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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Coordinating the Criminal Justice Response to 

Intimate Partner Violence: The Effectiveness of 

Councils in Producing Systems Change 

Author: Nicole E. Allen, Ph.D., Shabnam Javdani, MA, 

Carolyn J. Anderson, PhD., Shaheen Rana, 

Daniel Newman, Ph.D., Nathan Todd, Amy 

Lehrner, Angela Walden, Sadie Larsen, MA, 

Shara Davis, MA 

Document No.: 229248 

Date Received: January 2010 

Award Number: 2005-WG-BX-0005 

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. 
COORDINATING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE 

TO INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNCILS IN PRODUCING SYSTEMS CHANGE 

October 31, 2009 

Grant Award #: 2005-WG-BX-0005 

FINAL REPORT 

Principal Investigator: 

Nicole E. Allen, Ph.D. 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 333-6739 

allenne@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Shabnam Javdani. MA 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

javdani2@illinois.edu

Consultant: 

Carolyn J. Anderson, PhD. 

Department of Educational Psychology 

University of Illinois 

1310 South Sixth St. 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-3537 

cja@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Shaheen Rana 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

srana4@illinois.edu

Consultant: 

Daniel Newman, Ph.D. 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-2512 

d5n@uiuc.edu 

Research Assistant: 

Nathan Todd 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

ntodd2@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Amy Lehrner 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

lehrner@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Angela Walden 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

walden1@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Sadie Larsen, MA 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

selarsen@illinois.edu

Research Assistant: 

Shara Davis, MA 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign 

603 East Daniel Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 244-4066 

davis57@illinois.edu

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. 
ii

ABSTRACT

Communities across the United States are focused on creating coordinated 

responses to intimate partner violence (IPV); ideally, this involves promoting best 

practices in the justice and human service systems, and engaging a broad array of 

community sectors. Illinois took an innovative approach to facilitating the development 

of coordinated responses statewide. Beginning in 1990, the Administrative Office of the 

Illinois Courts spearheaded the creation of a network of Family Violence Coordinating 

Councils (FVCC) across 22 Judicial Circuits in the State. Councils are common vehicles 

for the creation of coordinated responses, yet there is limited empirical evidence 

regarding whether they facilitate desired change. Further, the value of having a statewide 

coordinating structure has not been examined to date. 

The current study examined the effectiveness of this statewide coordinating 

council structure by investigating the extent to which FVCC have an impact on perceived 

proximal (perceived shifts in stakeholder knowledge and relationships & institutionalized 

change) and more distal systems change outcomes in the systems response to IPV (e.g., 

accessibility of orders of protection). The current study attended to those factors and 

processes that facilitate or impede FVCC success with regard to their institutionalized 

change capacity. 

To achieve research objectives, the current study employed a multi-method 

approach: a) key informant interviews with council coordinators (n = 20); b) data from 

the ethnographic inquiry in three case study sites including, (i) key informant interviews 

with council members (n = 40), (ii) key informant interviews/focus groups with domestic 

violence survivors in two case study communities (n = 26), and (iii) 11 formal 

observations of council meetings; c) surveys from council members across all 21 FVCC 

(n = 681; response rate = 46% and ranged from 22% to 91%); d) criminal justice (arrest 

and order of protection data) and human service archives (referrals rates to domestic 

violence programs) housed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 

(ICJIA); and e) local FVCC annual reports from 2000 to 2006 for all 21 circuits. 

Participants included: survivors; law enforcement, domestic violence advocates, judges, 

probation, educators, health service providers, child welfare agencies, human services, 

local government, batterer intervention programs, and other organizations such as 

religious organizations, neighborhood and civic groups. 

The current study suggests that councils are characterized by broad membership 

from relevant stakeholder groups, an inclusive climate that encourages all voices, and 

effective leadership. Consistent with previous research, councils appeared to facilitate 

stronger relationships and enhanced knowledge among stakeholders, and some were well 

positioned to facilitate institutionalized change in the systems response to IPV. 

Councils were a training tour de force, offering local and regional training that 

reached 33,000 participants between 2000 and 2006. In that same period, councils also 

generated numerous products (over 275 pamphlets, protocols, intervention checklists) to 

enhance the local response and reported over 20 specific instances of local policy shifts. 

Providing empirical evidence for councils distal systems change capacity, the 

current study found that the formation and development of councils was positively related 

to the rate with which emergency orders of protection become plenary orders (i.e., “return 

rates”). Social network analysis revealed that council member agencies are more likely to 

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. 
iii

exchange information and referrals with other member agencies when compared to 

nonmember agencies. Further, this analysis suggested that the density of resultant 

information exchange networks was related to the extent to which councils had achieved 

other outcomes, including perceived institutionalized change. 

Councils were not uniformly effective at producing institutionalized change. 

Quantitative and qualitative analysis suggested that multiple factors and processes were 

implicated in councils’ success including social capital (enhanced knowledge and 

relationships), features of the council itself (e.g., leadership and inclusive climate; as 

mediated social capital), support from the broader community, “savvy” local leadership 

(from advocates and others) and members empowered to pursue change in their own 

organizations. 

Illinois councils were characterized by a multi-level structure including local 

councils, a State-level steering committee and a State level office with permanent staff. 

This structure facilitated cross-council communication, the provision of technical 

support, and the dissemination of knowledge (e.g., regarding new policies in the State, 

best practices in the response). In this way local efforts were bolstered by state-level 

efforts and state-level initiatives were informed by local issues. Councils maintain a 

flexible structure and work with their local realities to continually self-assess and identify 

their next goals. As evident in our case study sites, councils do not orient themselves to 

simple end goals, but to an ongoing process of improving the local response to IPV to 

enhance survivor safety and encourage batterer accountability. 

 

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. 
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary...............................................................................................1 

Section I. 

 Introduction................................................................................................30 

I.1 – Purpose and Overview .........................................................30 

 I.1.a Objectives ..................................................................30 

I.1.b Context and Background 

I.2 – Review of Relevant Literature...............................................33 

Section II. 

 Current Study.............................................................................................36 

II.1 – Research Objectives .............................................................36 

II.2 – Report Overview ..................................................................36 

Section III. 

 Methods......................................................................................................39 

III.1 – Method Overview ...............................................................39 

III.2 – Statewide Inquiry................................................................40 

 III.2.a Council Coordinator Interviews..............................40 

 III.2.b Committee Member Survey....................................43 

 III.2.c Coordinator Survey .................................................47 

 III.2.dArchival Analysis of Annual Reports......................47 

 III.2.e Archival Analysis of Systems Change Markers......48 

III.3 – Ethnographic Inquiry ..........................................................48 

 III.3.a Case Study of Exemplar Councils...........................48 

 III.3.b. Focus Groups with Survivors.................................50 

 III.3.c. Analytic Approach ................................................51 

Section IV. 

 Council Structure, Goals, and Activities....................................................52 

IV.1 – Purpose ..............................................................................52 

IV.2 – Overview.............................................................................52 

IV.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach.................................52 

IV.4 – Results ................................................................................52 

IV.4.a. Statewide Council Structure and Organization .....52 

IV.4.b. Local Council Structure and Organization ...........55 

IV.4.c. Council Committees...............................................56 

IV.4.d. Regional Organization...........................................58 

IV.4.e. Council Membership and Representation .............62 

IV.4.f. Other Collaborations ..............................................64 

IV.4.g. Technical Assistance .............................................65 

IV.4.h. Coordinator Role ...................................................66

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. 
v

 IV.4.i. Council Goals and Accomplishments ....................66 

 IV.4.j. Council Activities ..................................................68 

 IV.4.k. Institutionalized Change Efforts............................69 

 IV.4.l. Council Outputs from Case Study Sites .................70 

 IV.5 – Brief Discussion .................................................................73 

Section V. 

 Council Collaborative Capacity.................................................................75 

 V.1 – Purpose ................................................................................75 

 V.2 – Overview..............................................................................75 

 V.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach ..................................75 

 V.4 – Results .................................................................................75 

 V.4.a. Council Climate.......................................................75 

 V.4.b. Council Leadership .................................................76 

 V.4.c. Member Empowerment ..........................................76 

 V.4.d. Community Support for Council ............................77 

 V.5 – Brief Discussion ..................................................................77 

Section VI. 

 Perceived Proximal and Distal Outcomes..................................................80 

VI.1 – Purpose ..............................................................................80 

VI.2 – Overview.............................................................................80 

VI.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach.................................80 

VI.4 – Results ................................................................................80 

VI.4.a. Descriptive Characteristics ....................................80 

VI.4.b. Domestic Violence Advocates’ Perceptions .........82 

VI.4.c. Interrelationships and Intermediary Processes ......83 

VI.5 – Brief Discussion .................................................................85 

Section VII. 

 Councils and Interagency Networks ..........................................................87 

VII.1 – Purpose .............................................................................87 

VII.2 – Overview ...........................................................................87 

VII.2.a. Network Bounding ..............................................89 

VII.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach ...............................89 

VII.3.a. Data Collection.....................................................89 

 VII.3.b. Procedures ............................................................90 

 VII.3.c. Analyses................................................................90 

VII.4 – Results ..............................................................................93 

 VII.4.a Density...................................................................93 

VII.4.b Network Pictures and Case Study Comparisons ...94 

VII.5 – Brief Discussion .............................................................102 

Section VIII. 

 Council Impact on Distal Markers of Systems Change...........................104 

VIII.1 – Purpose ..........................................................................104 

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. 
vi

 VIII.2 – Overview........................................................................104 

 VIII.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach ............................104 

 VIII.3.a Orders of Protection ...........................................104 

 VIII.3.b Arrest Rates........................................................106 

 VIII.3.c Shelter Referral Rates.........................................107 

 VIII.4 – Results ...........................................................................108 

 VIII.4.a Orders of Protection ...........................................108 

 VIII.4.b Arrest Rates........................................................126 

 VIII.4.c Shelter Referral Rates.........................................140 

 VIII.5 – Brief Discussion ............................................................152 

 VIII.5.a Orders of Protection ...........................................152 

 VIII.5.b Arrest Rates........................................................153 

 VIII.5.c Shelter Referral Rates.........................................154 

Section IX. 

 Factors and Processes Influencing Council Success................................155 

 IX.1 – Purpose ............................................................................155 

 IX.2 – Overview...........................................................................155 

 IX.3 – Quantitative Approach to Examination of Factors ...........155 

 IX.3.a Data Sources and Analytic Approach...................155 

 IX.3.b Results...................................................................155 

 IX.4 – Qualitative Approach to Examination of Factors .............160 

 IX.4.a Data Sources and Analytic Approach...................160 

 IX.4.b Results ..................................................................161 

 IX.5 – Brief Discussion ...............................................................178 

Section X. 

 Survivors’ Perspectives on the Community Response ............................181 

 X.1 – Purpose ..............................................................................181 

 X.2 – Overview............................................................................181 

 X.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach ................................181 

 X.4 – Results ...............................................................................181 

 X.4.a Description of Focus Group Survey Data ..............182 

 X4.b Survivors’ Wide Variety of Needs..........................184 

 X.4.c Domestic Violence Programs and Advocacy.........186 

 X.4.d Other Human Service Agencies.............................188 

 X.4.e. Criminal Justice Response ....................................189

 X.4.f DCFS ......................................................................194

 X.4.g Survivors’ Perceived Some Coordination..............194 

 X.5 – Brief Discussion ................................................................195 

Section XI. 

 XI.1 Overview..........................................................................................197

 XI.2 Conclusions......................................................................................197

 XI.3 Implications for Policy and Practice................................................201 

 XI.4 Implications for Research................................................................205 

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. 
vii

 XI.5 Limitations.......................................................................................207 

 XI.6 Closing Remarks..............................................................................208 

Section XII. 

 References................................................................................................210 

 Appendix A: Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils History ..219 

 Appendix B: IFVCC Council Coordinator Interview Instrument............222

 Appendix C: IFVCC Council Coordinator Interview Coding Form .......228

 Appendix D: IFVCC Subcommittee Member Survey Instrument...........239 

 Appendix E: IFVCC Non-Committee Member Survey Instrument ........252 

 Appendix F: IFVCC Coordinator Survey Instrument..............................263 

 Appendix G: IFVCC Case Study Key Informant Interview Instrument..276 

 Appendix H: IFVCC Focus Group Protocol for Survivors .....................278 

 Appendix I: IFVCC Focus Group Survey Instrument for Survivors.......281 

 Appendix J: IFVCC Archives Coding Instrument...................................283 

 Appendix K: IFVCC Mission Statement .................................................287 

 

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. 
viii

TABLE OF TABLES

Executive Summary. 

 Table 1 Ratings of Council Goals and Accomplishments ...........................8 

 Table2 Differences in Members’ Perceived Contact and Influence ............8 

Section III. 

 Methods......................................................................................................39 

Table 1 Coordinator Background Information .........................................41 

Table 2 Case Study Sites Income Information ..........................................49 

Section IV. 

 Council Structure, Goals, and Activities....................................................52 

Table 1 Council Structures and Organization ...........................................56 

Table 2 Geographic Coverage ...................................................................60 

Table 3 Council Membership and Representation.....................................64 

Table 4 Support from the State-level IFVCC Staff ...................................66 

Table 5 Goals and Accomplishments ........................................................67 

Table 6 Activities.......................................................................................68 

Table 7 Number of Trainings Offered Targeting Stakeholder Groups......69 

Section VI. 

 Perceived Proximal and Distal Outcomes..................................................80 

Table 1 Mean Ratings of Perceived Outcomes..........................................81 

Table 2 Intraclass Correlations for Council Outcomes..............................83 

Table 3 Level I and II Correlations among Council Outcomes.................84 

Section VII. 

 Council and Interagency Networks............................................................87 

Table 1 Network Characteristics for 21 Circuits ......................................92 

Table 2 Perceived Differences in Contacts and Perceptions .....................96 

Section VIII.

 Council Impact on Distal Markers of Systems Change...........................104 

Table 1 Steps in the Model Process .........................................................109 

Table 2 OP: Modeling Historic Time ......................................................110 

Table 3 OP: Modeling Historic Time with NO Councils Present ...........117 

Table 4 OP: Modeling Historic Time WITH Councils Present ..............121 

Table 5 OP: Modeling Council Age, Integrated Model...........................124 

Table 6 Number of Counties per Judicial Circuit ....................................135 

Table 7 Convening Date of Councils per County and Age in 2004 ........135 

Table 8 Arrest: Summary of Two-level RI Model...................................137 

Table 9 Arrest: Estimated Effects of the Best RI Models........................139 

Table 10 Arrest: Estimated Odds Ratios..................................................139

Table 11 Shelter Referral Sources over Time..........................................141 

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. 
ix

Table 12 Shelter Referral: Modeling Criminal Justice Referrals.............150 

Table 13 Shelter Referral: Modeling DCFS Referrals.............................151 

 

Section IX. 

 Factors and Processes Influencing Council Success................................155 

Table 1 Institutionalized Change Regressed onto Council Factors .........157 

Table 2 Social Capital Regressed onto Council Factors..........................158 

Section X. 

 Survivors’ Perspectives on the Community Response ............................181 

Table 1 Perceived Helpfulness.................................................................183 

Table 2 Perceived Helpfulness with Safety .............................................183 

Table 3 Perceived Nature of Help............................................................184 

Table 4 First Contact with Resource........................................................184 

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. 
x

TABLE OF FIGURES

Executive Summary. 

 Figure 1 Judicial Circuits of Illinois............................................................3 

 Figure 2 Council Climate and Leadership...................................................9 

 Figure 3 Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support.....10 

 Figure 4 Circuit B: Exchange of Information Network.............................14 

 Figure 5 Circuit A: Council Influence on Understanding .........................14 

 Figure 6 Circuit A: Council Influence on Policy.......................................15 

 Figures 7-10 Patterns of Change over Time in Protective Orders.............17 

Figure 11 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 1998 and 2008 .........................18 

 Figure 12 Factors Associated with Institutionalized Change....................19 

 Figure 13 Emergent Conceptual Model of IC Change Capacity...............20

Section V. 

 Council Collaborative Capacity.................................................................75 

Figure 1 Council Climate and Leadership.................................................76 

Figure 2 Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support.....77 

Section VI. 

 Perceived Proximal and Distal Outcomes..................................................80 

Figure 1 Perceived Outcomes....................................................................82 

Figure 2 Intermediary Processes ...............................................................84 

Section VII. 

 Council and Interagency Networks............................................................87 

Figure 1 Sample Matrix ...........................................................................88 

Figure 2 Sample Matrix with Assumed Missing Values...........................91 

Figure 3 Circuit B: Exchange of Information Network.............................95 

Figure 4 Circuit A: Council Influence on Understanding .........................97 

Figure 5 Circuit A: Council Influence on Policy.......................................98 

Figure 6 Circuit C: Council Influence on Policy.......................................99 

Figure 7 Circuit A: Response by Council Influence on Practice.............100 

Figure 8 Circuit B: Response by Council Influence on Practice.............101 

Figure 9 Circuit C: Response by Council Influence on Practice.............102 

Section VIII.

 Council Impact on Distal Markers of Systems Change...........................104 

Figure 1 OP: P/E Ratio Change over Time .............................................108 

Figure 2 OP: P/E Ratio per Circuit by Year............................................109 

Figure 3 Circuit 5 OP: P/E Ratio.............................................................112 

Figure 4 Circuit 10 OP: P/E Ratio...........................................................113 

Figure 5 Circuit 5 OP: P/E Ratio.............................................................113 

Figure 6 Circuit 4 OP: P/E Ratio.............................................................114 

Figure 7 Circuit 20 OP: P/E Ratio...........................................................114 

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. 
xi

Figure 8 OP: P/E Ratio without Councils................................................115 

Figure 9 OP: P/E Ratio without Councils per Circuit .............................116 

Figure 10 OP: P/E Ratio with Councils...................................................119 

Figure 11 OP: P/E Ratio with Councils per Circuit ................................120 

Figure 12 Arrest: Overall Number of Incidents by Year.........................126 

Figure 13 Arrest: Overall Number of Arrests by Year............................127 

Figure 14 Arrest: Proportion by Year......................................................127 

Figure 15 Arrest: Number of incidents by year and per Circuit..............128 

Figure 16 Arrest: Number of arrests by year and per Circuit..................129 

Figure 17 Arrest: Proportion per Circuit .................................................131 

Figure 18 Arrest: Number of Incidents by Age since Formation............132 

Figure 19 Arrest: Number of Arrests by Age since Formation...............133 

Figure 20 Arrest: Proportion of Arrests by Age of Council....................133 

Figure 21 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 1998.......................................143 

Figure 22 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 2003.......................................143 

Figure 23 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 2008.......................................144 

Figure 24 Shelter Referral: Criminal Justice per Year ............................145 

Figure 25 Shelter Referral: Criminal Justice per Year per Circuit..........145 

Figure 26 Shelter Referral: Criminal Justice per Circuit Over Time ......146 

Figure 27 Shelter Referral: DCFS Ratio per Year...................................148 

Figure 28 Shelter Referral: DCFS Ratio per Year per Circuit ................148 

Figure 29 Shelter Referral: DCFS per Circuit Over Time ......................149 

Figure 30 Arrest: Single County Variability ...........................................154 

Section IX. 

 Factors and Processes Influencing Council Success................................155 

Figure 1 Factors Related to Institutionalized Change (IC)......................159 

Figure 2 Emergent Conceptual Model of IC Change Capacity...............162 

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. 
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE 

The purpose of the current study was to examine a statewide coordinating council 

structure designed to facilitate local coordination in the community response to intimate 

partner violence (IPV). Illinois has taken an innovative approach to facilitating local 

coordinated efforts statewide. Beginning in 1990, the Administrative Office of the Illinois 

Courts created a network of Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) across 22 

Judicial Circuits (see Figure 1 for a map of Illinois Judicial Circuits). With the exception 

of Cook County, each Circuit has one FVCC. In addition, there is a statewide steering 

committee called the Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council (IFVCC) which 

provides support and direction to local FVCC while still recognizing their autonomy and 

diversity. While coordinating councils are common vehicles for the creation of 

coordinated responses nationwide, there is limited empirical evidence regarding whether 

they facilitate desired systems change in the criminal and civil justice response to IPV 

(CCJ). The CCJ response encompasses the courts, probation, and law enforcement – all 

of which are commonly targeted for change in council efforts. 

Further, the value of having a statewide coordinating structure – where councils 

are linked with one another through a network of councils led by the IFVCC – has not 

been examined to date. Given the economic and human resources required to develop and 

sustain these efforts and the increasing implementation of FVCC nationwide, it is 

essential to have a better understanding of their role in the promotion of systems change 

and what factors facilitate their efforts. This is especially important given that some (e.g., 

Gamache & Asmus, 1999) have called the use of coordinating councils into question, 

suggesting that they may fail to promote systems change in the response to IPV. Indeed, 

research on collaborative approaches to change suggests that such efforts often fail to 

achieve desired community-level change (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). Thus, the aim of 

this study was to carefully examine councils as one vehicle for creating desired 

institutionalized and systems changes in the local response to IPV and to approach the 

study of these settings using multiple methods. 

In the current study we use two terms in conjunction, but with slightly different 

meanings: institutionalized change and systems change. Institutionalized change refers to 

changes in the policies, procedures, protocols, and practices of organizations involved in 

the response to IPV. These are changes that Ellen Pence, a leader in the formation of 

coordinated community response, sometimes referred to as changes “in the text.” For 

example, institutionalized changes would include those in written policies (e.g., arrest 

policies), standard protocols (e.g., health care screening), and forms (e.g., police reports). 

This is important given that such changes “in the text” also encourage changes in 

behavior (e.g., Allen et al., 2007). Systems change may be the ultimate result of 

institutionalized change and refers to realized changes in the systems response to intimate 

partner violence as reflected in a) various systems markers (e.g., arrest rates, order of 

protection rates) and b) in the coordination that occurs across organizations within a 

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

single system (e.g., criminal justice) or across systems (e.g., criminal justice and human 

service). 

Importantly, the current study does not examine the effects of a coordinated 

community response per se (e.g., reduced recidivism). There is a large and growing body 

of research that details both the potential benefits of a coordinated response (e.g., 

Gamache, Edleson, & Schock, 1998; Pence & McDonnell, 1999; Steinman, 1990; Syers 

& Edleson, 1992) as well effects not yet realized (e.g., Visher, Harrelll, Newmark, & 

Yahner, 2008). Rather, the current study is concerned with the implementation process, 

or the ways in which communities attempt to improve their systems response to IPV. 

Importantly, institutionalized and systems changes are not automatically implemented 

within communities simply due to changes in state or federal policy, but must be 

developed over time. This is not surprising given that diffusion of innovation, or the 

introduction of “new ways of doing business,” is almost always fraught with challenges 

(Rogers, 2003). Thus, the current study queries the change process itself. Specifically, 

this study focuses on coordinating councils as one common vehicle used in community 

efforts to encourage collaboration and a coordinated response among various 

stakeholders in the response to IPV. Councils in the current study are not direct service 

entities. Rather, they attempt “to establish a forum to share and discuss information in 

order to promote a coordinated response to family violence 

in...communities...and...work to improve the institutional and professional response to 

family violence issues” (FVCC Mission Statement, Appendix A). This study, then, is 

concerned with the potential of this vehicle as a facilitator of desired institutionalized and 

systems changes in the response to IPV and is formative in nature. 

To this end, the study had six primary objectives, to examine: a) the specific 

nature of state and local council organizational structures (e.g., local committees, state 

technical assistance), goals, and activities; b) councils’ collaborative capacity, or the 

degree to which councils have the key features of effective collaborative work (e.g., an 

inclusive climate that encourages all perspectives/voices); c) the extent to which councils 

have an impact on proximal, or intermediate, outcomes including, perceived shifts in 

stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships and councils’ ability to affect institutionalized 

change, or changes in the policies and practices of organizations in the systems response; 

d) how, and to which extent, councils are related to distal outcomes, including, 

interagency connections and systems change markers (i.e., the extent to which distal 

changes were associated with council formation and development in order of protection, 

arrest, and referral rates to domestic violence programs); e) those factors and processes 

that affect the extent to which councils achieve systems change, with attention to 

councils’ collaborative capacity (e.g., having solid leadership, an inclusive climate, a 

shared mission, broad and representative membership), and local community context 

(e.g., community support; active, engaged leaders); and f) survivors’ perspectives 

regarding what is currently working well in the community response to IPV and what 

needs improvement, in order to gauge the degree to which local councils were addressing 

issues of importance from the perspective of survivors. 

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

Figure 1: Judicial Circuits of Illinois 

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

METHOD 

Linking the work of community collaborations to community-level change is 

relatively rare in research on collaborative efforts (Berkowitz, 2001). The current study 

addressed methodological challenges by 1) gathering data from members of all of the 

councils in a single state, thus accessing the entire sample of councils within a given 

statewide context (21 of 22 Circuits in the state), 2) focusing on both perceived proximal 

(e.g., perceived shifts in stakeholder knowledge and relationships) and distal systems 

change outcomes (e.g., order of protection rates) that may result from council efforts, 3) 

engaging a natural quasi-experimental time series design by examining change in CCJ 

system and service utilization statistics (i.e., referral rates to domestic violence programs) 

over time in multiple communities (allowing for longitudinal analysis of effects of FVCC 

formation and development on systems change) and 4) using ethnographic methods to 

deconstruct important contextual variables (i.e., features of the community in which 

councils work) that may facilitate or impede council efforts in “exemplary” communities 

and to triangulate and elaborate upon quantitative findings. The purpose of this mixed 

methods approach was complementary, or aimed at a more comprehensive understanding 

of a complex social phenomenon (Greene, 2007). 

The current summary of study findings is based on the following data sources: a) 

key informant interviews with council coordinators (n = 20);1

 b) data from the 

ethnographic inquiry in three case study sites, including, (i) key informant interviews 

with case study council members (n = 40), (ii) focus groups with domestic violence 

survivors in two case study communities (n = 26), and (iii) 11 formal observations of 

council meetings; c) surveys from council members across 21 FVCC (n = 681; response 

rate = 46% and ranged from 22% to 91%)2; d) criminal justice (arrest and order of 

protection data, 1996 to 2004 and 1990 to 2005, respectively) and human service archives 

(referrals rates to domestic violence programs 1998 to 2008) provided by the Illinois 

Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA); and e) local FVCC annual reports from 

2000 to 2006 for all 21 circuits provided by the State of Illinois FVCC (IFVCC). 

A wide variety of stakeholders were included in the study including survivors; 

law enforcement, domestic violence service providers and advocates, officials from the 

court system (e.g., judges, probation, clerks), educators, health service providers, child 

welfare agencies, human services, local government, batterer intervention programs, and 

other organizations such as religious organizations, neighborhood and civic groups, 

businesses, and cooperative extensions. 

DATA ANALYTIC APPROACH 

Sophisticated quantitative methods were employed, including: a) hierarchical 

 

1

 One coordinator was too new to provide sufficient responses to the interview so the state staff member 

responsible for the circuit provided the relevant information for that council (n = 1). 2

 For members who were characterized as “active” by council coordinators, the overall response rate was 

50.83%.2

 It is important to note that the overall response rate estimate across councils is likely deflated 

because membership lists included individuals whose involvement with FVCC was only peripheral. Indeed, 

18% of individuals who received a survey mailed it back uncompleted, and actively indicated that they did 

not have enough involvement with councils to complete the survey. Nonetheless, this study included all 

completed survey data in an effort to retain a broad range of perceptions and overall levels of participation. 

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

linear modeling (HLM) to appropriately analyze nested data regarding FVCC members’ 

perceptions of councils (council members are nested within councils); b) hierarchical 

nonlinear modeling to examine change over time in various indicators of the systems 

response to IPV (e.g., order of protection “return rates,” or rates of emergency orders 

becoming plenary orders, arrest rates and referral rates to domestic violence programs), 

and c) social network analysis (SNA) to examine the density of information exchange 

networks among agencies responding to IPV in each community and how council 

membership is related to connections among agencies. Importantly, this study also 

utilized qualitative methods, a) including content analysis (Berg, 2000) of in-depth 

interviews, and informal and formal observations, and b) systematic coding of archival 

materials (e.g., local FVCC annual reports) to examine FVCC efforts. 

RESULTS 

Council Structure, Goals and Activities 

The first study objective was to illuminate the specific nature of state and local 

council organizational structures, (e.g., local committees, state technical assistance), 

goals, and activities. This “locates” councils with regard to the specific nature of their 

efforts. 

State IFVCC Structure 

At the State level there is a steering body called the Illinois Family Violence 

Coordinating Councils (IFVCC). This body includes decision-makers from various facets 

of State government including, for example, the Illinois State Police, Illinois Department 

of Public Health, Illinois Violence Prevention Authority, Illinois Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence and Illinois State Board of Education. The co-chairs of this group are 

typically a Judge and the Director of the IFVCC (a paid staff person). 

There are also State IFVCC Staff (currently three full-time staff, including the 

Director) who are responsible for organizing local FVCC statewide. The State Staff 

engage in a wide variety of activities to support and augment local efforts, including: a) 

orientation to new Chief Judges regarding the local FVCC and the role of Chair, b) 

training of coordinators, c) ongoing technical assistance to coordinators, d) statewide 

training events on current topics related to family violence (1 to 2 events/year), e) special 

Projects or Initiatives that focus on pressing policy and practice issues in the response to 

family violence (recent examples include effective responses to elder abuse, creation of 

domestic violence courts, development of family visitation exchange centers, 

implementation of fire arms laws in domestic violence cases, school-based family 

violence prevention initiatives), f) retreats for coordinators that focus on skill building 

(e.g., effective meeting facilitation) and the exchange of information across Circuit 

FVCCs, and g) a handbook for committee chairs regarding effective practices. 

State staff meet with the state-level IFVCC Steering Committee twice/year to 

update them regarding the status of the various state-level Projects of the IFVCC and to 

invite their input to inform State IFVCC activities. In between these meetings, however, 

IFVCC members are often involved in subcommittees to assist with the execution of 

special Projects. For example, a committee was created to enhance the current response 

to elder abuse. This committee included the Illinois Department on Aging and several 

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

local elder abuse provider agencies, Madison and Lake County State’s Attorney’s 

Offices, Chicago Police Department, Illinois State Police, LCCs, Growing Strong (Sexual 

Assault program), and the Illinois Coalition on Domestic Violence. They assisted in 

determining the direction of the committee, wrote, edited and provided input into the 

project and served as trainers for different aspects the project. In this initiative, three 

subcommittees were formed to focus on different facets of the response to elder abuse 

including: a) training for professionals (how to effectively interact with the elderly) b) the 

faith community response to elder abuse and c) the law enforcement and court response 

to elder abuse. This State Project yielded a variety of products including: a) a training that 

was offered regionally regarding Awareness of the Special Needs of the Elderly (an elder 

sensitivity training), b) a Faith Toolkit for local councils to work with the faith 

community in their response to elders and c) a law enforcement protocol (see 

http://www.ifvcc.org/ for the .pdf). 

Importantly, given the connected network of FVCC in Illinois, this information 

could be rapidly disseminated in various areas of the State. In addition, given that the 

IFVCC includes relevant representatives from State government this provided additional 

venues to educate those providers responding to the elderly in a variety of capacities. For 

instance, the Faith tool kit was distributed to all the local FVCC coordinators and 30 

stakeholders on the IFVCC elder abuse committee. Once the kits were distributed, the 

State Staff called the coordinators and other local stakeholders to see how the information 

had been implemented locally. Via this dissemination process, those working in the 

family violence field, as well as those working with elderly who may not have otherwise 

focused on family violence issues (e.g., clergy), could be reached. Notably State Staff 

never copyright the materials created by the IFVCC so that they can be reproduced and 

altered to meet local needs. Similar processes were engaged for the Visitation Center 

initiative and the Fire Arms Law Initiative (see Section IV of the full report for more 

detailed illustrations of these recent IFVCC Projects). 

