on Physical and Sexual Intimate Partner Violence Against 

Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ199708., 17 Catalano, S. (2007). 18Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
11

survey assaults were reported to police, and these included reports made by persons other 

than the victim. Prior unreported domestic violence may be more serious than the 

incident actually reported.19 

 Reasons for not reporting found in the 2005 NCVS included belief that the abuse 

was a private or personal matter (22% for female and 39% for male); fear of reprisal 

(12% for female, 5% for male),; desire to protect the suspect (14% for female, 16% for 

male); and belief police won’t do anything (8% for female and male).20 

 Once reported, police arrest rates vary depending upon the jurisdiction and how 

each defines domestic violence. Arrests for domestic violence per 1,000 population range 

from 3.2 in Omaha, Nebraska (2003) to 12.2 in Wichita, Kansas (2000).21

 Prosecution rates similarly vary. A review of 26 domestic violence prosecution 

studies from across the country found prosecution per arrest ranged from 4.6% in 

Milwaukee reported in 1992 to 94% reported in Hamilton, Ohio in 2005. The average 

rate was 63.8% and the median rate was 59.5%.22

Performance Measure: Based on victim reporting rates to law enforcement alone, 

law enforcement officers should be responding annually to at least 4 to 5 incidents 

per 1,000 females (12 and older) and 1 to 2 per 1,000 males (12 and older). If 

prosecutors are getting significantly fewer cases from law enforcement, prosecutors 

must join with law enforcement to either improve community outreach and/or work 

to remove barriers to reporting. 

Research Basis: Confirmed by multiple national surveys over past decades, although 

exact rates, as opposed to national average, may vary based on region, population 

density, ethnicity of population, and so on.

When do victims report? 

 Victims do not generally report their initial intimate victimization, but typically 

suffer multiple assaults and/or related victimizations before they contact authorities 

and/or apply for protective orders.23 A Texas protective order study, like others 

conducted across the country, for example, found 68% of the victims taking out orders 

had been physically abused by their partners in the preceding two years before they took 

out orders.24 A Massachusetts arrest study found that a majority of intimate victims 

 

19 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 20 Catalano, S. (2007); Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of 

Domestic Assault. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 210301. 

21 Klein (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. 22 Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate 

Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 49. 23 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic 

Assault. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 210301; Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E. 

Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243; ;Keilitz, 

S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of 

Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035 National Institute of Justice. 24 Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Reabuse.

Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
12

(55%) sampled who called police reported that either the frequency or severity of ongoing abuse was increasing at the time. Another 11% reported no increases in either but 

increased controlling behaviors such as restrictions on freedom of movement, access to 

money, medical or counseling services, or social support.25

 The NCVS found victims were more likely to report re-assaults, than initial 

assaults.26 

Implications: In questioning victims, prosecutors should always inquire about prior

unreported domestic violence for evidence of crimes that may be charged depending 

upon the jurisdiction’s statute of limitations and/or are necessary to develop an 

accurate offender history to determine appropriate prosecution and sentencing 

recommendations. 

Research Basis: Both national and a multitude of disparate individual jurisdictional 

studies agree that battering likely to come to the attention of the law enforcement 

constitutes repeated activity, much not reported to law enforcement initially.

 

 Who else reports domestic violence? 

 Most reports are called in by victims with research finding victim report rates 

ranging from 5927 to 93%.28 The review of NCVS re-assaults between 1992 and 2002 

found 72% of the re-assaults were reported by the victim and 28% by third parties.29 A 

multi-state police study found 66.1% of domestic calls to the police were from victims.30

Third parties include family members, relatives, even suspects themselves. In Chicago’s 

domestic violence misdemeanor court, 26% of the calls were made by third parties on 

their own and another 7.3% called at the direct behest of the victim.31 Third parties are 

more likely to call police if the incident involved major injuries and/or a weapon.32 

Other family members are significantly more likely to report abuse of elder women (60 

years and older) by other family members, usually sons, daughters or grandsons.33

 

25 Buzawa, et. al. (1999). 26 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 27 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 28 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

215916. 

29 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 30 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

31 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944.

32Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427.; Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 33 Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Older Women Abuse and 

the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2006-WG-BX-0009, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ pending. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
13

Implications: Prosecutors should ask law enforcement to catalogue and maintain 

911 tapes of domestic violence calls as they may contain possible excited utterance 

evidence because a majority of reported incidents is made by victims (some of whom 

may be reluctant to testify later on). In addition, the identities and contact 

information for third party domestic violence callers should be elicited when 

possible as potential incident witnesses. Dispatchers should be trained toward these 

ends and this information should be forwarded to prosecutors. 

Research Basis: Multiple national and local observational studies.

 

 Are there are other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

 Unlike most crimes, there is a parallel track for victim reporting domestic 

violence, namely civil courts where victims can petition for protective/restraining orders. 

In many jurisdictions, more victims report intimate assaults and related crimes to civil 

courts than to law enforcement.34 Research from both sides of the country, 

Massachusetts35 and the state of Washington,36 however, indicates that the abuse 

reported in this civil setting is not significantly different from that reported to law 

enforcement.

Implications: Civil protective order files offer prosecutors an essential tool in 

identifying domestic violence victims and perpetrators, gauging victim risk, and 

correctly calibrating appropriate charges and sentences. They may also indicate 

prior uncharged crimes that may be prosecuted along with more recent charges, 

particularly if the same victim and or witnesses are involved in both sets of charges. 

They may also be used as evidence for violations of probationary sentences. 

Petitioner affidavits of abuse have been upheld as admissible evidence for probation 

violation in Tweedie v. Garvey, 94_CV_30139 (U.S. D. Springfield, MA, 1994). 

Research Basis: Disparate observational studies across the country as well as reported 

data from multiple states.

 Which domestic violence offenses are generally reported to law 

enforcement? 

Notwithstanding varying number and types of crimes that constitute “domestic 

violence” in different state and federal codes, most, almost two–thirds to three-quarters of 

domestic violence cited in law enforcement incident reports are for assaults.37 Although 

 

34 Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 35 Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in Understanding Domestic 

Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5); Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. 

In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 36 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the Likelihood of Future Partner 

Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 37 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

Violence Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 215916.; Holt, V., Kernic, M., Lumley, T., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2002). Civil Protection Orders and Risk of 

Subsequent Police-Reported Violence. Journal of American Medical Association, 288 (5), 598-594; Smith, B., Davis, 

R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central Values in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
14

prosecutors screen cases, a study of domestic violence prosecutions in California, 

Oregon, Nebraska and Washington, for example, found assaults formed from 59% to 

81% of all prosecuted domestic violence cases.38

The percentage of felony assaults varies widely reflecting specific state felony 

enhancement statutes and the like. The highest percent of felony assault domestic 

violence charges documented, 41%, is in California where injurious domestic assaults are 

classified as felonies.39 However, most studies find much smaller percentages of felony 

assault charges, including 13.7% in Charlotte, N.C.40 to only 5.5% in Massachusetts41 as 

most physical injuries are minor and most cases do not involve the use of weapons. 

 The NVCS, based on victim self reports, not police characterations, found simple 

assaults against female intimates to be more than four times greater (4.4) than aggravated 

assaults in 2005. Most assaults (80.5%) did not involve weapons.42

 

Performance Measure: If the ratio of arrest reports for lesser offenses (such as 

disorderly or breach of the peace) is significantly greater than that for assaults, it 

may indicate that local law enforcement is not correctly identifying the underlying 

criminal behavior. Prosecutors must work with officers to correctly determine the 

necessary elements of specific domestic violence crimes, including assault, stalking 

and marital rape. Alternatively, if the majority of domestic assaults are routinely 

pled down to lesser offenses by prosecutors, prosecutors may be endangering 

victims as well as failing to hold abusers fully accountable for their violence. Federal 

misdemeanor firearm prohibitions (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9)), for example, only apply to 

assault convictions. Where enhancement statutes are available, prosecutors should 

carefully review prior convictions to charge defendants as repeat offenders where 

appropriate. 

Research Basis: Numerous observational studies from across the country as well as 

finding of national victim surveys, 1993 – 2004.

III. Is arrest the best response? 

A major re-examination of a serious of fairly rigorous experiments in multiple 

jurisdictions finds that arrest deters repeat reabuse, whether suspects are employed or not. 

 Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0029 National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 187772; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate 

Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 

182781 

38 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

39 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 40 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

215916. 

41 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

42 Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
15

In none of the sites was arrest associated with increased reabuse among intimate 

partners.43 Another major study based on 2,564 partner assaults reported in the NCVS 

(1992-2002) found that whether police arrested the suspect or not, their involvement has 

a strong deterrent effect. The positive effects of police involvement and arrest are not 

dependent upon whether or not the victim or a third party reported the incident to law 

enforcement. Nor are they dependent upon the seriousness of the incident assault, 

whether a misdemeanor or felony.44 

 A Berkeley arrest study found similarly that action taken by responding officers, 

including arrest, providing victims with information pamphlets, taking down witness 

statements, and helping victims secure protective orders, all were associated with reduced 

reabuse. By contrast, the highest reabuse rates were found where the responding officers 

left it to the victim to make a “citizen arrest,” swearing out a complaint herself.45

Research has also shown that police response also significantly increases the likelihood 

that victims’ will secure protective orders.46

 Research also finds that by and large the vast majority of victims when 

interviewed after the fact report satisfaction with the arrest of their abuser. In 

Massachusetts, 82% were either very or somewhat satisfied and 85.4% said they would 

use police again for a similar incident.47 Similarly, the study of courts in California, 

Oregon, Nebraska and Washington found that 76% of the victims said they wanted their 

abuser arrested.48 As important, police arrests over victims’ objections do not reduce 

likelihood of victims reporting new abuse to police.49 

Implications: One of the best ways prosecutors can encourage law enforcement to 

arrest abuser suspects is to follow through where possible by filing charges against 

those arrested. 

 

43 Maxwell, C., Garner, J. and Fagan, J. (June, 2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New 

Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington 

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 188199. 44 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301., 45 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 46 Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic 

Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 179968; Lyon, E. (2002). Special Session Domestic Violence Courts: Enhanced Advocacy and 

Interventions, Final Report Summary, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WE-VX-0031, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 197860; Lyons, E. (2005).Impact Evaluation of Special Sessions Domestic Violence: 

Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WE-VX-0014, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 210362. 

47 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

48 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop Policies: Two 

Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0029 National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

49 Apsler, R., Cummins, M. & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the Police by Female Victims of Domestic Partner 

Violence, Violence Against Women, 9,1318. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
16

Research Basis: The efficacy of arrests has been widely researched; the influence of 

prosecutors on law enforcement arrest behavior has been found in studies that find proarrest departmental policies mitigate anti-arrest personal views of individual officers.50

What should the response be when the suspect is gone when law 

enforcement arrives? 

A large percentage of alleged abusers leave the crime scene before law 

enforcement arrive. Where noted, absence rates range from 42% to 66%.51 Pursuing 

them, including the issuance of warrants, is associated with reduced re-victimization.52 

Pursuing absent suspects may be of particular utility because limited research finds 

suspects who flee the scene before police arrive are significantly more likely to have prior 

criminal histories and to reabuse than those arrested at the scene.53 Similarly, another 

single study also finds higher reabuse if the victim is gone when officers arrive.54 

Implications: Prosecutors should encourage law enforcement officers to file 

warrants for abusers who flee to scene and prepare reports for subsequent 

prosecution when arrests are made. Similarly, prosecutors should assist victims to 

file criminal complaints if necessary to allow for the prosecution of abusers who 

have left the scene before police arrived. 

Research Basis: Numerous studies confirm large proportion of abusers flee the scene, 

only one has looked at differences in records of those that flee and those that remain.

Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

A substantial percent of victims of domestic violence hit their perpetrators back in 

retaliation or self defense.55 In Massachusetts, more than a third of the female victims 

fought back in the incident in which their male abuser was arrested, although most 

 

50 Feder, L.(1999). Police Handling of Domestic Violence Calls: An Overview and Further Investigation. In 

L. Feder (Ed.) Women and Domestic Violence, An Interdisciplinary Approach. New York, N.Y.: Haworth 

Press, 49-69. 

51 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Dunford, F. (1990). System Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic. Assault: A Pilot Study.

Justice Quarterly, 7, 631-653; Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining 

the Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355.;, A. (2001). Models of 

Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side Comparative Analysis, Final Report. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351; Wordes, M. (2000). 

Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington 

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781; 51 Smith, B., Davis, R., 

Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central 

Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0029, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772.

52 Dunford, F. (1990). System Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic. Assault: A Pilot Study Justice 

Quarterly, 7, 631-653. 53 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

54 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 55 Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
17

(59.1%) of those who did found it made their abuser more violent.56 Further, a substantial 

number of victims will not self-disclose their victimization.57 Consequently, 

determination of the primary or predominant aggressor may not be self-evident or easy. 

Nonetheless, data on police action in 2,819 jurisdictions in 19 states reveal only 1.9% of 

incidents resulted in dual arrests for intimate partner violence (and intimidation). In other 

words, less than 4% of all intimate partner arrests were dual arrests.58

 However, this same study suggests that officers’ determination of primary or 

predominate aggressor is particularly problematic when the intimate partner violence 

occurs between same-sex couples. Although police are equally likely to make arrests in 

same-sex as heterosexual partner abuse cases, a study of more than 1,000 same sex 

intimate partner violence reports found officers were substantially more likely to arrest 

both parties in same sex cases. Specifically, 26.1% of female same sex cases and 27.3% 

of male same sex cases were dual arrests compared to only 0.8% with male offenders and 

female victims and 3% with female offenders and male victims.59

Implications: If presented with a dual arrest case, prosecutors should make an 

independent analysis to determine the predominant aggressor and proceed against 

that suspect alone. Determination of primary/predominant aggressor is briefly 

described by the American Prosecutors Research Institute in its websitehttp://www.ndaa.org/apri/programs/vawa/dv_101.html 

Research Basis: The most significant dual arrest study was based on examination of all 

assault and intimidation cases in 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System 

(NIBRS) database as well as more detailed examination of these data from 25 diverse 

police departments across the country.

IV. Who are the Perpetrators? 

What is their gender? 

 While sociological research beginning with a national survey based on selfreporting thirty years ago, 60 finds equal male and female partner “conflict,” including 

mostly minor physical assaults, in terms of behavior likely to violate most state and 

federal criminal and civil (protective order) statutes, the typical perpetrator of nonfatal 

 

56 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

57 Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook (1998). Violence by Intimates: An Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current and 

Former Spouses, Boyfriends and Girlfriends. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-167237. 58 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

59 Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D. & Bentley, H. (2007). Comparison of the Police Response to 

Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence, Violence Against Women 13 (4), 374-394 (Abstract in NCJ 

218287). 

60 Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Family. Garden City, 

NY: Doubleday. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
18

domestic violence is even more likely to be male than that found in the national victim 

surveys.61 

 Perpetrators that come to the attention of the criminal justice system are 

overwhelmingly male. For example, 86% of abusers brought to court for restraining 

orders in Massachusetts have been male62 as were those arrested for domestic violence 

in California63 and Charlotte, North Carolina (up to 97.4% for the most serious cases).64

In Rhode Island 92% of those placed on probation for domestic violence were male.65 A 

Cincinnati court study found 86.5% of 2,670 misdemeanor domestic violence court 

defendants to be male.66 

Implications: Prosecutors should be alert to gender bias in the response of local law 

enforcement agencies and re-screen cases if the percent of female suspects accused 

of abusing male victims exceeds that commonly found across the nation. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies of abusers/victims brought to attention of criminal 

justice system, including civil protective orders, confirm gender ratio as opposed to 

studies focusing on family conflict, youthful aggression and the like outside of the 

criminal justice system. 

What age are they? 

Most studies find most perpetrators to be between 18 and 35 with a median age of 

about 33 years, although they range in age from 13 to 81.67 A large West coast study of 

abusers subject to police incident reports or protective orders found 33% were between 

20 and 29 years old, and slightly more, 33.4%, were between 30 and 39 years old.68

 

61 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 62 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 63 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 64 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

215916. 

65 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, 

J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 66 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to Domestic 

Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, 

Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

184112 

67 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to Domestic 

Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, 

Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

184112; Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active 

Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 181427; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized 

Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 215916; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in 

Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. 

NCJ 182781 

68 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the Likelihood of Future Partner 

Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
19

Are they likely already known to the criminal justice system? 

Most studies agree that many if not most domestic violence perpetrators that come 

to the attention of criminal justice or court authorities have a prior criminal history for a 

variety of non-violent and violent offenses, against males as well as females, domestic 

and non-domestic. The percent of officially identified perpetrators with criminal histories 

range from a low of 49% for prior arrest within five years in an arrest study in Portland, 

Oregon69 to 89% for at least one prior non-violent misdemeanor arrest for misdemeanor 

domestic violence defendants arraigned in a Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court.70 Not only 

did most of the abusers brought to the Toledo Court for domestic violence have a prior 

arrest history, but the average number of prior arrests was fourteen. Similarly, 84.4% of 

men arrested for domestic violence in Massachusetts had prior criminal records, 

averaging a little more than 13 prior charges (resulting from five to six arrests) for a 

variety of charges. A study of intimate partner arrests in Connecticut, Idaho and Virginia 

of more than a thousand cases documented that almost seventy percent (69.2%) had a 

prior record, 41.8% for a violent crime.71 A study of the Cook County (Chicago) 

misdemeanor domestic violence court found that 57% of the men charged with 

misdemeanor domestic violence had prior records for drug offenses, 52.3% for theft, 

68.2% for public offenses and 61.2% for property crimes. They averaged 13 prior 

arrests.72

Studies of abusers brought to court for protective orders find similar high rates of 

criminal histories, ranging from a little more than 70% in a Texas73 to 80% in 

Massachusetts.74

Even if abusers have no prior arrest records, they may be known to local police. 

In North Carolina, for example, based on police files, researchers found that 67.7% of the 

domestic violence arrestees had prior contact with the local criminal justice system, 

64.5% were officially known by local police, and 48.3% had prior domestic violence 

incident reports.75 

Implications: Given the large overlap between domestic violence and general 

criminality, prosecutors should carefully check domestic violence suspects’ status in 

regard to outstanding warrants, pending cases, probationary or parole status, and 

 

69 Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic 

Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

70 Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in Toledo. 

Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

71 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355.

72 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

73 Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for 

Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 74 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 75 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

Violence Police Unit. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
20

other concurrent criminal justice involvement. Conversely, in prosecuting 

defendants for other crimes, prosecutors should look for concurrent domestic 

violence that may be charged and prosecuted. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies from jurisdictions across the country confirm these 

findings although extent of prior records may vary depending upon jurisdictional law 

enforcement and court practices and resources.

 Are they likely to be drug and/or alcohol abusers? 

 As with criminality in general, there is a high correlation (but not necessarily 

causation) between substance/alcohol abuse and domestic violence for both abusers and, 

to a lesser extent, victims. One arrest study found up to 92 percent of assailants used 

drugs or alcohol on the day of the assault, nearly half of whom were described by 

families as daily substance abusers for the prior month.76 Other studies have substantial 

but less use. For example, a California arrest study found alcohol and or drugs were 

involved in 38% of the domestic violence incident arrests.77 Interviews with more than 

400 North Carolina female victims who called police for misdemeanor domestic assaults 

found almost 2/3rds of the abusers were drinking at the incident, having consumed an 

average of almost seven drinks resulting in more than half (58%) being drunk.78

 A domestic violence fatality review study in New Mexico documented that 

alcohol and drugs were present in 65% of 46 domestic violence homicides between 1993 

and 1996, 43% alcohol and 22% drugs.79

 Both a batterer and alcohol treatment study similarly reveals a consistent, high 

correlation between alcohol abuse and domestic violence. In one, for example, 272 males 

entering treatment for battering or alcoholism, the odds of any male to female aggression 

were 8 to 11 times higher on days they drank than days they had not. It was 11 times 

higher on days the men were drinking than on days of no drinking.80

Implications: The presence of drug and/or alcohol abuse makes continued offending 

more likely. While sobriety may not eliminate the risk for reabuse, research suggests 

it may be a necessary ingredient. 