Local FVCC Structure 

 In each Circuit the Chief Judge is the council chair by virtue of his/her role in the 

Court. The Chief Judge may appoint someone to serve as chair and this is negotiated 

locally within each Circuit. Coordinators reported that councils include between 1 and 12 

active committees (mode = 5, mean = 5.74). These subcommittees were formed based on 

location (i.e., county-specific committees) and/or focal areas (e.g., court committee; law 

enforcement committee; faith committee; community education committee; youth 

prevention committee). It was clear in each case study site that Local FVCC had 

significant autonomy in directing their goals and activities. Yet, these committees also 

report to the Steering Committee meetings fostering an opportunity for input and crossfertilization across committee chairs. 

Given that Local FVCC are organized by the Judicial Circuits of the State they 

cover broad geographic defined by the Judiciary rather than single communities or 

counties. Despite some variation in council structure, over 70% of councils included 

some county specific activities or committees, and over 85% include circuit-wide 

activities. 

 The regional structure of local FVCC raises a variety of challenges, including, for 

example: the distance between communities and the varied “personalities” and cultures 

that characterize different counties within a single circuit. But this regional structure also 

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

has notable strengths: for example, in some instances relationships may form between 

stakeholders who work in entirely different geographic regions. This may not have the 

effect of improving the local response to specific cases (e.g., reducing the need for 

advocates “cold calling” to police agencies or the state’s attorney), but these relationships 

may still function to advance the Council’s efforts (e.g. having the input and perspective 

of a state’s attorney even if not from your county). For example, key informants from a 

rural county described how the expertise and perspective of those from the larger 

neighboring county within the Local FVCC served to support and inspire their local 

efforts. 

Based on the report of council coordinators, council membership was composed 

of an average of 12 of the critical stakeholder groups assessed (SD = 2; range = 7-15), 

including: domestic violence programs/service providers (100% of councils), victim’s 

rights advocates (100%) social services (95%), circuit court judges (86%), health care 

organizations (86%), law enforcement (86%), probation (86%), prosecuting attorney’s 

(81%), mental health agencies (74%), religious organizations (67%), and school 

administrators (62%). Stakeholder groups least frequently represented included the 

humane society (19%) and local businesses (10%). About 50% of councils indicated they 

had at least one member who was a domestic violence survivor while only 10% reported 

having an advisory group made up of domestic violence survivors. 

FVCC Goals and Accomplishments 

Based on the report of council coordinators, councils were engaged in a variety of 

goals related to the facilitation of a coordinated response to IPV. On average, 8 types of 

goals were targeted by councils, with the majority of councils targeting 7 or more goals 

(SD = 3.5, range = 2-16).3

 Councils most commonly shared the goal of providing training 

or community education regarding domestic violence, followed by improving access to 

personal protection orders. See Table 1 for a summary of the proportion of coordinators 

reporting particular goals and perceived accomplishment of those goals. 

FVCC Activities 

Training and Prevention Education. Local FVCC have conducted numerous 

training events throughout the State of Illinois. Based on an analysis of annual reports 

from 2000 to 2006 Local FVCC offered 555 training events.4

 Over ninety of these 

training events specifically targeted law enforcement (92); over 100 training events 

targeted schools (107). Faith settings (39) and health care agencies (30) were also 

common targeted stakeholder groups. It is also important to note, however, that these 

training events were typically open to a wide variety of stakeholder groups. 

The total number of participants reported within annual reports across training 

events was 33,299 (not unduplicated). Training topics were varied and included for 

example: school response to family violence; domestic violence and the faith community; 

law enforcement practices (e.g., arrest procedures, order of protection enforcement, 

investigation); teen dating violence; the effects of witnessing/violence on children; and 

men endorsing non-violence. 

 

3

 This was calculated using a variable indexing breadth of goals. 

4

 This likely underreports council efforts given that the first council was formed in 1990. Annual reports 

were reviewed from the point they became formal reporting tools in 2000. This allowed for a standardized 

assessment process across councils to account for their activities, but may miss some of the early effort of 

older councils. 

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

Table 1 Council Coordinators’ Ratings of Council Goals and Accomplishments (N = 19) 

Goal % of 

councils 

which 

reported 

targeting 

goal 

Perceived extent to 

which goal addressed 

(1=not at all to 

4 = very much) 

Mean (SD) 

Perceived extent to 

which needed changes 

facilitated 

(1=not at all to 

4 = very much) 

Mean (SD) 

Improving access to protection orders 74* 3.0 (1.0) 2.8 (1.2) 

Reforming arrest practices (e.g., 

adopting mandatory or pro arrest) 

61 2.7 (1.3) 2.6 (1.3) 

Reforming prosecution practices (e.g., 

encouraging evidence based 

prosecution) 

61 2.3 (1.0) 2.1 (.9) 

Reforming the processing of court cases 

(i.e., speed of processing, providing 

advocacy) 

50 2.2 (1.0) 2.1 (.8) 

Altering sentencing practices (e.g., 

extending minimum sentence) 

33 1.9 (1.3) 1.8 (1.1) 

Identifying weaknesses or ‘holes’ in the 

criminal justice or human service 

delivery system 

67 2.4 (.9) 2.2 (1.0) 

Developing or supporting batterer’s 

intervention program(s) 

53* 2.3 (1.2) 2.0 (.9) 

Implementing early identification 

policies in healthcare settings (e.g., 

emergency rooms) 

78 2.7 (1.2) 2.6 (1.1) 

Providing training or community 

education regarding domestic violence 

100* 3.5 (.8) 3.7 (.5) 

Making it easier for women to access 

needed community resources (e.g., 

housing, transportation) 

67 2.8 (1.2) 3.0 (1.1) 

Developing new services for battered 

women and their children 

33 1.8 (1.1) 1.8 (1.1) 

Encouraging partnerships between child 

protective services and domestic 

violence advocates 

67 2.4 (1.2) 2.4 (1.2) 

Evaluating outcomes related to the 

council’s work 

67 2.6 (1.0) 2.9 (1.0) 

Note: N = 19 councils as reported on by council coordinators. Given some coordinators indicated they did 

not know (some where relatively new). Thus, percents are reported out of 18 councils except where 

denoted by an (*) which indicates a denominator of 19. 

Products and Policy Changes. Annual reports also reveal a range of efforts aimed 

at changing policy and practice and creating new “products” or materials to support the 

community response to IPV. Councils reported producing at least 276 “products” related 

to the community response to family violence, including, for example: a) manuals 

(guidebooks) for faith settings, b) screening tools for health care settings; c) reference 

lists and pocket guides (laminated check lists) for law enforcement, d) informational 

cards to distribute to survivors, e) informational/tri-fold brochures (e.g., for orders of 

protection); f) training manuals and videos, and g) prevention education materials (e.g., 

posters and display boards). 

Councils also reported 23 specific instances in which council efforts resulted 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. 
9

observed changes of policy and practice. These included, for example, reformed 

procedures for orders of protection (e.g., service, reporting, accessing); implementation 

of new protocols for elder abuse, social services, and health care response; development 

of new programs, including for example, a child advocacy center and a child visitation 

center; creation of a domestic violence unit within a law enforcement agency. Members’ 

perceptions of the degree to which councils had fostered institutionalized change on 

average was significant positively related to the number of policy or practice changes 

enacted by councils (r = .46, p < .05, n = 21) and the total number of products recorded in 

annual reports (r = .44, p < .05, n = 21). 

FVCC Collaborative Capacity 

Climate and Leadership 

The second objective of the study was to examine councils’ collaborative 

capacity, or the degree to which councils have the key features of effective collaborative 

work (e.g., the extent to which an inclusive climate is fostered, a shared mission is 

developed, and leadership is effective). FVCC council members (via survey) responded 

to a series of statements regarding their council leadership (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = 

strongly agree) and council functioning using a scale from 1 to 6 (1 = not at all, 6 = to a a 

great extent). They reported a generally positive council climate overall (Mean = 4.32, 

SD = .21) and on average members strongly agreed various aspects of effective 

leadership were in place (Mean = 5.06, SD = .33; 95% of council ratings were above 4.5; 

See Figure 2). This is important because in a collaborative setting where stakeholders 

have varied degrees of power and influence (e.g., advocates, judges, front-line officers) 

and a history of contentious relationships, true collaboration cannot occur unless there is 

adequate opportunity to include all voices, particularly those of the typical least powerful 

stakeholders. 

Figure 2 Council Climate and Leadership 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

climate leadership

Council Climate and Leadership

5.5 to 6

5 up to 5.5

4.5 up to 5

4 up to 4.5

3.5 up to 4

3 up to 3.5

2.5 up to 3

Note: Used a Likert-type scale with values from 1 to 6. 

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

Individual Member Empowerment 

Council averages (i.e., averaged perceived empowerment across members within 

a council; 1 = not at all and 6 = to a great extent) suggest that members felt they could 

affect changes in policy and practice “somewhat” (81% of councils) or at best “quite a 

bit” (19% of councils; See Figure 3). 

Community Support for Council 

Members rated the community, or external, support for council activities as 

moderate (Mean = 3.81, SD .41; 1 = not at all and 6 = to a great extent). Council 

members indicated support for council activities ranging from support being present 

“somewhat” to “quite a bit.” (See Figure 3). 

Figure 3 Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

indiv empowerment community change

Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support

5.5 to 6

5 up to 5.5

4.5 up to 5

4 up to 4.5

3.5 up to 4

3 up to 3.5

2.5 up to 3

Member Empowerment Community Support

Perceived Proximal and Distal Outcomes 

The third objective of the study was to examine councils’ perceived influence on 

proximal, or intermediate, outcomes. Study findings suggest that members rate councils 

as playing an important role in the acquisition of knowledge (M=4.35, SD=0.29; 1 = not 

at all and 6 = to a great extent) and the formation of relationships (M=4.34, SD=0.34)

among council members. Notably, as council impacts are conceptualized as more distal to 

the work of councils, councils are rated slightly, but significiantly less highly by 

members on these dimensions and variation across councils is somewhat greater: 

specifically, councils were rated by members as only moderately effective overall 

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

regarding a) their institutionalized change capacity, or their ability to create changes in 

the policies and practices that govern the local response to IPV (M=3.60, SD=0.44) and 

b) in the degree to which councils are perceived as leading to changes in the community 

response to domestic violence, including an educated public, increased access to 

resources for survivors, and increased survivor safety and batterer accountability 

(M=3.90, SD=0.41). 

Interagency Networks 

The fourth objective was to examine the extent to which councils have an impact 

on distal outcomes, including, interagency connections. The current study employed 

Social Network Analysis (SNA) to generate a measure of interagency network “density,” 

or how connected agencies in the community response to IPV are to one another. Further, 

SNA was used to generate pictorial representations of information exchange networks 

across FVCC circuits and how council membership affected interagency linkages. Each 

judicial circuit constituted a separate and unique network of organizations responding to 

intimate partner violence. For the purpose of this study, in a given Circuit all domestic 

violence programs, batterer’s intervention programs, and criminal justice system agencies 

were included in each network. 

Network density. Responses regarding the exchange of information across 

agencies were used to calculate a network density for each Circuit.5

 Specifically, network 

density is a measure of how integrated or connected a network is (e.g., the proportion of 

ties present in the network relative to the number of possible ties in a network; Koehly & 

Shivy, 1998).6 More density in a network may indicate more tightly linked agencies and 

provide a positive indicator of interagency coordination. 

Indeed, there is preliminary evidence that more dense networks are positively 

associated with perceived proximal outcomes. Overall density was measured using the 

“main component” which refers to the density of the set of agencies that is connected to 

at least one other agency in the network. Relationships between the overall density of 

networks and perceived proximal outcomes are largely maintained, even when 

controlling for member organization network response rate (a potential confound). 

Specifically, the overall density of Circuit networks was positively correlated with: 

improved stakeholder relationships (r = .31, p < .10, one-tailed, df = 18); improved 

stakeholder knowledge (r = .43, p < .05, one-tailed, df = 18); and institutionalized change 

 

5

 Organizations from one county may not have reason to make referrals to organizations in another county 

within the Circuit, but given that councils are developed within Judicial Circuits and often involve circuitwide organizational structures, agencies might be positioned to exchange information with one another 

across county lines. 

6

 Importantly, density in the current study refers to density of member organizations’ reported exchange of 

information with all other agencies in the network – including member and nonmember agencies. We have 

no information about the density of ties among nonmember agencies (nonmembers were not surveyed), but 

rather how densely linked member agencies are to all others within the network, including member ties to 

both members and nonmembers. In cases where we had information from only one agency in a given dyad 

unconfirmed ties were used (i.e., we “count” a tie based on agency reporting there is a tie). In cases where 

neither organization provided data for a given dyad, missing data was replaced with 0s. This assumes no 

contact between non-responding organizations and is an important limitation in the current analysis. There 

are numerous methodological decisions that are made as Social Network Analysis proceeds. For a full 

explication of these methods see Section VII of the full report. 

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

(.35, p < .10, one-tailed, df = .18).7

 Thus, the more that agencies were exchanging 

information with one another, the more likely members were to view councils as playing 

a positive role in relationship development, the generation of knowledge and the 

development of desired organizational changes. Naturally, this could also indicate that as 

councils play a positive role in the development of relationships and knowledge, a greater 

exchange of information follows. 

Netdraw analysis. To more closely examine council networks in our three case 

study sites, a series of network pictures of these sites was generated using Netdraw 

software. Netdraw creates a pictorial representation of the network and allows one to 

define various features of organizations within a network. Examining the patterns that 

emerged in these pictures and a series of t-tests that compared members’ perceptions of 

contact with, and council influence on, member and non-member agencies in the 

networks resulted in the following conclusions (see Figures 4 to 6 for illustrations of one 

of the case study sites and Table 2 for a summary of t-tests): a) members agencies are 

more connected to one another and central in the interagency network (visually) than 

non-member agencies; b) member agencies exchange greater information and referrals 

with one another than with nonmember agencies (see Figure 4 and Table 2); c) members 

consistently reported greater council influence on their understanding of, relationships 

with, and shifts in practice and policy of member organizations versus non-member 

organizations (see Figures 5 and 6 and Table 2; and d) in all three case study Circuits, 

respondents indicated that involvement in the council positively influenced their 

understanding of domestic violence programs (see Figure 5 for an illustration in one 

circuit) and, to varied degrees, the policies of criminal justice agencies more central in the 

network (e.g., courts, state’s attorney, probation, and law enforcement agencies; See 

Figure 6 for an illustration in one circuit). 

 

7

 Trends are considered given the small sample size (n = 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. 
13

Table 2 Differences in Members’ Perceived Contact with and Council Influence on 

Member and Nonmember Organizations 

Variable Mean Standard 

deviation 

T df p 

Exchanged Member 2.0254 0.81072 

information with 

(1 to 6) Non-member 1.5513 0.69755 

18.758 623 0.000* 

Gave referral to Member 1.6923 0.71510 

(1 to 6) Non-member 1.3929 0.61779 

14.880 619 0.000* 

Received referral Member 1.5877 0.72355 

from 

(1 to 6) Non-member 1.3388 0.59574 

12.875 619 0.000* 

Council influence on Member 2.2283 0.82529 

understanding 

(1 to 4) Non-member 1.8715 0.91349 

10.690 497 0.000* 

Council influence on Member 2.1851 0.85492 

relationship 

(1 to 4) Non-member 1.7849 0.90408 

11.789 490 0.000* 

Council influence on Member 1.6270 0.74388 

shifts in policy 

(1 to 4) Non-member 1.4288 0.73916 

6.839 417 0.000* 

Council influence on Member 1.6022 0.72749 

shifts in practices 

(1 to 4) Non-member 1.4217 0.73937 

6.282 408 0.000* 

Adequate response Member 4.9486 0.85968 

to domestic violence 

(1 to 6) Non-member 4.7074 1.15480 

5.087 457 0.000* 

*p < .006, Bonferroni corrected p-value; Mean on a scale of 1 to 6. 

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

Figure 4 Circuit B: Perceived Exchange of Information Network by Council Membership 

P

C

LE

C

LE

LE

LE

DV

BI

DV

LE

LE

C

LE

C

SA

P

LE

SA

LE

DV/BI

C

P

DV/BI

LE

SA

LE DV/BI

LE

LE

DCFS LE

BI

C

LE

Member agencies (in gray) are 

clustered in the center indicating 

greater connection to one another.

Member law enforcement (LE) agencies

are generally more tightly linked to the

interagency network than nonmember 

law enforcement agencies.

Note: Larger Rounded Squares = Respondents; Smaller Squares = Non-Respondents; Gray = Members; 

White = Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s 

Intervention; C = Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

Figure 5 Circuit A: Perceived Council Influence on Understanding of Agencies 

LE

LE

C

C

LE

SA

BI

LE

LE

LE

LE

P DCFS

DV

DV

LE

C LE

LE

LE

P

C SA

LE

The greatest perceived gains in understanding 

other agencies as a result of council efforts

appears to be of domestic violence programs (DV)

followed by some member criminal justice agencies

(courts, state attorney, and probation) . 

Larger sized boxes indicate the degree

to which members indicated their 

understanding of an agency increased

because of council efforts. 

The least perceived gains in understanding 

other agencies as a result of council efforts

appears to for nonmember agencies (on the

periphery, but also for some criminal justice

agencies (member and nonmember law 

enforcement, courts, and probation).

Larger Sized Rounded Squares = greater perceived council influence on understanding; Gray = Members; 

White = Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s 

Intervention; C = Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

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

Figure 6: Circuit A: Council Influence on Policy within Agencies 

LE

LE

C

C

LE

SA

BI

LE

LE

LE

LE

P

DCFS

DV

DV

LE

C

LE

LE

LE

P

C SA

LE

Larger sized boxes indicate the degree

to which members indicated the policies 

and practices of an agency improved 

as a result of council efforts.

The greatest perceived improvements in policy 

and practice are perceived in member courts and states

attorney's office. 

Note: Larger Sized Rounded Squares = greater perceived council influence on policy; Grey = 

Members; White = Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = 

Batterer’s Intervention; C = Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

Taken together, the social network analysis illustrates that council members report more 

connection to other member agencies than they do to non-member agencies and perceive 

greater council influence on member agencies. This suggests that councils may indeed 

create a forum in which council member agencies can connect and share information 

(consistent with key informants’ observations in the case study sites). Yet, this might also 

reflect that councils are made up of agencies already more connected to and positively 

regarded by one another. While this causal relationship cannot be disentangled in the 

current study, these findings might also suggest that councils are somewhat less wellpositioned to engage and influence non-members. 

Council Impact on Distal Markers of Systems Change 

Given that the mission of the IFVCC includes systems change and that a wide 

variety of activities have targeted systems change outcomes, another component of the 

fourth objective was to asses evidence for change over time in a series of systems change 

markers. Specifically, the current study examined the extent to which distal changes were 

associated with council formation and development. To this end, three sources of 

longitudinal, archival data were examined: return rates for orders of protection (i.e., the 

ratio of emergency orders that become plenary orders, or “return rates”; arrest rates; and 

referral rates from criminal and civil justice agencies and the DCFS (child protective 

services) to local shelter programs. Examining this data provided a natural quasiThis 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

experimental design as the information provided included data points prior to council 

formation (“pre” formation data points for the majority of councils) and following 

council formation (“post” formation data points). For all analysis hierarchical nonlinear 

modeling was employed in a fashion that considered the influence on whether councils 

were present and council age. 

Orders of Protection 

For many councils (74% according to council coordinators), a common goal was 

to improve survivors’ access to orders of protection. One marker of this improvement is 

the rate of emergency orders moving to plenary orders of protection given that it reflects 

both accessibility of orders of protection and also a scaffold of support for survivors who 

wish to pursue a plenary order following an emergency order. In this system, the plenary 

order is viewed as particularly important because it is a longer order and has the potential 

to provide a protection resource to the survivor for a longer period of time. The specific 

concern in this system was that women may be able to successfully pursue an emergency 

order, but may not be supported adequately by the system to move that order from 

emergency to plenary. Thus, examining “return rates” provides one indicator of greater 

systems responsiveness and perhaps interagency coordination (e.g., ideally, referrals are 

made from the courts to local domestic violence programs to facilitate the pursuit of 

orders and secure legal advocacy). 

Using judicial reports of emergency and plenary orders of protection for 15 years 

(1990-2005), we found council formation and development to have a positive effect on 

the ratio of emergency orders that move to plenary orders of protection. See Figures 7 

and 8 for patterns of change for councils that appear to experience shifts in return rates 

that coincide with council formation and development. Naturally, there was variability 

across councils regarding the degree to which increases were clearly related to council 

formation. For example, see Figure 9 for an illustration of circuits that are on a positive 

trajectory shortly before official council formation, which continue following council 

formation, and Figure 10 for an illustration of a circuit where there is no apparent change. 

It is notable that for many councils the council “kick-off” event preparation precedes the 

date of actual formation. Thus, many steps including the orientation of the Chief Judge as 

council chair occurs prior to the formal date of council formation. This might account for 

some of the incremental improvements prior to council formation. Alternatively, councils 

already on a positive trajectory may have continued on that trajectory regardless of 

council formation. While this study cannot account for all potential sources of variation 

in change over time, we find a wholesale association between council formation and 

development and the proportion of orders becoming plenary. Thus, while not all noncouncil (or extraneous) influences can be controlled, this is a positive finding. 

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

Figures 7 to 10 Patterns of Change Over Time in the Proportion of Emergency Orders 

Becoming Plenary as a Function of Council Formation and Development 

Proportion of Emergency Orders/Penary Orders

Note: Vertical line indicates council formation occurred in 2002.

Year

Proportion of Emergency Orders/Penary Orders

Note: Vertical line indicates council formation occurred in 1993.

Year

Proportion of Emergency Orders/Penary Orders

Note: Vertical line indicates council formation occurred in 2001.

Year

Proportion of Emergency Orders/Penary Orders

Note: Vertical line indicates council formation occurred in 1995.

Year

Note: Top Row: Figures 7 (left) and 8 (right); Bottom Row: Figures 9 (left) and 10 (right); the 

vertical line denotes the year in which a council was developed in a given judicial circuit. 

Arrest Rates 

While our analysis established a significant negative trend in arrest rates 

(proportion of arrests/incidents) and wide variability across jurisdictions with a single 

circuit, council formation and development was not related to this trend (see Section VIII 

in the full report for a detailed analysis). Unlike order of protection rates, there was no 

apparent relationship between council formation/development and arrest rates, which 

tended to decline over time. Notably, the number of reported incidents declined over 

time, but arrest rates (i.e., the proportion of incidents resulting in arrest) declined at a 

slightly higher rate, indicating that arrest may have been becoming somewhat less likely 

over time. It is possible that councils – which are judicially organized – have a greater 

potential for systems change within the judiciary than in law enforcement agencies. Law 

enforcement agencies, even within single Circuits, sometimes had widely variable arrest 

rates, suggesting possible inconsistencies in arrest practices. This study is not positioned 

to explain that variability, but the decentralized nature of law enforcement agencies (in 

contract to the Judicial Circuit structure to which all courts within a circuit are linked) 

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

may make council influence on law enforcement practices more difficult to achieve 

because it relies on representation from law enforcement officials from multiple agencies. 

Referral Rates 

A final source of archival data examined over time were referral rates from 

domestic violence programs. Referral rates were reported by programs into a central 

database managed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (i.e., InfoNet). 

Thus, these rates reflect the primary source of referral reported by a survivor when she 

sought residential or non-residential services from a domestic violence program. 

Interestingly, the data suggest that the criminal justice system constitutes the primary 

source of referrals to domestic violence programs, and this rate (about 45%) is stable over 

time since 1998 (the date from which reliable data was available). It is possible (and 

perhaps probable) that this proportion increased over time, but the baseline (“original” 

referral rate) likely occurred prior to 1998 (indeed, councils were formed beginning in 

1992). Still, the proportion of referrals from the criminal justice system is variable across 

judicial circuits, with a range of proportions between 20-60%. Notably, while there was a 

significant increase in DCFS referrals to domestic violence programs over time, this 

change did not coincide with council formation or development. See Figure 11 for 

referral rates from 1998 and 2008. 

Figure 11 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 1998 and 2008 

1998

45%

8%

6%

16%

10%

Clergy

Criminal Justice

DCFS

Education

Friend

Hospital

Hotline

Media

Medical

Medical Advocacy

Other

Other Project

Public Health

Relative

Self

Social Service

Telephone

2008

45%

8%

7%

14%

8%

Clergy

Criminal Justice

DCFS

Education

Friend

Hospital

Hotline

Media

Medical

Medical Advocacy

Other

Other Project

Public Health

Relative

Self

Social Service

Telephone

Factors and Processes Explaining Differences in Institutionalized Change Capacity 

Current study findings suggest that councils may indeed foster systems, or 

institutionalized change, or changes in the text of organizational policies and standard 

practices. Yet, members’ reports of councils’ institutionalized change capacity, analysis 

of FVCC archives (regarding reported activity and outputs) and variation across Circuit 

regarding shifts in “return rates” for orders of protection, suggest that councils vary with 

regard to how well-positioned they are to pursue such change. Thus, the fifth objective 

was to examine those factors and processes that affect the extent to which councils 

achieve systems change, with attention to a) councils’ collaborative capacity (e.g., having 

solid leadership, an inclusive climate, a shared mission, broad and representative 

membership), and b) local community context (e.g., community support). 

 To account for the nested nature of our survey design (i.e., members are “nested” 

within councils and this set of analyses is based on their perceptions and ratings of their 

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

council and community) and to engage in an inquiry that highlighted differences across 

councils, we performed a series of hierarchical linear modeling analyses using survey 

data gathered from members (n = 681). Our modeling resulted in a final model that 

suggests that factors both internal to the council and external to the council were 

instrumental in explaining variation across councils. Internal factors included the degree 

to which councils a) were characterized by an inclusive climate, broad and active 

membership, effective leadership and effective organizational structures (as mediated by 

social capital), b) fostered enhanced social capital (relationships and knowledge among 

critical stakeholders) and c) enhanced empowerment (individual members’ ability to 

affect change) among members. Further, the degree to which councils operated within a 

supportive community context was an important predictor of the degree to which they 

achieved institutionalized change (as reported by members). While causality can not be 

definitively asserted, this model suggests a dynamic process in which the degree to which 

councils foster an inclusive climate and have effective leaders is related to the extent to 

which they improve stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships which, in turn, affects the 

extent to which they achieve institutionalized change. See Figure 12 for an illustration of 

the final model that emerged from our statistical analysis. 

 The primary aim in our qualitative study of three case study sites was to examine 

the processes and contextual factors that facilitate and constrain councils’ role in 

facilitating a systems change process and to elaborate on our quantitative modeling. Our 

emergent findings echo our quantitative findings and reveal synergistic processes that 

hinge on the confluence of human capital (e.g., member effort, knowledge and status) 

through social capital processes in each Circuit. 

Figure 12 Factors Associated with Institutionalized Change 

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Institutionalized Change

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture. QuickTimeTM and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Inclusive

Council Climate

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Effective

Leadership

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Formality of

Council Structure

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Greater Breadth of

Active Stakeholder

Membership

QuickTimeTM and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Social Capital

(i.e., enhanced knowledge &

relationships)

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Empowered

Members as Change

Agents

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Supportive

Community Context

(e.g., supportive agency leaders)

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTimeTM and a

 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

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

Specifically, based on our content analysis we developed a conceptual model that reflects 

a) prominent social capital processes and how they explain the councils’ potential to 

effect institutionalized change, b) requisite council features that may facilitate the 

expression of these practices, and c) critical “contextual” factors in the community that 

have implications for council functioning and the extent to which desired institutionalized 

changes emerge: strong, local, vocal, and knowledgeable domestic violence advocates 

and engaged or willing local leaders in critical responding agencies. Together, these 

model components offer a more complete picture regarding the institutionalized change 

potential of councils and the factors and processes that may facilitate and/or constrain 

their efforts. See Figure 13 for an illustration of our emergent model. See Section IX of 

the full report for the verbatim that illustrates and support the emerging model and 

prominent themes that animate the model. See Table 2 for sample verbatim associated 

with the social capital processes illustrated. 

Figure 13 Emergent Model Illustrating Factors and Processes Related to When and How 

Councils May Facilitate Institutionalized Change 

Institutionalized

Change

(New Policies 

& Practices)

Generation of

Specific, Local

Knowledge

Access to/Influence of 

Powerful 

Stakeholders

Formation of

Interpersonal &

Organizational

Relationships 

Shifts in

Member/Individual

in Practice

Development of

New Protocols &

Trainings 

Informed by Multiple Voices

Inclusive Climate/

Power Sharing

Strong, Local, 

Knowledgeable

Advocates & Change Agents

Social Capital Processes

Critical Council Features

Engaged/Willing 

Local Leaders

Contextual Factors

Contextual Factors

Broad Membership 

From Key Stakeholders

Committed Members

Leaders & “Worker Bees”

Reflective, Reflexive, 

& Flexible Structure

Engaged Leadership &

Coordination

 

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

Table 3 Summary of Support for Social Capital Processes Related to How Councils May Facilitate InstitutionPROCESSES DESCRIPTION ILLUSTRATIVE VERSocial Capital Processes Generation of Specific, Local Knowledge It was common for council members to view 

education as a core part of their mission. This included general education on domestic violence among stakeholders in the systems 

response and for the general population via extensive training and prevention education efforts. Perhaps even more vital to councils’ institutionalized change capacity is the specific knowledge of the local realities in the 

community response to intimate partner violence that emerge through councils’ work. 

We’re supposed to get ingroups that don’t know athat it’s a problem and tto get information and edealing with domestic vivictims. [On the council, I talk wwouldn’t have access to the table at the same timimportance to law enforstandpoint of shortcominto be fixed or what we’rto have the input from, ymany different discipline

Shifts in Member/Individual Practice Exchange of information had the potential to 

translate into individual changes in practice among those directly involved in council activities and sitting in council meetings (i.e., members). Some members discussed being on the council as “disrupting” their practices as usual and introducing new ways to consider their work. 

...by having the little knoit, I’m better able to assme and say, I got this gudoing this and doing thaprepared to have answe

Formation of Interpersonal and Organizational Relationships 

Interpersonal ties formed in the council translate into more effective networking in 

response to individual cases of intimate partner violence. 

... you’ve got different pnormally be able to talk you do... So you know, cattorney’s office is a lot you know, knowing specinvolved in the case. 

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

Table 3 (continued) PROCESSES DESCRIPTION ILLUSTRATIVE VERSocial Capital Processes (continued)Formation of Interpersonal and Organizational Relationships (continued) 

Interagency connections were also formalized at an organizational level. Thus, newly formed connections were not confined to individual stakeholders – this is important given that personal ties may “disappear” when individuals change positions, etc. 

And there kind of is an ias well... we’ve worked people but, each next pefills that spot ... I think ipeople at the top be connyou know, this is part of involved in the council.

Access to/Influence of Powerful Stakeholders The role of powerful stakeholders in council 

success seemed to operate in a variety of ways, including: a) creating a venue for those on the front line to inform leaders in positions to alter policies and implement protocols, and b) wielding influence over others both within and beyond the council. 

One of the really beneficsteering committee is thathat are out there, you kmud, doing the heavy lifdoing the face to face, apeople who you know, hinfluence and who know end of it. I would say it would be tsteering committee are scommunity regarding tha lot of power in my eyeand so to do this... plus big hammer, saying that doing and I’m going to sthe chief judge.

Development of New Protocols and Trainings Councils managed a wide variety of “outputs” 

or products that emerged from their collective effort and reflected and adapted to local needs and realities. Importantly, these new policies and protocols reflected input from a wide variety of stakeholders – including those from outside the 

system of interest (e.g., criminal justice). 

[Local trainers] not only when they do their concewith ... the top layer and then they went to the linthem. ... Because you cpeople. And if these peoit doesn’t matter what yo

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

Illuminating the specific processes by which councils can affect change expands 

potential points of intervention regarding how council operations can be more effective 

and how they may be constrained locally. For example, the lack of involvement of key 

stakeholders is a profound complication in collaborative work. However, the current 

study suggests that outreach and recognition from powerful leaders (e.g., judges, 

prosecutors) can serve as a motivating force for new members. In addition, some 

agencies are viewed as resistant (and perhaps impervious) to change, but the current 

study demonstrates how specific, local knowledge can result in fine-tuned and locally 

sensitive approaches that may be primed for success. For example, it seemed councils 

frequently struggled with improving the law enforcement response (see more on this from 

the analysis of archives, Section VIII, and the perspective of survivors in Section X). This 

reflects a relatively decentralized structure across jurisdictions and agencies. Yet, by 

engaging local realities, one case study site developed a successful strategy by tailoring 

training to each targeted law enforcement agency and taking training “on the road” rather 

than pursuing a “one-size-fits-all” approach that was bound to fail in their Circuit. 

Still, councils may lack a mandate to facilitate desired local change. In this way 

specific supports may be necessary. This is where the “third party” structure of the 

Illinois FVCC (statewide) and State IFVCC staff may be particularly powerful. The 

steering committee may be positioned to enhance local influence, supply technical 

knowledge regarding the mechanics of fostering an inclusive climate, conducting an 

effective meeting, informing legislators, engaging local leaders who are reticent, 

preparing members not only to attend meetings, but to become agents of change, 

informing local FVCC about cutting edge policies and practices, bringing key state-level 

figures influence to bear on reticent local stakeholders, etc. (see Section IV for a thorough 

review of the nature of state support). These are all potential “external” supports that 

function to facilitate local action. In other states, councils may operate in relative 

isolation from one another, but in Illinois there is the opportunity to connect the councils 

to a broader knowledge base, power base and action base. In all of these ways, the 

interconnected structure and technical support may foster what is ultimately locally 

informed action. 

Survivors’ Perspectives on the Systems Response 

The sixth objective was to engage survivors’ perspectives regarding what is 

currently working well in the community response to IPV and what needs improvement. 

While it was not an aim of the current study to evaluate the impact council efforts have 

on survivors’ lives (indeed, this study was designed to examine councils’ 

systems/institutionalized change capacity as a precursor to the systematic examination of 

such efforts on survivors’ lives), we wanted to gauge council members’ assessments of 

their councils and the current strengths and weaknesses in the community response in 

light of survivors’ reported experiences. This allowed us to examine the extent to which 

councils were addressing the kinds of issues raised by survivors. 

The participants of the focus groups were all women (N=26) from two sites (n = 6 

from Circuit C and n = 20 from Circuit B). The women ranged in age from 19-54 years 

old and the ethnic composition was 60% Caucasian (15), 20% African American (5), 

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

16% Hispanic/Latino (4), and 4% Native American (1).8

 

 In brief, our findings suggest that a) survivors report a wide variety of needs, 

some of which can be met by mobilizing an improved “systems response,” and some of 

which reflect broad social inequities (e.g., persistent poverty), b) survivors describe 

domestic violence programs and advocacy as indispensable, c) survivors have varied 

experiences with the criminal justice response – even within the same community, d) 

child protective agencies pose significant challenges for women in abusive relationships, 

and e) survivors perceive coordinated efforts across human service agencies, but not 

across systems (i.e., child protection, social/human service, criminal justice). 

Positive experiences with the criminal justice system were characterized by: a) 

enhanced immediate safety by responding with arrest, and b) law enforcement that 

provided referral information, and validation (e.g., telling women they did not deserve the 

abuse). Negative experiences were characterized by: a) no response from law 

enforcement, lack of validation and support, b) lack of follow through when arrests were 

made, and c) orders of protection as an insufficient tool to encourage safety. 

Fortunately, the challenges women described were largely reflected in the issues 

council key informants raised as they reflected on the goals and efforts of their FVCC. 

Importantly, this pattern of strengths and liabilities in the systems response corresponded 

with those described by council members. For example, councils frequently attempted to 

address arrest practices through training of law enforcement and worked to ensure 

referrals to domestic violence programs and advocacy. Councils in the case study sites 

also focused on encouraging greater consistently in the law enforcement response within 

their Circuits echoing the disparities women discussed from one jurisdiction and officer 

to another. 

There were some issues, though, that seemed less salient for councils, but quite 

salient for women. Chief among these were concerns raised about child protective 

services and a response that failed to consider their abusive experiences. It was actually 

relatively less common for child protective services to be an active council member and a 

smaller number of councils indicated a focus on reform within the child protective 

system. An examination of the social network data does suggest that council members 

were aware of their lack of influence in this realm and also shared the perception that the 

child protective services response was inadequate. Finally, women consistently reported a 

wide variety of needs – some of which reflected social inequity, discrimination, and lack 

of opportunity (e.g., poverty). The councils in the current study have a clear systems 

change mission, but were not working to address this level of social inequity. This raises 

broader issues, echoed by others, that the mission to transform the systems response to 

IPV may also neglect some of the fundamental inequities that place women and families 

at risk. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Creating a coordinated response to intimate partner violence is a remarkably 

complex systems change task. While we sometimes talk about systems change as a 

singular process (e.g., we need to “change the system”) in reality it is one that involves 

multiple systems, hundreds of agencies and thousands of actors within such agencies. 

 

8

 One woman chose not complete the survey. 

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

Systems change also involves changing the linkages between relevant agencies so that 

they do not operate in isolation, but in concert with one another. In the current study just 

over 1000 agencies were included in the network rosters across 21 Circuits (not including 

the most metropolitan county in the state). These agencies reflected only domestic 

violence service provider agencies and criminal justice agencies (law enforcement, 

prosecutors, courts, probation, circuit clerk). Adding other systems including, for 

example, health care, human service, faith, educational, and local business, the systems 

change task becomes exponentially more complex. When pursuing a coordinated 

response, one must consider affecting changes in the practices of individual actors, the 

policies of agencies, and the infrastructure of interagency linkages. 

Given this complexity, it is not surprising that many researchers have noted 

implementation challenges (e.g., Klevens, Baker, Shelley, & Ingram, 2008; Klevens & 

Cox, 2008) and called for careful consideration of whether coordination is actually in 

place (e.g., Garner & Maxwell, 2008). The current study was concerned with exploring 

the potential of councils to affect local change in proximal (perceived improvements in 

stakeholder knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change) and more distal 

systems change outcomes (e.g., arrest rates, order of protection rates). Specifically, the 

current study explored the role of councils in the implementation of change in the 

response to intimate partner violence. 

 Indeed, it seems that Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) 

may play an important role in the local instantiation of currently known “best practices” 

in the community response to intimate partner violence.9

 FVCC have mobilized 

thousands of individual actors and hundreds of agencies in their efforts. There are over 

100 active subcommittees across 21 judicial circuits in any given year. Membership in 

these settings consistently includes diverse stakeholders from multiple systems. Local 

FVCC bring such stakeholders “to the table” to discuss local realities and capitalize on 

local human and material resources to affect change. 

 The following summarize some of the current study findings suggesting councils 

may be a promising vehicle for change, but certainly not without challenges. 

• Councils are a powerful venue for education and training and the creation of local 

tools, or products, to support the community response to IPV. In a six-year period, 

councils reached over 33,000 training participants and produced hundreds of 

products in support of a better response to family violence. 

• Councils were consistently viewed as transforming stakeholders’ relationships 

with, and knowledge of, one another and in this way may be critical forums for 

the development of social capital. This was reflected in council member survey 

data, interviews with key informants and council meeting observations. 

• Council membership is associated with greater information exchange and referrals 

among agencies and improved understanding of, relationships with and policy and 

practice change in member organizations in circuit networks. Yet, councils may 

 

9

 The author recognizes and appreciates current controversies in whether coordinated efforts and even the 

component parts of a coordinated response are truly effective for survivors. This study does not address or 

add to this controversy, but instead interrogates the extent to which councils – as a form of social 

intervention – facilitate locally desired changes that generally reflect the implementation of existing laws 

(e.g., pro arrest) and commonly thought of “best practices” (e.g., that civil orders of protection should be 

accessible to survivors who want them). 

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

be less successful at influencing connection and desired outcomes with 

nonmember agencies, or those not “at the table” in their networks. This may also 

reflect a circular effect – to become council members, agencies must be 

sufficiently motivated and “linked” with other involved agencies. These ties may 

strengthen as a result of council involvement. 

• Preliminary evidence suggests that the degree to which circuits have densely 

connected networks of responders (i.e., networks in which agencies are more 

connected to one another via information exchange) is positively related to the 

extent to which members report that councils have encouraged shifts in policy and 

practice within organizations involved in the response to IPV. That is, a greater 

network of connected agencies may encourage greater institutionalized change 

capacity for councils. It may also be that as circuits achieve a more effective local 

response, they have greater contact with one another. 

• Council formation and development is implicated in the extent to which 

emergency orders of protection become plenary orders (i.e., “return rates”) 

reflecting perhaps greater accessibility of orders and also coordination among 

agencies (e.g., the courts and local advocates) that facilitates the acquisition of 

plenary orders for women who seek them. This provides at least preliminary 

evidence of the systems change potential of councils. 

• Importantly, councils varied with regard to their perceived institutionalized 

change capacity, the ratio of emergency orders that become plenary orders in their 

circuits, and their network density (i.e., breadth of interagency linkages) 

suggesting they are not uniformly effective in institutionalized and systems 

change pursuits. 

• Certain factors appear related to the degree to which councils are positioned to 

facilitate community change. Council institutionalized change capacity was 

positively related to features of the council setting (e.g., climate, leadership and 

membership) and the capacity of councils to encourage synergistic social capital 

processes; yet, factors outside of councils (e.g., support from their broader 

community environment; vocal local advocates for change) may also play a 

critical role in the degree to which councils can ultimately affect local change. 

• The sometimes harsh reality of local contexts (e.g., not being able to engage 

critical stakeholders) make the multi-level (local and state) and regional structure 

(organized by judicial circuits) particularly valuable in Illinois. State staff can 

provide expertise and resources and act as a conduit connecting local councils 

with others engaged in similar efforts. For example, State IFVCC Projects (e.g., 

developing visitation exchange centers) may become an important venue by 

which the State IFVCC can a) offer resources and guidance to local FVCC (e.g., 

elder abuse/sensitivity training and protocols), b) facilitate the local instantiation 

of policy (e.g., firearms law; Illinois Cindy Bischoff law), c) develop tools (e.g., 

protocols) and training materials that can be disseminated and utilized by local 

FVCC statewide. 

• By operating at both the state- and local-levels, the Illinois FVCC may balance 

the need for locally informed and enacted processes with the provision of external 

support. Thus, by having both centralized (a single state FVCC Steering 

Committee and Office) and decentralized (local FVCC with considerable 

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

autonomy) structures they capitalize on the “best of both worlds” including 

locally-driven action and externally-informed efforts. 

LIMITATIONS 

Like all research, the current study is not without limitations: 

Self-report and self-selection biases. First, the current study relies in part on selfreported data largely gathered from council members. Indeed, this was by design, given it 

is our assertion that council members are uniquely positioned to assess their councils. 

Yet, this also invites the possibility of both self-selection and self-report biases. Still, in 

both our survey data and our key informant interview data there was considerable 

variability and often frank assessments of what councils had accomplished and failed to 

accomplish (e.g., perceived improvements in relationships among stakeholders were 

viewed positively, but perceived institutionalized changes were only moderately endorsed 

overall). Further, we experienced excellent convergence across data sources. Finally, our 

measure of perceived institutionalized change was moderately and positively correlated 

to our assessment of the number of products produced and policy changes reported in 

annual reports over a six-year period. Still, it is safe to assume that our findings overrepresent those having a relatively positive experience with councils. Those who are not 

engaged in council efforts – because they stopped being involved or never became 

involved in the first place – might value the settings less than those directly involved. 

Cross-sectional data and causal assumptions. In our assessment of the degree to 

which councils have affected change based on members’ reports and the factors 

associated with council capacity to facilitate institutionalized change, we cannot make 

firm causal statements. These data are cross-sectional. Thus, our assumptions regarding 

causality are based in theoretical assertions about the direction of these relationships, 

particularly when findings converged from multiple data sources. This is a common 

limitation in studies of collaborative settings, given that these efforts generally begin 

prior to the involvement of researchers making the possibility of capturing true baseline 

data difficult. 

It is promising that we found that the formation and development of councils was 

positively related to order of protection return rates, one source of longitudinal data in the 

current study. In this case, we capitalized on a natural, quasi-experimental design given 

that we had data for all councils pre- and post- formation. Still, the use of this 

longitudinal data is not exempt from potential historical effects. While no single year 

stands out as explaining shifts in orders of protection (e.g., 1994 with the passage of 

VAWA), some councils demonstrated a positive trajectory that continued and increased 

following council formation. Thus, our analysis does reveal a wholesale effect of council 

formation and development on councils, yet we cannot account for circuit to circuit 

variation in the degree to which councils were central to this process. Still, we view this 

as a finding worthy of continued development given we were able to link a distal systems 

marker to council formation and development. 

Shared method variance. Shared method variance is also a concern when 

considering, in particular, our analysis of the factors predicting institutionalized change. 

While we clearly operationalized and measured each construct of interest, it could be that 

the survey measures capture a global sense of a “positive” or “mediocre” response as the 

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

case may be. Thus, it may not be the specific constructs that relate, but a methodological 

artifact. Still, we are emboldened by the extent to which similar factors emerged as 

themes in our qualitative inquiry and our observations of council settings. Thus, we have 

reason to believe that our assertions are triangulated and our conclusions warranted. 

Contextual variation. While community-level indicators of the systems response 

allow for the examination of change over time, the nature of field research is such that all 

extraneous variables can never be adequately accounted for and controlled. Thus, we 

cannot say with certainty that order of protection rates were influenced only by council 

formation and development; other factors unaccounted for in the current study may have 

influenced this association. That said, we accounted for historical time in our analysis and 

looked across multiple settings for many of which the effect was evident. Further, we 

attempted to capture some of the salient contextual realities that affected local council 

efforts, but these are undoubtedly just a sample of a far more complex process. As we 

make “global” statements about councils (one of the benefits of a statewide analysis) we 

also risk mischaracterizing the efforts of particular councils and/or overstating (or 

understating as the case may be) their particular capacity to facilitate change. 

CLOSING REMARKS 

 FVCC are a common approach to improving the local response to intimate partner 

violence. The current study suggests that councils facilitate stronger relationships and 

enhanced knowledge among stakeholders. Further, there was evidence that at least some 

councils are positioned to facilitate local community change in the systems response to 

intimate partner violence. Councils were a training tour de force, offering local and 

regional training that reached 33,000 participants between 2000 and 2006. In that same 

period, councils also generated numerous products (over 275 pamphlets, protocols, 

intervention checklists, etc.) to enhance the local response and reported over 20 specific 

instances shifts in local policy (e.g., domestic violence screening policy). 

Councils also played a visible role in encouraging greater exchange of 

information among member agencies and their formation and development was linked to 

the ratio of emergency orders of protection that became plenary orders. Still, councils 

were not uniformly effective at producing institutionalized change. Multiple factors were 

implicated in councils’ success including features of the council itself (as mediated by the 

degree to which social capital was fostered), social capital (the dynamic duo of enhanced 

knowledge and improved relationships), support from the broader community, savvy 

local leadership (by advocates and others) and members empowered to pursue change in 

their own organizations. Thus, councils must engage in an inherently local process and 

grapple with a set of inherently local challenges to encourage the implementation of best 

practices in the community response to intimate partner violence. 

Finally, Illinois councils were characterized by a multi-level structure including 

local councils, a State-level steering committee and a State level office with permanent 

staff. This facilitated cross-council communication, the provision of technical support, 

the dissemination of knowledge (e.g., regarding new policies in the State, best practices 

in the response). In this way local efforts were bolstered by state-level efforts and statelevel initiatives were informed by local issues. Importantly, Illinois FVCC have 

mobilized literally thousands of agencies in the community response to intimate partner 

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

violence. Councils maintain a flexible structure and work with their local realities to 

continually self-assess and identify their next goals and priorities. While council work is 

nowhere near “done” this is part of their strength – they do not orient themselves to 

simple end goals, but to an ongoing process of enhancing survivor safety and batterer 

accountability. In this way, the presence of councils in communities throughout the state 

create an invaluable resource as we collectively struggle to determine how to best 

respond to intimate partner 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. 
30

SECTION I 

INTRODUCTION

I.1 – Purpose and Overview 

Communities across the United States are focused on creating coordinated responses to 

intimate partner violence (IPV); ideally, this involves promoting best practices in the justice and 

human service systems, and engaging a broad array of community sectors (e.g., faith based 

settings; schools, etc.) in the response to IPV to promote victim safety and batterer accountability 

(Shepard & Pence, 1999). The State of Illinois has taken an innovative approach to facilitating 

the development of coordinated statewide. Beginning in 1990, the Administrative Office of the 

Illinois Courts (AOIC) spearheaded the creation of a network of Family Violence Coordinating 

Councils (FVCC) across 22 Judicial Circuits in the state. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 

formation of these councils has resulted in unprecedented collaboration among key stakeholders1

and reform in the criminal and civil justice (CCJ) response to IPV in many Illinois communities. 

While such councils are common vehicles for the creation of CCRs – not only within Illinois, but 

nationwide – there is limited empirical evidence regarding whether they facilitate desired change 

in the community response to IPV (Allen, 2006; Clark, et al., 1996). Further, the value of having 

a statewide coordinating structure has not been examined to date. Given the economic and 

human resources required to develop and sustain these efforts and the increasing implementation 

of FVCC nationwide, it is essential to have a better understanding of their role in the promotion 

of systems change and what factors facilitate their efforts. This is especially important given that 

some (e.g., Gamache & Asmus, 1999) have called the use of FVCC into question, suggesting 

that they may fail to promote systems change in the response to IPV. 

I.1.a – Objectives 

The current study examined the effectiveness of a statewide coordinating council 

structure by investigating the extent to which FVCC have an impact on proximal and distal 

outcomes in the systems response to IPV. Proximal outcomes refer to shorter-term, or 

intermediate, outcomes that FVCC may achieve, including, for example, improved knowledge 

among key stakeholders (Allen, 2001b). Distal outcomes refer to longer-term outcomes in the 

community response to IPV, including, for example, interagency coordination (i.e., reported 

exchange of information among agencies) or the accessibility of orders of protection. Finally, the 

current study attended to those factors and processes that facilitate or impede FVCC success, 

particularly with regard to their capacity to achieve institutionalized change (i.e., changes in 

agency policies and practices). Specifically, the current study addressed the following research 

objectives: 

1. To illuminate the specific nature of State and local council organizational structures, 

(e.g., local committees, state technical assistance), goals, and activities. 

2. To examine councils’ collaborative capacity (e.g., the extent to which an inclusive 

climate is fostered, a shared mission is developed, and leadership is effective). 

 

1

 For the purposes of the proposed study, stakeholders can refer to individuals, groups, and/or organizations who 

have a vested interest in the community response to IPV; that is, individuals, groups, and/or organizations who can 

affect and/or are affected by the community response to IPV. 

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

3. To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on proximal outcomes, including 

perceived shifts in stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships, and the extent to which 

policies and protocols employed in the community response to IPV promote victim safety 

and batterer accountability. 

4. To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on distal outcomes, including, 

coordination among agencies and/or stakeholder groups responding to IPV and change in 

the systems response to IPV (e.g., arrest rates, order of protection rates, referral rates to 

shelter programs). 

5. To examine those factors and processes that affect the extent to which councils achieve 

systems change, with attention to a) councils’ collaborative capacity, and b) local 

community context (e.g., community support). 

6. To engage survivors’ perspectives regarding what is currently working well in the 

community response to IPV and what needs improvement. 

To achieve these objectives, the current study employed a multi-method approach 

including key informant interviews with council coordinators, survey research with council 

members, ethnographic case studies with three purposively sampled councils (e.g., informal and 

formal observation; key informant interviews), and archival analysis of FVCC documents (i.e., 

annual reports) and statewide data on the systems response to IPV (e.g., arrest and order of 

protection rates) housed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA). 

Sophisticated quantitative methods were employed, including hierarchical linear modeling 

(HLM) to appropriately analyze nested data regarding FVCC members’ perceptions of councils 

(council members are nested within councils), hierarchical nonlinear modeling to examine to 

examine change over time in various indicators of the systems response to IPV (e.g., order of 

protection “return” rates, or rates of emergency orders becoming plenary orders, arrest rates and 

referral rates to shelter programs), and social network analysis (SNA) to examine the density of 

information exchange networks among agencies responding to IPV in each community and how 

council membership affects connections among agencies. Importantly, this study also utilized 

qualitative methods, including content analysis of in-depth interviews, informal and formal 

observations, and archival materials (e.g., local FVCC annual reports) to examine FVCC efforts. 

I.1.b – Context and Background 

The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) is the administrative wing of the 

Supreme Court of Illinois. Beginning in 1990, the AOIC began an initiative to facilitate 

collaboration in the community response to IPV statewide – developing Family Violence 

Coordinating Councils (FVCC) in each Judicial Circuit across the state. A total of 27 councils 

were in place by 2004.2

 

While FVCC have focused on a wide variety of issues, anecdotal evidence suggests that 

all have focused in some way on improving the CCJ response, including, for example, the courts, 

probation, prosecutors, and law enforcement. This is not surprising given the large proportion of 

victims who come into contact with the CCJ system (78% of female victims of physical assault 

reported their abuse to the police; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) and the promise of the CCJ system 

response to promote victim safety and batterer accountability (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003; Hart, 

 

2

 One in each of 22 Judicial Circuit with the exception of Cook County which has a total of six councils. Only 21 

Circuits were included in the current study given that Cook County varied substantially in structure and function 

from the other FVCC in the statewide network. 

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

1995; Klein, 2008a,b,c).3

 For example, there is evidence that mandatory arrest reduces 

recidivism for some batterers (e.g., Klein, 2008a,b,c; Maxwell, Fagan, & Garner, 2001) and that 

orders of protection deter repeat physical and psychological abuse and promote victim wellbeing (e.g., Keilitz, 1994; Keilitz, Hannaford & Efkeman, 1997; Klein, 2008a,b,c). There is also 

evidence that creating an effective CCJ response involves mobilizing other response systems as 

well (e.g., health care, human service; Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). For example, meeting 

survivors’ basic needs (e.g., housing, child care, transportation) may directly promote their safety 

(e.g., Sullivan & Bybee, 1999) and may indirectly promote an effective criminal justice 

response; Goodman, Bennett, and Dutton (1999) found that having adequate tangible support 

was positively related to survivors’ decisions to participate in the prosecution of their batterers. 

Clearly, fostering victim safety and batterer accountability requires collaboration across a wide 

variety of stakeholders both within and beyond the CCJ system. The current study aimed to take 

a multifaceted approach to examining the extent to which the network of FVCC in the State of 

Illinois are promoting systems change in the response to IPV, both in the CCJ system and other 

community sectors that comprise a CCR to IPV. 

There are different approaches to the development of a coordinated response to IPV 

(Shepard, 1999), including, for example, free-standing coordinating agencies like the Domestic 

Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) in Duluth (Gamache & Asmus, 1999) and cross-agency 

initiatives like the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Project (Visher et al., 2008). However, 

Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) are commonly employed approach.4

 Thus, the 

current study was concerned with for many communities constitutes a “typical” approach to 

coordinating responses within the communities. This focus is important because while the efforts 

like the DAIP and Judicial Oversight Demonstration Project may offer powerful coordinated 

interventions, they do not appear to be normative approaches in the average communities. 

Coordinating councils, on the other hand, have proliferated throughout the 1990s and into the 

new millennium. This is likely because creating councils is relatively low-cost and provides an 

accessible form of intervention. Questions remain, however, about the extent to which this form 

of intervention results in systems change. For example, Gamache and Asmus (1999) suggested 

that councils may essentially reproduce the power imbalances evident among organizations 

involved in the CCJ response. There are also concerns that these settings may result in 

collaboration – or new relationships – as an end unto themselves. Pence (1999) emphasizes the 

importance of stimulating institutionalized change, or changes in the “text” of the response to 

IPV. The current study aimed to interrogate these concerns by examining the institutionalized 

change capacity of councils, or the extent to which they are changing organizational policies, 

protocols, and practices. Further, the current study examined those factors and processes that 

differentiate councils enjoying success in institutionalized change efforts from those who are 

struggling in this domain. 

Ideally, councils bring together key stakeholders from the array of community sectors 

involved in the response to IPV, including criminal justice, domestic violence programs, human 

service (mental health providers; batterers intervention), social service (public aid, child 

 

3

 For the purposes of the proposed study, victim safety and batterer accountability are operationalized as follows: 

Victim safety refers to the amelioration of physical and psychological abuse and stalking as well as increased access 

to resources and greater well-being. Batterer accountability refers to holding assailants solely responsible for their 

actions by ensuring consistent consequences for abusive behaviors. 

4

 The phrase Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) will be used interchangeably with the term 

“councils.” 

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

protective services), local government, faith-based settings, concerned citizens, business, and 

schools (Allen, 2006; Clark et al., 1996). Theoretically, bringing stakeholders from a wide 

variety of community sectors together will result in a better response to IPV than any single 

sector could produce alone (Hart, 1995; Himmelman, 1996). Stakeholders have the opportunity 

to pool resources, inform each others’ practices, identify weaknesses in their community 

response to IPV, learn about community resources, and better understand the roles and 

limitations of each other’s systems (Allen, 2001a; Allen, Watt, & Hess, 2008); however, 

collaborative efforts to address complex social issues prove to be difficult and often fail to 

achieve desired outcomes (Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). 

I.2 – Review of Relevant Literature 

Despite the widespread implementation of councils as a vehicle for the promotion of a 

CCR, few studies to date have examined the effectiveness of FVCC (see Allen, 2005; Allen, 

2006; Clark et al., 1996 for exceptions). Preliminary evidence suggests that councils are a 

promising approach to developing a coordinated response to IPV (Clark et al., 1996; Allen, 

2006; Allen, 2005), and appear to be particularly well-positioned to impact proximal, or 

intermediate, outcomes, such as improving a) key stakeholders’ knowledge of IPV and of the 

nature, strengths and weaknesses of their community response to IPV (e.g., understanding the 

role of law enforcement and constraints of confidentiality for shelter programs), b) relationships 

among stakeholders (e.g., increasing trust; overcoming stereotypical images; fostering 

cooperative relationships), and c) policies and protocols so that they are consistent with the goals 

of promoting victim safety and batterer accountability (Allen, 2001a; Allen, Watt, & Hess, 

2008). The proximal outcomes that FVCC achieve may facilitate subsequent systems change and 

are important outcomes in their own right. In one study of over 40 FVCC’s (Allen, 2001a) a key 

informant explained the formative role of the council as follows: 

When you bring 65 some people to the table...holes and gaps [in the system] are 

identified...it's not the council that takes on the job of filling those gaps, it's the 

individual people who come to the table. And it's amazing because they do. 

Once a discussion is made about what needs to be done, they meet separately on 

their own to do it...[The council provides] the backdrop, the opportunity, for 

people to get together to figure out how they can do the things that they see that 

need to be done...The exchanges and cooperation which occur on the council, 

[create] opportunities [and] have a synergistic effect, with each ...improvement 

creating opportunities for greater [community change]. 

While preliminary evidence regarding the value of FVCC is promising, very few studies 

have ensued to further examine their effectiveness. Some have involved only a few cases (Clark 

et al., 1996) and only one study examined councils’ perceived effectiveness statewide (Allen, 

2005; Allen, 2006). Further, it is unclear if councils consistently achieve such proximal 

outcomes, and what relationship, if any, achieving such proximal outcomes ultimately has on 

more distal changes including council capacity to “change the text” in the systems response to 

IPV. 

While FVCC members’ and leaders’ perceptions of effectiveness provide an important 

source of information regarding the extent to which councils achieve proximal outcomes, it is 

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

essential to examine the effects these settings have on distal outcomes, in particular, regarding 

the systems response to IPV. FVCC often focus on increasing interagency linkages in an effort to 

better coordinate the community response to IPV and the implementation of “best practices,” 

including, for example, proarrest policies and accessibility of orders of protection (Allen, 2001a; 

Allen, 2006). While the efficacy of these approaches (i.e., increased coordination, proarrest 

policies, enhanced access to orders of protection) has yet to be unequivocally established (Klein, 

2008a,b,c; Koss, 2000), and recent research is asking important questions about the ultimate 

impact of coordination on survivors’ lives (e.g., Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Visher et al., 2008; 

Klevens & Cox, 2008), it remains important to understand whether councils are an effective 

venue for the promotion of such systems changes given that such reforms still reflect based on 

the “best current thinking” in the field. As Klevens and Cox (2008) note, communities should not 

wait until all of the evidence is in before they attempt to make change (indeed, they do not). 

Thus, the current study was concerned with the potential of FVCC to facilitate interagency 

connections, institutionalized change (e.g., changes in policy and practice) and systems change 

(i.e., wholesale shifts in the systems response, including, for example, greater access to plenary 

orders of protection). To date, no study had examined the extent to which FVCC membership 

facilitates increased connections (i.e., exchange of information, referral networks) across 

agencies and systems change in the CCJ response to IPV. 

Linking the work of community collaborations to community-level change is relatively 

rare in research on collaborative efforts (Berkowitz, 2001). The limited research on systems-level 

indicators of council effectiveness is not entirely surprising given that evaluating collaborative 

efforts is conceptually and methodologically challenging. In his extensive review of the 

methodological barriers to studying coalitions, Berkowitz (2001) summarizes nine major 

obstacles. These include, for example, not being able to randomly sample from the domain of 

existing councils or randomly assign communities to a “council condition;” identifying and 

controlling extraneous variables (i.e., activities and events occurring outside of the council such 

as the passage of VAWA); establishing and measuring appropriate dependent variables; and 

finally, typically not being able to capture change over time (a true “baseline” has usually passed 

when research begins). Thus, traditional, experimental designs are not adequate for the 

examination of council efforts. 

The current study addressed these methodological challenges by 1) gathering data from 

all of the councils in a single state thus accessing the entire sample of councils within a given 

statewide context, 2) focusing on both perceived proximal (shorter-term) and distal (longer-term) 

outcomes that may result from council efforts, 3) examining change in CCJ system and service 

utilization statistics (i.e., referral rates) over time in multiple communities (allowing for 

longitudinal analysis of FVCC effects on systems change) and 4) using ethnographic methods to 

deconstruct important contextual variables that may facilitate or impede council efforts in 

“exemplary” communities and to triangulate and elaborate upon quantitative findings. This 

fourth approach was particularly important given that the work of FVCC occurs within varied 

community contexts (Allen, Watt, & Hess, 2008). Yin and Kaftarian (1997) conclude that the 

community context can serve to enhance and support collaborative efforts or pose barriers to 

their success, but this assertion has not been examined empirically. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that councils are not uniformly effective in achieving 

outcomes (Allen, 2005). In fact, research on collaborative efforts suggests that there are 

numerous facilitators and barriers to collaborative work (e.g., Allen, 2005; Butterfoss et al., 

1993; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). For example, Allen (2005) found that FVCC that had 

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

effective leadership, shared power and influence in council decision-making, a shared mission, 

and a broad array of active council members were more likely to achieve their goals according to 

both council members and leaders. Thus, council climate and leadership may be implicated in 

explaining differences in effectiveness across settings. Yet, given that councils operate within a 

broader community context that may facilitate or hinder their efforts, the current study also 

examined the ways in which factors outside of the council affect its success. The latter had not 

been studied systematically to date. Importantly, by engaging multiple sources of data the current 

study aimed to elaborate on the processes by which councils are positioned to facilitate desired 

change. 