Research Basis: Correlation is found in multiple studies across the country. 

 Are they likely to be mentally ill? Or have certain personality 

types? 

 

76 Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, Research Review. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 000172. 77 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 78 Hutchison, I. (1999). The Influence of Alcohol and Drugs on Women’s Utilization of the Police for Domestic 

Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX-0047, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179277. 79 Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of the New Mexico Female 

Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team, Albuquerque, NM: Center for Injury Prevention Research and 

Education, University of New Mexico School of Medicine. 

80 Fals-Stewart, W. (2003). The Occurrence of Partner Physical Aggression on Days of Alcohol 

Consumption: A Longitudinal Diary Study. Journal of Consulting Psychology 71 (1), 41-52. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
21

 Batterers are no more likely to be mentally ill than the general population.81

Although various researchers have attempted to classify abusers, ranging from agitated 

“pitbulls” and silent “cobras”82 to “dysphoric/borderline” and “generally avoidance and 

anti-social,”83 attempts to utilize these classifications to predict risk of reabuse have 

proven unhelpful.84 However, researchers agree that batterers differ markedly.85 While 

some, for example, may appear to responding police officers as emotionally overwrought, 

others may appear calm and collected, labeled by two researchers as “pitbulls” versus 

“cobras.”86 Other research suggests that batterers can be classified as low, moderate and 

high and that, contrary to common beliefs, batterers remain within these categories.87

Similarly, in the treatment literature the multi-state study of four batterer intervention 

programs consistently found that approximately a quarter of court referred batterers are 

high level abusers, unlikely to respond to treatment.88

Implications: Battering does not appear to be a mental aberration, responsive to 

mental health counseling. 

Research Findings: Multiple studies have failed to validate any classification of 

battering propensity based on personality types or mental illnesses although multiple 

observational studies reveal different patterns of behaviors among batterers.

 Do abusers stick with one victim? 

Deprived of their victim, many abusers will go on to abuse another intimate 

partner or family member. Others may abuse multiple intimate partners and family 

members simultaneously.89 The Rhode Island probation study, for example, found that in 

a one year period, more than a quarter (28%) of those probationers who were re-arrested 

for a new crime of domestic violence abused a different partner or family member.90 The 

Massachusetts study of persons arrested for violating a civil restraining order found that 

 

81 Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who Repeatedly Reassault: Psychopathic 

Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 361-380. 82 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 83 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally Violent: Scientific and 

Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 84 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in 

Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 85 Saunders, D.G.(1994). A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis, American 

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275; Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L.(1994). Typologies of Male Batterers: 

Three Subtypes and the Differences Among Them, Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497; Chase, K.A., O’Leary, K.D., 

& Heyman, R.E. (2001).Categorizing partner-Violent Men Within the Reactive-Proactive Typology Model. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Pyschology, 69, 567-572. 86 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 87 Cavanaugh, M. & Gelles, R. (2005). The Utility of Male Domestic Violence Typologies, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 20 (2), 155-166. 88 Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704; 

Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-month Follow-up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128. 89 Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in Understanding Domestic 

Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5). 90 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole 

Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
22

almost half (43%) had two or more victims over six years.91 This confirms an earlier 

state study that found 25% of individuals who had protective orders taken out against 

them in 1992 had up to eight new orders taken out against them by as many victims over 

the subsequent six years.92

 Studies have generally found that abusers who go on to abuse new partners are 

not substantially different from those who reabuse the same partner, with the exception 

they tend to be younger, and not married to their partners.93

Implications: If the abuser is no longer with the victim of the last domestic violence 

incident, new intimate partners are vulnerable to becoming new targets of abuse. 

Whether the batterer remains with the same victim or not, battering behavior 

brought to the prosecutor’s attention is likely to reflect chronic, patterned, not 

isolated behavior that is victim-specific. In charging decisions and sentencing 

recommendations, prosecutors must be concerned with immediate as well as future 

intimate victims. 

Research Basis: While longitudinal studies of batterers are few, multiple studies that 

follow batterers for just a year or two confirm the serial nature of battering for some 

abusers.

 

V. Who are their victims? 

 

Are victim characteristics and actions relevant in assessing abuse 

likelihood? 

 Victims come in all shapes, sizes, ages and relationships, but these differences are 

largely irrelevant in terms of their victimization. Victim characteristics, other than gender 

and age, have generally not been found to be associated with likelihood of abuse.94 For 

example, although many associated pregnancy with increased risk for domestic violence, 

research suggests that the increased risk is related to youth of the women, not their 

pregnancy.95

 Those who leave their abusers have been found to be as or more likely to be 

reabused as those who remain with them.96 Those who maintain civil restraining orders 

or criminal no contact orders against their abusers are as likely to be reabused as those 

 

91 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 92 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 93 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation; Klein, A., Wilson, D., 

Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence 

Probationers. BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on 

Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

94 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 95 Weiss, H., Lawrence, B., & Miller, T. (2004). Pregnancy-Associated Assault Hospitalizations: Prevalence and Risk 

of Hospitalized Assaults Against Women During Pregnancy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998-WTVX-0V16, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199706.. 96 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole 

Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
23

who drop them.97 Only one study98 comparing women with orders and those without, 

found the former, with permanent but not temporary orders, were less likely to have new 

police-reported domestic violence. However, the researchers in this study excluded 

violations of the orders themselves including violations of no contact or stay away orders. 

Implications: Victims face a dilemma- staying or leaving; securing, maintaining or 

dropping a protective order, may all result in reabuse. Prosecutors should assist 

victims in recognizing their limitations in controlling their abusers and safeguarding 

themselves and their children. Prosecutors must establish effective collaboration 

with victim advocacy and service agencies in order to refer victims as needed. In 

addition, prosecutors should advise victims that prosecution, along with civil 

protective orders, may further victim protection. 

Research Basis: Research finding protective orders reduce reabuse exclude inclusion of 

order violations themselves, undervaluing the detrimental impact of order violations on 

victims who have secured them. The research on prosecution efficacy can be found in a 

subsequent section.

 

 Is victim substance abuse associated with victimization? 

 Victim abuse of drugs and alcohol is also associated with domestic violence 

victimization.99 In the most dramatic findings, victims or (their families) reported in the 

Memphis night arrest study that 42% of victims were drinking or taking illicit drugs the 

day of their assault.100 The New Mexico fatality review study documented that a third of 

the female victims had alcohol in their system at the autopsy, with a blood-alcohol 

content twice the legal limit allowable for driving; a little less than a quarter had drugs in 

their system.101Among women treated in emergency rooms for injuries caused by their 

abusers, those who suffered from substance abuse were found to have increased risk of 

violence from partners. However, if the partners’ use of alcohol and drugs are controlled 

for, victim substance abuse is not associated with increased risk of violence.102 Another 

hospital study also found victims who were injured by partners were more likely than 

other injured women in an emergency room to test positive for substance abuse.103

 

97 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & 

DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WGBX-0011. 

98 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Lumley, T., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2002). Civil Protection Orders and Risk of Subsequent 

Police-reported Violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(5), 589-594. 99 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 100 Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, Research Review. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 000172. 101 Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of the New Mexico Female 

Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team, Albuquerque, NM: Center for Injury Prevention Research and 

Education, University of New Mexico School of Medicine. 

102 Kyriacou, D., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J., Muelleman, R., Barton, E., & Kraus, J. 

(1999). Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic Violence. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, (25), 1892-

1898. 

103 Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, R., Anderson, E., Shaw, 

L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries among Women in an Urban Area. New England Journal of 

Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
24

 Victim substance abuse has been found to be associated with abuser use. For 

example, while one in five North Carolina victims reported being high at the time of 

abuse or binge drinkers, almost three-quarters (72%) of these victims are in relationships 

with men who were high or binge drinkers.104 

 Victim substance abuse has also been identified as consequences of the ongoing 

abuse. In other words, victims abuse drugs as a form of self-medication to deal with their 

abuse trauma.105 

Implications: Drug or alcohol abusing victims may make them more vulnerable to 

continued abuse. Prosecutors should look at victim vulnerability first and worry 

about tactical considerations such as what kind of witness they may make second. 

Further, prosecutors should be prepared to file a motion of limine to exclude 

evidence related to a victim’s “bad” character (i.e. substance abuse) that does not 

directly relate to the abuse incident prosecuted and/or the victim’s ability to 

perceive or remember the incident. 

Research Basis: There are multiple single jurisdiction observational studies of victims as 

well as findings from a national victim survey of a representative sample of 8,000 women 

between November 1995 and May 1996. 

 Why do some victims behave as they do? 

Not all victims react similarly to being abused. Studies have documented that a 

significant portion of victims of intimate partner violence and sexual assault suffer from 

trauma.106 Studies have found up to 88% of battered women in shelters suffer from Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).107 Other studies have found up to 72% suffer 

depression108 and 75% anxiety.109A meta-analysis across multiple samples of battered 

women found a weighted mean prevalence of 48% for depression and 64% for PTSD.110 

 Also, short of PTSD, the victims most vulnerable to injury have been found to 

have social isolation and low self-esteem, fewer social and financial resources than those 

injured and treated in hospitals who were not injured by a partner.111 

 Research also suggests that some victims of intimate partner abuse have 

experienced multifaceted violence that stretches across their life span, beginning as 

 

104 Hutchison, I. (1999). The Influence of Alcohol and Drugs on Women’s Utilization of the Police for Domestic 

Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX-0047, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179277. 105 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346., 106A 106 Albucher R. & Liberzon, I. (2002), Journal of Psychiatric Research 36(6):355-367;,Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, 

C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 107 Arias, I. & Pape, K. (Spring, 1999). Psychological Abuse: Implications for Adjustment and Commitment to Leave 

Violent Partner, Violence and Victims 14 (1): 55-67. 108 Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic Abused Women.

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 109 Gleason, W. (1993). Mental Disorders in Battered Women: An Empirical Study. Violence and Victims, 8 (1), 53-68. 110 Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: A Meta-analysis. Journal of 

Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 111 Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, R., Anderson, E., Shaw, 

L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries Among Women in an Urban Area. New England Journal of 

Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930., Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk 

Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 208346. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
25

children.112 Such prior victimization has been found to be associated with greater risk of 

more serious (adult) partner violence, particularly “systemic abuse” which includes 

physical, sexual and stalking abuse.113 In short, some of the adult victims who suffer the 

greatest abuse may be the least able to protect themselves. 

Implications: Prosecutors should be prepared to assist and support traumatized 

victims and/or make appropriate referrals to other service providers. Prosecutors 

should be prepared to identify expert witnesses that may be needed to educate juries 

and judges if victim reaction to trauma appears problematic or counter-intuitive. 

Research Basis: There have been multiple victim studies documenting PTSD rates, 

although many studies obviously seek out samples likely to include the most severely 

abused victims such as those in shelters.

 Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

Research on domestic violence victims brought to the attention of law 

enforcement and the courts find male victims differ substantially from female victims.114

First and foremost, male victims of any specific domestic violence incident are more 

likely than female victims to be future suspects for domestic violence. In one of the only 

studies to track abusers and victims over time, the Charlotte, North Carolina law 

enforcement study found that 41% of males identified as victims, who were involved in 

new incidents of domestic violence within two years were subsequently identified by 

police as suspects. This compares to only 26.3% of females with such role reversals. On 

the other hand, males identified as suspects were much less likely to be identified later as 

victims than females suspects, 26% compared to 44.4%.115

 Similarly, male victims of domestic violence homicides are much more likely 

than female victims to have been identified previously as abusers of their eventual 

killers.116 Several treatises suggest that the abuse experienced by male victims by female 

intimates is contextually different than that experienced by women victims of male 

intimates.117

 

112 Kramer, R. (1989). Alcohol and Victimization Factors in the Histories of Abused women Who Come to Court: A 

Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services., 113 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 114 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 115 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

215916. 

116 Starr, K., Hobart, M., & Fawcett, J. (2004). Findings and Recommendations from the Washington State Domestic 

Violence Fatality Review, Seattle, WA: Washington Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Websdale, N., Sheeran, M., 

& Johnson, B. (1998). Reviewing Domestic Violence Fatalities: Summarizing National Developments, Violence 

Against Women Online Resources; Winn, R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A Comparison on Men and Women Who 

Kill, Violence and Victims, 5 (4), 236., R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A Comparison on Men and Women Who 

Kill,, Violence and Victims, 5 (4), 236. 117 Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York, N.Y.: Oxford 

University Press; Pence, E. & Dasgupta, S. (2006). Re-Examining ‘Battering’: Are All Acts of Violence 

Against Intimate Partners the Same? Duluth, MN: Praxis International (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998-

WR-VX-K001, Office of Victims on Violence Against Women). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
26

 Just as male victims differ, so too do females convicted of abusing male partners. 

Consequently, standard batterer programs often imposed by courts against abusers have 

been found to be inappropriate for these defendants.118

Implications: Specific incidents of domestic violence may not reveal longer term 

domestic violence patterns, particularly if the suspect is a female and the victim is a 

male. Prosecutors should be sensitive to this fact in charging and recommending 

sentences for such defendants. Batterer intervention programs, for example, may 

not be relevant for abusers engaged in isolated, reactive or defensive behavior. 

Research Basis: The North Carolina process evaluation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

police specialized domestic violence unit is unique in looking at subsequent status of 

victims and suspects in repeat incidents. The study looked at all police complaints 

involving domestic violence in 2003 followed for the next two years, totaling 6,892 

domestic violence complaints in all. The findings are analogous to numerous findings 

regarding the prior status of male homicide victims as abusers.

VI. How many abusers are going to do it again? 

 Depending upon how reabuse is measured, over what period of time, and what 

countermeasures either the victim (e.g. getting protective order, going into hiding) or the 

criminal justice system (arresting, locking up abuser) take, a hard core of a third of 

abusers will reabuse in the short run and more will reabuse in the longer run. 

In Rhode Island, within two years of being placed on probation supervision for a 

misdemeanor domestic violence offense, 38.4% were arrested for a new domestic 

violence offense.119 A half dozen batterer program studies published between 1988 and 

2001 conducted across the United States documented reabuse as reported by victims to 

range from 26 to 41% within five to 30 months.120 Five studies published between 1985 

and 1999 of court-restrained abusers in multiple states found reabuse rates as measured 

by arrest and/or victim reports to range within four months to two years from 24 to 

60%.121 

 

118 Miller, S. & Meloy,, M. (2006). Women’s use of Force: Voices of Women Arrested for Domestic 

Violence, Violence Against Women, 12 (1), 89-115. 119 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole 

Association. Final report on grant 2002-WG-BX0011 to the National Institute of Justice. 120 Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos 

(Eds.) Programs for Men Who Batter. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, 3-12; Dobash, R., Dobash, R., 

Cavanaugh, K., & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 64, 

309-322; Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who Batter: Four Years of Outcome Data from the 

Domestic Abuse Project. Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12; Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of 

Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704; Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site 

Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. 

(2000). A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who 

Repeatedly Reassault: Psychopathic Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 361-380; 

Hamberger, K. & Hastings, J. (1988). Skills Training for Spouse Abuse: An Outcome Study. Journal of Family 

Violence, 3, 121-130 121 Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos 

(Eds.) Programs for Men Who Batter. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, 3-12; Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, 

G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 

205-226; Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In E. Buzawa & C. 

Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243; Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. 

& Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
27

Where studies have found substantially lower re-arrest rates for abuse, it appears 

the lower rate is a result of police behavior, not abuser behavior. In these jurisdictions, 

victims report equivalent reabuse, notwithstanding low rearrest rates. For example, 

studies of over 1,000 female victims in Florida, New York City and Los Angeles found 

while only four to six percent of their abusers were arrested for reabuse within one year, 

31% of the victims reported being physically abused with half reported being burned, 

strangled, beaten up or seriously injured, and 16% reported being stalked or 

threatened.122 Similarly, in a Bronx domestic court study, while only 14 to 15% percent 

of defendants convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or violations were rearrested 

after one year, victims reported reabuse of 48%.123

Reabuse has found to be substantially higher in longer term studies. A 

Massachusetts study tracked 350 male abusers arrested for intimate female victim abuse 

over a decade, 1995 to 2005. It found that 60% were re-arrested for a new domestic 

assault or had a protective order taken out against them, even though some went for three 

to four years between arrests.124 An equivalently high rearrest rate for domestic violence 

was also documented in Colorado between 1994 and 2005. During that time, of 84,431 

defendants arrested for domestic violence, according to the state Bureau of Investigation, 

more than 50,000, nearly 60%, were arrested for domestic violence charges more than 

once. In other words, the domestic violence rearrest rate was almost 60% for arrested 

abusers over an average of five years.125 

Implications: It is safe to assume that more often than not, the typical abuser who 

makes it to the prosecutor’s office has a high likelihood of continuing to abuse the 

same or different victim both in the short term and over the subsequent decade at 

least. While prosecuting specific, discrete incidents, prosecutors should recommend 

sentences that address long term patterns of criminal behavior based on abuser risk 

for reabuse. 

Research Findings: While observational studies vary on reabuse depending how it is 

measured, there is widespread consensus that reported reabuse is substantially less than 

actual reabuse experienced by victims which is typically found to be over 50%. The few 

longitudinal studies of more than a year or two suggests that some abusers continue to 

reabuse notwithstanding gaps of several years between initial and subsequent reported 

incidents.

 Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035 National Institute of Justice; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse 

in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders 

Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 122 Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment 

Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing 

Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011 National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731; Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling 

for Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WTNX-0008 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752. 

123 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?

Violence Against Women, 14 (2).

124 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career 

Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2); Wilson. D. & Klein, A. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of a 

Cohort of Batterers Arraigned in a Massachusetts District Court 1995-2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2004-WB-GX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215346. 125 Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain News. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
28

Are abusers at risk for committing new non-domestic violence 

crimes, too? 

Given extensive prior criminal histories, abusers typically do not confine their reoffending to domestic violence alone. Studies concur that abusers are also likely to 

commit new non-domestic violence crimes in addition to domestic violence-related 

crimes. Two New York City studies, one in the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence 

Court and the other the Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court, found 58% rearrests 

for any crime within 30 months in the former from study arrest126 and 44% within two 

years in the latter.127 Most of the new arrests, based on the face of the complaints, were 

for non-domestic violence related crimes, such as drug possession and/or sale or property 

offenses. 

Similarly, while 51% of the Massachusetts abuser arrestees were rearrested for 

new domestic violence over ten years, 57% were rearrested for non-domestic violence, 

including 15% who were not also arrested for new domestic violence.128 Among Cook 

County domestic violence misdemeanants, 26.1% were arrested within 2.4 years on 

average for new domestic violence while 46.5% were arrested for any offense.129

It is not surprising that research from the National Youth Survey found that most 

men (76%) who engage in domestic violence report also engaging in one or more deviant 

acts concurrently, including illegal behavior such as stealing or illicit drug use.130 Nor is 

abuser violence limited to their households. In Cook County (Chicago, Illinois), the 

majority of prosecuted misdemeanor domestic violence offenders (55.6%) were found to 

have been violent with others, in addition to their partners.131

Implications: Aggressively prosecuting abusers not only may protect victims and 

their children, but also reduce non-domestic offenses often committed by abusers. 