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

SECTION II 

CURRENT STUDY

The current study extends previous research by examining the extent to which councils 

achieve both perceived proximal and distal systems change outcomes and by more fully 

illuminating the processes associated with their success. In a series of six studies, the current 

study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods throughout to achieve a comprehensive 

understanding of councils. This multi-method approach was critical given that collaboration 

scholars have emphasized the need to embrace the complexity of collaborative phenomenon. In 

the current study, the use of mixed methods helps to establish council effectiveness, and also 

illuminates the processes by which councils are positioned to foster change. The current study 

employs multiple data sources in response to each major research question. 

II.1 – Research Objectives 

Specifically, in Sections IV through X the current study addressed the following research 

objectives: 

1. To illuminate the specific nature of State and local council organizational 

structures (e.g., local committees, state technical assistance), goals and activities 

(see Section IV). 

2. To examine councils’ collaborative capacity (e.g., the extent to which an 

inclusive climate is fostered, a shared mission is developed, and leadership is 

effective; see Section V). 

3. To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on proximal outcomes, 

including perceived shifts in stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships and the 

extent to which policies and protocols employed in the community response to 

IPV promote victim safety and batterer accountability (see Section VI). 

4. To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on distal systems change 

outcomes, including, coordination among agencies and/or stakeholder groups 

responding to IPV (see Section VII) and change in the systems response to IPV 

(e.g., arrest rates, order of protection rates, referral rates to shelter programs; see 

Section VIII). 

5. To examine those factors and processes that affect the extent to which councils 

achieve institutionalized change, with attention to a) councils’ collaborative 

capacity, and b) local community context (e.g., geographic location, community 

support; see Section IX). 

6. To engage survivors’ perspectives regarding what is currently working well in 

the community response to IPV and what needs improvement (see Section X). 

II.2 – Report Overview 

In Section III the multiple methods utilized in the current study are detailed. However, 

the data analytic approach is presented in each section and key methodological issues are 

revisited as necessary within each results section (Sections V through X). 

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

 Section IV begins with a description of councils with attention to the nature of their goals 

and activities, how they are structured and how technical support is provided from the state. Such 

a description is a critical first step in a formative evaluation. Councils would be unlikely to 

achieve systems change if this was not a self-defined goal or represented in council activities. 

Thus, closely examining the nature of councils’ efforts and their associated structure allows us to 

understand the types of changes they are positioned to achieve (Allen, Watt & Hess, 2008). 

 Section V examines councils’ collaborative capacity, or the degree to which they have 

fostered the requisite features of successful collaborative efforts (see Foster-Fishman et al., 

2001). In the current study this included attention to their climate (e.g., the degree to which the 

climate is characterized by shared power in decision-making, a shared mission, and effective 

conflict resolution), leadership (e.g., leadership that attends to both process and 

efficiency/action), empowered members, and a supportive community context. 

Section VI describes the extent to which councils affect change in perceived proximal 

outcomes and in perceived community changes (e.g., enhanced resources for survivors, greater 

justice systems accountability for batterers). Attending to proximal outcomes is particularly 

important given that they may illuminate critical markers of the degree to which councils are 

positioned to affect change (Allen, Watt, & Hess, 2008). Specifically, the current study examined 

the degree to which councils were implicated as instrumental in fostering perceived shifts in: a) 

stakeholders’ knowledge of IPV and the strengths and weaknesses in their community response 

to IPV, b) stakeholders’ relationships with one another, and c) the extent to which policies and 

protocols have been modified to promote victim safety and batterer accountability. The latter 

perceived outcome – institutionalized change – provides another window into the extent to which 

councils are “changing the text” in the response to IPV and “setting the stage” for systems 

change to ensue. 

Section VII reports on the effects councils have on distal, or longer-term, outcomes, 

including the a) level of coordination among key stakeholders in the CCR to IPV and b) the 

systems response to IPV. Specifically, this section describes extent to which agencies within 

(domestic violence shelter programs and batterers’ intervention programs) and beyond the CCJ 

system exchanged information, and made and received referrals from one another. Specifically, 

social network analysis (SNA) was utilized to examine the density of networks (i.e., depth of 

information exchange networks among stakeholder groups) in each participating community and 

the extent to which density is related to other markers of perceived change (i.e., enhanced 

knowledge, relationships and institutionalized change). 

Section VIII examines the extent to which FVCC have an impact on systems responses to 

IPV. A variety of CCJ and domestic violence service utilization indicators currently recorded by 

the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) were analyzed. These include arrest 

rates for IPV related crimes, order of protection rates (focusing on the proportion of emergency 

orders that become plenary orders), and referral patterns to domestic violence service providers 

(e.g., CCJ referrals to domestic violence shelter programs). Taken together, such indicators 

provide a picture of the CCJ systems response to IPV, and how, if at all, councils affect change 

in these distal systems markers. Importantly, these data have been gathered at the communitylevel for many years (beginning in the 1990s) allowing for the examination of a) change 

trajectories over time (prior to and following the development of councils) and b) those factors 

that explain differences in the trajectory and rate of change across communities (e.g., when 

FVCC were introduced; geographic locale). 

Given that FVCC are not uniformly effective (Allen, 2005; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000), 

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

Section IX explores those factors related to variation in councils perceived institutionalized 

change capacity. Importantly, this portion of the study aims to present a multi-factor model that 

explains variations across councils particularly with regard to the degree to which members 

reported institutionalized change. In particular, internal factors including council climate, 

leadership, and membership were examined in relationship to perceived institutionalized change. 

However, other factors including the empowerment of members to act as change agents and 

support from the local community context were also explored. Further, this section brings 

multiple methods into sharp focus by exploring variation across council settings (both 

quantitatively and qualitatively). The insights provided by key informants in our three case study 

settings are particularly instrumental in highlighting and illuminating the processes by which 

council efforts are realized as well as hampered. 

Finally, in Section X, survivors’ perspectives are engaged to understand what is currently 

working well from their unique standpoint and the ways in which the systems response needs 

improvement. Importantly, focusing on survivors’ experiences provided a critical window into 

the extent to which councils were addressing the types of issues that were salient for survivors, 

and the extent to which councils’ self-assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in their 

response were reflected in survivors’ assessments. 

Each section includes a discussion of findings. In closing, Section XI offers overarching 

conclusions and implications for research and practice. 

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

SECTION III 

METHODS

The current study was a collaborative endeavor between the principal investigator (PI) 

and key stakeholders from the State IFVCC. This collaboration maximized the relevance of this 

study to stakeholders within the state of Illinois, as well as the value of this study for informing 

the use of councils to foster a coordinated response to IPV and improve policy and practice 

within the CCJ system. The PI and community partners worked together to refine instruments, 

develop data collection protocols, and interpret and disseminate findings. Importantly, both the 

PI and community partners were committed to revealing the strengths and challenges inherent in 

FVCC efforts. 

To achieve these objectives, the current study employed a multi-method approach 

drawing on interviews and survey data and using a variety of analytic tools to engage both 

closed- and open-ended data sources. The purpose of this mixed methods approach was 

complementarity. As Greene (2007) describes, “with this purpose [complementarity], a mixed 

methods study seeks broader, deeper, and more comprehensive social understandings by using 

methods that tap into different facets or dimensions of the same complex phenomenon.” Given 

the primary aim of this study was formative and aimed at illuminating the role councils in 

systems change efforts, these method were well suited to explore the extent to which councils 

were effective and, importantly, how they do their work. 

III.1 – Method Overview 

The current study employed a mixed methods design. This design involved two major 

components. The first involves a statewide study of 21 FVCC (herein referred to as the 

“statewide inquiry”) and the second involves a case study approach in three purposively sampled 

communities with exemplary FVCC (herein referred to as the “case study”). Given the 

complexity of understanding the effectiveness of councils in the promotion of community change 

such a comprehensive design is appropriate (Fawcett et al., 1997; Shepard, 1999). An overview 

of each study component is provided as follows. 

Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered in this component of the study. The 

particular strength of the statewide inquiry was the ability to examine variability across FVCC 

with regard to proximal and distal outcomes and to examine what accounts for such variability 

(e.g., council ‘age;’ councils’ collaborative capacity; community support). This study component 

involved cross-sectional analyses largely reliant on FVCC members’ perceptions of the council 

setting (interviews with FVCC coordinators, surveys of FVCC membership). However, the 

statewide inquiry also included analysis of archival criminal justice and service utilization 

statistics, and FVCC annual reports which provided a source of triangulation of FVCC member 

perceptions. Further, the analysis of archival data (e.g., CCJ system statistics recorded from 1996 

to the present) provided an opportunity to conduct a longitudinal analysis of FVCC effects on the 

systems response to IPV with regard to arrests and orders of protection. 

 Examining trends across FVCC is invaluable, but examining the effectiveness of FVCC 

cannot be accomplished without considerable attention to the community context in which such 

collaborative efforts take place (Adler, 2002; Yin & Kaftarian, 1997), and the dynamic and 

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

developmental processes that characterize such efforts (Johnson et al., 2003). The case study 

employed a series of key informant interviews, informal and formal observations of council 

meetings, and review of council archives. Three FVCC were chosen as exemplary efforts, but 

also represented different organizational structures and geographic locations and configurations 

(e.g., number of counties within the circuit). 

 Given the multiple methods utilized in the current study these methods are each presented 

in turn in the sections to follow. First, the statewide methods are described. This section includes 

the methods associated with the interviews of council coordinators across the state, the survey of 

members, and the analysis of archival data. The second major section describes the case study 

approach, including interviews with key informants, observations of council meetings, and focus 

groups with survivors of domestic violence in case study settings. 

III.2 – Statewide Inquiry 

III.2.a – Council Coordinator Interviews 

III.2.a.i. Sample 

 Family Violence Coordinating Councils. There are 22 Judicial Circuits in the state. The 

current study included 21 of the 22 Judicial Circuits (one Circuit was excluded because it 

functions quite distinctly from councils in the rest of the state). Judicial Circuits typically include 

multiple counties (ranging from 1 to12, based on population). Thus, FVCC represent regional 

efforts that encompass multiple locales which can be quite different from one another (e.g., rural, 

suburban, urban). Thus, FVCC full membership lists can be quite large including over 300 

participants. Each FVCC has an average of 6 or 7 committees which typically meet monthly. 

These committees are usually organized around particular areas of the response to family 

violence (including IPV, child abuse and elder abuse), for example, criminal justice, schools, 

health care, and faith-based settings. In addition, each FVCC has a steering committee that 

oversees and coordinates committee efforts. Steering committees typically meet quarterly and 

include the council chair, committee chairs, local council coordinator, and other policy level 

people chosen by the chair and/or steering committee. Given the geographic needs in some 

Circuits, some councils have adopted county-specific subcommittees. Thus, rather than being 

organized by topic (e.g., law enforcement, courts, etc.), they are organized by County and 

include stakeholders from across all systems within one subcommittee. 

 FVCC varied in size from 12 to 353 and council age ranged from 4 to 18 years with an 

average age of 11 years. Councils included between 4 and 12 subcommittees (mean = 6.79; SD= 

1.91). Committee members were most likely between the ages of 30 and 59, primarily 

white/Caucasian (94%), and the majority were female (71%). About one-third of committee 

members reported having worked on family violence issues for over 15 years, another third for 

between 6.1 and 15 years, and the rest between 1 and 6 years. The vast majority (92%) had 

received training regarding family violence and for an average of about 85 hours (SD = 182.84; 

range = 1 – 2000 hours). A relatively smaller majority (72%) had received training regarding 

IPV in particular and for an average of 79 hours (SD = 182.44; range = 2 – 2000 hours). 

Council Coordinators. Coordinators reported becoming involved in the council an 

average of 65

 years ago (range 1-12 years) and reported becoming coordinators an average of 5 

years ago (range 1-10 years). Coordinators were all female, typically between the ages of 30 and 

59 years, and predominantly white/Caucasian (94%). About one-third had worked on family 

 

5

 Calculated in reference to the year 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. 
41

violence issues between 7 months and 4 years, another 40% between 4.1 and 10 years, and 

another third between 10.1 and 15+ years. Most (88%) had received some training on family 

violence for an average of 88 hours (SD = 86.99; range = 10-300 hours) and most (82%) had also 

received training on IPV in particular, though for an average of fewer hours (mean = 59) (SD = 

65.26; range = 5-200 hours). 

Table 1 Coordinator Background information 

Background Information 

Age (%) Under 20 = 0% 

20 – 29 = 0% 

30 – 39 = 29% 

40 – 49 = 53% 

50 – 59 = 35% 

60 + = 12% 

Years working on 

family violence 

issues 

(%) 

7 -12 months = 6 

2.1 – 4 years = 24 

4.1 – 6 years = 24 

6.1 – 10 years = 18 

10.1 – 15 years = 18 

15 + years = 12 

Gender (%) Male = 0% 

Female = 100% 

Family violence 

training (%) 

88% 

Organizational Role 

(%) 

DV provider = 13 

Social worker = 6 

Teacher = 6 

Other = 756

 Hours of 

training 

88 

(range = 10 – 300) 

Race/Ethnicity 

(%) 

Caucasian = 94 

Asian/PI = 6 

Intimate partner 

training (%) 

82% 

 Hours of 

training 

59 

 (range = 5 – 200) 

 

6

 Other is most frequently denoted as “coordinator”. 

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

III.2.a.ii. Procedures 

Council coordinators were sent a letter via mail informing them of the purpose of the 

study and inviting their council’s participation. This letter was signed jointly by our research 

team and the IFVCC Director in order to encourage participation and advertise the collaborative 

nature of this study. All 21 council coordinators expressed a willingness to participate in the 

study at large, but only 20 were interview because one was too new to provide sufficient 

information. In her place, the state staff member responsible for technical assistance in her circuit 

responded. 

Interviews were conducted with local FVCC coordinators from across the state. 

Coordinators are employed by the local FVCC to convene and staff council meetings, initiatives 

and activities. Coordinators were uniquely positioned to describe FVCC and provide an 

overview of their efforts given that they are involved in all of the FVCC committees within a 

given Circuit. All coordinators employed by the council at the time the study was undertaken 

were interviewed in person. The PI and research assistants traveled across the state to conduct inperson interviews with coordinators. One coordinator was not available to be interviewed and the 

State Staff member responsible for her Circuit participated in her place; given she was not the 

setting coordinator, she responded only to items about which she had direct knowledge. 

III.2.a.iii. Measure 

Interviews included both structured and semi-structured sections and were taped and 

transcribed with participants’ permission. Interviews lasted approximately 2 hours and covered a 

wide range of topics including (see Appendix B for the instrument): a) FVCC characteristics, 

including structure and geography, b) the role of FVCC in the promotion of a coordinated 

response to IPV in each Circuit (e.g., FVCC goals, activities and accomplishments), c) those 

factors that facilitate and pose barriers to FVCC efforts, and d) the historical trajectory of the 

development of the FVCC (e.g., how the council began, how it has changed over time, what the 

critical developmental milestones have been). Importantly, the open-ended aspects of this inquiry 

highlighted “critical events” in the tenure of the FVCC. Critical events refer to first time events; 

changes in resources; changes in staff or leadership, changes in policies, protocols and practice; 

and major activities (e.g., training or a media campaign; Chavis, 1999; Fawcett, Foster, & 

Francisco, 1997). 

A series of questions was also asked of coordinators regarding the nature and extent of 

technical support received from the state-level IFVCC. This assessment included both closedand open-ended questions. During the interview, coordinators were asked to describe the type of 

support received, what was most useful about this assistance, and where they could have used 

greater support. 

III.2.a.iv. Coding Process 

After interviews were transcribed, 20 of the 21 coordinator interviews were coded by two 

raters independently. In particular, coding was conducted to inform council structure and 

characteristics (e.g., the extent to which councils are circuit-wide in their structure, geographical 

constraints and characteristics), coordinator roles (e.g., training and background), and the use of 

technical support provided by the state (e.g., training, financial resources; see Appendix C for the 

coding form). The coding scheme followed a consensus process, whereby independent coders 

reconciled every code until agreement was achieved. On average, 77% of codes were in 

agreement before the consensus process was engaged. Raters remained in close contact with one 

another as they completed coding, and with their supervisor to discuss any coding tasks that were 

unclear. Finally, the coordinator interview that was informed by the state staff was coded by the 

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

research assistant who interviewed this staff member, given that this interview was more limited 

in scope. 

III.2.b – Committee Member Survey 

III.2.b.i. Sample 

FVCC committee members included individuals who have volunteered and/or have been 

appointed by their organizations to participate in FVCC meetings, initiatives and activities. The 

use of the term “member” connotes that a particular individual and/or stakeholder group has been 

identified as relevant to the coordinated response to family violence (including IPV, child abuse 

and elder abuse) and has been invited to be a part of the FVCC. FVCC members represent a wide 

variety of organizations and groups that may play a role in the coordinated response to family 

violence, including, for example law enforcement, victim advocates, law enforcement, 

prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation officers, faith-based leaders, local officials, local 

business, and/or concerned citizens. 

Council members from all 21 Family Violence Coordinating Councils inform committee 

member survey data. All council members were surveyed via mail, and survey data were 

collected from 681 members. Each council was offered a $500 incentive to support council work 

for obtaining an overall response rate of over 55%, and a total of seven councils obtained this 

response. Response rates for councils ranged from 21.67% to 90.91% with an overall average 

response rate of 46.20%. For members who were characterized as “active” by council 

coordinators, the overall response rate was 50.83%.7

 It is important to note that the overall 

response rate estimate across councils is likely deflated because membership lists included 

individuals whose involvement with FVCC was only peripheral. Indeed, 18% of individuals who 

received a survey mailed it back uncompleted, and actively indicated that they did not have 

enough involvement with councils to complete the survey. Nonetheless, this study included all 

completed survey data in an effort to retain a broad range of perceptions and overall levels of 

participation. FVCC coordinators assisted with survey distribution and follow-up, but, to protect 

confidentiality, did not ultimately know who chose to participate. 

A representative sample of council members across councils consisted of stakeholders 

from law enforcement (17.9%), domestic violence service providers and advocates (16.1%), the 

justice and court system (15.3%), education (9.1%), health services (6.7%), child welfare 

agencies (4.9%), human services (4.0%), local government (4.1%), batterer intervention 

programs (3.3%), and other organizations (18.5%), such as religious organizations, 

neighborhood and civic groups, businesses, cooperative extensions, and cultural/ethnic groups. 

Councils were represented, on average, by 10 stakeholder groups (ranging from 5 to 15). 

All 21 councils had representation from at least two stakeholder groups involved in the formal 

response to family and interpersonal violence, including domestic violence service providers 

(95.23%), batterer’s intervention programs (66.67%), law enforcement (95.23%), or justice and 

court system (80.95%), while fewer had representation from faith-based settings (42.86%), 

 

7

 An effort was made to survey non-committee members, according to coordinators, who had ended up on councils’ 

mailing lists because of participation in a council sponsored event. This latter survey was shortened and included 

only items to which non-committee members might be able to respond (e.g., perceived impact on stakeholders 

knowledge, relationships, etc.; see Appendix E for the instrument). Surveys were mailed to 1,200 individuals 

yielding only a 14.34% response rate despite follow-up efforts. Thus, there was not sufficient representative data 

from nonmembers to present systematically across councils. This low response rate is not surprising given that these 

individuals were not as deeply engaged or invested in the councils and may not have felt positioned to respond at all 

regarding council efforts. 

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

neighborhood and community organizations (9.52%), or cultural or ethnic organizations 

(14.29%). On average, council members reported attending 4.86 council committee meetings in 

the last 12 months (SD=10.87; ranging from 0 to 200), and the majority (72.7%) of members 

indicated that their participation in the council was voluntary but part of their job for an agency, 

while fewer indicated that they were mandated (8.5%) or that their participation was voluntary 

and not part of their job for an agency (18.5%). 

III.2.b.ii. Procedures 

Council coordinators were contacted via telephone and asked to send the research team a 

copy of their membership lists. Once lists were sent, coordinators were asked to clarify the 

nature of their council membership by characterizing each individual on the basis of whether 

they were currently a member of any council committee (i.e., that they had attended a meeting in 

the last year). Those identified as members were treated as such and mailed a “member” survey. 

For results pertaining to the committee member survey, we report data collected from all 

individuals who were identified by council coordinators as being a committee member of the 

FVCC at the time membership lists were collected. 

Once membership lists were gathered and clarified, each individual member was sent a 

survey in the mail. Survey packets included the survey instrument, a letter explaining the purpose 

of the study, informed consent documents, and a postage-paid business reply envelope with 

which participants could return their survey at no charge to them. Extensive follow-up efforts 

were made to encourage participation, including: two sets of phone calls to councils for which 

members’ telephone numbers were available (14 out of 21 FVCC), a complete secondary mailing 

to all non-responding members, at least two emails to coordinators requesting reminders of their 

membership, and any other effort requested by individual coordinators for their particular FVCC. 

III.2.b.iii. Measures 

A 15-page (single sided) survey was sent to every current FVCC committee member 

identified by council coordinators (see Appendix D for the survey instrument for committee 

members). The survey included a range of questions assessing general member participation, 

leadership, council dynamics (including indices of council climate), council impact (including 

indices of proximal and distal change), local community context, and background information of 

individual members. The measures below comprised the member survey. 

Participation. Members were asked to indicate their type and depth of involvement in 

FVCC activities using a modified version of Florin’s (1996) Task Force Member Survey 

(measures involvement in collaborative efforts similar in structure to FVCC). Seven items were 

used to assess the nature and scope of members’ participation. Items included assessment of 

current and past membership, length of membership, committee participation, and extent of 

engagement in council activities (e.g., How often do (or did) you ever attend any FVCC 

meetings (e.g., steering, subcommittees, full)?). Using a 4-point Likert-type scale, members 

indicated the frequency with which they ever participated in council activities (1 = Never, 4 = 

Often). 

Leadership. Fourteen items were used to assess the support and commitment of FVCC 

leadership, including that of the council (State; 4 items), committees (7 items), and coordinators 

(3 items). Items included assessment of leaders’ commitment to the council’s mission and goals, 

promotion of equality and collaboration among members, effectiveness of organization and 

communication, and support of members’ input (.e.g., The council coordinator facilitates 

communication across FVCC participants). Using a 6-point Likert-type scale, members indicated 

the extent to which they agreed with statements regarding leadership (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = 

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

strongly agree). In most inferential analyses, leadership is assessed according to one full scale 

(Cronbach’s alpha = .97) comprising all three subscales (i.e., council, committee, coordinator). 

Council Climate. Twelve items assessed the degree to which members endorsed 

indicators of council function and dynamics. Broadly, these items comprise a higher order 

construct related to the overall climate of councils (Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Subcomponents of 

council climate included degree of shared power and decision-making (e.g., The council does 

not move forward with decisions or actions until all input is heard; 4 items; Cronbach’s alpha = 

.84); shared mission (e.g., my council’s mission is shared and supported by all council members; 

2 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .81); and conflict resolution (e.g., Disagreements among council 

members are often resolved by compromise; 6 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .68). Respondents 

indicated the extent to which they agreed with statements regarding council climate using a 6-

point Likert-type scale, (1 = not at all, 6 = to a great extent). 

Council Impact: Proximal Outcomes. Three scales were utilized to assess the proximal 

outcomes potentially achieved by councils: knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized 

change. Using a modified version of Allen’s (2005) Perceived Council Effectiveness Inventory 

(PCEI) members were asked to indicate the extent to which their participation in the FVCC had 

resulted in proximal outcomes (i.e., improved knowledge, relationships and institutionalized 

change) utilizing a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 6 = to a great extent). Knowledge:

A 4-item scale assessed the extent to which members perceived shifts in their knowledge as a 

result of participation in the FVCC, including knowledge regarding IPV and around other 

members’ roles and limitations (e.g., Council efforts have increased members’ knowledge of 

other members’ roles and limitations; Cronbach’s alpha = .91). Relationships: A 4-item scale 

assessed the extent to which members perceived changes in relationships, including enhanced 

communication and coordination (e.g., Council efforts have increased coordination among 

member agencies; Cronbach’s alpha = .94). Institutionalized Change: Three items assessed the 

degree to which changes in policies and procedures of members’ organizations had resulted from 

members’ participation in the FVCC (e.g., Council efforts have stimulated policy changes within 

my organization regarding our response to IPV; Cronbach’s alpha = .80). 

Council Impact: Interagency Coordination. Nine items were used to assess interagency 

linkages and member’s perceptions of other agencies involved in the systems response to IPV. 

For each circuit, a network roster was created including agencies in the circuit involved in the 

systems response to IPV, including domestic violence shelters, batterer’s intervention programs, 

criminal justice agencies, and DCFS. The criminal justice agencies included were at the state 

level (e.g., State Police), circuit level, the county level (e.g. County Probation), and at the local 

level (e.g. local police departments).8

 

Each agency was listed in a separate row in the roster (see Appendix D or Section VII for 

the measure with a sample roster). Each of a series of columns had a question to which 

participants responded for each agency within which they had contact. Specifically, there were 

three questions assessing direct contact with agencies, including exchange of information, 

referral to, and referral from. Each member representing her/his agency was asked to indicate 

her/his agency’s contact with every organization in the roster (e.g. On average, in the last year, 

how often have you exchanged information with...) using a six-point scale where 1 indicated 

 

8

 For large circuits, a random sampling of police departments was used so that the length of the roster is not too 

long. 

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

“never” and 6 indicated “almost daily.”9

 In addition, the respondent also had the option of 

checking a “No Contact” box for each organization’s row, so that she/he does not have to answer 

individual questions for organizations about which she/he has no knowledge. In addition to the 

contact information questions, the impact of FVCC membership on respondents’ perceptions of 

other organizations was also assessed, including the extent to which councils improved their 

understanding of, and their relationships with, and the policies and practices of each organization 

in the network (e.g., To what degree has membership in the Council changed policy and 

procedure within...). Participants used a four point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 4 = a lot) to 

respond to these questions and also had the option of choosing “don’t know.” Lastly, the 

members were asked about their overall perception of other organizations, specifically regarding 

other organizations’ adequacy in responding to IPV and in their commitment to the FVCC 

council (e.g., [Agency] can be relied upon to respond adequately to cases of IPV). The FVCC 

members used a six point Likert-type scale to respond about their overall perceptions of other 

organizations (1= strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree; again having the option of choosing 

“don’t know”. If a respondent checked the “No Contact” box for an organization, that 

organization got a 1 (i.e., Never) for the contact information and an 888 (i.e., not applicable) for 

all remaining questions. This approach facilitates gathering specific information about particular 

organizations in the Circuit network and complements the global perceptions assessed in the 

PCEI described above. 

Council Impact: Distal Community Change. A 5-item scale was used to assess the extent 

to which members’ perceived their FVCC as impacting distal or longer-term community change 

(Cronbach’s alpha = .91). For each item, FVCC members used a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = 

not at all, 6 = to a great extent) to indicate the extent to which councils efforts have led to 

survivor safety (e.g., increased survivors access to needed resources), batterer accountability 

(e.g., increased accountability for IPV abusers), and public education (e.g., led to a better 

educated public regarding family violence). 

In addition, to assess interagency coordination the same matrix described to gather data 

regarding proximal outcomes was utilized. FVCC members were asked to indicate how often 

they make referrals to, receive referrals from, and exchange information with each agency listed 

in the table. They used a Likert-type scale to indicate the frequency with which such linkages 

occur (e.g., 1 = never; 6 = daily). These data were used to determine levels of interagency 

linkage between particular stakeholder dyads and will ultimately be utilized to estimate the 

network density for each set of stakeholders.

Individual Member Empowerment. A 5-item scale was used to assess the degree to which 

members perceived being individually empowered to affect change (i.e., to influence policy and 

practice) as a result of participation in the council. These items were specifically assessed by 

asking about the impact of participation on individual members, including their agreement to 

statements regarding the degree of control and influence they have acquired (e.g., As a result of 

participation in the FVCC, I have more control over polices and practices affecting IPV 

survivors in my community; Cronbach’s alpha = .88). Members responded using a 6-point 

Likert-type scale (1= Not at all, 6 = To a great extent). 

Community Support. Four items assessed the degree to local FVCC operate within a 

supportive and committed context for change, including engaged powerful stakeholders, 

committed local leaders, and existence of adequate resources (e.g., Local leaders are committed 

 

9

 In subsequent social network analysis the contact information was recoded from a 1 to 6 scale to a 0 to 5 scale 

where 0 indicated no contact and 5 indicated almost daily contact. 

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

to increasing survivor safety in our Circuit; Cronbach’s alpha = .85). Members responded to 

statements characterizing their community context for support through a 6-point Likert-type 

scale (1 = Not at all, 6 = To a great extent). 

III.2.c – Coordinator Survey 

III.2.c.i. Sample 

In addition to completing an interview as described in section III.2.a above, all 21 FVCC 

coordinators were also mailed a 13-page single sided survey. All but four coordinators returned a 

completed survey. In order to obtain information on the entire statewide sample, state staff were 

asked to complete four surveys (informing the circuits for which a coordinator survey was not 

received). Given that state staff are each responsible for overseeing particular councils, they were 

well-positioned to inform most questions on the coordinator survey, but were not asked to 

complete information about the details of council functioning (e.g., council climate). 

III.2.c.ii. Procedures 

All coordinators were mailed a copy of the survey, a postage-paid envelope, informed 

consent forms, and were paid $20 for their completion of the survey. If surveys were not 

received, extensive follow up efforts were made including via phone and email contact, and 

second and third mailings of the survey. 

III.2.c.iii. Measures 

The coordinator survey assessed multiple domains that were also assessed in the 

committee member survey (see Appendix F for the coordinator survey), including a) council 

climate (Cronbach’s alpha = .80) and corresponding subscales of shared power and decisionmaking (Cronbach’s alpha = .78), shared mission (Cronbach’s alpha = .65), conflict resolution

(Cronbach’s alpha = .61), b) proximal outcomes including promotion of knowledge (Cronbach’s 

alpha = .80), relationships (Cronbach’s alpha = .67), and institutionalized change (Cronbach’s 

alpha = .77), c) distal community change (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), d) individual empowerment

(Cronbach’s alpha = .81), and e) community context (Cronbach’s alpha = .89). These scales were 

assessed in the same manner as described in section III.2.b. 

 In addition to these measures, coordinators were asked a series of questions to inform the 

structure, goals, and activities of their FVCC. These included: a) council processes and structure 

(e.g., the degree to which council has adequate staff or volunteers, the extent to which councils 

have agendas, minutes, mission statements), b) breadth and participation of membership (e.g., 

whether a range of stakeholder groups are currently participants in the council and represented 

on steering and subcommittees), c) council goals and accomplishments (e.g., the extent to which 

changes were targeted, addressed, and facilitated by councils), d) council activities (e.g., the 

extent to which councils discussed issues related to IPV, shared information, and engaged in 

public education), and e) other indicators of council work and scope (e.g., extent to which 

councils meet needs of various geographic regions). 

III.2.d – Archival Analysis of Annual Reports 

Archival records of FVCC (i.e., annual reports, written products) were examined to 

clarify the nature and process of council activities and successes (see Appendix J for the coding 

form for council archives). Annual reports provided a uniform set of information from all 

councils. Thus, they were coded with regard to: the number and nature of council 

subcommittees, stakeholder groups not currently involved in the council; the number and nature 

of training activities (i.e., training focus and stakeholders targeted); the number and type of 

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

“products” generated by the council (e.g., posters, information cards for survivors; protocols); 

the number of changes in policy and practice reported as a result of council activity. Two raters 

coded all of the data. To establish high inter-rater reliability, raters coded the same reports until 

they had nearly perfect agreement. Coders maintained extensive notes and any coding 

discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the research team. Raters remained in close contact 

with one another as they completed coding, and with their supervisor to discuss any coding tasks 

that were unclear. 

III.2.e – Archival Analysis of Systems Change Markers 

Finally, CCJ statistics were analyzed to examine changes in the systems response to IPV. 

Statewide data includes: arrest rates (1996 to 2004), dual arrest rates (an unintended consequence 

of pro arrest policies), order of protection rates (1990 to 2005), and the proportion of emergency 

orders that become plenary orders. In addition, we examined referral rates by CCJ and DCFS to 

local shelter and domestic violence programs (1998 to 2008). Data were provided by ICJIA 

(arrest and shelter utilization data) and the Illinois State Police and are publicly available upon 

request. Data were cleaned and prepared by research staff so that they could be examined 

longitudinally. Specific data preparation is discussed in each section presenting these analyses. 

It is notable that there is some variability in the consistency of reporting across 

municipalities, but ICJIA officials indicate that the data reflect the vast majority of municipalities 

across the state and that each county and judicial circuit would have data. Since statistics were 

compared across communities, they were calculated as ratios to account for variation in 

population sizes (i.e., rates rather than totals). Arrest rates (relative to incidents) and order of 

protection rates (the proportion of emergency orders that became plenary orders) were examined 

annually (this was the smallest unit of analysis possible for the latter). These data were utilized to 

examine change over time in the systems response to IPV. 

III.3 – Ethnographic Inquiry 

III.3.a – Case Study of Exemplar Councils 

A case study approach was taken in three purposive sampled exemplar communities. 

Three case study sites were chosen based on a) geographic location in the State (one in the north, 

one further south and one in the east), b) geographic characteristics (i.e., urban, suburban, and 

rural), and c) council organizational structure (circuit-wide or county-specific) and d) degree of 

success in coordinating local efforts (see Table 2 for income and poverty indicators in these 

communities). In-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders across sites (n = 40) 

both within and outside of the justice system, and informal and formal observation of council 

meetings were utilized to create a deeper understanding of council functioning. The original aim 

was to focus on specific aspects of council efforts during the case study inquiry (e.g., faith-based 

response, orders of protection). However, given that councils operated largely through a 

collection of committees each with different aims, we did not limit our interviews to one 

stakeholder group or around a single topic. This was important given that councils were reticent 

to identify facets of their response that they viewed as “complete” and “perfected.” 

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

Table 2 Case Study Sites Income Information 

Circuit Median Income Percent living below poverty 

Circuit A 

County a $46,974 11.9 

County b $52,073 11.3 

Circuit B 

County a $54,945 11.5 

County b $68,513 7.8 

County c $77,938 3.7 

Circuit C 

County a $40,668 12.6 

County b $45,213 10.8 

County c $40,939 11.4 

County d $37,880 17.6 

County e $34,690 23.4 

County f $41,477 12.9 

We conducted interviews with a range of stakeholder groups from a variety of committee 

to elaborate how councils worked within each Circuit, their achievements (particularly as they 

related to their capacity to foster institutionalized change and how this came about) and what 

facilitated and constrained their efforts. The interview protocol was open-ended in nature (see 

Appendix G for the basic questioning route). Probes clarified and elaborated on themes as they 

emerged in the conversation. A first set of interviews was conducted with 30 key stakeholders 

(some individual and some in small groups based on members’ preferences and requests). 

Following analysis of these interviews, a second set of 10 stakeholders were interviewed to 

provide “member checks” and to test emergent themes regarding council functioning that 

emerged from the first set of interviews. In this second set of interviews key emergent 

hypotheses were tested (e.g., that councils played a key role in fostering new relationships and 

knowledge; that councils could facilitate systems, or institutionalized change; that powerful 

stakeholder engagement was key to implementation). Key informants included: local judges (2), 

prosecutors (4), law enforcement (5), shelter and domestic violence program executive directors 

(6), domestic violence advocates (3), probation (1), faith leaders (3), victim’s advocate located in 

a criminal justice setting (2), human service providers including substance abuse (1), mental 

health (3), family crisis services (2), child abuse prevention (1), university affiliates (2), batterer 

abuse program service providers (2), juvenile probation services (1), and children’s advocates (2) 

The majority of key informants (97%) had been involved with the council for more than a year 

(mean years of involvement = 6.65). About 40% of key informants were (or had been) chairs of 

committees, almost all (95%) were committee members, and over half were participants in the 

council steering committee. Key informants were purposively chosen to reflect active and 

engaged participants in the work of councils. This was because the aim of the interviews was to 

elaborate on the work of councils – work that is likely not transparent to those not engaged in the 

councils. That said, this group reflects the natural self-selection process into council 

participation. By virtue of their ongoing engagement they are likely to view the councils as 

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

valuable. Yet, our goal was not to establish simply whether they viewed councils as effective, but 

the mechanisms by which they had an impact. 

Informal and formal observations were conducted to gain a “first-hand” perspective 

regarding council operations. Informal observations served the purpose of the PI becoming 

familiar with council operations and key informants. The PI attended six local FVCC council 

meetings, five meetings of the State Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council and two 

coordinator retreats. These informal observations provided a foundation on which to further 

pursue questions during formal interviews and observations. In addition, 11 formal observations 

were conducted to systematically document council meetings. 

These observations focused on capturing the sequence of activities occurring within each 

meeting, and included thorough rich descriptions of interactions and meeting processes in the 

sequence in which they occurred. Direct observations (e.g., what members discussed) were 

differentiated from indirect interpretations (e.g., the tone in which content was discussed) to 

specify and “story” the data. In addition to a description of the sequence of activities, 

observations were also focused on elaborating specific domains and processes of interest in the 

current study including: group processes (how the group functions as a body; e.g., decisions, 

relationship climate, individual personalities, participation), council activities (what the council 

does or how they do their work; e.g., exchange of information, engage tensions or debates, plan 

events, discuss logistics), council structure (what characterizes the infrastructure of a setting; 

e.g., rules of order, extent of consensus), council goals (description of the direction or purpose of 

the setting; e.g., implicit or explicit mission, guiding philosophy, articulated goals), and council 

content (what is discussed and how it is addressed; e.g., local issues, survivor safety, batterer 

accountability, institutionalized change). 

Observations were initially done by two observers to establish norms regarding the 

observation process and the resultant documentation. Following this, coders attended meetings 

individually and produced observations individually. These observations were coded as part of 

the ethnographic inquiry. 

III.3.b – Focus Groups with Survivors of Domestic Violence 

Finally, focus groups were conducted with IPV survivors in two of the three case study 

sites regarding their experiences of the systems response to examine the effects a CCR has on 

victims’ lives. Survivors were recruited through local agencies, but also via public settings 

appropriate to the local community (e.g., court house, supermarkets, laundromats, hair salons). 

Survivors who had come into contact with at least one community resource and were sampled 

and asked, collectively, about their interactions with multiple systems within their communities 

(e.g., faith, shelter programs, law enforcement, states attorney) including what they found helpful 

and unhelpful (see Appendix H for the focus group questioning route). 

Survivors participating in focus groups were also asked to complete a short survey (see 

Appendix I for the survey instrument). The survey included brief demographic items (age, 

gender, race, county of residence) and three sets of questions relating to a list of community 

resources (shelter/DV programs, health care organizations, human or social service agencies, 

orders of protection, police response, state’s attorney, court response, faith-based settings). The 

first set of items related to whether the participant had found each of the community resources 

helpful, and the second assessed whether each of the resources had helped the participant to feel 

safer. The responses to these items were on a scale of “never had contact”, “not at all helpful”, 

“somewhat helpful”, “helpful”, and “very helpful” (Likert-type scale of 0-4). The third set of 

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

items assessed the nature of the change the participant experienced after utilizing each of the 

community resources on a scale of “never had contact”, “made things worse”, “made no 

change”, and “made things better” (Likert-type scale of 0-3). A final question assessed when 

participants first began contacting community agencies for help with abuse (answer options 

ranged from “within the past month” to “more than 10 years ago”). 

The participants of the focus groups were all women (N=25) from two sites (n = 6 from 

Circuit C and n = 20 from Circuit B). The women ranged in age from 19-54 years old and the 

ethnic composition was 60% Caucasian (15), 20% African American (5), 16% Hispanic/Latino 

(4), and 4% Native American (1). 

III.3.c –Analytic Approach 

 Multiple research objectives in the current study were informed by the use of qualitative 

data sources (e.g., open ended interview questions, archived documents, etc.). The primary 

analytic approach employed in the current study was content analysis (Berg, 1995; 2004). Berg 

(1995) describes content analysis as “any technique for making inferences by systematically and 

objectively identifying special characteristics of messages” (p. 175). The analysis of “messages” 

from a variety of sources (e.g., interview transcripts, observation of meetings, meeting minutes 

and agendas) involves creating a set of codes or “themes” that best characterize the data (Berg, 

1995). Content analysis was employed to identify common themes across key informant 

interviews that illuminated council structure and organization, the kinds of outcomes councils 

achieved and the processes by which such outcomes were achieved. To ensure the credibility of 

qualitative analysis Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) criteria were imposed. For example, “member 

checks” were utilized to discuss the interpretation of findings with study participants to examine 

accuracy; throughout the analytic process negative case analysis was employed to actively search 

for evidence that disconfirms emerging hypotheses; emergent themes and theories were 

discussed with members of the research team and community collaborators in regular meetings; 

finally, another analyst was engaged to conduct an “audit” of the emergent themes and to 

examine the extent to which themes were indeed supported by multiple data sources and whether 

important themes were left out. While there are always countless ways to present qualitative 

findings, these methods ensure that our presentation of findings indeed represents the data well. 

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

SECTION IV 

COUNCIL STRUCTURE, GOALS, AND ACTIVITIES

IV.1 – Purpose 

To illuminate the specific nature of State and local council organizational 

structures, technical assistance, goals and activities. 

IV.2 – Overview 

The goal of this section is to describe council structure and organization at the 

local and the State levels, the nature of council goals and activities, and the technical 

support provided by the State IFVCC. Recent research on councils suggests that 

evaluating their efforts requires a clear understanding of the types of changes they are 

positioned to pursue (e.g., Allen, Watt, & Hess, 2008). Further, our understanding of the 

structure, goals and activities of Illinois councils brings our attention to the unique 

strengths and challenges they face as they pursue systems change in the response to IPV. 

IV.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

 This information was gathered from multiple sources, including interviews with 

and surveys of council coordinators, informal information gathering with State IFVCC 

staff, key informant interviews from our case study sites and also from FVCC documents 

(i.e., State and Local FVCC annual reports). In this section, only descriptive quantitative 

methods were used to characterize councils in each domain. The coding processes for the 

coordinator interviews and content analysis of the key informant interviews are described 

in the method (see Section III). The goal was to compile information from multiple 

sources to describe councils and their basic operations. This section “sets the stage” and 

provides a backdrop for understanding and interpreting subsequent analyses. 

IV.4 – Results 

IV.4.a – Statewide Council Structure and Organization 

Illinois has a unique statewide network of councils (see link: 

http://www.ifvcc.org). These Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) receive 

funding from the State of Illinois to operate within each Judicial Circuit in the state. At 

the time of the study there were a total of 221

 Judicial Circuits in the State, each 

encompassing between one and 12 counties (for more information on Illinois Courts, see: 

http://www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/CCInfoDefault.asp). Funds are provided to each 

Circuit to pay for one 50% FTE coordinator within each Circuit. Circuits vary 

considerably inside and typically include multiple counties (mean = 4.64; SD = 2.95). 

Thus, FVCC are regional in structure and encompass many municipalities. 

 

1

 Following the start of the current study, a council was initiated in the final judicial circuit in the state thus 

there are now 23 Circuit councils including Cook County (which has smaller councils within). 

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

IV.4.a.i – Statewide Steering Committee 

At the State level there is a steering body called the Illinois Family Violence 

Coordinating Councils (IFVCC). This body includes decision-makers from various facets 

of State government including, for example, Logan County Circuit Clerk’s Office, Center 

for Prevention of Abuse, Illinois State Police, Illinois Department of Public Health, 

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Illinois Violence Prevention Authority, 

Prevent Child Abuse Illinois, and Illinois State Board of Education. The co-chairs of this 

group are typically a Judge and the Director of the IFVCC; and representatives are 

invited given their organization’s relevance to the response to family violence and their 

potential for decision-making authority or influence within their organizations. 

Importantly, the IFVCC includes the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic 

Violence (ICADV). Thus, the IFVCC works in concert with ICADV which includes 

membership from all domestic violence programs in the State. Their close collaboration 

and that ICADV provides a critical voice on the IFVCC avoids duplication of effort of 

these two state-level bodies. The mission of the IFVCC focuses on a multidisciplinary 

response to family violence engaging the full range of stakeholders (e.g., criminal justice, 

health care, human services) responding to domestic violence in their membership and in 

the membership of their Local FVCC. ICADV has a Board that is appropriately 

comprised of the directors of domestic violence and batterers’ intervention programs. 

Further, while ICADV focuses on policy and advocacy, the IFVCC can inform policy, 

but cannot engage in advocacy in keeping with judicial ethics (recall that the IFVCC is 

organized based on the judicial court structure in the state and chaired by judges). Thus, 

ICADV is a critical voice for survivors and advocates whereas the IFVCC often tries to 

take a “see it from all sides” approach that might be interpreted as more neutral. As 

partners, ICADV and the IFVCC can ideally advance their complementary missions. In 

the State of Illinois, this arrangement seems to work well and can serve to expand the 

resources with which state level initiatives can address family violence. 

IV.4.a.ii – State IFVCC Staff 

There are also State IFVCC Staff (currently three full-time staff) who are 

responsible for organizing FVCC statewide. The State Staff engage in a wide variety of 

activities to support and augment local efforts, including: a) orientation to new Chief 

Judges regarding the FVCC and the role of Chair, b) training of coordinators, c) ongoing 

technical assistance to coordinators, d) statewide training events on current topics related 

to family violence (1 to 2 events/year), e) special Projects or Initiatives that focus on 

pressing policy and practice issues in the response to family violence (recent examples 

include effective responses to elder abuse, creation of domestic violence courts, 

development of family visitation exchange centers, implementation of fire arms laws in 

domestic violence cases, school-based family violence prevention initiatives), f) retreats 

for coordinators that focus on skill building (e.g., effective meeting facilitation) and the 

exchange of information across Circuit FVCCs, and g) a handbook for committee chairs 

regarding effective practices. 

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

IV.4.a.iii – State IFVCC Special Projects and Initiatives 

State staff meet with the state-level IFVCC Steering Committee twice/year to 

update them regarding the status of the various state level Projects of the IFVCC and to 

invite their input to inform State IFVCC activities. In between these meetings, however, 

IFVCC members are often involved in subcommittees to assist with the execution of 

special Projects. For example, a committee was created to enhance the current response 

to elder abuse. This committee included the Illinois Department on Aging and several 

local elder abuse provider agencies, Madison and Lake County State’s Attorney’s 

Offices, Chicago Police Department, Illinois State Police, LCCs, Growing Strong (Sexual 

Assault program), and the Illinois Coalition on Domestic Violence. They assisted in 

determining the direction of the committee, wrote, edited and provided input into the 

project and served as trainers for different aspects the Project. In this initiative, three 

subcommittees were formed to focus on different facets of the response to elder abuse 

including: a) training for professionals (how to effectively interact with the elderly) b) the 

faith community response to elder abuse and c) the law enforcement and court response 

to elder abuse. This State Project yielded a variety of products including: a) a training that 

was offered regionally regarding Awareness of the Special Needs of the Elderly (an elder 

sensitivity training), b) a Faith Toolkit for local councils to work with the faith 

community in their response to elders and c) a law enforcement protocol (see 

http://www.ifvcc.org/ for the .pdf). Importantly, given the structure of FVCC in Illinois, 

this information could be rapidly disseminated in various areas of the State. In addition, 

given that the IFVCC includes relevant representatives from State government this 

provided additional venues to educate those providers responding to the elderly in a 

variety of capacities. For instance, the Faith tool kit was distributed to all the coordinators 

and 30 stakeholders on the state elder abuse committee. Once the kits were distributed, 

the State Staff called the coordinators and other local stakeholders to see how the 

information had been implemented locally. Via this dissemination process, those working 

in the family violence field, as well as those working with elderly who may not have 

otherwise focused on family violence issues (e.g., clergy), can be reached. Notably State 

Staff never copyright the materials created by the IFVCC so that they can be reproduced 

and altered to meet local needs. 

Another statewide project includes the development of a supervised visitation 

initiative, which was an idea born from the state court committee. To begin the process, 

State Staff conducted onsite interviews at centers to gather information about visitation. 

They compiled this information systematically (e.g., created a chart with similarities and 

differences across the state regarding issues such as funding and security). Next, a 

roundtable was arranged with 50 stakeholders interested in creating visitation exchange 

centers in their local communities. The roundtable focused on the presentation of 

information regarding steps for setting up exchange centers. To help scaffold the process 

of implementation and facilitate the sharing of resources, an advisory committee and 

three subcommittees were created to focus on different aspects of starting visitation 

centers: a) staff and facility information, b) forms for different sites, and c) funding. All 

these resources were also made available online for easy access (see 

http://www.ifvcc.org/). Thus, any local group that wishes to pursue a visitation exchange 

center has considerable “legwork” completed prior to beginning. In fact, the website 

provides different models so that each community can determine what makes the most 

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

sense for them locally. This process allows State Staff to mobilize resources and 

information so that each community do not need to “reinvent the wheel” on their own. 

State Staff are also positioned to play a critical role in facilitating the local 

instantiation of state and federal policy (law). For example, the Firearms Initiative was 

also developed by the courts structure committee of the State IFVCC. The IFVCC and 

Staff identified gaps in interpretation and implementation of firearms laws. In 

collaboration with key stakeholders, staff began the process by gathering information on 

firearms laws and statues. They then compared state and local laws to identify areas of 

intersection and divergence, including how firearms laws apply within each county. From 

this information gathering, specific gaps were identified and guidelines were developed 

regarding, for instance, the issue of fingerprinting in firearms cases (i.e., if someone is 

not fingerprinted when arrested then the conviction attached to that arrest will not show 

up in the criminal history). To facilitate continued information exchange around this 

issue, the staff held “Train the Trainer” programs so that the trainees could go back to 

their own areas and train local stakeholders. 

IV.4.a.iv – State IFVCC and Local FVCC Relationship 

In each Circuit, the Chief Judge is the council chair by virtue of his/her role in the 

Court. The Chief Judge may appoint someone to serve as chair; this is negotiated locally 

within each Circuit. Coordinators are hired locally by the Chief Judge. Technical 

assistance comes in a variety of forms including regular contact with State Staff. Three 

State Staff are each responsible for a geographic portion of the State and become the 

point person for coordinators from Circuits within those regions (this regional division of 

Circuits evolved naturally and does not represent the only possible organization). State 

Staff have relatively frequent contact with coordinators; this includes weekly phone or 

email contact to provide updates or ask for consultation from State Staff. 

The structure in Illinois can be described as both bottom-up and top-down. The 

former is emphasized. There is a broad recognition that changes must be initiated and 

maintained locally and that local FVCC should have a high level of autonomy in setting 

their priorities. Thus, the State IFVCC does not dictate or micro-manage local FVCC 

activity. That said, there is a shared mission for FVCC statewide that is maintained by the 

IFVCC (see Appendix K). There are resources generated by IFVCC Projects and 

Initiatives that may serve to inform and shape local FVCC activity. Thus, there is a 

delicate balance between local ownership and state informed activity. When the IFVCC 

generates resources as the result of a special Project those resources are implemented 

locally to varying degrees and in various timing. For example, the elder abuse training 

was provided in 7 regions throughout the state with over 350 participants. These 

participations have since trained other professionals and community members at the local 

level. 

IV.4.b – Local Council Structure and Organization 

 Councils tended to use a variety of formal structures and processes to organize 

their efforts. For example, all councils had recorded minutes, regular meetings and a core 

planning group. The majority of councils also had written agendas, a mission statement 

and goals and objectives in writing, written job/role descriptions, and subcommittees or 

workgroups. Around half of councils reported having bylaws or rules of operation, an 

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

organizational chart, established processes for decision making and resource allocation, 

established mechanisms for process and impact evaluation. Finally, a minority of 

councils had mechanisms for accountability of members completing assignments in a 

timely manner, accountability among member organizations, training new and old 

members, and new member orientation. Only 10% of councils had mechanisms to 

encourage accountability among non-member organizations in the community (See Table 

1 below). Coordinators reported that councils have, on average, adequate staff/volunteers 

to complete desired objectives as opposed to “a little” or “very” adequate. 

Table 1 Council Structures and Organization (N = 21) 

Council has: % Council has: % 

Written agenda 86 Established processes for resource 

allocation 

65 

Recorded minutes 100 Established mechanisms for process 

and impact evaluation 

50 

Bylaws/rules of operation 45 A mechanism established for 

accountability of members 

completing assignments in a timely 

manner 

40 

A mission statement in writing 95 A mechanisms in place to encourage 

accountability among member 

organizations 

38 

Goals and objectives in writing 91 A mechanism in place to encourage 

accountability among non-member 

organizations in the community 

10 

Regular meetings 100 A mechanism for new member 

orientation 

29 

An organization chart 45 A mechanisms for training new and 

old members 

38 

Written job/role descriptions 75 A domestic violence survivor 

member 

53 

A core planning group 100 An advisory group made up of 

domestic survivors 

10 

Established processes for decision 

making 

55 Subcommittees or workgroups 86 

Established processes for problem 

solving and conflict resolution 

38 

Note: Valid % is reported for each structure. Some coordinators indicated they did not 

know the response. 

IV.4.c –Council Committees 

Coordinators reported that councils include between 1 and 12 active committees 

(mode = 5, mean = 5.74). As discussed in the context of the relationship between the 

State IFVCC and Local FVCC, there was an emphasis on local ownership and addressing 

issues in ways that were consistent with local needs and realities. It was clear in each case 

study site that Local FVCC had significant autonomy in directing their goals and 

activities. Interestingly, this top down/bottom up process between the State and Local 

councils was also mirrored within Local FVCC structures. Each Local FVCC has a 

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

Steering Committee that is responsible for the oversight of the council and is chaired by 

the Chief Judge or his/her appointee. Local FVCC also have numerous subcommittees in 

which the work of councils is executed. These subcommittees were formed based on 

location (i.e., county-specific committees) and/or focal areas (e.g., court committee; law 

enforcement committee; faith committee; community education committee; youth 

prevention committee). For example, one key informant described the varied committee 

aims and their relative autonomy from one another to focus on their particular issues. 

Well, see, [our] Committee is completely separate [from other Committees]. I mean 

every committee does its own thing under the umbrella of the Council. So like the 

pastors, the [faith] committee...Right now it’s a pretty active...So I see that group as 

something that [the Council] is going to be devoting more resources to them because 

there’s a real need and they’re willing to help fill that ... [The] Law Enforcement 

Committee [including law enforcement and the state’s attorney] meet once a month and 

they talk mainly about...evidence gathering and sometimes their frustration about how 

things have gone and to try to identify what... they need to go to a police department and 

help them out where there are problems ...[the focus of the] Court Committee...is how is 

the court responding through all of its components...There’s a health systems’ committee 

and they’re the ones that ... go to the dental schools and high schools and grade schools. 

Site A 

In some ways Local FVCC could be best conceptualized as a consortium of 

subcommittees that together comprise the activities of the whole. Each of these 

subcommittees, with regard to setting specific goals and objectives, seemed to have a 

high degree of autonomy in doing so. Yet, these committees also report to the Steering 

Committee (during monthly or quarterly meetings), fostering an opportunities for input 

from the “governance” body of the Local FVCC and cross-fertilization across committee 

chairs (exchanging information, ideas, etc.). A few key informants expressed some 

concerns about the degree of autonomy that subcommittees had and highlighted a critical 

tension between autonomy and oversight. The concern was not related to a desire to 

micro-manage, but to be sure that all activities occurring under the auspices of FVCC 

committees were consistent with FVCC mission, and were coordinated so that there was 

no duplication of effort among any committees or member organizations. 

It's interesting to me that, for instance, a committee can plan a workshop, or can write a 

brochure and there is no system for that committee to bring it to the steering committee 

for approval. We get to see it, but we can’t stop it...There’s a very good thing, that 

committees feel a lot of power an autonomy. [But] I’m afraid [a committee] can go off on 

something that is not in the interest, now this hasn’t happened yet. But I’d like to see a 

more systematic where the steering committee speaks as one, and that has been a 

dilemma because there’s a great deal of resistance to the idea that the autonomy of a 

committee would be questioned...Organizationally, I don’t think we’re going to run into 

trouble, really, in the near future. But I think there’s trouble possible. Site B 

 Local FVCC do have “checks and balances” where some activities are blocked if 

they are too far outside of the mission. Similarly, the subcommittee structure is quite 

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

reflexive. Committees form, dissolve and merge as necessary to advance the mission of 

the FVCC. There were multiple examples of this evolution in annual reports of the FVCC 

across the State and within the case study sites. In this way, the flexible structure has the 

potential to yield to the needs, available material and human resources of Local FVCC at 

given points in time. 

[Our committees were] doing a lot of the same things, even though like you said, it was 

different topics, but we were doing the same kind of efforts and so rather than duplicating 

them, we just merged together. Site C 

 Changes to the structure and membership of committees seemed to be a deliberate 

effort in all sites. 

We do a lot of evaluating too. And really try to figure out where the gaps are...We’ve 

done a strategic plan as a committee, and tried to figure out...: Who’s not involved that 

should be? What are we?...Do we need a different committee?...At times when we’ve 

needed specific things, we’ve created a committee for it. And then you know, really kind 

of trying to evaluate within that committee is our work done? Okay then, we’ll go back 

into the full council or do we need a different one? Site B 

Another respondent added: 

Or is this committee the right, is the focus of this committee the right one? And if it's not, 

can we, by just changing the name, can we change the focus of the committee? Site B 

The ebb and flow of committees is not just reflected in their focus, but also in their 

membership. Due to natural processes within organizations (e.g., turn over) and other 

factors related to attrition, the composition of members can change quite rapidly and 

frequently. Although, this attrition seems to be counterbalanced, at least in some 

committees, by a consistent core of members who have long tenure with the committees. 

This creates the opportunity for continuity although achieving this is effortful. One 

committee chair reflected on this process: 

I’ve been with, the co-chair of this committee for [7] years, right? There may be one 

other person that was also on this committee when I started, one or two...And so the 

group keeps coming and, but as those positions fill then you need ... fill them in on the 

history, and so it's maintaining the momentum, and I think we do a good job of that, but 

it's certainly work to maintaining the momentum of keeping your attendance. You 

always, always have these, have to be saying, where do we need to go to recruit new 

people? How do we get people there? Site B 

IV.4.d – Regional Organization 

 Local FVCC are organized by the Judicial Circuits of the State. Thus, they cover 

broad geographic regions defined by the Judiciary rather than single communities or 

counties. This raises a variety of challenging issues regarding logistical barriers to 

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

managing circuit-wide council efforts, including, for example, the different regional 

structures of statewide organizations, the distances between communities and the varied 

“personalities” that characterize different counties within a single Circuit. 

This creates an interesting structural challenge, as most councils cover multiple 

counties, as well as many cities and towns within counties. Local FVCC appears to 

approach these structural realities in different ways as indicated by their local 

circumstances. Interviews with coordinators revealed that 28.6% (n = 6) of councils have 

an explicit circuit wide structure, while another 28.6% (n = 6) and 23.8% (n = 5) are 

primarily focused on one county or represent a mix of circuit and county level 

organization, respectively. An additional 9.5% (n = 2) represent one county circuits while 

another 9.5% are exclusively organized by county (n = 2; i.e., committees are organized 

by counties rather than by specific substantive issues, for example, law enforcement, 

courts, etc.). Despite some variation in council structure, over 70% of councils included 

some county specific activities or committees, and over 85% include circuit-wide 

activities. 

 Judicial regions reflect the organizational structure in the criminal justice system, 

but like this system other statewide organizations also draw regional geographic 

boundaries. For example, local domestic violence service provider agencies often have 

multi-county service catchments. Thus, a single domestic violence program may have 

service responsibilities within more than one Local FVCC region. Likewise, statewide 

initiatives such as Prevent Child Abuse Illinois also cover multi-county spaces that are 

different from the Judicial Circuits. Some participants noted that many organizations 

were facing expanded geographic boundaries in the services they provide. 

One of my observations over the last 25 years that I’ve been here is that agencies of all 

sorts are serving multi-county areas, where back 25 years ago you might have an agency 

that just served one county, but it’s like everything, all businesses are spreading, so we 

basically have fewer staff people, but serving larger areas. Site C. 

Service catchments do not always coincide with the regions drawn by Judicial Circuits. 

There are a few of the social service agencies...in our judicial circuit. My agency serves 

[one] County...but yet on the state level...[this] County is not even in our area at all. It’s 

in a whole other jurisdiction. So when I go to statewide meetings for the Department of 

Human Services... I have to choose, you know, do I go to the one that covers 3 of my 4 

counties or to the one that covers one, you know? And if I never go to the one that just 

covers one, what am I missing...? Site C. 

IV.4.d.i – Logistical Barriers in Geographic Space 

 About half of councils were reported to encompass at least two types of 

geographic communities (i.e., rural, urban, suburban), with almost one third 

encompassing all three types. Councils seemed to meet the needs of suburban and urban 

communities to a slightly higher degree than those of rural communities (see Table 2 

below). In addition, there was variability in the extent to which councils targeted or 

involved all of the specific counties in their communities; though, coordinators reported 

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

councils met the needs of their respective counties to a relatively high degree on average 

(mean = 3.7 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 4 = very much, SD = .6, range 1.6-4.0). See 

Table 2 for a summary of findings from coordinator interviews. 

Table 2 Geographic Coverage (N = 19) 

Type of community Mean 

(SD) 

(1 = not 

at all) 

Not at all 

(%) 

A little 

(%) 

Somewhat 

(%) 

Very 

Much 

(%) 

Rural 3.0 (.8) 5 16 58 21 

Suburban 3.4 (.5) 0 0 62 39 

Urban 3.2 (.8) 7 0 60 33 

Note: Some coordinators indicated they did not know the response; means are based on 

an n of 13 to 19; valid % is reported. 

 The variability in the degree to which councils focused on all geographic spaces 

within their circuits was also related to the sheer expanse of geographic space. In all of 

the case study sites, it was not unusual for committee members to travel for at least an 

hour to attend meetings. This adds to the time intensity of committee involvement. 

Additionally, this might result in some geographic spaces being less well represented in 

Local FVCC activities, and ultimately lead these activities to be centered in certain hubs 

(i.e., single counties or towns) rather than evenly distributed throughout Circuits. 

I really don’t know why, but I think that is one of the downsides is that you have more 

representation from certain counties versus others. Now, I don’t necessarily think that’s 

because of the regional set, I don’t think that’s anything to do with the council. It’s just 

those people haven’t come to the table. You know what I’m saying? Site C. 

Everything’s in [one city] and it’s especially difficult for us in the sense of not just travel, 

but we don’t serve that area. I can’t get our cops to go to it because, you know, it’s 

travel time on top of time off from work. So I wish we could do more trainings so that 

they were everywhere instead of essentially located or highly populated as possible. Site 

C 

I know the size of our council is huge... like one of my co-workers who’s on this 

committee, takes her an hour and a half to get here, takes me 20 minutes, you know? But 

an hour and a half to come to a meeting, it's easy for me to come to meetings, because I 

just shoot over, head back 20 minutes to my office. But for somebody else to come to a 

meeting...Site B 

IV.4.d.ii – Multiple Cultural and Structural Realities within Circuits 

 It also seemed common that geographic spaces were characterized by varied 

cultural norms and structural realities. The potential for these differences seemed 

particularly marked when rural and suburban realities intermingled. 