Research Basis: While multiple disparate studies document that abusers identified by the 

criminal justice system are likely to have nondomestic criminal histories, at least one 

study of non-arrested young married or cohabiting men also finds domestic violence and 

other deviant behavior were associated both concurrently and prospectively.

 

When will abusers reabuse? 

 

126 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on 

Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

127 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of program outcome & recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor 

Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. 128 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career Criminals. Violence 

Against Women, 14 (2). 129 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 130 Norwood, W., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R. & Swank, P. (2004). Domestic Violence and Deviant 

Behavior, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

199713. 

131 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
29

Studies agree that for those abusers who re-offend, a majority do so relatively 

quickly although a minority may avoid arrests for new abuse for years. In states where 

no-contact orders are automatically imposed after an arrest for domestic violence, rearrests for order violations begin to occur immediately upon the defendant’s release from 

the police station and/or court. For example, in both a Massachusetts Misdemeanor arrest 

study and a Brooklyn, New York, felony arrest study, the majority of defendants rearrested for new abuse were arrested while their initial abuse cases were still pending in 

court.132 The latter included a 16% arrest rate for violation of no contact orders and 14% 

for a new felony offense.133 Similarly, a little more than one-third of the domestic 

violence probationers in Rhode Island who were rearrested for domestic violence were 

re-arrested within two months of being placed under probation supervision. More than 

half (60%) were arrested within six months.134 A multi-state study of abusers referred to 

batterer programs found that almost half of the men (44%) who re-assaulted their partners 

did so within three months after batterer program intake, and two-thirds within six 

months. The men who re-assaulted within the first three months were more likely to 

repeatedly reassault their partners than the men who committed the first re-assault after 

the first three months.135 In the Bronx, similarly, re-offending happened early among 

those convicted for misdemeanor or domestic violence violations. Of those re-arrested for 

domestic violence, approximately two-thirds re-offended within the first six months.136

Implications: Arrest is only the first step in stopping abuse. Once arrested, 

prosecutors must immediately pursue measures to safeguard victims pending trial 

and thereafter. If abusers are automatically released pending trial, the most 

vulnerable victims will be reabused by the worst abusers. This reabuse may also 

inhibit subsequent victim cooperation with prosecutors. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies from disparate jurisdictions have all found relatively 

quick reabuse by those that reabuse within the first year or two. 

VII. Which abusers are likely to do it again in the short-term? 

The research consistently finds that the basic information usually available on 

most defendants provides as accurate a prediction of abuser risk to the victim as more 

extensive and time consuming investigations involving more sources, including clinical 

 

132 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons 

on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 

133 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on 

Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 

134 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

135 Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men Who Batter: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Family Violence, 

2 (2), 177-191; Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Program; Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. 

Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute. 

136 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?

Violence Against Women, 14(2), 185-207. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
30

assessments.137 As a Bronx study on batterer treatment concluded, intensive individual 

assessments of attitudes or personality are not required to make reasonable judgments 

regarding abusers’ risk.138 

 Is gender important? 

 Of course, the most powerful predictor of risk is gender. All of the research 

concurs that males are more likely to reabuse than females.139 

 Is age important?

 Younger defendants are more likely to reabuse and recidivate than older 

defendants.140 This has been found true in studies of arrested abusers, batterers in 

treatment programs, as well as court restrained abusers.141 

 Is prior arrest history important? 

 If the abuser has just one prior arrest on his criminal record for any crime, not just 

domestic violence, he is more likely to reabuse than if he has no prior arrest.142 A multi-

 

137 Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by Batterer Program Participants and Their 

Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197. 

; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in 

Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). 

Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20

(1), 3-24; Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence: The Current Use of Risk Assessments in 

Sentencing Offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 138 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor 

Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. 139 See, e.g., Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx 

Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation 140 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). 

Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: 

Center for Court Innovation.

 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. ( ) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? New 

York: Center for Court Innovation; Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case 

Conviction and Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center; Wordes, M. (2000). 

Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington 

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 141Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered 

Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by 

Batterer Program Participants and Their Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197; Wordes, M. (2000). 

Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington 

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781; Macmillan, R. & 

Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 142 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court Referred 

Batterers in Four Cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; see 

also Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
31

state study of more than 3,000 police arrests found that offenders with a prior arrest 

record for any offense were over seven times more likely than those without prior records 

to be rearrested.143 

 The length of prior record is predictive of reabuse as well as general 

recidivism.144 In looking at all restrained male abusers over two years, Massachusetts 

research, for example, documented that if the restrained abuser had just one prior arrest 

for any offense on his criminal record, his reabuse rate of the same victim rose from 15 to 

25%; if he had five to six prior arrests, it rose to 50%.145 In the Rhode Island abuser 

probation study, abusers with one prior arrest for any crime were almost twice as likely to 

reabuse within the year compared to those with no prior arrest, 40% compared to 22.6%. 

And if they had more than one, reabuse increased to 73.3%.146

 Of course, prior civil or criminal prior records specifically for abuse also increase 

the likelihood for reabuse.147

 Related to the correlation between prior arrest history and reabuse, research also 

finds similar increased risk for reabuse if suspects are on warrants. In the Berkeley study, 

for example, researchers documented that having a pending warrant at time of the 

domestic violence incident for a prior non-domestic violence offense was a better 

predictor of reabuse than a prior domestic violence record alone.148 Similarly, in the one 

study that looked at it, suspects gone at arrival of police were twice as likely to reabuse as 

those found on the scene by police.149

 Similarly, one large state study found that if the suspect before the court for 

domestic violence is already on probation for anything else or another domestic violence 

case was also pending at the time of a subsequent arrest for domestic violence, that 

 Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community 

Response to Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 143 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501 National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

144 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K. & Kane, K. (October 2001).Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute. 145 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 146 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final report on grant 2002-WG-BX-0011 to the National Institute of Justice. 147 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). 

Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured DecisionMaking Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-

IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781. 

148 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 149 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
32

defendant was more likely than not to be arrested again for domestic violence within one 

year.150

Implications: The absence of a prior domestic violence arrest is not as powerful a 

predictor of no reabuse as the absence of a prior arrest for anything. On the other 

hand, a prior record for any crime is as accurate a predictor of subsequent domestic 

violence as a prior record for domestic violence. Therefore, in making charging 

decisions and sentencing recommendations, prosecutors should understand that if 

an abuser has a prior record for any crime, the prosecutor should assume him to be 

a high risk domestic violence offender, not a low risk “first” offender. Prosecutors 

should carefully review defendants’ prior records for warrant status and bail status 

at the time of the domestic violence arrest to accurately gauge defendant risk. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions find both prior criminal 

history as well as prior domestic violence correlate with reabuse, although the power of 

prior domestic violence history may be less revealing if domestic violence arrest rates 

are low in that specific jurisdiction and vice versa. 

 

 Is substance abuse important? 

Acute and chronic alcohol and drug use are well established risk factors.151 This 

also applies to domestic violence. Prior arrests for drug and alcohol also correlate with 

higher rates of reabuse.152 Just one prior arrest for any alcohol or drug offense (e.g. drunk 

driving, possession of a controlled substance), for example, doubled the reabuse rate from 

20% (no prior drug/alcohol arrest) to 40% (at least one arrest for drugs/alcohol) in a 

restraining order study over two years.153 

 Defendant alcohol and substance abuse, similarly, are predictive of reabuse and 

recidivism.154 The multi-state batterer program referral study found “heavy drinking” to 

be a significant predictor for reabuse. For the same reason, it found that abuser 

 

150 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 151 Hirschel, J.D. & Dawson, D. (2003). Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for Law Enforcement 

Officials, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-K001 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 198372; 

Wekerle, C. & Wall, A. (2002). The violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and clinical issues in substance abuse 

and relationship violence. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. 152 Goldkamp, J. (1996). The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and its Treatment: Dade County’s 

Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 153 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 154 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) 

Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & 

DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. 

Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on 

Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention 

in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 182781 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
33

participation in drug treatment predicted repeated reassaults.155 Batterers who complete 

batterer intervention are three times more likely to reabuse if they are intoxicated at any 

three month interval.156 

 Multiple,157 but not all studies, 158 have found that abuser and/or victim abusing 

drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident to be a consistent risk marker. 

Implications: Seemingly unrelated, nonviolent offenses like drunk driving or drug 

possession that suggest substance abuse by the abuser should be considered as risk 

markers for continued abuse. Substance and alcohol abuse should be considered in 

making prerelease and sentencing recommendations. 

Research Basis: Multiple disparate studies suggest that any disagreement regarding the 

relationship between domestic abuse and substance abuse has to do with whether or not 

substance abuse “causes” domestic violence, not that the correlation exists.

 

Are victims accurate predictors of reabuse?

 Victim perception of risk has been found to be largely accurate.159 Victim 

perception of risk, for example, significantly improves the accuracy of prediction over 

other risk factors, increasing prediction sensitivity from 55 to 70% (Sensitivity is the 

proportion of true positives that are correctly identified by the test).160 

 However, researchers find that women’s perceptions have to be interpreted. 

Women who felt very safe were less likely to be repeatedly reassaulted than those that 

felt somewhat safe. But women who were uncertain or felt somewhat unsafe were more

likely to be reassaulted repeatedly than those who felt in much danger. The reason for this 

apparent contradiction is that women who felt in greatest danger took effective counter 

measures during the study. In other words, the research suggests that if women are not 

certain they will be safe, they err by giving the benefit of the doubt to their abuser. For 

 

155 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 156 Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction 

Training Program; Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and 

Victims, 16, 693-704; Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, 

PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court Referred Batterers 

in Four Cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128. 157 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301; 

Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501 National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355; Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat 

of Domestic Assault. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 210301; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic 

Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974.

158 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

159 DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). 

Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate 

Partner Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: 

Validation of Tools for Assessing Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0011 National Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731. 

160 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in 

Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
34

these reasons, these researchers conclude the best predictions of repeated reassaults can 

be obtained by using risk markers, including women’s perceptions.161 The researchers 

concern over victim underassessment of risk is born out by a large study of more than 

1,000 women who sought protective orders or shelter or whose abusers were arrested in 

Los Angeles and New York City. Almost a quarter of these victims who thought their 

risk of reassault was low were, in fact, reassaulted within one year.162

 Victim perception of risk also affects their reaction to criminal justice 

intervention. Arrest research finds that victims who were not re-victimized over two 

years were twice as likely to have opposed arrest compared to those who were 

revictimized. Those who thought police and court intervention did not go far enough 

were also accurate. Those who said police actions were too weak were three times more 

likely to experience revictimization; those that said courts failed them were seven times 

more likely to experience revictimization.163 

Implications: Victim input should be an important part of any risk calculation 

considered by prosecutors. If victims are in doubt as to their safety, prosecutors 

should assume the worst. 

Research Basis: Extensive examination of multiple domestic violence risk studies agree.

 Are there other common risk factors associated with reabuse? 

Several studies have found other consistent risk markers for reabuse, many 

associated with the variables described above. These include increased risk associated 

with abusers who flee the scene of a domestic,164 abusers who are unemployed,165

economically disadvantaged and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods,166 live in a 

 

161 DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). 

Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 162 Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment 

Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing 

Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011 National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731. 

163 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

164 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

165 Benson, M. & Fox, G. (2004). Concentrated Disadvantage, Economic Distress, and Violence Against Women in 

Intimate Relationships. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199709; 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. 

Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547; Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate 

Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of Low-Income Native American Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703.; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated 

Community Response to Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 166 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
35

household with firearms,167 and if the abuser is not the father of children in the 

household.168

Implications: Prosecutors should review the status of the above variables for 

determination of risk to be used in bail hearings, charging decisions and sentencing 

recommendations. 

Research Basis: These specific risk factors generally have been found in multiple studies 

as cited but may vary in relevance and power across jurisdictions.

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

Generally, the seriousness of the presenting incident does not predict reabuse, 

whether felony or misdemeanor, including whether there were injuries or not, or what the 

specific charge is.169 Abuser personality types have not been found to be associated with 

increased risk of reabuse.170 Actuarial data offer improvement over clinical data.171

Victim characteristics, including relationship with abuser, marital status and whether the 

parties are living together or separated, have not been found to predict reabuse.172 At 

least one study has found that victim cooperation does not predict recidivism.173

 

167 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 168 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). I Homicide, National Institute of Justice 

Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 169 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained

Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-

214; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. 

(2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New 

York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ); Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to 

Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 170 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 171 Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence: The Current Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing 

Offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 172Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

173 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial 

Monitoring: Results from a Randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation, Final report to the National 

Institute of Justice on grant 2001-WT-BX-0506.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
36

Implications: Criteria for charging should not be confused with criteria for 

determining future risk. Abusers charged with misdemeanors are as likely to be as 

dangerous as those charged with felonies. If the offense against a dangerous 

defendant is not chargeable as a felony, prosecutors should explore the applicability 

of enhancement statutes for repeat offenses, multiple charges if appropriate, or 

maximum allowable sentencing recommendations. 

Research Basis: Wide agreement among multiple studies across the nation involving 

different abuser populations.

Do the widely used risk instruments accurately predict reabuse? 

 All of the common risk instruments in use incorrectly predict reabuse, both with 

false negatives and false positives. The best instruments have found to falsely predict 40 

to 43% abusers in both directions.174 For example, a study of a risk instrument used by 

police in Berkeley found those classified at highest risk for re-offending did have the 

highest rate of reoffending but also had 43% false positives, over prediction. Those 

gauged as the lowest risk had only 2% false negatives.175 

Implications: Given high base rates of re-abusing, the default presumption should 

be that the defendant will re-offend until proven otherwise. Risk instruments do not 

significantly improve upon victim perception and basic actuarial data. 

Research Basis: Not only is there wide agreement among multiple studies, but the same 

instrument may have different results in different jurisdictions.

VIII. Which abusers are most likely to try to kill their victims? 

 Prediction of lethality is much more difficult than predicting reabuse and 

recidivism because, fortunately, it is much rarer. Also, the risk of lethality may increase 

due to situational circumstances, as opposed to static abuser characteristics. Nonetheless, 

researchers have found some key factors that increase the likelihood of homicide and/or 

significant injuries. 

 How critical are firearms and other weapons? 

 According to a CDC study, more female intimate partners are killed by firearms 

than all other means combined.176 Firearms in the household increase the odds of lethal 

as opposed to nonlethal violence 6.1 to 1. Women who were previously threatened or 

assaulted with a firearm or other weapon are 20 times more likely to be murdered by their 

abuser than other abused women.177 Prior firearm use includes threats to shoot victim; 

 

174 Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment 

Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing 

Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011 National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731. 

175 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 176 Paulkossi, L. (October 2001). Surveillance for Homicide among Intimate Partners-United States, 1991-1998,

Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries, 5, 1-16. 177 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., 

Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of 

Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Gary, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
37

cleaning, holding, or loading a gun during an argument; threatening to shoot a pet or a 

person the victim cares about; and shooting a gun during an argument.178

 A significant Massachusetts study of 31 men imprisoned for murdering their 

female partners willing to talk to researchers found that almost two-thirds of the guns 

used by men who shot their partners were illegal because the suspect had a prior abuse 

assault conviction or contemporary protective orders.179

Implications: One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal violence is to disarm 

abusers and keep them disarmed. Prosecutors should take all steps possible to have 

firearms removed by the court as soon as abusers are arrested and obtain guilty 

verdicts so that federal firearm prohibitions apply (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)). Victims 

should be advised to obtain protective orders or the prosecutor should ask the court 

to order criminal no contact orders against defendants so that federal firearm 

prohibitions apply (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)). Prosecutors should collaborate with the 

U.S. Attorney to refer appropriate firearms violators for federal prosecution 

especially where federal penalties are more substantial than state. 

Research Basis: While multiple studies document the association between firearms and 

domestic violence homicides, only one examined the association between each state’s 

restrictive gun laws for batterers and state registries to enforce them and domestic 

homicide rates.180

What are other lethality risk markers? 

Other lethality markers that multiply the odds of homicide five times or more over 

non-fatal abuse have been found in a national study to include: a) threats to kill (14.9); b) 

prior attempts to strangle (9.9); c) forced sex (7.6); d) escalating physical violence 

severity over time (5.2); and e) partner control over the victim’s daily activities (5.1).181

Research has also found that male abusers are more likely to kill if the children in the 

household are his partner’s by another man.182 A Chicago study similarly found death 

 F., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Mangeanello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J. & Frye, V. 

(2003). Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American

Journal of Public Health (93), 1089-1097. 178Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732; Rothman, E., Hemenway, 

D., Miller, M. & Azrel, D. (2004). Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners. (Winter 2005). Journal of the 

American Medical Women’s Association 60 (1). 

179 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt 

University Press. 

180 Vigdor, E.& Mercy, J. (2006). Do laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders 

Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide? Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 313-346. 181 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 182 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732, Campbell, J., Webster, 

D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. 

Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk Factors for 

Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health, 

93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
38

was more likely if the partner threatened or used a knife or gun; strangled his partner or 

grabbed around her neck, and both were drunk.183

A series of interviews with 31 men imprisoned for partner murders revealed how 

quickly abusers turned lethal. Relationships with short courtships were much more likely 

to end in murder or attempted murder, and also to have quicker ends to the relationships 

than those following longer term courtships. Half of the murderers had relationships of 

no more than three months and almost a third, only one month.184

In terms of female murders of male partners, the research suggests abused women 

who killed their partners had experienced more severe and increasing violence over the 

prior year. They also had fewer resources, such as employment or high school education, 

and were in a long-term relationship.185

Implications: Prosecutors must insist law enforcement investigators provide them 

with appropriate information about prior activities especially those associated with 

increased risk for lethality. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies have found similar risk factors for lethality. While all 

suffer from false positives, their consideration will avoid false negatives that prove 

deadly for victims.

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

While most domestic homicides appear to be purposeful, some may be the 

unintended result of severe abuse.186

Medical researchers have looked at severe injuries, those causing victims to seek 

hospital emergency room treatment. They have found alcohol abuse, drug use, 

intermittent employment or recent unemployment, and having less than high school 

education to distinguish partners of women seeking medical treatment from domestic 

violence injuries compared to partners of women seeking treatment for non-domestic 

violence injuries. In one study, researchers found 63.7% of the abusive partners were 

alcohol abusers, 36.7% abused drugs; a slight majority, 51.6%, were drinking at the time 

of the assault, and 14.8% admitted to drug use at the time.187 A similar hospital study 

found cocaine use and prior arrests distinguished the violent partners from the nonviolent partners of women admitted to hospitals for treatment of injuries.188

 McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, 

National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 183 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732 184 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt 

University Press. 

185 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732. 186 Adams, D. (2007). Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners. Nashville, TN: 

Vanderbilt University Press. 

187 Kyriacou, D., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J., Muelleman, R., Barton, E., & Kraus, J. 

(1999). Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic Violence. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, (25), 1892-

1898. 

188 Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, R., Anderson, E., Shaw, 

L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries among Women in an Urban Area. New England Journal of 

Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
39

Implications: Prior threats to kill, prior strangulation, stalking, and sexual assaults 

should be taken very seriously as well as drinking and drugging histories and 

current use in considering offender danger. 