There’s a view, I think, in counties like [Rural County]...that maybe their issues look 

different than [Urban County], you know, because...their population is more urban and 

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

so I think there...or at least historically I think there is that tendency to say, well, you 

know, you guys do things differently because your issues are different and I think that 

historical perspective might impact [current participation in the Council]. Site B 

[Rural County] is a little smaller in number which...which...can make you feel like well 

we don’t count as much as [Suburban County]...So, yeah, you can feel like, you know, a 

little removed [But]...there’s never been a lesser/greater relationship...We have found 

that there have been people in the [Rural County] area who have been very valuable 

resources and have bent over backwards to help...[our] council...to do what we can. Site 

A 

This was not only because of issues of identity, but also issues of scale. The training of 

law enforcement requires a different approach in large departments with dozens of frontline officers than it does in very small departments that may include one full-time Chief 

and part-time officers. It is also the case that resources may vary considerably from one 

county to the next requiring local approaches in each county or even communities within 

counties given their unique needs. 

 In some cases, county-specific efforts were fostered to encourage greater 

participation from members living within those regions. 

In our circuit and we [have an] enormous metropolitan [area] and [also] small rural 

[areas]. I mean we’re not a very good team in terms of providing some resources. So a 

lot of the brochures we do separate things for [the more rural county] identifying their 

resources. And we just decided, you know, we might as well face that we’re not the same. 

And so we’ve created their own committee forum and I think it’s energized some of that 

community who felt like we weren’t really meeting their needs. Site A. 

 Perhaps not surprisingly, council coordinators cited similar challenges when they 

reflected on the regional organizational structure of FVCC. For example, most 

coordinators identified weaknesses with a circuit-wide structure (N=19): 73.7% cited 

geographical constraints including travel time and distance, while 47.4% cited 'cultural' 

differences between regions (e.g., different counties have different needs). 

IV.4.d.iii Regional Organization: Strengths 

 While there are clearly logistical and cultural barriers to working in regional 

geographic spaces, there were also notable assets. For example, in some instances 

relationships may form between stakeholders who work in entirely different geographic 

regions. This may not have the effect of improving the local response to specific cases 

(e.g., reducing the need for advocates “cold calling” to police agencies or the state’s 

attorney), but these relationships may still function to advance the Council’s efforts. For 

example, key informants from a rural county described how the expertise and perspective 

of those from the larger neighboring county within the Local FVCC served to support and 

inspire their local efforts. 

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

I think it’s done a lot that [Suburban] County has come over here and [the] Judge [who 

is the Council Chair] and the other judges, too, to make a presence. I mean it really 

helps to inspire and promote and encourage and all that. 

There is also some support for regional relationships in terms of sharing of 

resources and information. 

Well, again, I think because so many social service agencies particularly serve multicounty areas it is not, you know, it’s sort of a natural opportunity to share resources. Site 

C. 

Another noted that regional organization enhanced her knowledge of resources beyond a 

single county. 

I don’t think I would have been familiar with the [domestic violence service provider] if 

not for the Family Violence Council because [our agency] belongs to a local human 

services council, but it’s county people only whereas the Family Violence Council is all 

counties in [our] judicial circuit. I think it’s just real helpful because...I might interview 

a victim who doesn’t live in [my] County and to know what services are out there is just 

real helpful. Site C. 

Just to piggyback on the regional flair of the Family Violence Council, I think that’s 

really important in this area because we’re such a rural area and a lot of the agencies 

serve multiple counties and so it’s very important. For instance, my office is located in 

...[one] County, but I serve 3 or 4 other counties and I might not know who the contact 

people are or have, you know, monthly contact with those people if it weren’t for the 

Family Violence Council and know as much information and people, you know, if it 

weren’t for that regional set up of the Family Violence Council. Site C.

 Finally, it seemed that regional organization might play a valuable role in spurring 

interest across counties. As members in less involved Counties become aware of the 

efforts of the Circuit FVCC they may be more inclined become involved because as one 

key informant said, “you want to go up there because good things trickle down here 

because of your participation ...in this organization, [the council].” Site B 

 Indeed, of the coordinators that identified strengths for a circuit-wide structure in 

their interviews (N=19), 31.6% cited information and knowledge sharing across 

communities, 21.0% identified creation of consistency in the response from one 

community to the next and/or accountability among agencies, and 10.5% cited the 

parallel between the circuit court system and the region covered by the council as primary 

strengths. 

IV.4.e – Council Membership and Representation 

 Council membership was composed of an average of 12 of the critical stakeholder 

groups assessed (SD = 2; range = 7-15), with about 8 groups represented on the steering 

committee (SD = 3; range = 2-13) and 8 groups represented on subcommittees (SD= 4, 0-

16). Of these stakeholder groups, an average of 8 (SD = 3, range = 2-14) were reported to 

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

have representatives with decision-making authority directly involved in the council. 

Stakeholder groups most frequently involved across councils include domestic violence 

programs/service providers, victim’s rights advocates, social services, circuit court 

judges, health care organizations, law enforcement, probation, and prosecuting attorney’s. 

Stakeholder groups least frequently represented included the humane society and local 

businesses (see Table 3 below). 

For councils that met as a full body (n=16), full council meetings occurred 

between one and two times a year and included an average of 47% (SD = 24%, range = 

10-90%) of those invited to attend. Overall, according to coordinators’ estimates, 47% 

(SD = 34%, range= 1-100%) and 38% (SD = 33%, range = 0-100%) of members are in 

attendance at the average steering committee and subcommittee meeting, respectively. 

 About 50% of councils indicated they had at least one member who was a 

domestic violence survivor while only 10% reported having an advisory group made up 

of domestic violence survivors. This suggests that survivors have little to no direct 

representation or voice in council activities. However, all councils had representation 

from domestic violence advocates and/or program executive directors. Also, according to 

coordinators, thirty-three percent of councils received feedback or input from domestic 

violence survivors regarding their work (either directly or via another community 

agency). Of those councils, most indicated that this feedback came via domestic violence 

service providers and advocates. Similarly, 50% of councils report incorporating the 

perspectives and priorities of IPV survivors into council efforts, while 28% indicated 

doing so either “not at all” or “a little.” 

The vast majority of councils were missing representation from at least some 

critical stakeholder groups. Seventy percent of coordinators indicated they wished that 

certain non-member organizations not currently on the council would join (e.g., 

community members at large, clergy, businesses representatives, mental health providers, 

survivors, and educators), and about half indicated that some stakeholder groups have 

discontinued their participation since the council’s inception due to various reasons (e.g., 

logistical moves, retirements without a replacement, being overworked, and lack of 

interest in council’s focus); thus, councils faced fairly regular turnover in at least some of 

their representation. 

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

Table 3 Council Membership and Representation (N = 21) 

Organization Active in 

Council 

(%) 

Represented 

in Steering 

(%) 

Represented 

in Sub-Com 

(%) 

Active in 

Committee 

(%) 

Decision 

Authority 

(%) 

Batterer’s 

Intervention 

81 55 63 75 75 

DCFS 50 53 20 47 60 

Circuit Court 

(Judge) 

86 91 40 62 90 

Domestic 

Violence 

Shelters/Service 

Providers 

100 100 85 100 100 

Health Care 

Organizations 

86 48 65 76 58 

Legal Aid 58 37 39 58 47 

Local Businesses 10 6 12 22 14 

Law 

Enforcement 

86 67 70 86 90 

Mental Health 

Organizations 

74 63 47 75 60 

Religious 

Organizations 

67 37 61 68 65 

Probation 86 56 77 83 67 

Prosecuting 

Attorney’s Office 

– Prosecuting 

Attorney 

81 53 55 67 75 

Prosecuting 

Attorney’s Office 

– Victim’s 

Rights Advocate 

100 45 84 95 50 

School 

Administrators/ 

Educators 

62 39 41 56 56 

Social Services 

(e.g., FIA) 

95 76 70 91 63 

Humane Society 19 6 12 17 14 

Other 80 70 44 56 44 

Note: Valid % is reported. Some coordinators skipped items or indicated they did not 

know the response. 

IV.4.f – Other Collaborations 

 Fifty three percent of councils had other collaborative efforts (between 1 and 6) 

addressing family violence in their communities, and 35% had a 

coordinator/representative that belonged to other collaborative efforts. An average of 

39% (SD = 30%, range = 0-85%) of the efforts of the council overlapped with other 

collaborative efforts. A majority of councils were perceived to address issues important 

to their particular communities, with 73% indicating that this was “very much” the case. 

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

IV.4.g – Technical Assistance 

In some ways the State IFVCC Projects (described earlier) provide a “buffet” of 

cutting edge issues, policies and practices from which local FVCC can choose and 

engage in local implementation efforts. In this way, the State IFVCC influences local 

efforts, but does not require local FVCC to engage in particular activities (although some 

may be strongly encouraged). Sixty-eight (68%) of councils reported engaging in a 

statewide at least once in their annual reports (between 2000 and 2006).To require 

particular activities would likely undermine local efforts. Part of the stated philosophy is 

that local efforts are best informed by local stakeholders. Indeed, it is local stakeholders 

that must ultimately execute local projects; thus, local ownership and engagement is 

critical. Not all communities may be able to execute a given Project locally (e.g., they 

may lack the human capital and local resources to realize a particular effort). That said, in 

a field in which current issues, cutting edge policies, and “best” practices are constantly 

changing (see Klevens & Cox, 2008 for a discussion of this issue), having State Staff 

who are abreast of such constant changes is a critical way of keeping the work of local 

FVCC relevant in response to family violence. 

Along these lines, the network of FVCC is available for the dissemination of 

information regarding pressing family violence related issues. A recent example was the 

passage of the Cindy Bischoff Law requiring among other things risk assessments of 

alleged batterers following arraignment. The IL Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

(ICADV) began to educate its local programs about the change in law and also worked 

with the State IFVCC Staff to get information about the law to locales throughout the 

State. IFVCC staff attend many local council meetings to assist in the discussion about 

the implementation and ramifications of the law with council coordinators. At least one 

of the local FVCC that participated in our case study used their subcommittee meetings to 

discuss the implications of the law for local practice, to develop forms in collaboration 

with one another and to discuss the specific protocols that would be used to implement 

the law. 

 Connections made across FVCC are also vital as councils frequently exchange 

information, ideas, and “products” with one another. This occurs at retreats where all 

coordinators come face-to-face, and also through State Staff who have regular contact 

with coordinators and a “birds-eye view” regarding activities occurring across the state. 

Given that State Staff are aware of every local FVCCs activities they are well-positioned 

to share information generated by other coordinators. For example, if a local FVCC 

wants to create guidelines or a handbook for faith leaders to respond to family violence, 

they can begin by editing the material created by another local FVCC. This is true of 

countless other products as well, including, for example: a) tri-fold brochures explaining 

access to orders of protection, b) law enforcement checklists for responding to domestic 

assault, c) key indicators of domestic violence for healthcare providers, d) law 

enforcement protocols, e) social services directories and f) information for victims and 

perpetrators on services (such as stickers for bathroom stalls, shoe cards and 

informational brochures). 

State Staff have regular contact with the local FVCC for which they are the 

designated liaisons and report sometimes having contact two or more times per week to 

support the local efforts of coordinators. Interviews with coordinators clearly conveyed a 

high level of support from State Staff. For example, council coordinators reported using 

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

support from State Staff most often for purposes of information sharing and emotional 

support, though provision of training, technical assistance, and material resources were 

also often sought and provided. Coordinators were relatively less likely to pursue State 

support in the domains of financial resources and administrative support (see Table 4 

below). 

Table 4 Support from the State-level IFVCC Staff (N = 20) 

Type of support Very often 

(%) 

Often 

(%) 

Rarely 

(%) 

Never 

(%) 

Technical assistance 21 53 21 5 

Training 28 67 6 0 

Financial resources 18 12 41 29 

Material resources 21 74 5 0 

Information sharing 68 32 0 0 

Administrative support 37 11 47 5 

Emotional support 50 33 11 6 

Note: Valid % is reported. Some coordinators skipped items or indicated they did not 

know the response. 

IV.4.h – Coordinator Role 

The majority (81%) of coordinators had not been coordinators since their 

council's inception. About one third of coordinators perceive their roles primarily as 

being that of a bridge or liaison between organizations (33.3%), while 14.3% indicate 

their role as primarily administrative, and another 14.3% perceive being sources of 

knowledge or information. Only 4.8% perceive themselves as being leaders that “drive” 

council activities, though a greater proportion (47.6%) reported making suggestions for 

improvement of the FVCC process or structure. There some notable differences in the 

amount of previous training and experience to which coordinators were exposed. Fiftytwo percent of coordinators did not have previous training in family violence, while 9.5% 

had 'a little' and 28.6% had 'a lot' of training. Similarly, 57.1% of coordinators did not 

have training in IPV in particular, while 14.3% had 'a little' and 14.3% had 'a lot' of 

training in this area. Coordinators' self-reported professional backgrounds varied greatly 

(e.g., DV advocate, health administration, business, social services, health department, 

stay at home mom). 

IV.4.i – Council Goals and Accomplishments 

 According to surveys of council coordinators, councils were engaged in a variety 

of goals related to the facilitation of a coordinated response to IPV. On average, 8 (SD = 

3.5, range = 2-16) types of goals were targeted by councils, with the majority of councils 

targeting 7 or more goals.2

 See Table 5 for a summary of these findings. Councils most 

commonly shared the goal of providing training or community education regarding 

domestic violence, followed by improving access to orders of protection, enhancing 

survivors’ access to needed resources, reforming arrest practices, and implementing early 

identification in healthcare settings, respectively. Councils were least likely to address 

goals regarding the development of new services for battered women and their children, 

 

2

 This was calculated using a variable indexing breadth of goals. 

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

or the alteration of sentencing practices. In general, the extent to which a goal was 

addressed was very highly correlated with the extent to which needed changes in that area 

were actually facilitated according to council coordinators (r = .92, p < .001). 

Coordinators were more likely to indicate that councils were successful at achieving 

goals related to training and education (100% targeted this change and overall councils 

addressed and facilitated changes to a relatively high degree (i.e., between ‘very much’ 

and ‘somewhat’), improving access to orders of protection (74% targeted this change and 

overall councils addressed the goal ‘somewhat’), making it easier for survivors to access 

needed resources (67% targeted this change and overall councils addressed the goal 

‘somewhat’), and reforming arrest practices (61% targeted this change and overall 

councils addressed the goal between ‘a little’ and ‘somewhat’). 

Table 5 Council Coordinators’ Ratings of Council Goals and Accomplishments (N = 19) 

Goal % of 

councils 

which 

reported 

targeting 

goal 

Perceived extent to 

which goal addressed 

(1=not at all to 

4 = very much) 

Mean (SD) 

Perceived extent to 

which needed 

changes facilitated 

(1=not at all to 

4 = very much) 

Mean (SD) 

Improving access to protection orders 74* 3.0 (1.0) 2.8 (1.2) 

Reforming arrest practices (e.g., 

adopting mandatory or pro arrest) 

61 2.7 (1.3) 2.6 (1.3) 

Reforming prosecution practices (e.g., 

encouraging evidence based 

prosecution) 

61 2.3 (1.0) 2.1 (.9) 

Reforming the processing of court 

cases (i.e., speed of processing, 

providing advocacy) 

50 2.2 (1.0) 2.1 (.8) 

Altering sentencing practices (e.g., 

extending minimum sentence) 

33 1.9 (1.3) 1.8 (1.1) 

Identifying weaknesses or ‘holes’ in 

the criminal justice or human service 

delivery system 

67 2.4 (.9) 2.2 (1.0) 

Developing or supporting batterer’s 

intervention program(s) 

53* 2.3 (1.2) 2.0 (.9) 

Implementing early identification 

policies in healthcare settings (e.g., 

emergency rooms) 

78 2.7 (1.2) 2.6 (1.1) 

Providing training or community 

education regarding domestic violence 

100* 3.5 (.8) 3.7 (.5) 

Making it easier for women to access 

needed community resources (e.g., 

housing, transportation) 

67 2.8 (1.2) 3.0 (1.1) 

Developing new services for battered 

women and their children 

33 1.8 (1.1) 1.8 (1.1) 

Encouraging partnerships between 

child protective services and domestic 

violence advocates 

67 2.4 (1.2) 2.4 (1.2) 

Evaluating outcomes related to the 

council’s work 

67 2.6 (1.0) 2.9 (1.0) 

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

Note: N = 19 councils as reported on by council coordinators. Given some coordinators indicated they did 

not know (some where relatively new). Thus, valid percents are reported out of 18 councils except where 

denoted by an (*) which indicates a denominator of 19. 

 There were many areas in which coordinators’ self-assessments were quite 

conservative; indicating that even though a given area was a goal, it was not appreciably 

achieved. This was most evident, on average, with regard to changes within the criminal 

justice system (e.g., prosecution and sentencing practices), with the exception of access to 

orders of protection which were perceived as a more successful pursuit. Overall, 

coordinators reported that the effectiveness of their community’s response to domestic 

violence was 3.2 (SD = 1.4) (on a scale from 1 = not at all effective to 6 = very effective) 

before the council began, compared to 4.3 (SD = 1.0) after their council’s inception, 

reflecting a significant perceived increase (p < .01). While this does not establish 

improvement over time, it suggests that coordinators perceive positive rather than 

negative shifts or no change at all. 

IV.4.j – Council Activities 

 Councils were engaged in a variety of collaborative activities (average = 3, SD = 

.8), most frequently related to sharing of information and provision of trainings, with 

activities around lobbying or reaching out to nonmember stakeholders being relatively 

less endorsed (see Table 6 below). 

Table 6 Council Coordinators’ Report of Council Activities (N = 20) 

Type of Activities Mean 

(SD) 

Not at 

all 

(%) 

A little 

(%) 

Somewhat 

(%) 

Very 

Much 

(%) 

Discussed issues related to the 

community response to intimate 

partner violence 

3.3 

 (.9) 

5 10 40 45 

Shared information 3.5 

(.8) 

5 5 30 60 

Identified weaknesses in the systems 

response to IPV 

3.2 

(.9) 

10 5 50 35 

Provided training to improve the 

community response to IPV 

3.4 

(.9) 

10 0 35 55 

Engaged in public education efforts 

regarding IPV 

3.1 

(1.1) 

15 5 35 45 

Outreach to nonmember stakeholders 

to improve their response to IPV 

2.1 

(.9) 

25 45 25 5 

Note: Valid % is reported. Some coordinators skipped items or indicated they did not 

know the response. 

IV.4.j.i Training Activities 

Local Family Violence Coordinating Councils have conducted numerous training 

events throughout the State of Illinois. Based on an analysis of annual reports from 2000 

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

to 2006 Local FVCC offered 555 training events.3

 Over ninety of these training events 

specifically targeted law enforcement (92); over 100 training events targeted schools 

(107). Faith settings (39) and health care agencies (30) were also commonly targeted 

stakeholder groups. It is also important to note, however, that these training events were 

typically open to a wide variety of stakeholder groups. Thus, some targeted efforts likely 

involved other stakeholder groups and, likewise, the majority of training events were 

likely broadly offered to all stakeholders involved in the response to family violence. 

Table 7 Number of Trainings Offered that Targeted Each Stakeholder Groups (N = 21) 

Stakeholder Group Mean Number of 

Trainings 

Targeted to 

Standard 

Deviation 

Minimum Maximum 

Law Enforcement 4.38 5.15 0 16 

Schools 5.10 5.80 0 20 

Faith Settings 1.86 2.63 0 10 

Health Care Agencies 1.43 1.78 0 7 

The total number of participants reported within annual reports across training events was 

33,299. While these are not unduplicated participants, they reflect the total number of 

training event attendees from 2000 to 2006. Training topics were varied and included for 

example: school response to family violence, mandated reporting, domestic violence and 

the faith community, law enforcement practices (e.g., arrest procedures, order of 

protection enforcement, investigation), teen dating violence, substance use and family 

violence, faith-based response, elder abuse, internet safety (e.g., internet predators, 

human trafficking), cultural competence, the effects of witnessing/violence on children, 

men endorsing non-violence, and links between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic 

violence. Notably, the FVCC have organized events with many nationally known 

speakers, including, but not limited to: Mark Wynn (law enforcement), Sara Buel 

(Clinical Professor and Co-director of Domestic Violence Clinic), Lydia Walker 

(National trainer and author), Paul Greenwood (Elder Abuse), and Jackson Katz (gender 

violence prevention activist). 

IV.4.k – Institutionalized Change Efforts 

Annual reports also reveal a range of efforts aimed at changing policy and 

practice and creating new “products” or materials to support the community response to 

IPV. Councils reported producing at least 276 “products” related to the community 

response to family violence. We specifically documented a sample of these products (n = 

174), including informational pamphlets (n = 42), posters (n = 2), training videos (n = 8), 

protocols (n = 14), information cards (n = 27), flyers (n = 3), information packets (n = 

15), manuals (n = 4), and “other” products (n = 59). For example, specific products 

included a) manuals (guidebooks) for faith settings, b) screening tools for health care 

settings; c) reference lists and pocket guides (laminated check lists) for law enforcement, 

d) informational cards for survivors to distribute, e) informational brochures (e.g., for 

 

3

 This likely underreports council efforts given that the first council was formed in 1990. Annual reports 

were reviewed from the point they became formal reporting tools in 2000. This allowed for a standardized 

assessment process across councils to account for their activities, but may miss some of the early effort of 

older councils. 

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

orders of protection); f) training manuals and videos, and g) prevention education 

materials (e.g., posters and display boards). 

Councils also reported 23 specific instances in which council efforts resulted in 

observed changes of policy and practice. Changes in policy and practice were not 

specifically elicited in annual reports thus the current summary may underreport council 

efforts in this regard. Still, those mentioned represent a range of activities. These 

included, for example, reformed procedures for orders of protection (e.g., service, 

reporting, accessing); implementation of new protocols for elder abuse, social services, 

and health care response; development of new programs, including for example, a child 

advocacy center and a child visitation center; creation of a domestic violence unit within 

a law enforcement agency; implementation of required computer-based training for law 

enforcement; and the development of first responder programs following arrest. These 

efforts were not evenly distributed across councils and may also reflect variation in 

reporting given that citing specific examples of policy and practice change were not 

explicitly requested.4

 However, it is notable that members’ perceptions of the degree to 

which councils had fostered institutionalized change on average was significant 

positively related to the number of policy or practice changes enacted by councils (r = 

.46, p < .05, n = 21) and the total number of products recorded in annual reports (r = .44, 

p < .05, n = 21). The number of observed changes in policy/practice was also related to 

the number of products reported at the trend level (r = .40, p < .10, n = 21). 

IV.4.l – Council Outputs from Case Study Sites 

 As discussed in this section, councils often produce a number of products or 

“outputs” in the context of their work (e.g., trainings, activities, council-sponsored 

events). To gain an understanding of the nature and characteristics of products generated 

within councils, we examine council outputs within each of our three case study sites. 

Information in this subsection is gleaned primarily from an examination of FVCC 

archives (e.g., annual reports, sample products generated by councils) and supplemented 

with relevant information to characterize the context of each Circuit (e.g., population, 

income). 

IV.4.l.i Circuit A: Council Outputs 

Circuit A has an average population of 141,679 ranging from 18,055 to 265,303 

across counties (total population = 283,358)5

. The geographic space of the full circuit is 

1,123 square miles encompassing two counties. Median income varied from county to 

county and ranged from $46,974 to $52,073. The primary industries in the area are 

services followed by wholesale and retail. 

The Circuit A FVCC formed in the late 1990s and includes a wide variety of 

subcommittees including Planning, Law Enforcement, Courts, Interfaith, Health, 

Education and Training, and Intervention, Prevention, and Public Education. The council 

has conducted numerous training events throughout the circuit. Based on an analysis of 

 

4

 Some councils may have been better at systematically recording and sharing their efforts, but given the 

significance of many of these accomplishments this probably reflects real variation in the institutionalized 

change capacity of councils. 

5

 Information on population and median income was gathered from the U.S. Census 

Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.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. 
71

annual reports from 2001 to 2006, Circuit A offered a total of 47 training events. 

Common training targets include law enforcement (13); healthcare (7), faith settings (5) 

and schools (4). The total number of participants reported across the trainings was 3,891. 

The training topics were varied and included teen dating violence, child abuse, domestic 

violence training for police departments, clergy domestic violence training, DV training 

for dental students, and pre-school teachers domestic violence training (to name a few). 

For example, the Health Committee conducted seminars for third year dental students. 

The committee members got feedback from the faculty of the program on the seminar 

curriculum to generate suggestions and next steps, and, on the faculty’s suggestion, 

included follow-up group discussion sessions and preparation for test questions on 

domestic violence as part of the seminar. 

In addition to the trainings, the council also produced materials for various 

stakeholders and the community in general to enhance the response to domestic violence. 

The annual reports reveal that the Circuit A council produced 34 products from 2001 to 

2006. Some examples of these materials or “products” are “New Parents’ Resource,” “A 

Teen’s Guide to Dating Violence,” “Lethality Checklist,” brochures informing victims 

how to get orders of protection, and “RADAR and Resource Card for Health 

Professionals.” For example, the RADAR card is a laminated, one page (front and back), 

card for health care professionals regarding screening patients for domestic violence. 

RADAR is an acronym; R = Routinely screen all patients, A = Ask direct questions, D = 

Document your findings, A = Assess patient’s safety, R = Review options and referrals. 

The card has a checklist for each of the steps and examples of questions to ask patients. It 

also has a resources section with contact information for agencies that provide services to 

victims of family violence (e.g., shelters, elder abuse helpline, DCFS, etc). Another 

widely distributed product was the Lethality checklist, distributed primarily to law 

enforcement agencies. The checklist or “Lethality Assessment” is a one page, laminated 

document that contains general guidelines that may be used to assess the potential for a 

lethal attack in a domestic violence situation. 

IV.4.l.ii Circuit B: Council Outputs 

Circuit B has an average county population of 227,344 ranging from 88,158 to 

493,735 across councils (total population = 682,032). The geographic space of the full 

circuit is 1,482 square miles encompassing three counties. Median income varied from 

county to county from $54,945 to $77,938. The primary industries in the area vary by 

county but some of the most prominent ones are government, services, wholesale and 

retail, and manufacturing. 

The Circuit B FVCC formed in the early 2000s and includes a wide variety of 

subcommittees including Steering, Law Enforcement, Faith, Health, and Elder Abuse. 

The council has conducted numerous training events throughout the circuit. Based on an 

analysis of annual reports from 2001 to 2006, Circuit B offered a total of 32 training 

events. Sixteen events targeted law enforcement, ten targeted faith settings, and two 

targeted health care settings. The total number of participants reported across all trainings 

was 735 (through 2006). The training topics were varied and included “Schools Respond 

to Family Violence,” public awareness of child abuse, Proactive DV Response for Law 

Enforcement, Train the Trainers for Law Enforcement Training, Faith Community 

Response to Family Violence, and RICP training (Regional Institute for Community 

Policing). For example, the “Proactive Domestic Violence Response” training for law 

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

enforcement was held multiple times from 2004 to 2007 (and continues to the present); 

during that period at least 20 trainings were offered and 314 officers were trained. Each 

training session was 8 hours long, but is adaptable to local agency needs. Circuit B also 

holds an annual Faith training. Led by their Faith committee, this training has been going 

on for four years. In 2008, the training was attended by over 60 stakeholders from diverse 

faiths. During the training, speakers shared information on how to create a ministry to 

respond to domestic violence in their organizations. As a result, two churches developed 

ministries which are still active to date. 

In addition to the trainings, the council also produced materials for various 

stakeholders and the community in general to enhance the response to domestic violence. 

The annual reports reveal that the Circuit B council produced 6 products from 2001 to 

2006. These included a video of interviews with children who grew up witnessing 

domestic violence, a uniform protocol for law enforcement, a victim’s rights form, and a 

wallet sized card titled “Dating Tips.” The dating tips card opens up and the inside has 

two sections titled “I have the right...” and “I have the responsibility...” (e.g., I have the 

right...to accept or turn down a date, without feeling guilty; and I have the 

responsibility... to ask for a date and accept no for an answer). In the back of the card are 

contacts that one access for more information. 

IV.4.l.iii Circuit C: Council Outputs 

Circuit C has an average county population of 27,749 ranging from only 7,819 to 

37,378 across counties (total population = 166,497). The geographic space of the full 

circuit is 3,946 square miles encompassing six counties. Median income range for the 

counties was from $34,690 to $41,477 in 2007. The primary industries in the area vary by 

county but some of the most prominent ones are services, wholesale and retail, farming, 

and government. 

The Circuit C FVCC formed in the early 1990s and includes a wide variety of 

subcommittees including Steering, Law Enforcement, Judicial, Interfaith, Helping 

Services, Community Education, and Child Advocacy. The council has conducted 

numerous training events throughout the circuit. Based on the council’s annual reports, 

Circuit C did a total of 39 training events from 2000 to 2006. More specifically, twelve 

events targeted schools, seven targeted law enforcement, four targeted faith settings, and 

one was targeted to health care agencies. The total number of participants reported across 

the trainings was 1003. A few examples of topics included in the trainings were “Schools 

Respond to Violence,” “Child Abuse Reporting,” “Elder Abuse Training,” “Orders of 

Protection,” and “Mandated Reporting.” Research staff observed one such council 

training on Elder Abuse which was part of a State Initiative and enacted locally by 

Circuit C. During this training, stakeholders were exposed to relevant information on 

elder abuse and were also sensitized to some of the perceptual and emotional challenges 

that come with aging. Research staff noted the potential of council trainings to allow for 

the dissemination of different forms of knowledge. For instance, this elder sensitivity 

training focused greatly on experiential knowledge, including education around what it 

(literally) sounds like to hear with a hearing aid, feels like to move with arthritis, and 

looks like to see with a visual impairment. 

Another set of recent trainings sponsored by Circuit C emerged from the State 

Firearms Initiative. The trainings were mainly targeted to law enforcement officers and 

court professionals such as probation officers. In one of the trainings, the State Police 

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

were involved as well. To date, three trainings were sponsored in different locations in 

the Circuit so that they are accessible to law enforcement personnel in different 

geographic locations. As an example of the ongoing relationship between State and Local 

efforts, the presenters in the trainings included one of the IFVCC State Staff and 

advocates from the local council who had been trained as trainers. Over fifty law 

enforcement and court personnel have participated in the three trainings combined. 

 The council also produced materials or products for various stakeholders and the 

community in general to enhance the response to domestic violence. Their annual reports 

indicate that 26 “products” were produced from 2000 to 2006. Some examples of these 

materials include a booklet titled “Clergy Guidelines: Counseling Victims of Domestic 

Violence and Sexual Assault,” an “Orders of Protection” pamphlet, a “Domestic 

Violence Incident Checklist,” a one page (front and back) handout titled “Identifying 

Children who live with Violence,” and flyers asking businesses to wear blue ribbons 

during April. The “Orders of Protection” pamphlet was targeted to the “lay person” and is 

written in very accessible language. It explains what an order of protection is, who is 

eligible for one, who the petitioner and respondent are, and what the procedures are for 

filing one. It also includes contact information in case people reading the pamphlet need 

additional help or information. The clergy guidelines booklet again is written to be easily 

accessible to the target stakeholder group. It has numerous sections that are outlined in 

the “Table of Contents”: “What would You Do?,” “Why Does the Victim Stay?,” 

“Profile of a Victim of Domestic Violence,” “Profile of a Batterer,” “Children and 

Domestic Violence,” “Counseling Victims of Domestic Violence,” “Counseling Victims 

of Sexual Abuse,” “Counseling the Sexual Offender,” and “Promoting Non-Violence.” 

IV.5 – Brief Discussion 

 Indeed, it seems that Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) 

may play an important role in the local instantiation of currently known “best practices” 

in the community response to IPV. FVCC have mobilized thousands of individual actors 

and hundreds of agencies in their efforts. There are over 100 active subcommittees across 

21 judicial circuits in any given year. Membership in these settings consistently includes 

diverse stakeholders from multiple systems. Local FVCC bring such stakeholders “to the 

table” to discuss local realities and capitalize on local human and material resources to 

affect change. 