Research Basis: Although not exact, repeated studies overlap with the same or similar 

risk factors for injury and lethality, including hospital studies (of severe injuries) of 

victims not necessarily involved in the criminal justice system.

IX. Does prosecuting domestic violence offenders deter reabuse? 

 The research is fairly consistent. Simply prosecuting without regard to the specific 

risk they pose, unlike arresting domestic violence defendants, does not deter further 

criminal abuse.189 The minority of abusers arrested who are low risk are unlikely to 

reabuse in the short run whether prosecuted or not. Alternatively, without the imposition 

of significant sanctions including incarceration, the majority of arrested abusers who are 

high risk will reabuse regardless of prosecution. 

 A study of a large number of arrests in three states, Connecticut, Idaho and 

Virginia, found that those who were prosecuted and convicted for domestic violence were

more likely to be rearrested than offenders who were not convicted. However, in this 

study, those prosecuted and convicted were significantly more likely to be higher risk 

offenders as measured by prior criminal history.190 

 A number of studies have found prosecution can reduce subsequent arrests and 

violence.191 The key to reduced reabuse may not be whether the case is prosecuted or 

not, but the dispositions imposed. For example, a Toledo, Ohio misdemeanor court study 

found conviction was significantly associated with reduced rearrests for domestic 

 

189 Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. 

(2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US 

Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916; Fagan, J., Friedman, 

E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). The National Family Violence Program: Final Evaluation Report, San 

Francisco, CA: URSA Institute; Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, 

J. (2000). Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of 

Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department 

of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112, Gross, M., Cramer, E., Forte, J., 

Gordon, J., Kunkel, T. , & Moriarty, L. (2000). The impact of sentencing options on recidivism among 

domestic violence offenders: A case study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 301-312. 

190 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, 

Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

191 Ford, D. and Regoli, J. (1992). The Prevention Impacts of Policies for Preventing Wife Batterers, in E. 

Buzawa & C. Buzawa, Eds, Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response, Westport, CN: 

Auburn Press; Tolman, R. & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated Community Interventions for Domestic 

Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Women Abuse Perpetrators, Crime & 

Delinquency, 41 (4), 481-495); Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond 

Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968; Gover, A., MacDonald, 

J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluat5ion of a local domestic 

violence court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 109-129; Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and 

incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 35, 379-389; Wooldredge, J. & Thistlethwaite, A. (2005). Court Dispositions and Rearrest for 

Intimate Assault, Crime & Delinquency, 51 (76). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
40

violence one year following court disposition, even when controlling for batterers’ prior 

history of domestic violence arrests, age, gender, education, employment and marital 

status. The specific disposition, however, mattered. The more intrusive sentences, 

including jail, work release, electronic monitoring and/or probation, significantly reduced 

rearrest for domestic violence over the less intrusive sentences of fines or suspended 

sentences without probation. The difference was statistically significant with rearrests at 

23.3% for defendants with more intrusive dispositions compared to 66% for those with 

less.192 

 Another study of 683 defendants in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio arrested 

for misdemeanor domestic violence also confirmed that sentence severity was 

significantly associated with reduced recidivism, especially for unmarried defendants, 

although in this study the actual sentence length (number of days in jail) was not found to 

be significant.193 Similar research looking at the cumulative effects of arrest followed by 

prosecution and court dispositions, including those with batterer treatment, has found 

modest reductions in reabuse to be associated with greater post-arrest criminal justice 

involvement.194 Research of almost 2,000 domestic violence defendants in Alexandria, 

Virginia found, for example, that repeat offenders over 3 and 1⁄2 years were associated 

with those who had a prior criminal history and not sentenced to incarceration for the 

study arrest during that period, leading researchers to recommend jail sentences for 

domestic violence defendants with any prior criminal history.195

 The Ohio felony study, however, found mixed results. While jail sentences were 

significantly related to lower odds of subsequent misdemeanor or felony intimate assaults 

after two years, prison sentences were not. While likelihood of these new charges were 

9% less for those jailed, compared to those probated, it was only 2% lower for those 

imprisoned compared to those placed on probation.196

Implications: Prosecution deters domestic violence if it adequately addresses abuser 

risk by imposing appropriately intrusive sentences, including supervised probation, 

and incarceration. 

Research Basis: Although studies are conflicting on prosecution in and of itself, those 

that researched prosecution and resulting dispositions that address defendant risk 

suggest domestic violence prosecution can significantly deter reabuse.

 

192 Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center.

193 Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998).. Severity of Dispositions and Domestic Violence 

Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 

194 Murphy, C.M., Musser, P.H., Maton, K.I. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for domestic 

abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 263-

284.Syers & Edleson (1992). Syers, M. & Edleson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated 

criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490-502.

195 Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: The 

Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 

196 Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds 

of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
41

X. What is the current level of domestic violence prosecution across the 

country? 

While there remain wide disparities in the prosecution of domestic violence cases 

from one jurisdiction to another, routine prosecution of domestic violence arrests is no 

longer exceptional or rare. In fact, prosecutors who automatically dismiss or nolle prosse

almost all domestic violence cases may be increasingly rare and exceptional. 

There have been 120 studies from over 170 mostly urban jurisdictions in 44 states 

and the District of Columbia (and a few foreign countries) of intimate partner 

prosecutions between 1973 and 2006.197 The average arrest prosecution rate was 63.8%, 

ranging from a low of 4.6% of 802 arrests in Milwaukee in 1988-1989 to 94% of 3,662 

arrests in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1993-1996. The rate of offense prosecution was lower, with 

an average of 27.4%, ranging from a low of 2.6% for more than 5,000 offenses in Detroit 

in 1983 to 72.5% for more than 5,000 offenses reported in Boulder County, Colorado in 

2003 through 2005. 

 Several studies demonstrate that domestic violence prosecutions can be routine 

across entire states, notwithstanding demographic, prosecution and law enforcement 

variations county by county, locality by locality. A study of 15,000 protective order 

violations across Massachusetts between 1992 and 1995, for example, found 60% were 

prosecuted in total.198 A study of 4,351 felony domestic violence prosecutions in South 

Carolina between 1996 and 2000 found a 46% prosecution rate.199 Similarly, a study of 

238,000 misdemeanor domestic violence charges between 1997 and 2002 in North 

Carolina found a prosecution rate of 47%.200

 Jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence prosecution programs generally 

boast higher rates. A study of San Diego’s City Attorney’s Office documented 

prosecutors prosecuted 70% of cases brought by police. Similarly, specialized 

prosecutors in Omaha, Nebraska prosecuted 88% of all police domestic violence arrests. 

In several of these sites, before and after implementation of the specialized prosecution 

program comparisons found marked increases in prosecutions. In Everett, Washington 

dismissals dropped from 79% to 29% and in Klamuth Falls, Oregon, they dropped from 

47% to 14%.201

 

197 Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate 

Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 49. 

198 Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic Abuse. Boston 

Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

199 Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst Domestic 

Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic 

Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 200 Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to Murders. News 

and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, 

CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

201 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
42

 On the other hand, not all domestic violence cases are equally likely to be 

prosecuted. The research indicates that prosecution of intimate partner stalking202 and 

intimate sexual assault203 is rare. This also reflects very low arrest rates for these 

offenses. 

Implications: Prosecutors that fail to prosecute the majority of domestic violence 

arrests made by police should examine their practices, policies and priorities to 

determine why they are doing less than their peers around the country. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies, including at least three statewide studies.

 

 Can most domestic violence arrest cases be successfully

prosecuted in court? 

Not all cases filed by prosecutors go to trial. As with most offenses, most 

domestic violence prosecutions are disposed of as a result of plea and sentencing 

negotiations. Of those that go to trial, not all result in convictions. However, studies 

indicate that, in general, domestic violence prosecutions that go to trial routinely result in 

court convictions. “Not guilty” findings are rare. Studies document such findings range 

from a high of only 5% in Ohio, 204 to 2.7% in Massachusetts,205 to a low of 1.6% in 

North Carolina.206 A study of felony domestic violence prosecutions in Brooklyn, New 

York found a similarly low “not guilty” rate of only 2%.207

 For most domestic violence cases that do not go to trial, an analysis of 85 

domestic violence prosecution studies found an overall conviction rate of 35%, ranging 

from a low of 8.1% of 37 cases prosecuted in Milwaukee between 1988 and 1989 to a 

high of 90.1% in Brooklyn of 229 cases prosecuted in 1997. If one very large study of 

123,507 Maryland prosecutions from 1993 to 2003 is removed, the average conviction 

rate increases to almost half, 47.7%.208 In three statewide prosecution studies of tens of 

 

202 Miller, N. (2002). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A National Review for Policymakers 

and Practitioners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0007, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 197066. 

203 Miller, (2005). What Does Research and Evaluation Say About Domestic Violence Laws? A 

Compendium of Justice System Laws and Related Research Assessments. Alexandria, VA: Institute for 

Law and Justice (http://www.ilj.org/publications/dv/DomesticViolenceLegislationEvaluation.pdf). 204 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112.

205 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

206 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 215916.

207 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 208 Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate 

Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 49. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
43

thousands of domestic violence cases, similarly conviction rates ran from a third in North 

Carolina to over 55% in South Carolina.209 

 Jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence prosecution programs boast 

higher rates, including 96% in San Diego, 85% in Omaha, Nebraska, 78% in Klamath 

Falls, Oregon and 55% in Everett, Washington. The latter rate was the lowest because 

prosecutors maintained a diversion program that siphoned off 22% of the cases 

prosecuted.210

 As important, multiple studies also find that convictions can be consistently 

obtained that include the most intrusive disposition, sentences of incarceration. For 

example, in the three statewide domestic violence prosecution studies, 12.6% of the 

Massachusetts211 and 20% of the North Carolina212 misdemeanant domestic violence 

defendants prosecuted were sentenced to incarceration. In South Carolina, almost half 

(45%) of felony domestic violence defendants prosecuted were sentenced to prison.213 In 

Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court, 80 to 85% of all convicted offenders were 

sentenced to incarceration consistently during the study period of 1996 through 2000.214

While the latter single court incarceration rate may have been the result of a singular 

effort on the part of prosecutors and others, the statewide rates include multiple 

prosecutors across each state. 

 Many other disparate court studies document incarceration rates ranging from 

76% to 21%, including 76% in Klamath Falls, Oregon,215 70% in Ohio, with the largest 

number incarcerated between 150 and 180 days,216 56% in Everett, Washington,217 52% 

 

209 Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to Murders. News 

and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, 

CA: Thomson/Wadsworth; Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% 

of Worst Domestic Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to 

Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 210 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

211 Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic Abuse. Boston 

Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

212 Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to Murders. News 

and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, 

CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

213 Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst Domestic 

Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic 

Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 214 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 215 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

216 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
44

in Omaha, Nebraska,218 39% in the Bronx,219 35% in Brooklyn, New York, 220 30% in 

Milwaukee,221 23% in Chicago (the latter included time jailed pending prosecution),222

22.5% in Quincy, Massachusetts,223 and 21% in San Diego, California.224

 A study of intimate partner arrests across three states, Connecticut, Idaho and 

Virginia, found similarly intrusive dispositions with three-quarters of those convicted 

incarcerated, probated or fined.225 

Implications: The research suggests that domestic violence cases can be successfully 

prosecuted at trial, and a large proportion of cases, even most in some jurisdictions, 

can be disposed of short of trial even without taking incarceration off the table. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions for both felony and 

misdemeanor domestic violence prosecutions.

 

Performance Measures: Norfolk County, Massachusetts prosecutors brought 505 

charges arising out of 342 study domestic violence incidents compared to 531 

initially filed by arresting police departments, a drop off of only 5%. Prosecutors 

enhanced assault charges of felony assaults assault from 14.1% filed by police to 

23.8%. Prosecutors proceeded to nolle prosequi 18.5% of the cases and asked that 

an additional 10% be dismissed in court. With the exception of 2.5% that resulted 

in not guilty findings, the remaining defendants were either found guilty after trial 

or admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty (although judges initially 

allowed 25% of the cases to be conditionally continued without imposition of a 

guilty finding).

 217Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

218 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

219 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence 

Recidivism? Violence Against Women, 14 (2). 220 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes Between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

221 Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443. 222 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

223 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

224 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

225 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, 

Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
45

Research Basis: The studies followed 342 arrests that occurred within Eastern Norfolk 

County and followed them up to ten years.226

 Will aggressive prosecutions increase the demand for trials? 

A study of four prosecution programs in four states where prosecutors specifically 

adopted (what they claimed to be) “no drop” prosecution policies (and in fact proceeded 

with the majority of all cases brought by law enforcement) found that trial rates ranged 

from a high of 13% to just one percent. Further researchers suggested the highest rates 

would recede after the aggressive prosecution programs were more established. In San 

Diego, which had adopted a “no drop” policy a decade earlier, only 2% of the cases 

subsequently went to trial.227

Implications: Increased domestic violence prosecutions may not result in a 

dramatically increased proportion of trials, although there may be a transitory 

increase as defenders test prosecution resolve. 

Research Basis: While this is based on only one study, the study looked at four different 

no drop prosecution programs in four states.

 Do victims want their abusers prosecuted? 

 If asked to declare publicly in court in front of their abusers, victims may express 

ambivalence about the prosecution and/or sentencing of their abusers. However, in 

interviews with researchers, often a majority of victims support domestic violence 

prosecutions and sentencing, especially mandatory referral to batterer programs. In a 

Chicago Misdemeanor Court Study, for example, a little more than two-thirds of victims 

(67.6%) reported they wanted their abusers to be prosecuted and jailed.228 A study of 

four prosecution programs in California, Washington, Oregon and Nebraska, found threequarter (76%) of the victims interviewed wanted their abusers arrested, and 55% want 

them prosecuted. Further, 59% expressed satisfaction with the outcome, although 67% 

expressed satisfaction with the judge. 229 

 Even where the majority of victims opposed prosecution, after trial they may 

change their mind. In the Quincy arrest study, for example, only 46.8% wanted their 

abusers to be prosecuted as charged or wanted more serious charges filed. However, after 

trial, 53.4% said the court experience gave them a “sense of control,” while 36.9% said it 

 

226 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 

1995-2005: Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2). 

227 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

228 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

229 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
46

motivated them to end the relationship with their abuser and 38.8% said it “made them 

safer.” Most victims (71%) who did not want the case to go to court expressed 

satisfaction after trial.230 Similarly, a study of four specialized prosecution programs in 

four different states found that although 45% did not want their cases prosecuted, once 

they were prosecuted, only 14% tried to stop the prosecutors and only 4% said they 

wanted the court to let the defendant go. About three-quarters (72.1%) reported they 

wanted the defendant jailed and/or ordered into treatment (79%). Sixty-four percent 

(64%) expressed satisfaction with the prosecution, another 9% were neutral, and only 

27% dissatisfied. Most, 85%, reported they felt prosecution helpful.231 

Implications: Prosecutors should not allow victim opposition to automatically stop 

them from prosecuting cases. If prosecutors find the overwhelming percent of 

victims consistently oppose prosecution, they must examine both their and law 

enforcement’s interaction with victims to increase victim support consistent with 

that found across the rest of the country. 

Research Basis: Numerous studies from disparate jurisdictions.

 Why do a minority of victims oppose prosecution? 

Although studies have found multiple reasons for victim opposition to 

prosecution, fear is among the leading reason expressed by victims. Fear of the abuser is 

first and foremost, followed by fear of testifying in court.

 A study of five jurisdictions in three states found that victims across all sites 

reported that fear of defendant retaliation was their most common barrier to participation 

with prosecutors.232 Even in a Chicago study where the majority of Chicago victims 

wanted their abusers prosecuted, fear was the biggest factor for those who opposed 

prosecution. A quarter of victims opposing prosecution reported being specifically 

threatened by their abusers against prosecution. Others expressed fear that their abusers 

would become more violent. In addition to fear, almost half who wanted prosecution 

dropped thought it wouldn’t make any difference. A minority, about a third, opposed 

prosecution because they depended upon their abuser for housing.233

 In addition to fear of the abuser, an Ohio study found that more victims were 

actually afraid of testifying in court than they were of the defendant or compromising 

their relationship with the defendant. Specifically, victims expressed fear that the 

 

230 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427 

231 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

232 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

233 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
47

prosecutors would not prepare them adequately to testify. They were also concerned that 

the defendant might be found not guilty.234 

Implications: To increase victim cooperation and participation in prosecution, 

prosecutors must address victim fears of reabuse as well as testifying in court. 

Research Basis: Several victim studies in different jurisdictions.

 Is victim fear of prosecution well founded? 

 Victim fear of their abusers appears well founded. Multiple prosecution and arrest 

studies broadly concur that abusers who come to the attention of the criminal justice 

system who reabuse are likely to do so sooner rather than later. In the Quincy court 

study, for example, about 40% of the arrested abusers reabused their victim within a year. 

Forty-four percent (44%) did so before the study arrest was prosecuted in court. The 

average case took about six months from arraignment to prosecution.235 Similarly in a 

Cook County study, 30% of the defendants were rearrested within six months after their 

study arrest, including half for a new domestic violence offense. The average rearrest 

time was only 29 days after initial arrest. In addition, in almost half of the cases, 45.9%, 

defendants tried to talk women out of testifying. Moreover, 29.1% of these defendants 

stalked their victims pretrial and 8.7% specifically threatened them.236 An Indianapolis 

prosecution study found that almost a quarter of the defendants reabused their victims 

pending trial.237

 In the Brooklyn Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court, where it took on 

average 6.5 to seven months for cases to be disposed, 51% of defendants charged with 

domestic felonies other than violation of protective orders were rearrested predisposition, 14% for a crime of violence and 16% for violation of a protection order. 

Among those charged with order violations, a felony in New York, the rearrest rate was 

47%, including more than a third, 37%, for violating the protective order again.238

 While these studies do not demonstrate that prosecution causes reabuse, they 

indicate that pending prosecution in and of itself may not deter recidivist abusers. 

Implication: Prosecutors must gauge defendant risk pending trial, and take 

appropriate measures to address it, both to protect victims as well as their ability to 

successfully prosecute the case. Defendant actions to harass, threaten or intimate 

 

234 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

235 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

236 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

237 Ford, D. & Regoli, J. (1993). The Indianapolis Domestic Violence Prosecution Experiment, Final 

Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 238 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
48

victims while cases are pending should be documented both for additional charges 

being filed and to be used to justify subsequent absences of victims who are too 

fearful to testify in court, allowing for substitute hearsay testimony. The equitable 

doctrine of forfeiture, affirmed in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2280 (2006), 

precludes a defendant from using his right to confrontation to bar the admission of 

a victim’s statements when his wrongdoing caused her unavailability at trial. 

Research Basis: Rapid reabuse rates are documented in multiple studies from disparate 

jurisdictions. Research on the impact of specific prosecution practices is rare.

 

 Can prosecutors increase victim cooperation? 

While victims most commonly reported fear of retaliation as a barrier to their 

participation in prosecution, a three state study found that the fear was reduced in sites 

with specialized prosecution programs, increased victim advocacy and specialized 

domestic violence courts.239 These specialized response programs generally include fast 

track scheduling, reducing victim vulnerability pending trial, increased victim contact 

pending trial, and victim-friendly proceedings that remove, as much as possible, victim 

involvement to proceed with prosecution. These measures taken contrast with 

jurisdictions where studies indicate some prosecutors treat victims like civil claimants. In 

a large 45 country study of upstate New York domestic violence prosecution, for 

example, researchers found half of the prosecutors required victims to sign complaints in 

order to file charges. (On the other hand, two-thirds required victims to sign affidavits to 

confirm their interest in having charges withdrawn.)240 

There is more research on what not to do than what works. Specific studies 

suggest that the more prosecution-related burdens placed on victims, the less likely they 

are to cooperate. In Milwaukee, for example, a study found the majority of cases were 

dismissed where victims were required to attend a charging conference within days of the 

arrest of their abusers. However, absolved of this responsibility, Milwaukee prosecution 

rates increased from 20% to 60%.241 In a similar vein, a comparison of protective order 

violation prosecutions across Massachusetts found a 66% dismissal rate where 

prosecutors routinely provided and encouraged victims to sign waivers of prosecution 

forms (often in front of defendants) compared to a 33% dismissal rate in an abutting 

county where victims were not provided this alternative.242

 Some prosecutors are better at maintaining contact with victims than others. The 

Ohio court study found that the majority of victims never received rudimentary 

information from prosecutors before trial, including court dates. In almost 90% of the 

court cases, prosecutors never spoke with the victim on the phone and in more than half, 

 

239 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

240 Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side 

comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

241 Davis, R. & Smith, B. (1995). 242 Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic Abuse. Boston 

Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
49

52%, never met with them before the trial date. When they did meet, it typically was for 

no more than a few minutes.243 The importance of prosecutor victim contact is 

underscored by a Toronto study that found if the victim met with a victim/witness 

representative, victim cooperation increased by a factor of 3.3.244 In the Ohio court 

study, the strongest predictor of a guilty verdict in domestic violence misdemeanor cases 

was how many times the prosecutors met with the victim before trial.245

 A limited number of studies that looked at the role of court-based victim 

advocates suggest they may help. The studies found that victims appreciated contact with 

victim advocates/liaisons, reporting a high degree of satisfaction. In the Quincy study, for 

example, 81% of victims reported satisfaction with the time they spent with victim 

advocates; and three quarters (77.1%) said they would talk to the advocate again if a 

similar incident re-occurred.246 Chicago domestic violence victims who had contact with 

victim advocates reported more satisfaction with the proceedings than those who had no 

contact. However, the same study reported that victims contact by advocates did not 

make them more likely to come to court.247

 The seeds for victim contact may be planted before the case even reaches 

prosecutors. A Portland police study found the following police activities significantly 

correlated with increased prosecution: 1) police contacted victim; 2) victim accepted 

services; 3) police provided victims with prosecution information; 4) police helped set up 

victim appointment with prosecutor; 5) police helped victim obtain and served restraining 

order.248

Implications: Victim cooperation can be enhanced if prosecutors can address victim 

fear of their abusers as well as their fear over being involved in subsequent legal 

proceedings. Pretrial conditions or detention and/or speedy trials dates may address 

victim fear and minimize actions required of victims, and a sensitivity to victim 

needs may address fear of court proceedings. The quality of police contact with 

victims may also be important for subsequent successful prosecution.

Research Basis: Multiple studies and victim interviews in multiple studies.

 

243 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

244 Dawson, M. & Dinovtizer, R. (2001),Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a 

specialized court, Justice Quarterly,18, (3) 593 – 622. 245 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

246 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427.

247 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

248 Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon 

Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
50

Performance Measure: Over 80% of victims contacted by prosecutor advocate in 

Quincy court arrest and prosecution study; 42% spent 45 minutes or more with 

advocates, with the remainder spending less time.249

 Should prosecutors follow victim preferences in terms of 

prosecution and sentencing? 

 While victim perceptions of the dangerousness of suspects have been found to be 

a good predictor of subsequent re-victimization,250 victim preferences of how the case 

should be prosecuted are not. Those victims, in the Quincy study, for example, who 

wanted charges dropped were as likely as those who did not want them dropped to be revictimized, 51% compared to 48% after one year.251 Similarly, studies in New York 

found that victim cooperation with prosecutors did not predict recidivism. In other words, 

if prosecutors proceeded with uncooperative victims, these victims were no more or less 

likely to be revictimized than victims that cooperated with prosecutors.252

Implications: Although prosecutors should listen to victims, they should explain to 

victims (and, as important, to defendants) that the decision to prosecute cannot be 

based solely on victim preferences. 

XI. What evidence is typically available to prosecute domestic violence 

cases? 

One of the challenges domestic violence prosecutors face is the lack of evidence 

accompanying their cases. A study of domestic violence across the state of Rhode Island 

in 2002 based on 6,200 police incident reports involving adult victims under 50 years of 

age found the following evidence reported in cases: victim photos (17%), crime scene 

photos (16%), suspect photos (3%), physical evidence collected (8%) and weapons 

(11%), medical reports in (9.4%), witnesses reported (37%) (interviewed- 24%, children 

interviewed-12%), suspect statements (18%), and signed victim statements (53%).253 The 

Rhode Island data are not unique. 

 

249 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427

250 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk 

Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19

(7), 778-800; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve 

Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 251 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427

252 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and 

Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ). 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

253 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
51

 In the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina study, for example, researchers found 

physical evidence provided the special domestic violence prosecution unit was “rare.” 

Photos were available in only 15% of cases submitted by patrol officers and only 30.5% 

of cases submitted by the police department’s specialized domestic violence unit. 

Medical evidence was available in less than 10% of the patrol cases and 34% of the 

special unit cases which selected out the more serious cases such as those involving 

injuries. Given the fact that most domestic violence incidents occur in private, not 

surprisingly witnesses were available in only 16% of patrol cases and 19% of special unit 

cases.254 Similarly, the Ohio court study found photos of injuries and damages available 

in only 14.3% of the cases, 911 tapes in only 2.2%, medical records in 1.7%, eyewitness 

testimony in only 1.6% and police officer testimony in only 6.7% of the cases.255 

 One reason medical evidence may be limited is due to physician’s poor 

handwriting. A study found among medical visits that contained indication of abuse or 

injury, one-third of the notes from doctors or nurses contained vital information that was 

illegible.256

Implications: Especially in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), 

prosecutors must work with law enforcement to gather as much evidence as possible 

and accurately identify all potential witnesses and ways to contact them or third 

parties that will remain in touch with them. Vital witnesses may include third 

parties victims spoke to at the time of the incident. Statements victims made to 

them are generally non-testimonial and therefore admissible at trial. Children may 

also prove to be potential witnesses. Further, the presence of children may allow 

prosecutors to file additional charges against abusers for endangering the welfare of 

a child or a similar charge that may go forward even if the charges against the 

primary victim cannot. 

Research Basis: Few studies review domestic violence evidence and those that do 

suggest evidence collection can be dramatically improved.

 Consequently, prosecutors must rely on victims. In the Ohio court study, for 

example, victim testimony was the most frequent evidence relied upon by prosecutors, 

available in 48.1% of the 2,952 domestic violence cases studied.257 In Rhode Island, 

victims provided signed statements in 53% of the incident reports.258 A Canadian study 

 

254 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

255 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

256 Isaac, N. & Enos, P. (2000). Medical Records and Legal Evidence of Domestic Violence. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184528. 257 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

258 Klein, A., Tobin, T. & Salomon, A. (forthcoming). Older and Elder Abuse of Women Across a State and 

the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
52

of a Toronto Domestic Violence Court found that while having witnesses or 

corroborating evidence does not increase the likelihood of prosecution, if the victim 

cooperates, the odds of prosecution increase by a factor of eight compared to cases in 

which the victim does not cooperate.259 In Chicago, prosecutors achieved a 73% 

conviction rate for domestic violence cases where the victim showed up in court and 

significantly less, only 23% when they did not.260

 Generally, lack of cooperative or available victims are cited as the prime reasons 

prosecutors drop or dismiss domestic violence cases. In the Quincy arrest study, for 

example, a quarter of the arrested abusers were not prosecuted by the district attorney’s 

office. Where indicated in the court file, the most common reason given was “victim 

denies abuse (18.8%),” and/or married victims invoked their marital privilege not to 

testify against their husband suspects (12.9%); or the victim could not be located 

(10.6%).261 In the large Ohio study, 70.5% of cases were dismissed because of victim 

“unavailability/failure to attend.”262 Another Ohio study in Toledo, analyzing a sample 

derived from 1,982 misdemeanor domestic violence cases before the Municipal Court, 

found that 70% of dismissed cases were dismissed because “victim failed to appear.”263

In North Carolina, victim opposition was reported as the key factor in reducing the 

likelihood of prosecution.264

Implication: Prosecutors must work with local law enforcement to identify and 

obtain critical evidence whenever it is available, including critical contact 

information to locate and contact victims and other potential witnesses. 

Research Basis: Several large court and statewide studies in disparate jurisdictions 

indicating law enforcement failure to provide available evidence.

 Can cases be successfully prosecuted without the victim? 

 Notwithstanding the fact that most prosecutors attribute lack of victim 

cooperation as the reason why domestic violence prosecutions cannot proceed, both 

individual jurisdictional and comparative studies clearly suggest that either lack of victim 

cooperation is exaggerated or that victims are not the key variable in successful 

prosecution programs. 

 

259 Dawson, M. & Dinovtizer, R. (2001),Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a 

specialized court, Justice Quarterly,18, (3) 593 – 622. 260 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

261 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427 

262 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

263 Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 264 Hirschel, J. & Hutchison, I. (2001). The Relative Effects of Offense, Offender, and Victim Variables on 

the Decision to Prosecute Domestic Violence Cases, Violence Against Women, 7(1), 46-59. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
53

 A study of almost 100 domestic violence trials in San Diego, for example, found 

that uniformly high conviction rates were obtained independent of victim or defendant 

statements, witness testimony, and corroborating evidence. In fact, outcomes were also 

independent whether or not the victim testified for the prosecution or the defense.265 

 Other comparative studies consistently find that the determination of prosecutors 

rather than the availability of victims or other evidence account for varying rates of 

prosecution. For example, in the three statewide examinations of tens of thousands of 

domestic violence prosecutions, researchers documented widely varying rates of 

prosecution across equivalent counties. In Massachusetts, prosecution rates ranged 

county by county from a high of 82% to a low of 25%.266 In South Carolina, prosecution 

rates varied from 69% to a low of 22% from one prosecution district to another.267

Similarly, in North Carolina prosecution rates ranged from 57% to a low of 21% in 

specific prosecution districts.268 Although some of the counties or prosecutorial districts 

differed in terms of demographics and population density, even among those that did not, 

prosecution rates varied greatly. In fact, in South Carolina, after the study was published 

in the newspaper and the state’s Attorney General ordered prosecutors to prosecute all 

cases, the statewide dismissal rate dropped by 29% the next month.269

 Studies confirm that jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence prosecution 

programs generally support the highest rates of successful prosecution.270 These 

specialized programs apparently create their own momentum. For example they either 

help create or are associated with courts that create expedited domestic violence dockets. 

As a result of the specialized prosecution in San Diego, for example, processing time for 

domestic violence cases decreased to 32 days with almost half of the defendants (46%) 

pleading at the arraignment. Similarly, in Everett, Washington time to trial was 80 days, 

in Omaha it was 43 days. Shortened trial times both reduce victim vulnerability to threats 

and chances of reconciling with the abuser pending trial. In both San Diego and Everett, 

bails were regularly set at $10,000 per domestic violence charge (with no cash alternative 

in the latter). As a result, for defendants unable to raise bail, the incentive is to plead 

guilty to get out of jail. 

 

265 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

266 Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic Abuse. Boston 

Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

267 Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst Domestic 

Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic 

Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 268 Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to Murders. News 

and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, 

CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

269 Brundett, R. & Roberts, C. (July 12, 2001). Domestic Abuse Cases Go to State. The State., cited in 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

270 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
54

 In these jurisdictions, researchers found that evidence (eyewitnesses, photos, 

admissions, excited utterances, medical evidence, and physical evidence) was not 

uniformly the most powerful predictor of prosecutor’s decision to proceed without 

victims and was not significantly associated with the decision to prosecute at all in 

Klamath Falls.271

 Supporting the contention that prosecutorial determination is a powerful predictor 

of prosecutorial success, the Ohio court study found increased time prosecutor spent with 

victims preparing the case was positively associated with successful prosecution and high 

prosecution caseloads were negatively associated with successful outcomes. The 

availability of evidence, including 911 tapes, photographs, medical records and police 

testimony were not associated with the likelihood of a conviction. Researchers did not 

suggest only victims with strong cases self-selected to approach prosecutors. 272

Implications: Lack of evidence may more likely deter prosecutors from going 

forward than juries from convicting defendants or defendants from pleading guilty. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies find prosecutors able to consistently achieve high 

conviction rates, notwithstanding consistently limited evidence. The analysis of San 

Diego trials specifically suggests that convictions may be obtained with varying types of 

evidence, notwithstanding absence of types of other evidence, including victims.

Implications: There should be parity between prosecutors and defenders not to 

mention prosecutors and crimes to be prosecuted. In the Ohio study where high 

prosecution caseloads were associated with unsuccessful domestic violence 

prosecution, the court had 31 public defenders but only 18 prosecutors. 

Research basis: Only one study.

 Can successful prosecutions be increased? 

There have been multiple studies of specific prosecution efforts to significantly 

increase prosecution by adopting “no drop” policies. While the concept of “no drop” has 

proven elastic, the success of these programs to significantly increase prosecution has 

been demonstrated in multiple jurisdictions. In the Queens Borough of New York City, 

for example, prosecutors increased convictions from 24% to 60%, with research 

suggesting that much of the increase was the result of increased follow-up with victims 

and prosecutor’s improved linkage with police, for example, monitoring the same case 

log that asked whether each of eight evidentiary items were covered in police incident 

reports, including photos, and witness, victim and suspect statements.273 A study of 

 

271 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

272 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

273 Miller, N. (2003). Queens County, New York, Arrest Policies Project: A Process Evaluation. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WE-Vx-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 201886. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
55

domestic violence prosecutions in two other states similarly found greatly increased 

conviction rates as a result of adoption of no-drop policies accompanied by increased 

coordination with police.274

 A study of specialized prosecution programs in Oregon and Washington that 

instituted no drop policies found that increased use of evidence-based prosecution 

dramatically increased conviction rates, reduced processing time, and initially increased 

trials. Dismissal rates more than halved in Everett, Washington from 79% to 29%, guilty 

findings increased from 10% to 53%, although diversion increased from 2% to 22%, 

while processing time declined from 109 days to 80 days. Trials increased from 1% to 

10%. Conviction rates at trial were 80%. In Klamath Falls, Oregon, only 10 to 20% of 

cases were screened out by prosecutors. Dismissals dropped from 47% to 14% and 

convictions rose from 47% to 86% after introduction of evidence-based prosecution. 

Unlike Everett, diverted cases dropped from 6% to none. Trials rose from 1% to 13% 

with prosecutors winning 63% of them.275 

What does adoption of “no drop” policies actually mean? 

 The most comprehensive study of model “no drop” prosecution programs, 

including several that received large Justice Department grants, found “no-drop” actually 

meant screening out approximately 30% of cases brought by police, but proceeding with 

most of the remaining cases. Even if victims were not present at the time of trial, 

prosecutors typically were still able to proceed with 60 to 70% of the cases.276

Implication: Although Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) further inhibits 

domestic violence prosecutors, the dramatic increases in successful prosecutions 

with implementation of specialized domestic violence prosecution programs suggest 

most prosecutors should be able to significantly increase successful prosecutions, 

but perhaps as not as much as documented in these pre-Crawford studies. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions before the United States 

Supreme Court decided Crawford.

XII. What kind of dispositions do most suspects receive? 

Just as prosecution rates vary widely, so does sentencing of domestic violence 

perpetrators even though the vast majority of domestic violence defendants are 

prosecuted for misdemeanor assaults. Disparate studies from various jurisdictions 

illustrate some of the variety of sentences imposed. 

In Quincy, where three quarters of the suspects (74.1%) were charged with some 

form of assault and/or battery, a quarter of the defendants were diverted after a plea to 

sufficient facts, a quarter were probated and 13.5% were imprisoned. The remainder 

 

274 Smith, B. & Davis, R. (2004). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central 

Values in Conflict. Washington D.C.: 98-WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 275 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

276 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
56

defaulted or had their cases filed.277 In Ohio, of those found guilty, almost 70% were 

incarcerated with the largest number incarcerated between 30 and 45 days, although 

18.8% were incarcerated 150 to 180 days. A little over 60% of those found guilty were 

placed under probation supervision with the largest number, 30.8%, for between 360 and 

499 days.278 In the Brooklyn Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court study of 9,157 

cases in 2002, of those pleading or found guilty, 51% received a conditional discharge, 

35% received jail, 7% received probation, 5% were ordered to complete community 

service and 1% was fined.279 In Milwaukee, in the mid-1990’s, out of 669 sample cases 

prosecutors accepted for prosecution, 30% were convicted with a jail sentence and a little 

less than a quarter were probated.280 In Chicago, a little less than a third was given 

conditional discharges, 24 % probation or court supervision, and 23 % jail (including 

time served pending trial).281 A study of over a thousand domestic violence arrests across 

three states, Connecticut, Idaho and Virginia, found of those convicted, three-quarters 

were incarcerated, probated, and or fined. A little less than half (46.7%) were ordered 

into either anger management or batterer programs.282

 A study of three domestic violence courts with specialized prosecutors in three 

different states found augmented probation conditions over comparison jurisdictions 

without domestic violence specialization. These included drug and alcohol abstinence 

and testing, batterer intervention programs that lasted longer and were more expensive, 

more no contact orders, attendance at fatherhood programs or women’s groups for female 

offenders, more mental health evaluations, mandatory employment, and restrictions on 

weapons.283 

 Studies of four jurisdictions with specialized prosecution programs in as many 

states document that incarceration rates ranged from 20% to 76%. Most also were placed 

on probation and a condition of no victim contact and batterer treatment.284

 

277 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427 

278 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

279 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes Between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

280 Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443. 281 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

282 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, 

Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 283 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

284 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
57

 In at least one state, imprisonment of domestic violence felons has mushroomed 

over the last decade and a half. The number of domestic violence offenders sent to Ohio 

prisons increased nine-fold between 1991 and 2005.285

Performance Measure: By statute, Cal. Penal Code § 1203.097, California batterers 

must be sentenced to three years probation; criminal protective orders must be 

incorporated to protect victims from further violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse 

and harassment; the defendant must complete a batterer program of no less than a 

year, make a minimum $200 payment, perform a specified amount of community 

service, as well as attend as needed substance abuse treatment, pay restitution and 

in lieu of fine pay up to $5,000 to a battered women’s shelter.

 Why sentencing of domestic violence defendants may not prevent 

reabuse. 

Some of the dispositional studies suggest that domestic violence dispositions may 

generally differ from standard sentencing patterns. Surprisingly, they often do not reflect 

defendants’ prior criminal history, suggesting that prosecutors and/or judges may 

disregard prior records that are not domestic violence-related. In the Ohio study, for 

example, researchers found no correlation between offender’s prior criminal histories and 

sentence severity.286 Similarly and surprisingly, the Toledo, Ohio study found 

defendants with prior felony convictions were the least likely to be prosecuted and 

sentenced.287 In contrast, in both Quincy, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, prior 

criminal history was significantly associated with severity of sentences.288

 

Implications: Domestic violence sentencing should reflect defendants’ prior 

criminal histories as well as abuse histories as both indicate risk of reabuse as well 

as general criminality. 