Councils’ potential for an educational influence may be most obvious when 

considering the training capacity of councils; taken together councils offered training to 

over 33,000 attendees covering a broad swath of topics and often bringing premiere 

speakers from around the country. It seems clear that councils can play a critical 

educational function bringing “Domestic Violence 101” and advanced topics to their 

communities. This was almost uniformly true of councils – all had sponsored and 

organized training events. Many worked across regional boundaries to offer their training 

events to neighboring FVCC. Councils also mobilized their own local experts and 

resources to create sustainable training processes for local groups including schools, faith 

settings, and law enforcement. In this way, FVCC have a clear focus on enhancing the 

knowledge base of responders and many operated as event planning committees reaching 

hundreds of stakeholders in their local communities. 

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

Further, councils generated hundreds of “products” to enhance the community 

response to domestic violence (e.g., educational pamphlets, intervention checklists) and 

to harness the involvement of local stakeholders in the development and dissemination of 

such products. Councils developed products collaboratively in response to a perceived 

local need. Many also reported specific shifts in policy (over 20). This suggests that 

councils are not only playing an educational role, but actively attempting to improve the 

systems response through tangible resources for potential responders, community 

members, and survivors. 

The Illinois network of councils operates at multiple levels. Having both a 

centralized (a single state FVCC Steering Committee and Office) and decentralized (local 

FVCC with considerable autonomy) they capitalize on the “best of both worlds” 

including locally-driven action and externally-supported efforts. The former may be 

particularly important when a local council lacks some of the requisite human resources 

(e.g., local leadership knowledgeable about current best practices and issues in the 

systems response to IPV) to move toward institutionalized change. In this way, the State 

IFCC may be able to provide direction (e.g., via their Projects and Trainings) while still 

allowing for a sufficient local process to encourage change. 

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

SECTION V 

COUNCIL COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY

V.1 – Purpose 

To examine councils’ collaborative capacity, including the extent to which an inclusive 

climate is fostered, a shared mission is developed, and leadership is effective. 

V.2 – Overview 

Previous research on collaborative processes highlights critical areas of capacity that may 

be precursors to successful collaboration. These include, for example, the presence of an 

inclusive climate characterized by shared influence (Allen, 2006; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001), 

effective leadership (e.g., Butterfoss & Goodman, 1993; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001), and 

empowered members (Lasker & Weiss, 2003). The current section examines these areas of 

capacity along with perceived support from the community context given that factors external to 

councils may facilitate or impede their efforts (Yin & Kaftarian, 1997). 

V.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

 The analysis for this section included simple univariate statistics. All variables are 

presented at the council level. That is, perceptions of members within a given council are 

aggregated to create a single index for each construct for a given council. Then, means are taken 

across councils for each construct. Thus, the resultant means presented reflect council-level 

variation for each construct of interest. 

V. 4 – Results 

V.4.a – Council Climate 

Collaboration research suggests that the degree to which a council has an inclusive 

climate is critical to its success (Allen, 2005). An inclusive climate indicates that the voices and 

perspectives of all members are valued and integrated into council actions. When critical 

stakeholders in a collaborative effort are not heard, true collaboration cannot ensue. FVCC 

council members reported a generally positive council climate overall (Mean = 4.32, SD = .21; 

on a scale of 1 to 6). Members indicated that councils were characterized by features of an 

inclusive climate “quite a bit” on average (81% of councils rated between 4 and 4.5; 19% 

between 4.5 and 5; See Figure 1) 

Interestingly, there was little variability across councils with regard to perceived climate. 

No councils were rated as very low or very high on this dimension of council functioning. This 

suggests general satisfaction with council climate, but perhaps also room for growth in 

maximizing shared decision-making (effective inclusion of all stakeholder voices), effective 

conflict resolution and the presence of a shared mission. All elements of an inclusive climate 

were similarly rated. 

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

 Members also indicated that councils experienced relatively little “conflict” or 

disagreement (Mean = 2.41, SD = .35). For the most part, councils were rated as experiencing 

disagreement only “a little bit” (67% of councils) or “somewhat” (27% of councils). It is 

important to keep in mind that overt conflict with effective resolution can lead to creative 

problem solving. The absence of conflict can be positive, but it can also reflect that difficult or 

potentially divisive issues do not come to the fore. 

V.4.b – Council Leadership 

Overall, council members rated council leadership as quite effective (Mean = 5.06, SD = 

.33; on a scale of 1 to 6); on average members agreed that various aspects of effective leadership 

were in place (notably, 95% of council ratings were above 4.5; See Figure 1). This is important 

given that leadership consistently emerges as a key component in the success of collaborative 

efforts (e.g., Allen, 2005; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). Importantly, 

perceptions of leaders were uniformly positive when considering different components of 

council leadership, including council chairs, committee leadership and coordinator leadership. 

Figure 1 Council Climate and Leadership 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

climate leadership

Council Climate and Leadership

5.5 to 6

5 up to 5.5

4.5 up to 5

4 up to 4.5

3.5 up to 4

3 up to 3.5

2.5 up to 3

V.4.c – Member Empowerment 

Some collaboration researchers have theorized that councils can play an important role in 

empowering their members to affect change (e.g., Lasker & Weiss, 2003). Interestingly, 

individual council members did not rate themselves as particularly influential in fostering 

changes in the response to family violence as a result of council involvement. Council averages 

(i.e., averaged perceived empowerment across members within a council) suggest that members 

felt they could affect changes in policy and practice “somewhat” (81% of councils) or at best 

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

“quite a bit” (19% of councils; See Figure 2). 

V.4.d – Community Support for Council 

Councils operate within contexts that can constrain or facilitate their efforts (Yin & 

Kaftarian, 1997). Members rated the community, or external, support for council activities as 

moderate (Mean = 3.81, SD .41). Council members indicated support for council activities 

ranging from support being present “somewhat” to “quite a bit.” No community was rated as 

providing support (e.g., champions for change; committed powerful stakeholders; adequate 

resources) “very much” or “to a great extent” (See Figure 2). 

Figure 2 Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

indiv empowerment community change

Individual Member Empowerment and Community Support

5.5 to 6

5 up to 5.5

4.5 up to 5

4 up to 4.5

3.5 up to 4

3 up to 3.5

2.5 up to 3

Member Empowerment Community Support

V.5 – Brief Discussion 

The current study suggests that Illinois FVCC are indeed characterized by critical 

elements of collaborative capacity, or the ability to “set the stage” for collaborative work. 

Members across councils consistently reported an inclusive council climate characterized by 

shared power in decision making, effective conflict resolution and a shared mission, and 

effective leadership that balanced efficiency (e.g., being oriented to action) and process (e.g., 

including all voices). This is important given that previous research has consistently implicated 

these features of council settings as critical precursors to effective collaboration (Allen, 2005; 

Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 

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

2000). In the absence of these features, council efforts could be characterized by cooptation 

rather than collaboration and would not be likely to advance council goals to improve the 

systems response to IPV. 

It is impressive that these council characteristics were so consistently achieved across 

council settings given the disparate power bases and historical hostility among stakeholders 

responding to IPV – a common obstacles to collaborative relationships (Foster-Fishman, Perkins, 

& Davidson, 1997). The healthy council climate achieved by many FVCC may reflect that 

councils attract and maintain participation from those most committed to the issue of IPV thus 

reducing the potential for conflict. While the generally positive perception of council climate 

may also reflect social desirability bias in participants’ responses, it is notable that they rated 

other aspects of their experiences less favorably (e.g., individual empowerment) thus not 

demonstrating a general positive bias. Further, our interviews with key informants and 

observations in the case study sites clearly echoed survey findings suggesting an inclusive 

climate was both valued, nurtured and achieved. For example, it was clear in our case study sites 

that the most successful councils had vocal domestic violence advocates and executive directors 

who were clear about the potential for collaborative efforts to improve the community response 

to IPV and how that could be achieved. That direct service providers may have relatively less 

powerful than other stakeholders (e.g., judges, prosecutors), punctuates the value of fostering an 

inclusive climate. This is well illustrated by Malik, Ward, and Janczewski (2008) who found that 

some domestic violence stakeholders involved in the Greenbook Initiative felt less powerful 

relative to others particularly the courts. 

This health of the council climate may also reflect that an expanding array of 

stakeholders from a variety of systems recognize their potential role in the response to IPV and 

are lending their support to such efforts. Indeed, it was clear that councils had broad membership 

from a wide variety of systems. It is also a “built in” reality that FVCC are chaired by judges 

which appears to facilitate broad participation from stakeholders (see Section IX.4). However, it 

is also clear that such engagement from key stakeholders is not complete. On average, few 

councils were perceived as operating with substantial support from the community context (e.g., 

support from local leaders, adequate community resources), and most reported only moderate 

support. This is important given that some collaboration researchers have suggested that the 

broader environment (or factors outside of council control) may play a critical role in enhancing 

or constraining council efforts (Allen, Watt, & Hess, 2008; Berkowitz, 2001; Yin & Kaftarian, 

1997) – a finding echoed in the current study (see Section IX). 

Council leaders were also perceived quite positively. Councils have a paid coordinator 

hired by the local council chair. The council chair is also appointed. Thus, leadership is largely 

“in place” in the formation of these councils and maintained by virtue of state funding and an 

ongoing relationship with the Courts. This model offers two very powerful leadership assets. The 

first is someone who can actively convene and coordinate council activities (arranging meetings, 

maintaining membership, providing guidance, being an active liaison with other councils). In all 

volunteer councils this level of work is often difficult to sustain. Second, council chairs are 

powerful stakeholders in the systems response to IPV. Council influence often seems to be 

bolstered by the leadership of the Chief Judge (or judge appointed by the Chief Judge; see 

Section IX.4). 

Importantly, councils vary considerably with regard to the extent to which they empower 

individual members as change agents. Councils may want to consider how they can bolster the 

ability of their membership to affect change in the response to family violence. This is 

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

particularly important given that councils are often influential via their membership (see Section 

IX.4). Yet, individual members may be limited in terms of the types of changes they are prepared 

to enact or advocate for even within their own organizations and may also lack the requisite 

skills and power within their organizations to facilitate desired institutionalized change. Councils 

could play an important role in fostering members’ leadership skills, knowledge of family 

violence, and ability to pursue change strategies within their own organizations and 

communities; this might bolster the “radiating impact” of councils and foster a broad reach 

beyond those directly involved in or connected to FVCC activities. Indeed, Lasker and Weiss 

(2003) theorize that one of the primary mechanisms by which collaborative efforts facilitate 

desired changes is via the empowerment of their members. This may be an important growth 

area for councils given that the ability of members to act as change agents within their own 

organizations might facilitate council goals to improve the systems response to IPV. Subsequent 

analysis examined the extent to which each of these facets of collaborative capacity and 

community context were related to councils institutionalized change capacity (see Section IX). 

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

SECTION VI 

PERCEIVED PROXIMAL AND DISTAL OUTCOMES

VI.1 – Purpose 

To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on proximal outcomes, including 

stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships and the extent to which policies and protocols 

employed in the community response to IPV promote victim safety and batterer accountability. 

VI.2 – Overview 

Research suggests that councils may be particularly well-positioned to facilitate proximal 

outcomes (Allen, Watt & Hess, 2008). This section details the extent to which council members 

report perceived shifts in the proximal outcomes of interest. Further, this section examines the 

interrelationships of these outcomes to examine their interdependence and mediating structures. 

VI.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

 Perceptual data from the committee member survey were used to describe the degree to 

which proximal and distal outcomes were achieved as a result of the work of the council. 

Council outcomes were assessed according to the extent to which relationships, knowledge, 

institutionalized change, and distal community change were promoted. Descriptive data are 

presented to inform promotion of these outcomes and variability across settings. In addition, 

independent sample t-tests were performed to compare the perceptions of domestic violence 

advocates regarding the promotion of these outcomes with the perceptions of other members, as 

advocates represent a key stakeholder group in this study. Finally, results from hierarchical linear 

modeling (see Javdani, 2008) suggest particular intermediary processes and illuminate the 

interrelationships among council outcomes. 

VI.4 – Results 

VI.4.a – Descriptive Characteristics 

 Descriptive statistics (Table 1) suggests that perceived proximal outcomes are indeed 

reported by members as characteristic of council achievements. Attending to the degree to which 

proximal outcomes are achieved provides an important marker regarding the extent to which 

councils are positioned to affect longer-term change in the community response to intimate 

partner violence (Allen et al., 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. 
81

Table 1 Mean Ratings of Perceived Outcomes 

Variable Mean 

Rating 

SD Minimum Maximum 

Knowledge 4.35 0.29 3.94 4.85 

Relationship 4.34 0.34 3.66 5.17 

Institutionalized Change 3.60 0.44 2.91 4.40 

Community Change 3.90 0.41 3.06 4.81 

On average, council members reported that their councils promote the achievement of 

proximal outcomes to a high degree (see Table 1; Figure 1). In particular, study findings suggest 

that councils play an important role in the acquisition of knowledge (M=4.35, SD=0.29; on a 

scale of 1 to 6) and the formation of relationships (M=4.34, SD=0.34) among council members. 

On average, members rated councils as fostering knowledge at least “quite a bit” (71% of 

councils had an average rating between 3.5 and 4.5) and for some “very much” (29% of councils 

had an average rating between 4.5 and 5). Similarly, on average members rated councils as 

facilitating relationships among stakeholders at least “quite a bit” (76% of councils had an 

average rating between 3.7 and 4.5) and for some “very much” (24% of councils had an average 

rating between 4.5 and 5.2). Councils did vary somewhat, but not greatly, regarding the degree to 

which they were viewed as influencing increased knowledge and improved relationships among 

stakeholders, and for the most part members’ ratings of councils were positive. 

Notably, as council impacts are conceptualized as more distal to the work of councils, 

councils are rated slightly less highly and variation across councils is somewhat greater. For 

example, though members also report that council efforts have helped achieve institutionalized 

changes in members’ home organizations, they are less generous in this endorsement (M=3.60, 

SD=0.44; on a scale of 1 to 6). On average, members indicated councils affected changes in 

policy and practice within organizations that foster survivor safety and/or batterer accountability 

(i.e., institutionalized change) “somewhat” (38% of councils) or “quite a bit” (62%). Similar 

findings emerge regarding the degree to which councils are perceived as leading to changes in 

the community response to domestic violence including an educated public, increased access to 

resources for survivors, and increased survivor safety and batterer accountability. Most councils 

were rated as achieving such longer-term outcomes “quite a bit” as opposed to “very much” or 

“to a great extent” (86% of councils had ratings of 3.6 to 4.4). Thus, while members are 

reporting that such changes are occurring they tended to use the midpoint of the scale to rate the 

impact of councils in this domain. 

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

Figure 1 Perceived Outcomes 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Knowledge Relationship Institutionalized Change Community Change

Outcomes

Perceived Outcomes

5.5 to 6

5 up to 5.5

4.5 up to 5

4 up to 4.5

3.5 up to 4

3 up to 3.5

2.5 up to 3

Note: All perceived outcomes were rated on a scale from 1 = not at all to 6 = to a great extent. 

 A comparison of means at the council level indicates that there is a significant difference 

between the degree to which members report the promotion of knowledge with that of 

institutionalized change (t=14.93, df=20, p<.01) as well as between the promotion of 

relationship and institutionalized change (t=11.69, df=20 p<.01). Given that institutionalized 

changes represent a more distal marker of intermediate goals, it is not surprising that council 

efforts are relatively less successful at facilitating this goal. A similar trend is found with respect 

to the perceived achievement of distal community change, whereby members report the 

promotion of distal change (M=3.90, SD=.41) to a lesser degree as compared with the promotion 

of knowledge (t=11.73, df=20, p<.01) and relationships (t=10.57, df=20, p<.01). Thus, on 

average, members were less likely to rate councils as influencing institutionalized change and 

distal community change (e.g., survivor safety and batterer accountability) than they were to rate 

them as effectively influencing knowledge and relationships. This is not surprising given that 

councils’ ability to affect change outside of the council may become dependent on forces outside 

of the councils’ control (e.g., the leadership of member organizations; support from community 

leaders; support from key stakeholders not involved in the council) and might involve complex 

change processes that are highly dependent on local resources and realities (see Section IX). This 

may also reflect differences in the stated goals of local efforts (i.e., local FVCC efforts focus to 

varying degrees on institutionalized change). 

VI.4.b – Domestic Violence Advocates’ Perceptions Compared to Other Stakeholders 

Another way to gauge council effectiveness is to look specifically at the perceptions of 

those working most closely to domestic violence survivors – domestic violence advocates. It is 

notable that domestic violence advocates had slightly, but still significantly, less favorable 

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

assessments when compared to the council mean based on perceptions of all stakeholders 

(including advocates) with regard to the degree to which councils had a positive influence on 

institutionalized changes and community change (e.g., public education, survivor safety and 

batterer accountability). While all stakeholders’ perceptions are important, domestic violence 

providers often have a more direct assessment of the “pulse” of current realities in the 

community response to domestic violence for survivors and their children. Importantly, domestic 

violence advocates and other stakeholders’ ratings did not differ significantly regarding the 

degree to which the work of council influenced stakeholders’ relationships (a trend toward a 

significant difference emerged regarding the degree to which councils positively influenced 

stakeholders’ knowledge). 

VI.4.c – Interrelationships and Intermediary Processes 

Calculating the intraclass correlations (ICC) for the perceived proximal outcomes 

indicates that perceived institutionalized and perceived distal change vary significantly across 

councils (13% and 11% of the variance, respectively, is at the council level). A smaller percent 

of council-level variance was observed for perceived improvements in stakeholders’ knowledge 

(3%) and relationships (5%), but, nonetheless, both approached a trend toward significance. See 

Table 2 for a summary of the intraclass correlations. 

Table 2 Intraclass Correlations for Council Outcomes 

Variable Variance 

Between 

(τ2) 

Variance 

Within 

(σ2) 

ICC p-value 

Knowledge .033 1.17 0.03 P=.077 

Relationship .049 1.29* 0.04 P=.061 

Institutionalized Change .13* 1.29* 0.09 P=.011 

Community Change .11* 1.22* 0.08 P=.013 

 Not surprisingly, the perceived proximal outcomes are strongly related to one another – 

particularly the relationship between perceived improvements in stakeholders’ knowledge and 

relationships. Thus, in subsequent models the latter were combined into a single construct terms 

“social capital.” See Table 3 for correlations among perceived proximal outcomes. 

 

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

Table 3 Level I and Level II Correlations among Council Outcomes 

Level I Correlations 1 2 3 4 

1. Knowledge 

2. Relationship 0.9* 

3. Institutionalized Change 0.73* 0.68* 

4. Community Change 0.83* 0.79* 0.83* 

5. Social Capital - - 0.72* 0.83* 

Level II Correlations 1 2 3 4 

1. Knowledge 

2. Relationship 0.84* 

3. Institutionalized Change 0.87* 0.76* 

4. Community Change 0.93* 0.87* 0.92* 

5. Social Capital - - 0.85* 0.95* 

*All correlations significant at p<.01, two tailed. 

 An analysis of these interrelationships among these perceived proximal and distal 

outcomes (see Javdani, 2008) indicates that stakeholder relationships are facilitated by the 

development of councils; as a result of intense and direct contact stakeholders become more 

knowledgeable about each other and the local systems response; this knowledge facilitates 

institutionalized change (i.e., changes in policy and practice) and ultimately desired outcomes 

regarding survivor safety and batterer accountability (See Figure 2). 

Figure 2 Intermediary Processes 

 

Interestingly, while improved knowledge entirely mediates the relationship between 

perceived shifts in stakeholders’ relationship and institutionalized change, a direct relationship 

remains between improved stakeholder relationships and perceived changes in the community 

response to intimate partner violence. This suggests that in addition to the indirect pathway 

illustrated above, enhanced relationships may directly influence the degree to which the 

community response achieves the dual goals of survivor safety and batterer accountability. While 

the current analysis can not assert a causal link in this process, key informant interviews 

frequently illustrate this process by describing how by virtue of strengthened relationships 

specific law enforcement officers and advocates may be able to work together in new ways to 

respond to specific cases of abuse (see Section IX for an elaboration on these potential 

processes). 

Improved 

Relationships 

Institutionaliized 

Change 

(Policy & Practice) 

Community 

Change (educated 

public, survivor 

safety) 

Improved 

Knowledge 

SOCIAL CAPITAL

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

Importantly, perceived institutionalized change is significantly positive related to other 

markers of councils institutionalized change capacity including coordinators’ assessments of the 

degree to which their councils have affected changes in policy and practice (r = .66, p < .05, n = 

16) and the number of policy changes reported in annual reports (r = .46, p < .05, n = 21) and the 

number of “products” produced by councils (e.g., checklists, brochures, information cards; r = 

.44, p < .05, n = 21). 

VI.5 – Brief Discussion 

 These findings suggest that councils are poised to facilitate shifts in knowledge and 

relationships among stakeholders. Members across councils consistently rated councils highly on 

these perceived outcomes. Yet, councils vary to a greater extent regarding their perceived 

capacity to facilitate institutionalized change. Given the importance of “changing the text,” or 

changing the polices and protocol that drive practice (Pence, 1999) it is critical to better 

understand sources of variation in institutionalized change capacity across councils (see Section 

IX for an analysis of council differences on this dimension). In some ways it is not surprising 

that councils vary more on this outcome. Enhanced knowledge and relationships – the expression 

of social capital – may be natural “by-products” of brining stakeholders together. This may be 

particularly true when a council has achieved an inclusive environment that encourages multiple 

perspectives and creates opportunities for members to literally “get to know one another.” 

As defined in classic studies from the field of sociology (e.g., see Portes, 1998), social 

capital refers to the benefits accrued by individuals as a result of their participation in groups or 

social networks, and is conceptualized as generative because gaining social capital allows for 

further access to resources (e.g., economic capital, institutionalized capital, cultural capital). This 

definition is in keeping with our use of the term in the current study, where we conceptualize the 

promotion of knowledge and relationships as interdependent processes that reflect growing 

social capital among council members at the individual and organizational levels. For instance, 

by coming together, council members become more knowledgeable about issues related to 

family violence, about their local systems response and about each other's role and 

responsibilities (Allen et al., 2008). At the same time, they also develop personal relationships 

with one another and organizational relationships that coordinate the systems response to family 

violence. As illustrated in this process, social capital is acquired by virtue of council membership 

and has a generative potential. For example, it is possible that as a result of knowing more about 

family violence, knowing more about other stakeholders and their associated systems (e.g., 

criminal justice), as well as through developing more and improved relationships with 

stakeholders and the organizations they represent, members are better positioned to promote 

institutionalized changes in their own and other's organizations. This, in turn, may result in 

institutional shifts that enhance survivor safety, batterer accountability and an educated public by 

virtue of the co-development and implementation of more effective practices. Lasker and Weiss' 

(2003) characterization of social capital as a critical intermediate process in the work of councils 

may indeed be by evidenced in these findings. Importantly, social capital is not an end unto 

itself, but by definition has generative potential as it yields desired systems change.

 Unlike the formation of social capital – so termed here because it focuses on the dynamic 

and potentially generative nature of enhancing knowledge and relationships – institutionalized 

change often requires shifts among those (including individuals and organizations) not “at the 

table.” For example, in all of our case study sites, improving the law enforcement response to 

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

intimate partner violence was a high priority. In one site, a protocol was created with input from 

domestic violence advocates, law enforcement (including front line officers and chiefs) along 

with other criminal justice personnel (e.g., probation officers). While this was described as 

intense process, it was also described as a positive one. Yet, the challenge came when this 

protocol would be implemented. Taking the product to the next step has proved to be challenging 

and an ongoing effort (see Section IX for more detail regarding this illustration). Thus, it may 

take one collaborative process to build sufficient relationships and knowledge so that 

stakeholders can engage in the joint production of a protocol. It takes another collaborative 

process – and one over which councils may have relatively less control (see Section IX) to 

pursue institutionalized change. 

Thinking about how councils can be primed and encouraged to move toward 

institutionalized change is critical given that absent “changes in the text” local successes – based 

only on relationships – may be highly dependent on individual stakeholders’ involvement (e.g., a 

highly engaged police chief or judge) and may not be sufficiently instantiated to encourage 

lasting change. As Pence (1999) notes “changes in the text” can bring about behavioral change. 

Her assertions are echoed in a recent study of health care reform in response to IPV where 

organizational supports for domestic violence screening (e.g., policies, protocols) was the single 

strongest predictor of providers engaging in routine screening (Allen et al., 2007). Thus, it is 

critical to examine how to foster councils’ institutionalized change capacity (see Section IX) and 

to better understand why there is greater variability in councils’ perceived capacity to achieve 

institutionalized change. 

 

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

SECTION VII

COUNCILS AND INTERAGENCY NETWORKS

VII.1 – Purpose 

To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on distal outcomes, including 

coordination among agencies and/or stakeholder groups responding to IPV. 

VII.2 – Overview 

Social network analysis provides a visual representation of connections among a given 

set of “actors” (e.g., Scott, 1991). In our case “actors” are agencies positioned to respond to IPV, 

including criminal justice agencies (i.e., law enforcement, probation, state’s attorney, courts) and 

domestic violence service providers (i.e., agencies providing services to survivors and agencies 

providing batterers’ intervention). Specifically, to assess the degree and nature of information 

exchange among council member organizations and between council member organizations and 

nonmember organizations within a circuit, network analyses were conducted. An example of a 

social network survey is shown in Figure 1. This network survey is also called a “roster.” The 

instructions explain what sort of network tie between agencies is being surveyed (e.g., “with 

which of the following agencies do you share information about ...”), and then each respondent 

goes down the roster of agencies and indicates all other agencies to which s/he is tied (e.g., all 

agencies in the Circuit with which your agency shares information). 

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

Figure 1 Sample Matrix 

If you have NOknowledge of, contact with or opinions about a particular organization place a check mark in the appropriate row and go to the next organization. 

A.On average, in the last year, how often have you... 1 = Never 2 = Once/year 3 = Twice/year 4 = Monthly 5 = Weekly 6 = Almost Daily

B. To what degree has membership in the Council ... 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = Somewhat 4 = A lot 7 = Don’t know

 Exchanged 

information with... 

Made a referral to... 

Received a referral from... 

Improved your understanding of... 

Improved your relationship with... 

Changed policy and procedure within... 

Changed the practices of... 

Domestic Violence Service Provider Batterer’s Intervention Program DCFS State Police Local Police Department A County State’s Attorney Office County Probation Department County Sheriff’s Office Circuit Court 

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

VII.2.a – Network Bounding 

To conduct network analysis a variety of methodological decisions must be made. The 

first of these is how to “bound” the network, or choose which “actors” should comprise the 

network roster. The current study included 21 councils organized in each of the Judicial Circuits 

in the state. Thus, each judicial circuit constituted a separate and unique network of organizations 

responding to intimate partner violence including organizations at the Circuit (i.e., courts, 

domestic violence shelter programs), County (sheriff’s office, state’s attorney) and Local (e.g., 

municipal police, local agencies) levels. An important consideration in network analysis is how 

to bound the network (i.e. which organizations to include on the network survey). For the 

purpose of this study, in a given Circuit all domestic violence programs (DV), batterer’s 

intervention programs (BI), courts (C), probation departments (P), sheriff’s offices (LE), State’s 

Attorneys (SA), and police departments (LE) were included. 1 It is important to note that in each 

Circuit, not all relevant agencies were current council members or affiliates. Thus, the network 

list (or roster) used to survey potential affiliates within each Circuit was formed in a two-stage 

process. First, all relevant agencies that were included in councils’ membership lists were 

included on the survey roster. Second, any agencies not included as council affiliates, but that 

played a role in the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence were added (e.g., 

circuit clerk, states attorney). Resultant network survey rosters included all agencies that could 

be involved in a coordinated response to intimate partner violence, some of which were members 

and some of which had no council affiliation (i.e., non-members). Even though only committee 

member agencies were asked to respond to the survey, the inclusion of both member and nonmember agencies’ names on the network roster was useful given the aim was to assess member 

organizations’ connections with one another and with non-member agencies within their Circuit 

networks. This allowed us to begin to establish patterns of interaction among the full network of 

responders and to examine their exchange of information and referrals in light of council 

membership. 

VII.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

VII.3.a – Data Collection 

Members were surveyed regarding their contact with all of the agencies identified as part 

of the network. Specifically, respondents were asked to report three different types of network 

ties, including how often they: exchanged information with each organization in their Circuit’s 

network list, made a referral to each organization, and received a referral from each organization 

(using a six-point Likert-type scale; 1 = never, 6 = daily; these value were recoded from 0 to 5 

                                                       

1

For circuits that were large and had numerous police departments, a random sample of departments was included in 

its network roster. This was important because we wanted to ensure that at least one city police department was 

included in the network list for each county in a judicial circuit. Therefore, we compiled a list of all city police 

departments for each county of each circuit (via http://www.usacops.com/il/). For each county, we used a random 

number generator to pick one random city police department that was not part of council membership. In most cases, 

this resulted in adding as many random police departments as there were counties in a Circuit. However, there were 

5 circuits for which fewer random police departments were included. In all of these cases, every police department 

in a given county was already part of their membership, and there was no pool from which to random sample (in that 

particular county). These circuits had fewer randomly selected police departments than there were counties. Using 

random sampling in this fashion was critical given that some network lists would be unduly large if all non-member 

municipal law enforcement agencies were included.

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

for all subsequent network analyses). Respondents also had the option of checking a “no contact” 

box for each organization. Each organization was listed in a separate row on the survey, and 

respondents considered the full set of ties for each organization listed in the network roster. The 

membership status of organizations was not indicated in the roster. The overall response rate for 

member agencies represented in the network was 40 percent, ranging from less than 1 percent to 

93%. Excluding two outlier Circuits with a very low response rate the overall rate was 49%. If a 

respondent had checked the “no contact” box for an organization, all three types of network ties 

(exchange information, referral to, and referral from) were coded as “never.” 

VII.3.b – Procedures 

VII.3.b.i Social Network Matrices and the Calculation of Density 

Responses regarding the exchange of information across agencies were used to calculate 

a network density for each Circuit. Specifically, network density is a measure of how integrated 

or connected a network is (e.g., how dense is the information exchange amongst all the 

agencies?). The density of a network is defined as the proportion of ties (e.g., frequency of 

information exchanged) present in the network relative to the number of possible ties in a 

network (Koehly & Shivy, 1998).2

 Network tie data were gathered at the level of individual 

council members, who responded as representatives of their respective agencies. To form a 

network matrix at the organizational level, the individual member-level database was aggregated 

to the organizational level. If a single organization had more than one respondent, then the mean 

score of multiple respondents’ scores within that organization was used to compute one score for 

the whole organization. In the aggregate network matrix, a row was included for each 

organization on the survey roster, including organizations from which we did not receive a 

survey response. 

VII.3.c – Analyses 

UCINET software was used for all social network analyses. The exchange information 

aggregate network matrix for each circuit was uploaded to UCINET. Exchange of information 

was utilized to generate a comparable density parameter given the nature of the Circuit networks. 

Organizations from one county may not have reason to make referrals to organizations in another 

county within the Circuit, but given that councils are developed within Judicial Circuits and 

often involve circuit-wide organizational structures, agencies might be positioned to exchange 

information with one another across county lines. Thus, the ties established by the exchange of 

information network seemed more inclusive across counties (compared to the ties for referral 

network, which might make more sense to consider only within a given county, omitting crosscounty ties). Importantly, density in the current study refers to density of member organizations’ 

reported exchange of information with all other agencies in the network – including member and 

nonmember agencies. We have no information about the density of ties among nonmember 

agencies (nonmembers were not surveyed), but rather how densely linked member agencies are 

to all others within the network, including member ties to both members and nonmembers. 