Research Basis: Disparate sentencing studies find inconsistent variables including 

consideration of prior records. 

XIII. Do Specialized Prosecution Units Work? 

 

285 Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds 

of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389, quoting Bates, J., Gonzales, C., Muncy, 

V., Boyd, R., Easter, R., & Van Dine, S. (2005). 2005 Intake reports, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction (www.sciencedirect.com). 

286 Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to 

Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and 

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

287 Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 288 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An 

Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 

2002-WG-BX-0011. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
58

There are a limited number of studies specifically of specialized domestic 

violence prosecution programs. As the specific programs vary, including the resources 

expended, it is difficult to be able to pinpoint what specifically works and what does not. 

Also, in many instances, these programs co-exist with specialized domestic violence 

courts and other programs that may affect outcomes independent of the prosecution 

programs. However, in general, the research suggests those programs studied appear to 

work well on a number of levels. 

 First, research has found that victims generally report satisfaction with domestic 

violence prosecutions conducted by specialized prosecution teams. Increased satisfaction 

may translate into increased victim cooperation. For example, in Alexandria, Virginia, a 

study found 90.2% of victims found prosecutors either very or somewhat helpful, a 

higher rating than given to police or a victim support service agency. The 90.2% 

satisfaction reported by Alexandria victims compares to only 67.3% for victims in 

Virginia Beach, a comparison jurisdiction that did not have a specialized domestic 

violence response program by police, prosecutors and victim advocates.289 

 Similarly, in Cook County (Chicago), victims reported higher satisfaction with the 

specialized domestic violence prosecution unit than the prosecutors who handled 

domestic violence outside the Unit. The Unit featured specially trained prosecutors and 

vertical prosecution. It also had its own victim advocates. Unit victims were also more 

likely to appear in court, 75% compared to just 25% in non-Unit domestic violence 

cases.290

 The latter finding was not unique. While victims most commonly reported fear of 

retaliation as a barrier to their participation in prosecution, a three state study found that 

the fear was reduced in sites with specialized domestic violence courts that also contained 

specialized prosecution programs and increased victim advocacy.291 At the same time, 

however, the same study found equal satisfaction with prosecutors in both demonstration 

sites and comparison sites without specialized court domestic violence programs.292

 Second, specialized prosecution programs have significantly increased 

prosecution and conviction rates. The specialized prosecution unit in Cook County, for 

example, obtained a conviction rate of 71% compared to 50% obtained by the rest of the 

office for domestic violence cases.293 In Milwaukee, the specialized domestic violence 

prosecution unit increased felony convictions five times over what occurred before the 

 

289 Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: The 

Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 

290 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

291 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

292 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

293 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
59

unit was established.294 Implementation of a specialized domestic violence prosecution 

unit it Champagne County, Illinois increased prosecutions by 18% and overall domestic 

violence case dismissals decreased by 54%. Convictions increased by 22%.295

 However, other studies suggest that specialized prosecution units must be 

adequately staffed to make a difference. The specialized prosecution unit in Mecklenburg 

County, (Charlotte) North Carolina, for example, obtained much lower conviction rates, 

with a conviction rate of only 38%, akin to that obtained without specialized units. 

However, researchers noted that the unit was significantly understaffed with only two 

prosecutors faced with hundreds of cases annually.296 Brooklyn’s specialized felony 

prosecution program within the Borough’s special felony domestic violence court 

increased convictions from 87% to 94% for felonies other than protection order violations 

and 93% for violations. Although the rate was higher than before, the difference was not 

statistically different.297

 Third, specialized prosecution programs appear to be associated with more robust 

dispositions that also appear to be better monitored and enforced. A study of three 

domestic violence courts with specialized prosecutors in three different states found 

augmented probation conditions over comparison jurisdictions without domestic violence 

specialization. These included drug and alcohol abstinence and testing, batterer 

intervention programs that lasted longer and were more expensive, more no contact 

orders, attendance at fatherhood programs or women’s groups for female offenders, more 

mental health evaluations, mandatory employment, and restrictions on weapons.298

 

Implications: If adequately funded, specialized domestic violence prosecution units, 

especially if associated with specialized domestic violence law enforcement units and 

courts, should increase domestic violence prosecutions and convictions, victim 

cooperation, satisfaction, and if dispositions are geared to defendant risk, safety. 

Research Implications: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions.

 What characterizes specialized prosecution units? 

An analysis of dozens of prosecutor office’s response to domestic violence found 

the following dimensions that characterized their responses: 1) responsiveness to victims 

(from treating them as if they were civil plaintiffs to treating them dispassionately as 

witnesses to a crime; 2) treatment of suspects; 3) expectations for victim participation in 

 

294 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

295 Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation Evaluation of the 

Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign County. Springfield, IL: University of 

Illinois at Springfield. 

296 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute 

of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

297 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

298 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
60

prosecution; 4) specialization, and 5) information utilization.299 The specialized units in 

upstate New York, unlike other prosecutors’ offices, for example, were more likely to 

track cases for specialized prosecution, track data to inform charging for recidivists, track 

data to inform sentencing recommendations, routinely receive police incident reports as 

well as police arrest reports. Also they were more likely to participate in task forces or 

coalitions involving other criminal justice and/or community agencies involved in 

responding to domestic violence.300

Performance Measure: Most large prosecutor offices have special domestic violence 

units, allowing for innovations such as vertical prosecution for misdemeanors, 

improved case preparation, greater contact with victims, reduced caseloads and 

more malleable court scheduling.301 A third of prosecutors in small and medium 

sized cities across upstate New York also had specialized domestic violence 

prosecution programs, with half making victim advocates available.302

Research Basis: 2000 mail survey of 200 largest jurisdictions, study of 45 counties in 

upstate New York. 

XIV. What should be considered in recommending sentences for 

convicted batterers? 

 Are defendants who don’t show in court more at risk for reabuse 

than those that do? 

 A Chicago study found that no show defendants prosecuted by a specialized 

prosecution team had significantly greater number of post-arrests than those that showed, 

.778 compared to .456.303 While this has not been examined elsewhere, in a Berkeley 

arrest study, researchers similarly documented that having a pending warrant at time of 

the domestic violence incident was a significant predictor of reabuse.304 The Quincy 

 

299 Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side 

comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

300 Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side 

comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

301 Miller, N. (2001). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A National Review for Policymakers 

and Practitioners, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0007, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 197066. 

302 Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side 

comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

303 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

304 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
61

arrest study also found that suspects who flee the scene before police arrive are 

significantly more likely to reabuse than those arrested at the scene.305

Implications: If defendants default in court prior to sentencing, prosecutors should 

consider them higher risk for reabuse. 

Research Basis: While only one study looked at this issue directly, several others found 

the same association between defendant conduct and reabuse pre-prosecution.

 Should “first” offenders be diverted/discharged? 

In many jurisdictions, a substantial proportion of domestic violence defendants 

are diverted or given dispositions without guilty findings imposed. Often these 

dispositions are given to “first” offenders. Notwithstanding this, a trio of studies has 

found that a minimum of a quarter of defendants so sentenced reabuse or violate the 

terms of their conditional release. 

 In the Quincy arrest study, for example, a quarter of the arrested defendants were 

continued without a finding to be dismissed if they remained arrest free for six months to 

a year. These dispositions were reserved for defendants with less serious prior criminal 

and domestic abuse histories. These defendants were half as likely to have had prior 

records for domestic violence or crimes against persons, or been sentenced to probation 

previously as the majority sentenced to probation and/or jailed. Unlike those probated or 

jailed who began their criminal careers as teenagers, these defendants began theirs at an 

average age of 25. Nonetheless, a quarter of those continued without a finding were 

arrested or had new protective orders taken out against them within two years of their 

study arrest. Although this reabuse rate was still half that of defendants with more 

substantial prior criminal histories, it was substantially higher than prosecutors and 

judges had anticipated.306 

 Similarly, a little over a quarter of the abusers (27.5%) given a conditional 

discharge in Cook County violated the conditional discharge.307 

 In Rhode Island, probationary sentences for domestic violence cases without 

underlying suspended sentences constitute an in-court diversion much like continued 

without a finding cases in Massachusetts. (A probationary sentence in Rhode Island does 

not constitute a conviction under state law and therefore, for example, does not count for 

sentence enhancement as a former or subsequent conviction. In the study, those sentenced 

to probationary sentences were most likely to be “first” domestic violence offenders.) 

While the average defendant given a suspended or split sentence had between 1.14 and 

1.93 prior domestic violence arrests, those sentenced to probation had 0.5. Nevertheless, 

 

305 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181427. 

306 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2). 307 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-

WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
62

the rearrest rate for domestic violence for probated defendants was 34.8%, compared to 

43.6% for those given suspended sentences and 48.1% given split sentences.308 

 

Implications: Prosecutors must exercise caution in recommending case diversion or 

conditional discharges, even if abusers have minimal prior criminal histories. 

Research Basis: Limited site studies as well as broader research on offender risk 

previously cited.

XV. Do Batterer Intervention Programs Prevent Reabuse? 

Commonly, whether diverted, probated, even jailed, many domestic violence 

offenders are required to attend batterer treatment programs. Batterer programs have 

increased dramatically over the past several decades.309

 There have been more than 35 evaluations of batterer intervention programs. 

They have yielded inconsistent results. Two meta-analyses of the more rigorous studies 

find they have, at best, a “modest” treatment effect, producing a minimal reduction in rearrests for domestic violence.310 In one of the meta-analyses, the treatment effect 

translated to a five percent improvement rate in cessation of reassaults due to the 

treatment.311 In the other, it ranged from none to .26, roughly representing a reduction in 

recidivism from 13 to 20%.312

On the other hand, only a few studies have found batterer programs make 

abusers more likely to reabuse,313 while most that have not found positive effects have 

found none at all.

314 

 The multi-state study of four batterer programs concludes that a hard core of 

approximately a quarter of batterers appears to be unresponsive and resistant to batterer 

intervention. In this long term study, approximately half of the men reassaulted their 

 

308 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.

309 Healey, K., Smith, C. & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approaches and criminal 

justice strategies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, #OJP-94-C-007, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 168638. 

310 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of 

Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053; Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). 

A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ 

Behaviors? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262. 311 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of 

Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053. 312 Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention 

Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ Behaviors? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262. 313 Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of a Court-Ordered Treatment For Domestic Violence Offenders. 

Washington , D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. 

(2003). The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence Recidivism. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior 30 (1), 118-134.

314 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752; Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce 

Violence? A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 94-IJ-CX-004, 

National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772) (Eight Week Program); Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop 

Out Among Men Who Batter: A Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and Victims, 

15, 137-160. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
63

initial or new partners sometime during the 30-month follow-up based on victim and/or 

abusers interviews and/or police arrests, although most of the reassaults occurred within 

the first 6-months of program intake. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the men repeatedly 

reassaulted their partners during the follow-up. These men also accounted for nearly all 

of the severe assaults and injuries.315 

Implications: Batterer Programs, in and of themselves, are not likely to protect most 

victims or new intimate partners of referred abusers from further harm from 

higher risk abusers. Consequently, if mandated, batterer programs should be 

supplemented by other measures to assure victim safety from these abusers.

Research Basis: Multiple single studies as well as two meta-analyses of studies from 

disparate jurisdictions in different contexts across the country.

 Does the type or length of batterer intervention programs make a 

difference? 

Several studies have found that the type of batterer program, whether feminist, 

psycho-educational, or cognitive-behavioral, does not make a difference in terms of 

reabuse.316 One study also found that a “culturally focused” program specifically 

designed for African American male abusers did no better than the regular program 

offered all abusers. In fact, those assigned to a conventional, racially mixed group were 

half as likely to be arrested for reassaults compared to those assigned to a completely 

African American culturally-focused counseling group or a conventional group of all 

African Americans.317 

 However, a rigorous New York City study found the length of the program (26 

weeks compared to 8 weeks) may make a difference, with the longer program proving 

more effective at deterring reabuse. The researchers suggest that the longer program’s 

increased effectiveness was due to its longer suppression effect while abusers were 

mandated to attend, whether or not they actually attended.318 On the other hand, a multistate study of four programs in lengths from 3 to 9 months found no difference in 

subsequent reabuse.319

 

315 Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-month Follow-up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704.. 316 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of Domestic 

Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053; Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy 

Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions for Men Who Assault Their Wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 68, 468-476; Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and 

Victims, 16, 693-704. 317 Gondolf, E. & Williams, O. (2005). Culturally Focused Batterer Counseling for African American Men.

Washington D.C.; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 318 Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A Randomized Experiment 

in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772). 319 Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-month Follow-up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
64

Implications: As long as the batterer program is focused on preventing reabuse, the 

type of program makes no difference. However, longer batterer programs are 

better than shorter programs. 

Research Basis: While only one study speaks to the suppression effects of batterer 

programs, the findings that batterer programs provide little treatment effect suggest that 

programs’ effectiveness may result from their suppression effect and/or the context in 

which they operate including probation supervision or periodic court compliance 

hearings. These findings argue for longer programs. 

Performance Measure: By statute, batterer programs that are mandated for 

convicted abusers in California (Penal Code §1203.097(A)(6)) must be a minimum of 

52 consecutive weeks for two hours each week. 

 Do couples counseling or anger management treatment programs 

prevent reabuse? 

 There has little recent research on the application of couples counseling involving 

batterers and their victims320 as most batterer treatment standards prohibit couples 

counseling.321 While an early study in 1985 found it ineffective with half of the couples 

reporting new violence within six weeks of couples counseling,322 other studies found 

lower reabuse rates.323 A small study suggests that couples counseling after separate 

counseling for batterers and victims may be safe and beneficial for couples who want to 

remain together.324

 While anger management is often a part of batterer intervention programs based 

on cognitive psychology, generic anger management programs, by themselves, like 

couples counseling, have been generally prohibited by most state batterer treatment 

standards.325 

 In one of the largest studies to date, the Office of the Commissioner of Probation 

in Massachusetts studied a sample of 945 defendants arraigned for violating a protective 

order and as part of their subsequent disposition were ordered into a program, including a 

certified batterer intervention program, anger management, mental health treatment 

and/or substance abuse treatment, although 13% were sent to multiple programs. The 

study found those referred to 12 to 20 week anger management programs had a higher 

completion rate than those referred to the much longer 40 week batterer intervention 

programs. Notwithstanding higher completion rates, unlike those referred to batterer 

intervention programs, there was no difference in rearrest rates for those who completed 

anger management and those that failed to complete it. Further those who completed 

anger management recidivated at higher rates than those that completed batterer 

intervention programs even though those referred to batterer programs had significantly 

 

320 Stith, S., Rosen, K., & McCollum, E. (2003). Effectiveness of Couples Treatment for Spouse Abuse, 

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29 (3), 407-426. 321 A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs (www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet.standard.htm.). 322 Lindquist, C., Telch, C. & Taylor, J. (1985). Evaluation of a Conjugal Violence Treatment Program: A Pilot Study.

Behavioral Counseling and Community Interventions, 3, 76-90. 323 Deschner, J.P., McNeil, J.S., & Moore, M.G. (1986). A treatment model for batterers. Social Casework, 67, 55-60. 324 Johannson, M. & Tutty, L. (1998). An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for Wife Abuse, 

Family Relations, 47 (1), 27-35. 325 A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs (www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet.standard.htm.).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
65

more criminal history, including more past order violations, more long standing 

substance abuse histories, and less education than those referred to anger management.326

 An earlier study of a program in Pittsburgh found that abusers who relied on 

anger management control techniques were more likely to reabuse their partners than 

those who relied on increased empathy, a redefinition of their manhood, and more 

cooperative decision-making as a means to ending their abuse.327

 

Implications: There is no evidence that anger management or couples counseling 

programs effectively prevent court mandated abusers from reabusing or 

committing new offenses after treatment.

Research Basis: The limited research that has been conducted has been at best 

inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of these programs while one large state study 

finds court referred batterers are less apt to commit new offenses, including both 

domestic and non-domestic violent offenses, if they complete batterer programs 

compared to those that complete anger management programs. The difference, however, 

may also be accounted by the fact that the batterer programs were twice as long as the 

anger control programs.

 Does alcohol and drug treatment prevent reabuse? 

The correlation between alcohol and drug treatment has been confirmed in 

numerous studies previously cited.328 It is therefore not surprising that studies find 

substance abuse treatment can be effective in reducing domestic violence.329 In one such 

study, for example, researchers found that among 301 alcoholic male partner abusers, of 

whom 56% had physically abused their partners the year before treatment, partner 

violence significantly decreased in half a year after alcohol treatments, but still was not as 

low as the non-alcoholic control group. Among those patients who no longer drank at all, 

reabuse dropped to 15%, the same as the non-alcoholic control group and half that of 

treated alcoholics who failed to maintain sobriety.330 As this study suggests, however, 

alcohol and drug treatment, in and of itself, may not be sufficient for all abusers. This is 

supported by the Massachusetts treatment study of 945 defendants convicted of violating 

protective orders and ordered into a program. It found that those who completed a variety 

of alcohol and drug treatment programs had higher rates of re-arraignment over six years 

for any crime or violations of protective orders than those who completed batterer 

programs (57.9% vs. 47.7% for any crime and 21.1% v. 17.4% for violation of protective 

 

326 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 327 Gondolf, E. (1984). How Some Men Stop Battering: An Evaluation of a Group Counseling Program

(Paper, Second National Conference on Family Violence, Durham, NH), cited in Gondolf, E. & Russell, D. 

(1986). The Case Against Anger Control Treatment Programs for Batterers, Response 9 (3), 2-5. 328 See IV D. Are they likely to be drug and/or alcohol abusers? 

329 Stuart, G. (2005). Improving Violence Intervention Outcomes Integrating Alcohol Treatment. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence 20 (4), 388-393. 330 O’Farrell, T., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M. & Murphy, C. (2003). Partner Violence Before and After 

Individually Based Alcoholism Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients. Journal of Consulting Clinical 

Psychology 71 (1), 92-102. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
66

orders). Further, there was no significant difference in re-arraignment rates between the 

substance abuse treatment completers and non-completers.331 

 On the other hand, studies suggest alcohol and drug treatment may be a necessary 

component of successful intervention to prevent reabuse. The multi-state study of four 

batterer programs, for example, found that among program completers, those that became 

intoxicated within a three month period were three times more likely to reassault their 

partners than those that did not.332

 

Implications: Incorporating alcohol and/or drug treatment as a standard component of 

batterer intervention adds to the likelihood of reductions in reabuse among batterers, 

many of whom abuse alcohol and drugs. Effective treatment should include abstinence 

testing to assure sobriety and no drug use. 

Research Basis: Extensive research in both clinical and court settings confirm the 

correlation between substance abuse and increased likelihood of reabuse as well as 

reduction in reabuse among offender successfully treated for drug abuse.

 Are court referred batterers likely to complete batterer 

programs? 

Multiple studies of disparate programs around the country have found high noncompletion rates ranging from 25% to 89% with most at around 50%.333 Rates vary as 

different programs have different standards for monitoring attendance, as well as policies 

regarding re-enrollment, missed meetings, and the like. A study in California, for 

example, found that of ten counties examined, only one maintained a database to track 

offender participation in the mandated batterer program and it reported 89% did not 

complete the program.334 

Not surprisingly, adding on additional treatment programs increases noncompletion. For example, while 42% of the referred batterers in the Bronx failed to 

complete the batterer program, that increased to 67% for those also required to also 

complete drug treatment. For those required to complete drug treatment alone, the noncompletion rate was 60%.335

 High technical violation rates are common in general for probationers sentenced 

for domestic violence for all common conditions, including no contact orders, drug 

 

331 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 332 Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-month Follow-up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704. 333 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation; Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop Out 

Among Men Who Batter: A Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and 

Victims, 15, 137-160; Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally-Focused Batterer Counseling for African-American Men, Final 

Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 334 Lockyer, B. (2005). Domestic Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability, Report to 

the California Attorney General from the task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. 

Sacramento, CA: Office of the Attorney General (www.safestate.org/domesticviolence). 335 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
67

abstinence, as well as batterer intervention programs. Various probation studies find 

technical violation (non-crime) rates ranging from 34% of those sentenced in the 

Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court, 336 41% in Colorado,337 61% in Champaign 

County, Illinois,338 and 25 to 44% in Rhode Island (regular compared to specialized 

domestic violence supervision).339 

Implication: Prosecutors should be reluctant to recommend court ordered 

conditions including batterer intervention programs unless they are closely 

monitored and enforced, if prosecutors are involved in the enforcement process, 

bringing violators back to court, they must commit the time and resources required 

to enforce compliance and hold violators accountable.

Research Basis: Multiple studies from disparate jurisdictions across the country.

 Do batterer program completers do better than those who fail? 

 Abusers who complete batterer programs are less likely to reabuse than those that 

fail to attend, are noncompliant, or drop out.340 The differences can be substantial. 

 A Chicago study of more than 500 court referred batterers referred to 30 different 

programs, for example, found that completers’ recidivism after an average of 2.4 years 

was 14.3% while that for non-completers was more than twice that at 34.6%.341 Those 

who did not complete their program mandate in the Bronx court study were four times 

more likely to recidivate than those that completed their program.342

 The multi-state study of four programs found program completion reduced risk of 

reassault from 46 to 66%.343 A Florida study found that the odds that abusers who 

completed the program would be rearrested was half that of a control group of those not 

 

336 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on 

Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 337 Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain News. 338 Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation Evaluation of the Enhanced 

Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign County. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 339 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final report to the National Institute of Justice on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

340 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation; Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic 

Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield County Experience. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 30, 118-134; Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for 

Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322.; Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who 

batter: Four Years of Outcome data from the Domestic Abuse Project, Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12.; 

Chen, H., Bersani, S., Myers S., & Denton, T. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Court-Sponsored Abuser 

Treatment Programs. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 137-160.; Babcock, J. & Steiner, R. (1999). The Relationship 

Between Treatment, Incarceration, and Recidivism of battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated 

Community response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 46-59; Gondolf, E. (2005). CulturallyFocused Batterer Counseling for African-American Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 

341 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 342 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation. 343 Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
68

assigned the program while the odds of rearrest for those who failed to attend the 

program as ordered was 2.53 higher than the control group.344 

 A Massachusetts study found that over a six year period, those who completed a 

certified batterer intervention program were significantly less likely to be re-arraigned for 

any type of offense, a violent offense, or a protection order violation. (Massachusetts 

does not have a domestic violence statute so researchers could not differentiate domestic 

from non-domestic violent offenses.) The rate differences for these offenses between 

completers and non-completers was 47.7% vs. 83.6% for any crime, 33.7% vs 64.2% for 

crime of violence, and 17.4% vs 41.8% for violation of protective order.345 The Dallas 

study found that twice as many program drop outs were rearrested within 13 months than 

completers, 39.7% vs 17.9%, for any charge and 8.1% vs. 2.8% for assault arrests.346 An 

Alexandria, Virginia study of almost 2,000 domestic violence defendants found that noncompliance with court ordered treatment was significantly associated with being a repeat 

offender.347

 While also finding reduced reabuse for completers, a few studies have found the 

reductions to be less dramatic, including Broward County where the difference was only 

4% v. 5%348 and Brooklyn where it was 16% v. 26%.349

 

Implications: Compliance with mandated batterer programs provide prosecutors 

and courts with a dynamic risk instrument based on defendant’s on-going current 

behavior. Reabuse can be prevented if prosecutors and courts respond 

appropriately and timely to batterers who fail to attend or comply with court 

referred batterer programs. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies of batterer programs in diverse jurisdictions across the 

country.

 Can batterer program attendance be enhanced by court 

monitoring? 

Batterer program attendance rates can be increased by court monitoring, 

specifically through periodic court compliance hearings. In the multi-state evaluation of 

four difference programs, researchers found that batterer program completion rates rose 

from under 50% to 65% after a court introduced a mandatory appearance 30 days 

 

344 Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for Domestic Violence Offenders: The 

Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 199729. 

345 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 346 Eckhardt, C. (2003). Stages and Processes of Change and Associated Treatment Outcomes in Partner Assaultive 

Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 

205022). 

347 Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: The 

Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 348 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752 

349 Taylor, B., Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2001). The Effects of a Group Batterer Treatment Program: A Randomized 

Experiment in Brooklyn, Justice Quarterly 18 (1), 171-201. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
69

following imposition of batterer program mandate.350 Similarly, implementation of a 

specialized domestic violence court in San Diego significantly increased attendance. 

Among other changes, the court instituted post-dispositional compliance hearings.351 

Other domestic violence courts have demonstrated completion rates over 50% including 

the Brooklyn Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court where completion rates for 

batterers referred to two different batterer programs was documented at 68 and 77%. The 

26-week program had only a slightly higher completion rate than the 12-week 

program.352

 In a related finding, the large Massachusetts study found those defendants ordered 

to attend programs as a condition of probation had a completion rate of 62% while those 

ordered to attend without probation supervision had a completion rate of only 30%.353 A 

Rhode Island found that a specialized probation domestic violence supervision program 

more aggressively monitored and enforced program compliance as measured by the 

number of violation hearings brought to court than the state’s regular probation program 

involving officers with mixed caseloads.354 A study of three domestic violence courts in 

Michigan, Wisconsin and Massachusetts found significantly increased offender 

compliance with batterer programs, both in showing up and staying enrolled. All three 

courts featured post-dispositional review hearings.355

Implications: To increase program participation, prosecutors should recommend 

post-dispositional compliance hearings as well as the placement of abusers on 

supervised probation. 

Research Basis: Limited research has been conducted on this issue but none suggests 

increased judicial monitoring does anything but increase attendance.

Performance measures: A 75% completion rate has been documented for batterers 

referred from the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago) to 30 area batterer programs. 

Research Basis: Single study of 549 male domestic violence probationers who were 

referred to 30 area batterer intervention programs and completed them or were terminated 

at the time of the study.356

 

350 Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program Compliance: An Evaluation of the 

Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence Abuse Counseling Center, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training 

Institute.

351 San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence Courts, Report 

submitted to State Justice Institute. 

352 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 353 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 354 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final report to the National Institute of Justice on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 355 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

356 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
70

 Which batterers are likely to fail to attend mandated batterer 

treatment? 

 Researchers generally agree that there are a number of variables associated with 

failure to complete programs. They include being younger, having less education, having 

greater criminal histories and violence in their family of origin, being less employed and 

less motivated to change, having substance abuse problems, having children, and a lack 

of court sanctions for non-compliance.357 A number of studies emphasize the positive 

correlation between program completion and “stakes in conformity,” including 

specifically age, marital status, and employment.358 

 Studies also find that many of the same variables that predict non-completion also 

predict reabuse or general recidivism. In the Florida probation study, for example, an 

examination of the court referred batterers found that the same characteristics that 

predicted rearrest, including prior criminal history and stakes in conformity, also 

predicted missing at least one court-mandated program session.359 Other studies, 

including the study of two Brooklyn batterer programs, also found employment positively 

correlated with both completion and negatively with rearrest.360

 However, prior criminal history remains the strongest and most consistent 

predictor of non-completion and new arrests. For example, defendants with a prior arrest 

history were found to be four times more likely than defendant without prior arrests to 

fail to complete programs in Brooklyn.361 The Bronx court study similarly found that 

prior arrests as well as history of drug abuse predicted both non-completion and 

recidivism, similarly finding background demographics to be less important.362 

Implications: Program failure can be reduced by screening referrals based on the 

common variables found to correlate with successful completion, including age, 

prior criminal history, and substance abuse. Alternatively, supplemental conditions 

targeting abusers with these characteristics may be necessary to assure successful 

program participation. 

 

357 Bersani & Chen (1988); DeHart, Kennerly, Burke, & Follingstad (1999); DeMaris (1989), Gondolf 

(1999); Grusznski & Carrillo (1988); Hamberger & Hastings (1989), Pirog-Good & Stets (1986); Saunders 

& Parker (1989); Feder, L. & Forde, D. 

358 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752; Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Rearrest in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54.

359 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752.

360 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 361Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 362 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
71

Research Basis: While not all studies find the same exact array of variables that predict 

program completion and/or reabuse and general recidivism, almost all of them find 

overlapping variables including age, prior criminal history and substance abuse.

 

 When will non-compliant abusers drop out of batterer programs? 

Several studies have found that batterers who do not complete batterer programs 

are likely to be noncompliant from the start. Further, it has been found that noncompliance at the first court monitoring predicted both program failure and recidivism. In 

the Brooklyn study, for example, the strongest predictor of program failure was early 

non-compliance: defendants who had not enrolled in a program by the time of their first 

compliance hearing were significantly less likely to complete the program than those 

enrolled by the first hearing.363 These findings are similar to those found in the Bronx. 

Defendants who were not in compliance at their first monitoring appearance were six 

times more likely to fail to complete the program than those in compliance at that time.364

 These findings are consistent with extensive research indicating that the largest 

proportion of court identified abusers who re-abuse are likely to do so sooner rather than 

later.365

Implications: To safeguard victims and/or new partners, prosecutors and courts 

should respond immediately to an abuser’s first failure to enroll or attend a courtmandated batterer program. 

Research Basis: Although most studies do not report when non-compliant abusers failed 

their programs, the consistent findings among abusers referred to multiple programs 

utilized by two different courts in New York strongly support their findings.

 What should the prosecutor’s response be if court referred 

abusers are noncompliant with programs? 

 The Rhode Island probation study that compared probationers supervised in 

specialized probation supervision caseloads and those in less stringent general caseloads 

found that the former had significantly less reabuse over one year. The difference, 

however, only applied to what researchers called “lower risk” probationers, basically 

those without prior arrest histories. Although there were several differences in how the 

two caseloads were supervised, enforcement of batterer program attendance was one of 

the major differences. The program was more rigidly enforced in the specialized group as 

measured by significantly more violations brought for non-attendance. As a result of the 

court violation hearings, most of the non-compliant probationers were required to attend 

weekly compliance court sessions until they completed the program.366 

 

363 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 364 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation 365 See, VI. C. When will abusers reabuse? 366 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
72

 An evaluation of model domestic violence courts found that victims in the court 

with significantly more probation revocations for non-compliance, 12% compared to only 

1% in the other court, reported significantly less repeat reabuse than in the comparison 

court. In the court with more revocations, victims reported lower frequency of physical 

assaults up to eleven months after the study incident. Noteworthy, the defendants in the 

high revocation court had a significantly higher number of prior arrest than those in the 

comparison court defendants, 8.3 compared to 3.7. Researchers posited that lower 

domestic violence arrests were obtained primarily through early detection and 

incarceration of probationers who either continued to reabuse or failed to comply with 

conditions.367

 The correlation between program non-compliance and reabuse is suggested by the 

Broward County probation study researchers who conclude that if abusers are not afraid 

of violating their court orders, they are not afraid of the consequences of committing new 

offenses either.368

Implications: Prosecutors should recommend increased sanctions for non-compliant 

abusers. Incarceration will assure immediate victim protection at least for the length 

of the incarceration. Short of this, increased surveillance may be effective for 

reducing risk of reabuse for lower risk abusers. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies have found that doing nothing in regard to noncompliant court referred abusers results in significantly higher rates of reabuse. Two 

studies involving jurisdictions across four states suggest that vigorous enforcement of 

conditions is the key in deterring reabuse.

 What should the prosecutor’s response be to abusers who 

reoffend while enrolled in a batterer program or after completion? 

Batterers who are rearrested while enrolled or afterwards are high-risk for still 

more abuse.369 For example, the multi-state batterer program study found that the 

majority of court referred batterers who reassaulted, did so more than once.370 Similarly, 

a Rhode Island probation study found that batterers who were arrested for domestic 

violence while their prior arrest was still pending or while they were still on probation for 

an earlier offense (domestic or non-domestic) had the highest reabuse rates of any 

probated abuser, averaging over 50%.371 

 

367 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

368 Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for Domestic Violence Offenders: The 

Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 199729. 

369 See, VI. How many abusers are going to do it again? 370 Gondolf, E. (1998). Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention System; A 30-Month Follow-Up of CourtMandated Batterers in Four Cities, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute 

(http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications/30MonthFollowup.shtm) 371 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation 

and Parole Association. Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
73

Implications: To protect victims, prosecutors should recommend that abusers who 

reabuse while enrolled in batterer programs or after they have completed the 

program should be incapacitated.

Research Basis: Repeatedly arrested abusers have been found to be chronic in their 

abusive behavior by batterer program studies as well as general studies on court 

identified batterers.

 What effect do batterer program referrals have on victims? 

Studies find that most victims are satisfied with their abuser’s referral to a batterer 

program. In the Bronx study, for example, 77% of victims were satisfied with case 

outcome if the abuser was sentenced to attend a program compared to only 55% where 

they were not referred to a program.372 A survey of victims of men attending batterer 

programs throughout Rhode Island found most of the female victims were enthusiastic 

about the batterer programs. Interestingly, the enthusiasm expressed included victims 

who were re-assaulted but who felt the program still made things better for them.373 

 

Implications: Either batterer programs or prosecutors should warn victims that 

attendance at batterer programs does not assure abuse cessation during or after the 

program. 

Research Basis: Consistent findings of victim surveys in multiple settings across the 

country as well as a study with a control group of victims whose abusers were not sent to 

a program.

Bottom Line: On the whole, unless batterer intervention programs are closely 

monitored and program compliance is rigorously enforced, batterer intervention 

programs may be ineffective and give false hope to victims. 

 

372 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial 

Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ). 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 373 Klein, A. & Wilson, D. (2003). A Victim Survey on the Effects of a Court Mandated Batterer 

Intervention Program in Rhode Island. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

(http://www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/BI%20Program.pdf) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
74

References 

A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs, (1998) Austin, J. and 

Dankwort, J., (http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_standards.pdf)

Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, 

TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 

Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of 

Probation. 

Albucher R. & Liberzon, I. (2002), Psychopharmacological Treatment in PTSD: A 

Critical Review. Journal of Psychiatric Research 36(6):355-367. 

Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In 

E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos (Eds.) Programs for Men Who Batter. Kingston, NJ: Civic 

Research Institute, 3-12. 

Arias, I. & Pape, K. (Spring, 1999). Psychological Abuse: Implications for Adjustment 

and Commitment to Leave Violent Partner, Violence and Victims 14 (1): 55-67. 

Apsler, R., Cummins, M. & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the Police by Female Victims 

of Domestic Partner Violence, Violence Against Women, 9,1318. 

Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2003). Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Metaanalytic Review of Domestic Violence Outcome Research. Journal of Family Psychology, 

13, 46-59. 

Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004). Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Metaanalytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-

1053. 

Babcock, J. & Steiner, R. (1999). The Relationship Between Treatment, Incarceration, 

and Recidivism of battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated Community 

response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 46-59. 

Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic 

Abuse. Boston Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to 

Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). 

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The 

Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, Executive Summary. 

Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 184112. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
75

Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest 

in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 

Benson, M. & Fox, G. (2004). Concentrated Disadvantage, Economic Distress, and 

Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199709. 

Benson, M., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A., & Fox, G. (July 2004). The Correlation 

Between Race and Domestic Violence is Confounded in Community Context, Social 

Problems, 51 (3), 326-342. 

Bersani, C. & Chen, H. (1988). Sociological Perspectives in Family Violence, 57-84, in 

V. Van Hasselt, R. Morrison, A. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds). Handbook on Family 

Violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press 

(http://books.google.com/books?id=4QHe98S7HpQC&pg=PR3&dq=bersani+chen&sig=

1Ff41NA31TLYVzY04xT6qcT9Z-4#PPP1,M1). 

Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to 

Murders. News and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response 

to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women 

in Chicago. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732 

Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order 

Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, 

Research Review. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 000172. 

Brundett, R. & Roberts, C. (July 12, 2001). Domestic Abuse Cases Go to State. The 

State., cited in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. 

Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst 

Domestic Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice 

Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook (1998). Violence by Intimates: An Analysis of Data 

on Crimes by Current and Former Spouses, Boyfriends and Girlfriends. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-167237. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
76

Buzawa, E. & Buzawa, C. (Eds.) (1992). Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response. Auburn, CT: Greenwood Press. 

Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence 

in a Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

Campbell, J., O’Sullivan, C., Roehl, J., & Webster, D. (2005). Intimate Partner Violence 

Risk Assessment Validation Study, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 209732. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, J., Xu, 

X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk Factors for Femicide in 

Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study, American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors 

for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal,250, 14-19. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 196547. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Gary, F., 

McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Mangeanello, J., Xu, X., 

Schollenberger, J. & Frye, V. (2003). Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive 

Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal of Public 

Health (93), 1089-1097. 

Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: 

Risk Factors for Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 

Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 

Chen, R. (August 1995), Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Bureau of 

Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, NCJ 149076. 

Chen, H., Bersani, S., Myers, S., & Denton, T. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Court-Sponsored Abuser Treatment Programs. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 137-160. 

Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect 

Completion or Re-Arrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes Between Defendants 

Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court 

Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
77

Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in 

Understanding Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5). 

Collins, James and Spencer, Donna (1999). Linkage of Domestic Violence and Substance 

Abuse Services, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX0009, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 194123. 

Dalton, B. (2001). Batterer Characteristics and Treatment Completion, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence,16, (12), 1223-1238. 

Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop Out Among Men Who Batter: A 

Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and Victims, 

15, 137-160. 

Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic 

Violence Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443. 

Davis, R., Smith, B., & Rabbit, C. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence 

cases: A Field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22: 62. 

Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2002). Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A 

Reanalysis of Data From Three Field Tests. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 200608. 

Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1997). A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of 

a Randomized Experiment, Criminology 35 (2), 307–333. 

Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? 

A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772). 

Dawson, M. & Dinovtizer, R. (2001),Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic 

violence in a specialized court, Justice Quarterly,18, (3) 593 – 622. 

DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. 

DeHart, D., Kennerly, R., Burke, L. & Follingstad, D. (1999). Predictors of Attrition in a 

treatment Program for Battering Men. Journal of Family Violence 14, 19. 

DeMaris, A. (1989). Attrition in Batterers’ Counseling: The Role of Social and 

Demographic Factors. Social Review 63, 142-154. 

Deschner, J.P., McNeil, J.S., & Moore, M.G. (1986). A treatment model for batterers.

Social Casework, 67, 55-60. 

Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for 

Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
78

Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Effects of State and Local Domestic 

Violence Policy on Intimate Partner Homicide.Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 97-WT-VX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199711. 

Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions 

for Men Who Assault Their Wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68, 

468-476. 

Dunford, F. (1990). System Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic. 

Assault: A Pilot Study. Justice Quarterly, 7, 631-653. 

Eckhardt, C. (2003). Stages and Processes of Change and Associated Treatment 

Outcomes in Partner Assaultive Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 205022). 

Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who Batter: Four Years of Outcome 

Data from the Domestic Abuse Project. Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12. 

Fagan, J., Friedman, E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). The National Family Violence 

Program: Final Evaluation Report, San Francisco, CA: URSA Institute. 

___(2001). Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: 

Evaluation of the Mandatory Arrest Provisions, Final Report, Albany, NY: Division of 

Criminal Justice Services and Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. 

Feazell, C., Mayers, R. & Deschner, J. (1984). Services for Men Who Batter: 

Implications for Programs and Policies. Family Relations, 33, 217-223 

Feder, L. (1999). Police Handling of Domestic Violence Calls: An Overview and Further 

Investigation, in L. Feder (Ed.) Women and Domestic Violence: An Interdisciplinary 

Approach, New York, NY: Hawthorn Press, 49-69. 

Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for 

Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199729. 

Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for 

Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752. 

Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer 

Intervention Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ Behaviors? Journal of Experimental 

Criminology, 1, 239-262. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
79

Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of 

Domestic Assault. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 

Finn, M. (2003) Effects of Victims’ Experiences with Prosecutors on Victim 

Empowerment and Re-Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence, Final 

Report.Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 202983. 

Finn, M., Blackwell, B., Stalans, L., Studdard, S. & Dugan, L. (2004). Dual Arrest 

Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: The Influence of Departmental Policies, Crime & 

Delinquency, 50, 565. 

Ford, D. & Regoli, J. (1992). The Prevention Impacts of Policies for Preventing Wife 

Batterers, in E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa, Eds, Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response, Westport, CN: Auburn Press. 

Ford, D. & Regoli, J. (1993). The Indianapolis Domestic Violence Prosecution 

Experiment, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a 

Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

Gamache, D., Edleson, J., & Schock, M. (1988). Coordinated Police, Judicial and Social 

Services Responses to Woman Battering: A Multi-baseline Evaluation Across Three 

Communities. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick & M. Straus (Eds.) Coping 

with Family Violence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Garner, J. (2005). What Does “the Prosecution” of Domestic Violence Mean?

Criminology & Public Policy, 4 (3), 567-573. 

Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates 

for Intimate Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 

Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. 

Giacomazzi, A. & Smithey, M. (2004). Collaborative Effort Toward Resolving Family 

Violence Against Women. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WE-VX0131, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199716. 

Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Fredland, N., Schultz, P., & Willson, P., et al.(2001). 

Women in danger: Intimate partner violence experienced by women that qualify and do 

not qualify for a protective order. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,19, 637-647. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
80

Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Willson, P., Watson, K., Fredland, N., Schultz, 

P.,Walsh, T., Hall, I., Smith, S. (2001). Protection orders and assault charges: Do justice 

interventions reduce violence against women? American Journal of Family Law, 15(1), 

59-71. 

Gleason, W. (1993). Mental Disorders in Battered Women: An Empirical Study. Violence 

and Victims, 8 (1), 53-68. 

Goldkamp, J. (1996). The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and its

Treatment: Dade County’s Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Philadelphia, PA: 

Criminal Justice Research Institute. 

Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: a 

Meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 

Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men Who Batter: Problems and Prospects.

Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2), 177-191. 

Gondolf, E. (1984). How Some Men Stop Battering: An Evaluation of a Group 

Counseling Program (Paper, Second National Conference on Family Violence, Durham, 

NH), cited in Gondolf, E. & Russell, D. (1986). The Case Against Anger Control 

Treatment Programs for Batterers, Response 9 (3), 2-5. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program 

Compliance: An Evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence 

Abuse Counseling Center, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training Institute. 

Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: 

Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Program. 

Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence 

and Victims, 16, 693-704. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention System; A 30-Month 

Follow-Up of Court-Mandated Batterers in Four Cities, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute 

(http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications/30MonthFollowup.shtm). 

Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-month Follow-up of Court Referred Batterers in Four Cities.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-

128. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
81

Gondolf, E. & Williams, O. (2005). Culturally Focused Batterer Counseling for African 

American Men. Washington D.C.; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0003, 

National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 

Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who Repeatedly 

Reassault: Psychopathic Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 16, 361-380. 

Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment 

on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield County Experience. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior 30 (1), 118-134. 

Gover, A., MacDonald, J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: 

Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public 

Policy, 3, 109-129. 

Grau, J., Fagan, J. & Wexler, S. (1985). Restraining Orders for Battered Women: Issues 

of Access and efficacy. In C. Schweber & C. Feinman (Eds.) Criminal Justice Politics and 

Women: The Aftermath of Legally Mandated Change. New York, NY: Hawthorn Press. 

Greenfield, L., Rand, M., Craven, D., Klaus, P., Perkins, C., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., 

Maston, G., & Fox, J. (March 1998). Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes 

by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, NCJ 167237. 

Greenfield, L., & Zawitz, M. (November 1995). Weapons Offenses and Offenders.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 155284. 

Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, 

R., Anderson, E., Shaw, L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries among 

Women in an Urban Area. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 

Gross, M., Cramer, E., Forte, J., Gordon, J., Kunkel, T., & Moriarty, L. (2000). The 

impact of sentencing options on recidivism among domestic violence offenders: A case 

study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 301-312. 

Grusznski, R. & Carrillo, T. (1988). Who Completes Batterer’s Treatment Groups? An 

Empirical Investigation. Journal of Family Violence 3, 151. 

Hamberger, K. & Hastings, J. (1988). Skills Training for Spouse Abuse: An Outcome 

Study. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 121-130. 

Hanson, R. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000). A Multi-Site Study of Treatment for Abusive 

Men, Report No. 2000-05. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General Canada. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
82

Hanson, R.K. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000b). Predicting Recidivism among Male 

Batterers, Report No. 2000-06. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General 

Canada. 

Hardeman, J. (1995). Implementation of the Abuse Prevention Act (209A). Waltham, 

MA: Heller School, Brandeis University. 

Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of a Court-Ordered Treatment For Domestic Violence 

Offenders. Washington , D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Harrell, A., Castro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation 

of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice 1999-WT-VX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html). 

Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of 

Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington 

D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-K005, Urban Institute 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence 

Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work?

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243. 

Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

Hayler, B. & Addison-Lamb, M. (November 2000). A Process and Implementation 

Evaluation of the Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Projects in Illinois’s Peoria, 

Sangamon, and Tazewell Counties. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation 

Evaluation of the Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign 

County. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Healey, K., Smith, C. & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program 

approaches and criminal justice strategies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

#OJP-94-C-007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 168638. 

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by Batterer 

Program Participants and Their Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197 

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/v25l7n1083785m8l/). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
83

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk 

Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors 

Improve Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 

Hendricks, J. (Ed.) (1991). Crises Intervention in Criminal Justice and Social Services. 

Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. 

Henning, K. & Klesges, L. (1999). Evaluation of the Shelby County Domestic Violence 

Court, Final Report, Shelby County, TN. 

Hilton, N., Harris, G., Rice, M., Lang, C., Cormier, C., & Lines, K. (2004). A Brief 

Actuarial Assessment for the Prediction of Wife Assault Recidivism: The Ontario 

Domestic Assault Risk Assessment, Psychological Assessment 16 (3), 267-275. 

Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining 

the Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 218355. 

Hirschel, J. & Dawson, D. (2003). Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for 

Law Enforcement Officials, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VXK001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 198372. 

Hirschel, J. & Hutchison, I. (2001). The Relative Effects of Offense, Offender, and Victim 

Variables on the Decision to Prosecute Domestic Violence Cases, Violence Against 

Women, 7(1), 46-59. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the 

Likelihood of Future Partner Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Lumley, T., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2002). Civil Protection Orders 

and Risk of Subsequent Police-reported Violence. Journal of American Medical 

Association, 288 (5), 598-594. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally 

Violent: Scientific and Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A. and Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typology of Male Batterers: Three 

Subtypes and the Differences among Them, Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 476-497. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
84

Hotaling, G. & Buzawa, E. (2003) Victim Satisfaction with Criminal Justice Case 

Processing in a Model Court Setting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0019, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 195668. 

Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain 

News. 

Hutchison, I. (1999). The Influence of Alcohol and Drugs on Women’s Utilization of the 

Police for Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX0047, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179277. 

Isaac, N. & Enos, P. (2000). Medical Records and Legal Evidence of Domestic Violence. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0008, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 184528.

Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon 

and Schuster. 

Johannson, M. & Tutty, L. (1998). An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for 

Wife Abuse, Family Relations, 47 (1), 27-35. 

Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The 

Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: 

A National Survey, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0002, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199724. 

Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits 

and Limitations for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National Institute of Justice.. 

Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa 

& C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 

192-214 

Klein, A. (2005). Rhode Island Domestic Violence Shelter and Advocacy 

Services. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

(www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/Final%20ShelterEval%209-20-05.pdf.) 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Klein, A. & Crowe, A. (2008). Findings from and Outcome Examination of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Supervision Program, Violence 

Against Women, 14 (2), 226-246. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
85

Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008) Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 136-157. 

Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Older 

Women Abuse and the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2006-WG-BX-0009, National Institute of Justice, NCJ pending. 

Klein, A. & Wilson, D. (April 2003). A Victim Survey on the Effects of a CourtMandated Batterer Intervention Program in Rhode Island. Waltham, MA: BOTEC 

Analysis Corporation (www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/BI%20Program.pdf). 

Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. (NIJ 

pending). 

Kramer, R. (1989). Alcohol and Victimization Factors in the Histories of Abused women 

Who Come to Court: A Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI 

Dissertation Services. 

Kyriacou, D., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J., Muelleman, R., 

Barton, E., & Kraus, J. (1999). Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic 

Violence. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, (25), 1892-1898. 

Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer 

Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center 

for Court Innovation (NIJ) (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Labriola, M., Rempel, M., O’Sullivan, C., & Frank, P. (2007). Court Responses to 

Batterer Program Noncompliance, A National Perspective. New York, NY: Center for 

Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Lane, E., Greenspan, R. & Weisburd, D. (2004). The Second Responders Program: A 

Coordinated Police and Social Service Response to Domestic Violence. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

199717. 

Lindquist, C., Telch, C. & Taylor, J. (1985). Evaluation of a Conjugal Violence 

Treatment Program: A Pilot Study. Behavioral Counseling and Community 

Interventions, 3, 76-90. 

Lockyer, B. (2005). Domestic Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and 

Batterer Accountability, Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force 

on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Sacramento, CA: Office of 

the Attorney General (www.safestate.org/domesticviolence). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
86

Logan, T., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. (2006). Protective Orders: Questions 

and Conundrums. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 7, 175-205. 

Lyon, E. (2002). Special Session Domestic Violence Courts: Enhanced Advocacy and 

Interventions, Final Report Summary, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-

WE-VX-0031, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 197860. 

Lyons, E. (2005).Impact Evaluation of Special Sessions Domestic Violence: Enhanced 

Advocacy and Interventions. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WEVX-0014, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210362. 

Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk 

Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 

Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of 

Low-Income Native American Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703. 

Maxwell, C., Garner, J. and Fagan, J. (June, 2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate 

Partner Violence: New Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program, National 

Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 188199. 

McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Wilt, S.(1999). Stalking and Intimate Partner 

Femicide. Homicide Studies 3 (4), 300-316. 

McFarlane, J. & Malecha, A. (October 2005). Sexual Assault Among Intimates: 

Frequency, Consequences and Treatments. Washington D. NCJ 155284 C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 11678. 

Miller, N. (2002). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A National Review for 

Policymakers and Practitioners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WTVX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 197066. 

Miller, N. (2005). What Does Research and Evaluation Say About Domestic Violence 

Laws? A Compendium of Justice System Laws and Related Research Assessments. 

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice 

(http://www.ilj.org/publications/dv/DomesticViolenceLegislationEvaluation.pdf). 

Murphy, C., Musser, P., & Maton, K. (1998). Coordinated Community Intervention for 

Domestic Abusers: Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism. Journal of 

Family Violence, 13, (3), 263-284. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
87

New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (2001), Final Report: Evaluation of the 

Implementation of Mandatory Arrest Law. Albany, NY: NY Division of Criminal Justice 

Services. 

Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001, 2005). Specialized Felony 

Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings 

County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 & NCJ 199723. 

Niemi-Kiesilainen, J. (2001). The Deterrent Effect of Arrest in Domestic Violence: 

Differentiating Between Victim and Perpetrator Response, Hasting Law Journal, 12

(283). 

Norwood, W., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R. & Swank, P. (2004). Domestic Violence and 

Deviant Behavior, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-005 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199713. 

O’Farrell, T. (2003). Partner Violence before and after Individually Based Alcoholism 

Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 71, 

92-102. 

Office of the Commissioner of Probation (November 1992). Over 8,500 Domestic 

Restraining Orders Filed since September in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of 

the New Mexico Female Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team, Albuquerque, 

NM: Center for Injury Prevention Research and Education, University of New Mexico 

School of Medicine. 

Olson, D. & Stalans, L. (2001). Violent Offenders on Probation: Profile, Sentence, and 

Outcome Differences among Domestic Violence and Other Violent Probationers.

Violence Against Women, 7, (10) 1164-1185. 

Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic 

Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project, Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 179974. 

Ostrom, B. & Kauder, N. (1999). Examining the Work of State Courts, 1998: A National 

Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 

State Courts. 

Pate, A., Hamilton, E., & Annan, S. (1992). Metro-Dade Spouse Abuse Replication 

Project Technical Report. Washington D.C.: Police Foundation. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
88

Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D. & Bentley, H. (2007). Comparison 

of the Police Response to Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence, 

Violence Against Women 13 (4), 374-394. 

Paulkossi, L. (October 2001). Surveillance for Homicide among Intimate Partners-United 

States, 1991-1998, Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries, 5, 1-16. 

Pence, E. & Dasgupta, S. (2006). Re-Examining ‘Battering’: Are All Acts of Violence 

Against Intimate Partners the Same? Duluth, MN: Praxis International (U.S. Department 

of Justice, 1998-WR-VX-K001, Office of Victims on Violence Against Women). 

Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence 

cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Pirog-Good, J. & Stets, J. (1986). Programs for Abusers: Who Drops Out and What Can 

be Done? Response 9, 17-19. 

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. 

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 

Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at 

the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court 

Innovation. 

Raiford, L. (2002). Report, New York City, NY: New York City Police Department, 

Domestic Violence Unit. 

Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic 

Violence Recidivism? Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207. 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html) 

Rennison, C. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(www2.state.id.us/crimevictim/research/statistics/RFPstats.doc)

Rigakos, G. (1997). Situational Determinants of Police Responses to Civil and Criminal 

Injunctions for Battered Women, Violence Against Women, 3, 204. 

Roehl, J. (2000). Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems, Final Report.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0097, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 182435. 

Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate partner violence: The current use of risk 

assessments in sentencing offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
89

Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner 

Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary 

and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing Risk from Violent Intimate 

Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 209731. 

Rothman, E., Hemenway, D., Miller, M. & Azrel, D. (Winter, 2004). Batterers’ Use of 

Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners, Journal of the American Medical Women’s 

Association 60 (1), 62-67. 

Salomon, A., Bassuk, E., Browne, A., Bassuk, S., Dawson, R. & Huntington, N. (2004). 

Secondary Data Analysis on the Etiology, Course, and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence Against Extremely Poor Women. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

98-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199714. 

San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic 

Violence Courts, Report submitted to State Justice Institute. 

Saunders, D. & Parker, J. (1989). Legal Sanctions and Treatment Follow-Through 

Among Men Who Batter. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 25, 21. 

Smith, A. (2001). Domestic violence laws: The voices of battered women. Violence and 

Victims, 16 (1). 

Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to 

Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

187772. 

Smithey, M., Green, S. & Giacomazzi, A. (2002). Collaborative Effort and the 

Effectiveness of Law Enforcement Training Toward Resolving Domestic Violence,

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WE-VX-0131, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 191840. 

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New 

York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 

Starr, K., Hobart, M., & Fawcett, J. (2004). Findings and Recommendations from the 

Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review, Seattle, WA: Washington 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

Steketee, M., Levey, L. & Keilitz, S. (2000). Implementing an Integrated Domestic 

Violence Court: Systemic Change in the District of Columbia. Washington D.C.: 

National Center for State Courts & State Justice Institute. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
90

Stith, S., Rosen, K., & McCollum, E. (2003). Effectiveness of Couples Treatment for 

Spouse Abuse, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29 (3), 407-426. 

Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in 

American Family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 

Stuart, G. (2005). Improving Violence Intervention Outcomes Integrating Alcohol 

Treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (4), 388-393. 

Syers & Edleson (1992). Syers, M. & Edleson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of 

coordinated criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 7, 490-502. 

Taylor, B., Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2001). The Effects of a Group Batterer Treatment 

Program: A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn, Justice Quarterly 18 (1), 171-201. 

Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998).. Severity of Dispositions and 

Domestic Violence Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181867. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (November, 1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences 

of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women 

Survey, Research in Brief. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012 

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCJ 

172837. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National 

Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, Washington DC: US Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 169592. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2001). Stalking: Its Role in Serious Domestic Violence 

Cases, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0002, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 187346. 

Tolman, R. & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated Community Interventions for Domestic 

Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Women Abuse 

Perpetrators, Crime & Delinquency, 41 (4), 481-495). 

Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and 

Hispanic Abused Women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
91

Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S. & Baxter, C. (2006). Law Enforcement Response to 

Domestic Violence Calls for Service, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 99-

C-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215915. 

Ursel, J. & Brickey, S. (1996). The potential of legal reform reconsidered: An 

examination of Manitoba’s zero-tolerance policy on family violence. In T. O’ReilluFleming (Ed.). Post-Critical Criminology, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall, 6-77. 

Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and 

Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

Vigdor, E.& Mercy, J. (2006). Do laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic 

Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide? Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 313-

346. 

Websdale, N., Sheeran, M., & Johnson, B. (1998). Reviewing Domestic Violence 

Fatalities: Summarizing National Developments, Violence Against Women Online 

Resources (www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/fatality/fatality.html). 

Weiss, H., Lawrence, B., & Miller, T. (2004). Pregnancy-Associated Assault 

Hospitalizations: Prevalence and Risk of Hospitalized Assaults Against Women During 

Pregnancy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998-WT-VX-0V16, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 199706. 

Weisz, A., Canales-Portalatin, D., & Nahan, N. (2001). An Evaluation Of Victim 

Advocacy Within A Team Approach. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0006, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 187107 

Wekerle, C. & Wall, A. (2002). The violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and 

clinical issues in substance abuse and relationship violence. New York, NY: BrunnerRoutledge. 

White, J. & Smith, P. (2004). A Longitudinal Perspective on Physical and Sexual 

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ199708. 

Williams, K. & Houghton, A. (2004). Assessing the Risk of Domestic Violence 

Offending: A Validation Study. Law and Human Behavior, 437-455. 

Wilson. D. & Klein, A. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned 

in a Massachusetts District Court 1995-2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2004-WB-GX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215346. 

Winn, R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A Comparison of Men and Women Who Kill,

Violence and Victims, 5 (4), 236. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
92

Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault 

and the odds of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389 

(www.sciencedirect.com). 

Wooldredge, J. & Thistlethwaite, A. (2005). Court Dispositions and Rearrest for Intimate 

Assault, Crime & Delinquency, 51 (76). 

Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A 

Multi-side comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police 

Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 

96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.