Given that social network analysis software requires a complete matrix (i.e., a perfect 

square matrix of actors X actors), missing data were replaced with 0s (“no tie”). This assumes no 

contact between a given non-responding organization (member or nonmember) and all others. 

However, in subsequent steps we used unconfirmed ties (i.e., where contact between two 

agencies is established if either one reports a connection; so if a survey respondent indicated 

                                                       

2

 It is calculated by taking the present number of ties in the network and dividing it by all possible ties. 

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

having a tie with a survey nonrespondent, then we took the respondent’s word that a tie existed). 

By using unconfirmed ties, we were able to establish ties involving agencies for whom no one 

responded but about whom other agencies responded (i.e., a domestic violence shelter program 

may indicate contact with a given law enforcement agency even though no one responded from 

the law enforcement agency). Thus, exchanges were indicated based on either organization in a 

given dyad indicating they had contact.3

 Thus, in situations where no data were available contact 

could be established based on the report of only one organization within a given dyad. 

To calculate unconfirmed ties, the matrix was made symmetric using the maximum of the 

two data points generated by any two organizations within the network. The matrix was also 

made dichotomous so that ties indicating at least monthly contact received a “1” and ties 

occurring less than monthly (e.g., “twice a year;” “yearly;” or “never”) received a 0. Thus, the 

resultant measure of density (described further below) was based on a more intensive level of 

contact rather than more incidental contact (once/year). 

As mentioned above, before we could proceed to calculate density, we had to make an 

important assumption regarding missing data. Specifically, in cases where neither organization 

provided data for a given dyad, missing data was replaced with 0s. This assumes no contact 

between non-responding organizations. See Figure 2 for an illustration. 

Figure 2 Sample Matrix with Assumed Missing Values 

The darker grey text (upper left quadrant) represents the agencies from which we have 

respondents; for these agencies’ ties are generated if either agency had indicated contact with 

another in a given dyad. The bottom left and top right quadrants in white are the ties we can 

generate based on the unconfirmed ties of respondents (respondents’ ties to nonrespondents). 

However, the light blue/grey box represents those ties we must assume are zero (i.e., no contact) 

because we have no information with which to make judgments about information exchange 

(nonrespondents to nonrespondents).4

 This biases our overall density estimate because zeros are 

                                                       

3

 For example, person 1 from Organization A reports exchange of information with Organization B. However, 

person 2 from Organization B indicates no contact with Organization A. To reflect the most comprehensive 

exchange of information between Organization A and B, one has to consider person 1’s unconfirmed tie. This is a 

common approach when key informants are utilized to establish ties between agencies (see Foster-Fishman et al., 

2001 for an application of this approach). 

4

 Recall that nonmember agencies were not surveyed. This would have involved identifying unknown key 

informants in hundreds of agencies (there were 619 member organizations and 382 nonmember organizations across 

001111 0 0 0 -

001011 0 0 - 0

010100 0 - 0 0

010000 - 0 0 0

-10101 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 - 00111

1 1 1 - 0 11000

0 1 - 1 0 10101

1 - 1 1 1 11000

- 1 0 1 1 11001

Members/Respondents NonMembers/NonRespondents

Members NonMembers 

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

added to the denominator of the density measure (the number of possible ties that could exist in a 

square matrix), but the numerator remains the same size (the number of actually observed ties). It 

is possible to correct for this bias, but the challenge is that the size of the light blue/grey box in 

Figure 2 is a function of both: (a) the proportion of a given network that are members (versus 

nonmembers) and (b) the response rate of members surveyed. Arguably, both of these factors are 

meaningfully related to the overall density one might expect within a network (i.e., networks 

who have engaged more member agencies are likely to be more connected; councils with a 

higher response rates are likely to have more rigorous and committed participation and more 

interagency contact). Thus, mathematically “removing” this quadrant (of varying sizes) from the 

density estimate also results in imperfect density estimates. See Table 1 for a summary of 

network characteristics regarding the total number of agencies in the network roster, the total 

number of member agencies, and the member response rates. 

Table 1 Network Characteristics for 21 Circuits (Ordered by Overall Network Size) 

Total # of 

Organizations 

in Network 

Number of 

MEMBER 

Organizations 

Number of 

NON-MEMBER 

Organizations 

Percent of 

MEMBER 

Organizations 

that Responded 

23 21 2 33.33 

24 17 7 70.6 

24 14 10 92.6 

24 18 6 38.9 

26 23 3 60.9 

27 11 16 45.5 

35 19 16 57.9 

41 22 19 45.5 

42 5 37 60 

42 35 7 14.3 

43 20 23 65 

45 31 14 48.4 

49 40 9 40 

51 33 18 39.4 

62 53 9 28.3 

63 21 42 42.9 

71 63 8 4.8 

72 45 27 0.04 

73 50 23 54 

75 19 56 63.2 

89 59 30 42.4 

                                                                                                                                                                                  

council networks) and was beyond the scope of this statewide effort. Future research focusing on a smaller number 

of communities can examine this; however, calculating density as a useful parameter for cross -site comparisons 

becomes less meaningful as a smaller number of circuit councils is engaged. 

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. 
93

VII.4 – Results 

VII.4.a – Density 

To proceed cautiously given the above assumptions, we calculated density and examined 

factors related to density using the following steps. First, we calculated density for members only 

using the symmetric, dichotomous matrix including member agencies (i.e., considering only the 

dark gray box in Figure 2). This is essentially our observed density as driven by member ties 

with other members. Second, we computed an overall density for members with all other 

agencies in the network roster (the entire box in Figure 2, including dark gray, light blue/grey, 

and white areas). We call these two density measures “members only density” and “overall 

density,” respectively 

Density was computed for all 21 circuits based on the exchange of information matrix 

(both “members only density” and “overall density”). To further reduce potential bias in the 

“overall density” measure introduced by missing data from non-responding agencies, the density 

analysis was computed for the main component of each matrix (i.e., the connected network). 

That is, the main component calculation excluded all organizations that did not have any 

reported ties (i.e. all isolates, or agencies for which there are no ties, were excluded from the 

“overall density” calculation). 

Calculating density across organizations provided a comparable parameter regarding the 

degree to which member agencies were interconnected within a Circuit. Specifically, density is 

an index of how strongly the organizations responding to intimate partner violence were 

integrated or connected to one another via the exchange of information. Indeed, there was 

considerable variability across councils regarding how connected their response networks were. 

For “members only” density, the proportion of ties/density in circuits varied from only 1% to 

54% with a mean of 21% (SD = 13%). For “overall density” (of the main component, or 

connected network), the proportion of ties/density in circuits varied from 6% to 46% with a mean 

of 18% (SD = 11%). Importantly, the response rate for a given council network is correlated with 

the overall density of the network (r = .41, p < .05, one-tailed). In our interpretation, the 

relationship between network density and network member response rate is likely not 

epiphenomenal. That is, the same underlying process of participation in the council influences 

both council membership and being a survey respondent. It is likely that councils with higher 

response rates also had greater organizational representation not only regarding survey 

completion, but in council activities as well. Given this potential confound (i.e., the density 

measure captures both the proportion of possible network ties, and also the response rate), for all 

correlations between density and other variables of interest we statistically controlled for the 

influence of member response rate within the network. 

Creating a comparable density parameter across settings allowed for the examination of 

the degree to which proximal outcomes, including enhanced stakeholder relationships and 

knowledge and institutionalized change were related to the degree of connectivity among 

agencies positioned to respond to intimate partner violence. Indeed, there is evidence that all 

three perceived proximal outcomes were positively related to the density of information 

exchange networks. When considering member only density the following correlations emerged: 

improved relationship among stakeholders (r = .27, p = .12, one-tailed); improved stakeholder 

knowledge (r = .28, p = .11, one-tailed); and improved institutionalized change (.19, p = .21, 

one-tailed). Note that the relationship between member only density and perceived improvements 

in relationships and knowledge demonstrated a trend toward significance. It is important to 

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. 
94

consider the size of the relationship and interpret trends given the small sample size. This pattern 

of relationships was largely maintained when controlling for member organization network 

response rate: improved stakeholder relationships (r = .26, p = .14, one-tailed, df = 18); improved 

stakeholder knowledge (r = .25, p = .14, one-tailed, df = 18); and institutionalized change (r = 

.19, p = .21, one-tailed, df = 18). This indicates the member only density has relationships that 

are positive, but not always significant with perceived proximal outcomes. Still, this first set of 

findings indicates that density may “matter” when exploring the extent to which councils achieve 

proximal outcomes. This assertion is further supported when considering overall density. 

Specifically, the relationships between overall density (main component) and perceived 

proximal outcomes are more robust (at least at the trend level): improved relationship among 

stakeholders (r = .35, p < .10, one-tailed); improved stakeholder knowledge (r = .47, p < .05, 

one-tailed); and institutionalized change (.37, p = .05, one-tailed). These relationships were 

largely maintained even controlling for member organization network response rate: improved 

stakeholder relationships (r = .31, p < .10, one-tailed, df = 18); improved stakeholder knowledge 

(r = .43, p < .05, one-tailed, df = 18); and institutionalized change (.35, p < .10, one-tailed, df = 

.18). 

Importantly, while density was a significant correlate of these proximal outcomes, 

member network response rate was not. This latter set of findings indicates that councils with 

more dense social networks overall were rated on average as more effective at a) enhancing 

relationships, b) enhancing knowledge among stakeholders, and c) fostering institutionalized 

change. This may suggest that the proximal outcomes of interest in this study (knowledge, 

relationships and institutionalized change) are related to the degree of network coordinated 

activity among agencies responding to intimate partner violence. However, this set of 

relationships is more robust when considering network density overall rather than member only 

density. Thus, this may indicate that it is not the density of connections among member agencies 

only that matters – but also ties between member agencies and other (nonmember) agencies in 

the network – that covaries with councils’ perceived ability to achieve desired change. 

VII.4b – Network Pictures and Case Study Comparisons 

To more closely examine the networks in our three case study sites, a series of network 

representations was generated using Netdraw software. Netdraw creates a pictorial representation 

of the network and allows one to define various features of organizations within a network. In 

Figure 2, color indicates whether an agency is a member or non-member (gray = member; white 

= non-member); size indicates whether an agency had a member that responded to the network 

matrix (larger = respondent; smaller = non-respondent). 

Our three case study sites all had above average response rates (Circuit A network 

response rate = 71%; B network response rate = 63%; and C network response rate = 58%). Yet, 

the circuits varied considerably regarding their respective network density (Circuit A = 46%; B = 

6% and C = 17%). This is not surprising given they also varied in size (Circuit A included 2 

counties; B included 3 counties and C included 6 counties). When examining the patterns of 

exchange of information across all three sites, we consistently observed that member agencies 

were more central and connected to one another than to non-member agencies. Even among 

members, those agencies that responded were more central and connected than non-respondent 

agencies; this reflects in part that agencies who were non-respondents could not report their ties 

to others; thus, these network representations would not account for a situation in which two 

non-responding agencies had contact with one another. Still, consistent with this visual 

representation, members consistently reported greater exchange of information (t = 18.758, p 

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. 
95

<0.000), as well as referrals to and referrals from member agencies (t = 14.880, p<0.000; 

t=12.875, p<0.000) when compared to nonmember agencies (see Table 2 for a summary of 

perceived differences of member and nonmember agencies).5

 See Figure 3 for a visual 

representation of the exchange of information in Circuit B. In Figure 3, lines indicate linkages 

based on the exchange of information. Gray boxes are member agencies and white boxes are 

non-member agencies. Each agency type is denoted with letters (e.g., LE = Law Enforcement; 

see the “note” below the figure for the agency key). The figure illustrates members as more 

central in the network and non-members as more peripheral. 

Figure 3 Circuit B: Exchange of Information Network by Council Membership 

P

C

LE

C

LE

LE

LE

DV

BI

DV

LE

LE

C

LE

C

SA

P

LE

SA

LE

DV/BI

C

P

DV/BI

LE

SA

LE DV/BI

LE

LE

DCFS LE

BI

C

LE

Note: Larger Rounded Squares = Respondents; Smaller Squares = Non-Respondents; Gray = Members; White = 

Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

Participants were also asked to indicate the degree to which the council had influenced a) their 

understanding of, b) their relationship with, c) the policies within, and d) the practices within 

each organization in their circuit network. As illustrated in Table 2, members consistently 

reported greater council influence on their understanding of (t = 10.690, p<0.000) and 

relationships with (t = 11.789, p<0.000) member versus non-member organizations. These 

findings were echoed in the visual representations of networks. Using networks generated based 

on exchange of information ties, additional detail regarding perceived council influence on 

                                                       

5

 This comparison and all others that follow were based on paired samples t-tests where members’ perceptions of 

other member agencies were compared to their perceptions of non-member agencies. These differences were all 

significant at a higher threshold (using Bonferroni’s correction) and differences reported herein held at both the 

member (perceived differences across all members) and council levels (average perceived differences across 

councils). 

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. 
96

Table 2 Perceived Differences in Contacts and Perceptions between Member and Nonmember 

Organizations 

Variable Mean Standard 

deviation 

T df p 

Exchanged Member 2.0254 0.81072 

information with 

(1 to 6) Nonmember 

1.5513 0.69755 

18.758 623 0.000* 

Gave referral to Member 1.6923 0.71510 

(1 to 6) Nonmember 

1.3929 0.61779 

14.880 619 0.000* 

Received referral Member 1.5877 0.72355 

from 

(1 to 6) Nonmember 

1.3388 0.59574 

12.875 619 0.000* 

Council influence Member 2.2283 0.82529 

on understanding 

(1 to 4) Nonmember 

1.8715 0.91349 

10.690 497 0.000* 

Council influence Member 2.1851 0.85492 

on relationship 

(1 to 4) Nonmember 

1.7849 0.90408 

11.789 490 0.000* 

Council influence Member 1.6270 0.74388 

on shifts in policy 

(1 to 4) Nonmember 

1.4288 0.73916 

6.839 417 0.000* 

Council influence Member 1.6022 0.72749 

on shifts in 

practices 

(1 to 4) 

Nonmember 1.4217 0.73937 

6.282 408 0.000* 

Adequate response Member 4.9486 0.85968 

to domestic 

violence 

(1 to 6) 

Nonmember 4.7074 1.15480 

5.087 457 0.000* 

*p < .006, Bonferroni corrected p-value; Mean on a scale of 1 to 6.

understanding, relationships, policy and practice was added (each of these pictures is described 

in turn). We attempt to depict these trends in Figure 4. In Figure 4, the size of the rounded square 

now indicates the degree to which understanding was positively influenced as a result of council 

activities (larger square = greater understanding). Notably, in all three Circuits respondents 

indicated that involvement in the council positively influenced their understanding of a) domestic 

violence programs, in particular, and b) to varied degrees criminal justice agencies more central 

in the network (in comparison to those less connected and on the periphery), including the 

courts, probation, states’ attorneys, as well as batterers’ intervention. This pattern appears to be 

echoed in the network picture in Figure 4, where more central and integrated agencies report 

having greater understanding (larger squares) than do more peripheral agencies in the network. 

Similar patterns are evident regarding the degree to which relationships were improved as a 

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. 
97

result of council efforts. Similar to improvements in understanding, the greatest improvements in 

relationships were indicated regarding improved relationships with shelter programs. 

Figure 4 Circuit A: Council Influence on Understanding of Agencies 

LE

LE

C

C

LE

SA

BI

LE

LE

LE

LE

P

DCFS

DV

DV

LE

C LE

LE

LE

P

C SA

LE

Larger Sized Rounded Squares = greater perceived council influence on understanding; Gray = Members; White = 

Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

Respondents’ perceptions of the degree to which the council has influenced shifts in 

policies and practices among agencies were added visually to the exchange of information 

networks. Overall, respondents consistently indicated that councils were more likely to influence 

shifts in policy (t = 6.839, p<0.000) and practice (t = 6.282, p<0.000) in member agencies than 

they were in non-member organizations (see Table 2). Given that the patterns of councils’ 

perceived influence on policy and practice were quite similar, for the sake of simplicity, only 

visual representations of shifts in policy are illustrated here (Figure 5). The visual representation 

suggests that across the case study sites, the organizations in the center (i.e., the most integrated 

and connected to one another) were perceived as having greater shifts in policy than 

organizations on the periphery (those less densely integrated into the network). Importantly, a 

variety of criminal justice agencies were rated by other agencies (a reputational peer-report) as 

having shifted policy as a result of council efforts. For example, in both Circuits A and B, the 

greatest shifts in policy were indicated in the courts, state’s attorney, probation and law 

enforcement agencies (roughly in that order), which are in the center of the network. See Figure 

5 for an illustration of Circuit A. 

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. 
98

Figure 5: Circuit A: Council Influence on Policy within Agencies 

LE

LE

C

C

LE

SA

BI

LE

LE

LE

LE

P

DCFS

DV

DV

LE

C LE

LE

LE

P

C SA

LE

Note: Larger Sized Rounded Squares = greater perceived council influence on policy; Grey = Members; White = 

Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

 

For Circuit C, a different pattern is evident (see Figure 6). In Circuit C, it is actually one 

of the domestic violence programs that is strongly identified as having shifted policy appreciably 

as a result of council efforts. While some law enforcement agencies are also perceived as having 

shifted polices in Circuit C, there is little perceived shift among states’ attorneys and most law 

enforcement – even those who are members and central in the network. Still, perceived shifts in 

policy were greater for those central in the network when compared to those on the periphery. 

Notably, in all three Circuits there is virtually no perceived council influence on the policies of 

DCFS. 

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. 
99

Figure 6 Circuit C: Council Influence on Policy within Agencies 

BI

C C

SA C

C

P

P

P

C

C

C

P

P

SA

DCFS

C

C

P

P

C

DV

LE

DV/BI

LE

LE LE

LE

DV

DV/BI

LE

DV

LE

LE

C

SA

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE LE

LE

LE

LE LE

LE LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

L

E

LE

LE

DV

LE

SA

SA

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

SA

LE

Note: Larger Sized Rounded Squares = greater perceived council influence on policy; Grey = Members; White = 

Non-Members. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

Importantly, looking at perceived shifts in policy as a result of council efforts can not 

account for instances in which no change was needed or desired. Fortunately, respondents were 

also asked to rate the degree to which each organization in the matrix had an adequate response 

to intimate partner violence. To better understand council impact on agencies’ practices (i.e., 

where they perceived ongoing need for change, but where councils were not yet influential), we 

constructed a visual representation including the degree to which agencies were viewed as 

effective responders (circles denote the lowest perceived quality of response ratings; squares 

denote middle ratings; diamonds denote highest ratings) along with the degree to which practice 

had shifted as a result of council efforts (larger sizes indicate greater perceived influence on 

practice). See Figures 7, 8 and 9 for the response by practice network for Circuits A, B, and C, 

respectively. 

Notably, consistent with perceived shifts in policy, organizations with the greatest shifts 

in practice as a result of council activities (diamonds and squares) were central in the network. 

Similar to earlier observations regarding shifts in practice, many of the most appreciable 

perceived shifts were in criminal justice agencies. In all three sites, many agencies are still noted 

as having “room for improvement” (think of circles as a moderate endorsement of a fair response 

with the most room for improvement; squares as indicating a decent response, but not yet 

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. 
100

Figure 7 Circuit A: Response by Council Influence on Practice 

LE

LE

C

C

LE

SA

BI

LE

LE

LE

LE

P

DCFS

DV

DV

LE

C

LE

LE

LE

P

C SA

LE

Note: Gray = Member; White = Non-member; Size = Degree of council influence on practice; Shapes: Circle = 

Lowest Perceived Response; Square = Medium Perceived Response Quality; Diamond = Highest Perceived 

Response Quality. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

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. 
101

Figure 8 Circuit B: Response by Council Influence on Practice 

P

C

LE

C

LE

LE

LE

DV

BI

DV

LE

LE

C

LE

C

SA

P

LE

SA

LE

DV/BI

C

P

DV/BI

LE

SA

LE DV/BI

LE

LE

DCFS

LE

BI

C

LE

Note: Gray = Member; White = Non-member; Size = Degree of council influence on practice; Shapes: Circle = 

Lowest Perceived Response; Square = Medium Perceived Response Quality; Diamond = Highest Perceived 

Response Quality. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

outstanding; and diamonds as quite positive, but still not a perfect “6”). Again, Circuit C (see 

Figure 9) displays relatively fewer agencies deemed as having an outstanding response, but does 

boast a number of law enforcement agencies with some perceived council influence on practice 

and strong responses to intimate partner violence. Relative to Circuits A and B, Circuit C 

demonstrates a poorer perceived response among states’ attorneys and the courts and relatively 

little council influence in on practice in these settings. Again, DCFS is viewed unfavorably in 

terms of the quality of their response and as not particularly influenced by council efforts (a 

perception echoed in survivor focus groups; see Section X). 

Consistent with previous patterns, agencies more peripheral to the network were generally 

viewed as having a less adequate response, were less likely to be council member organizations 

and were less likely to be rated as being impacted by council activities. Taken together, these 

findings suggest that councils may indeed be positioned to influence the practice and policy of 

member organizations, but may have more limited impact when agencies are not directly 

engaged in council activities. Yet, this might also reflect that councils are made up of 

agencies already more connected to and positively regarded by one another. While this 

causal relationship cannot be disentangled in the current study, these findings might also 

suggest that councils are somewhat less well‐positioned to engage and influence non‐

members. 

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. 
102

Figure 9 Circuit C: Response by Council Influence on Practice 

BI

C C

C SA

C

P

P

P

C

C

C

P

P

SA

DCFS

C

C

P

P

C

DV

LE

DV/BI

LE

LE LE

LE

DV

DV/BI

LE

DV

LE

LE

SA

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

DV

LE

SA

SA

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

LE

SA

LE

C

Note: Gray = Member; White = Non-member; Size = Degree of council influence on practice; Shapes: Circle = 

Lowest Perceived Response; Square = Medium Perceived Response Quality; Diamond = Highest Perceived 

Response Quality. LE = Law Enforcement; P = Probation; SA = State’s Attorney; BI = Batterer’s Intervention; C = 

Courts; DCFS = Department of Children and Family Services. 

VII.5 – Brief Discussion 

Examining the social networks with individual Circuits allows us to better understand the 

nature of connection among agencies, the role of councils in actively fostering the exchange of 

information among members and the ways in which council efforts may influence (or fail to 

influence) specific stakeholder groups. While the current study extends previous research using 

social network analysis to study collaborative efforts by examining networks across multiple 

sites, it is important to keep in mind that these visual representations are not based on input from 

all agencies in the network. Thus, these findings are based on the unique vantage point of council 

involved stakeholders (i.e., members). Still, given the central role councils often play in 

examining and identifying weaknesses in the current response, these members are likely wellpositioned to make such assessments about their contact with and perceptions of both member 

and non-member agencies within their circuit network.6

 

Importantly, examining social networks suggests that circuits vary considerably regarding 

the degree to which they have created dense information exchange networks and that this 

variation is significantly related to the extent to which they have enhanced perceived shifts in 

stakeholder knowledge, relationships and institutionalized change. This suggests that these 

outcomes are more likely to emerge in densely connected circuits or that as these outcomes are 

achieved circuits networks reflect greater density. 

                                                       

6

 Notably, respondents only make ratings of organizations with which they have contact with or knowledge of. Thus, 

random assessments of organizations not known to a given respondent are not provided. 

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. 
103

Further, it is clear that members are more connected to one another than they are to 

nonmember agencies. This provides another source of information regarding the role councils 

may play in fostering broad networks of information exchange among members. This is 

consistent with previous research on human service councils that showed that council member 

agencies were more linked with one another than they were with nonmember agencies (FosterFishman, Salem, Allen, & Fahrbach, 2001). This finding was consistent across case study sites in 

the current study and suggests that councils may provide a critical venue for information sharing 

and echoes study observations of council meetings and interviews with key informants. 

This study also demonstrates that council member agencies were also more likely to 

make referrals to and receive referrals from other member agencies than they were with 

nonmember agencies. Considering the emphasis on engaging in coordinated action – including 

mutual referrals as appropriate – this suggests that councils may facilitate these connections; this 

may also indicate that those more engaged in referral networks are also more likely to engage in 

council efforts. Considering either interpretation, it is important to recognize that the benefits of 

council membership seem to be accrued to members rather than non-members; this may be 

indicative of councils having a more limited capacity to affect change among those not directly 

involved in council efforts. This was also true regarding the degree to which councils promoted 

improved relationships and understanding of and changes in policy and practice within specific 

network organizations according to members. This may reflect important limitations in councils’ 

sphere of influence (see Section IX for an analysis of those factors explaining differences in 

councils’ institutionalized change capacity). 

Future research employing social network analysis would be served by sampling both 

member and nonmember respondents within a smaller number of communities; the statewide 

scope of the current study made this impossible. However, such an approach would provide an 

opportunity to more closely examine the local realities while understanding a specific network 

from the perspective of both those directly engaged in council efforts and those who are not 

involved. Future research with data from multiple sites can also attempt to discern what accounts 

for variation in density across sites – which the current study suggests is considerable. 

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. 
104

SECTION VIII 

COUNCIL IMPACT ON DISTAL MARKERS OF SYSTEMS CHANGE

VIII.1 – Purpose 

To examine the extent to which councils have an impact on distal outcomes as indexed 

by changes in the systems response to IPV, including order of protection rates, arrest rates, and 

referral rates to shelter programs 

VIII.2 – Overview 

Examining members’ perceptions of council climate and proximal outcomes provides one 

critical source of information regarding the types of outcomes are positioned to achieve (Allen, 

2005; 2006; Allen, Watt & Hess, 2008). Yet, it is also critical to examine whether the formation 

of councils has an impact on distal systems change markers, particularly when we are trying to 

examine the institutionalized change potential of councils. Given that the mission of the IFVCC 

includes systems change and that a wide variety of activities have targeted systems change 

outcomes, the current study assessed evidence for change over time in a series of systems change 

markers. Specifically, the current study examined the extent to which distal changes were 

evident as a result of council formation and development. To this end, three sources of 

longitudinal, archival data were examined: return rates for orders of protection (i.e., the ratio of 

emergency orders that become plenary orders, or “return rates”; arrest rates; and referrals rates 

from criminal and civil justice agencies and the DCFS (child protective services to local shelter 

programs). Examining this data provided a natural quasi-experimental design as the information 

provided included data points prior to council formation (“pre” formation data points for the 

majority of councils) and following council formation (“post” formation data points). The 

description that follows describes our analysis of each of these outcomes in turn beginning with 

whether the formation of councils had a discernable influence on the rate of emergency orders of 

protection moving to a plenary order of protection. 

VIII.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

VIII.3.a – Orders of Protection 

For many councils (74% according to council coordinators), an explicit council goal was 

to improve the judicial response to domestic violence. One marker of this improvement is the 

rate of emergency orders moving to plenary orders of protection given that it reflects both 

accessibility of orders of protection and also a scaffold of support for survivors who wish to 

pursue a plenary order following an emergency order. In this system, the plenary order is viewed 

as particularly important because it is a longer order and has the potential to provide a protection 

resource to the survivor for a longer period of time. The specific concern in this system was that 

women may be able to successfully pursue an emergency order, but may not be supported 

adequately by the system to move that order from emergency to plenary. Thus, examining 

“return rates” provides one indicator of greater systems responsiveness and perhaps interagency 

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. 
105

coordination (e.g., ideally, referrals are made from the courts to local domestic violence 

programs to facilitate the pursuit of orders and secure legal advocacy). 

This was also a particularly useful set of archival data given that the unit of analysis was 

perfectly “mapped” onto the unit of analysis of councils organized by judicial circuits.1

 Using 

judicial reports of emergency and plenary orders of protection for 15 years (1990-2005), this 

project examines: (a) if and how the rate of plenary/emergency orders changed over this 15 year 

period, and (b) how the formation of domestic violence community coordinating councils may 

have influenced this rate.

VIII.3.a.i Data Preparation 

The OP data arrived with the following variables of interest: a) Year (1990-2006); 2) 

Circuit; 3) County; 4) Number of emergency orders of protection’ and 5) Number of plenary 

orders of protection. To analyze the data, we merged information regarding the year of council 

formation into the OP data set in order to calculate a variable for council age. The variable 

“year” represented numeric year. The variable “time” represented historical time with time (i.e., 

0 represented 1990 through 15 which represented 2005). We also calculated the age of the 

council (i.e., Yage) by subtracting the year the council was formed from the historic year (e.g., if 

the council was formed in 1995, and the historic year was 2005, Yage = 10. Yage = 0 until the 

council is 1 year old). 

Given that we were interested in examining change at the level of the Circuit, we 

collapsed across the counties in a Circuit to give the total number of emergency or plenary orders 

of protection per circuit. This was done for every year, resulting in the total number of 

emergency and plenary orders of protection for each circuit for each year 1990 – 2006. The data 

for 2006 were incomplete and only had OP reports for the first part of the year. We therefore 

dropped the 2006 data and focused only on the complete data from 1990 – 2005. 

 To calculate the ratio of Plenary/Emergency orders of protection, we divided the total 

number of plenary orders by the total number of emergency orders for the same period. Over the 

15 years (1990 – 2005), the average rate across councils of emergency orders becoming plenary 

orders was 32.3%. In 1990, the average rate across councils was 22.5%, 22.8% in 1995, 40.0% 

in 2000, and 48.1% in 2005. Figure 1 shows this pattern for every year. Figure 2 examines the 

rate by circuit, illustrating that not all circuits have the same proportion of emergency orders 

becoming plenary orders in 1990, and that different circuits had different rates of change across 

time. 

There are inherent challenges in understanding how councils may have impacted the rate 

of emergency moving to plenary. First, it is difficult to separate historical trends independent of 

council formation from the influence of the councils which are also developing over time. For 

example, order of protection rates (both emergency and plenary and the proportion of emergency 

orders becoming plenary orders) demonstrated a positive trajectory over time. When considering 

this trend our aim was to examine whether this historical trend was due to factors separate from 

councils, or if the ongoing formation of councils contributed to the rate increasing across time. 

Second, councils were formed at different times across these 15 years, thus a simple pre-post 

examination of impact is difficult as there is not just one starting point. This creates a natural 

 

1

 It will be evident in subsequent analysis how this unit of analysis issue becomes more complicated. For example, 

each municipal law enforcement agency has relative autonomy from each other within a given Judicial Circuit. 

Thus, there is considerable variability across agencies. Likewise, shelter programs sometimes have service 

catchment areas that involve multiple counties in different judicial circuits. The order of protection data, on the other 

hand, by design was always organized within each judicial circuit. 

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. 
106

longitudinal design, but with multiple “pre” and “post” periods (i.e., periods before and 

following council formation). Third, the initial starting rate in 1990 (the first year for which data 

was acquired) was different depending on circuit membership (i.e., Circuits had varied rates of 

emergency orders becoming plenary orders, as noted in Figure 2). In combination with data 

being available for different amounts of time, descriptive graphs that average across all circuits 

are difficult to interpret as the composition of circuits represented at different council “ages” 

shifts as younger councils stop contributing data. Thus, it is not advisable to trust the mean 

across all circuits at a given age given that the mean shifts as a function of the specific set of 

councils in place for a given year (e.g., when councils are aged 1 to 5 there are data for about 

75% of councils; however, at age 10 there are data from only 24% of councils)2

. To address 

these challenges we used a modeling strategy that would allow for an untangling of historic 

trends and an investigation of how council formation may have impacted the p/e ratio. 

VIII.3.a.ii Modeling Strategy 

Hierarchical nonlinear modeling (HNLM) was used to model the ratio of plenary / 

emergency (p/e) orders of protection across time (or generalized linear mixed models, GLMMs). 

Hierarchical nonlinear modeling is a helpful tool to understanding change across time for 

longitudinal data, where Level I is the measurement occasion (i.e., measurements at various 

points in time) and Level II is the individual unit (Snijders & Bosker, 1999) and where the 

dependent variable is a ratio, or rate. In the current project, each circuit (out of 21 circuits) was 

considered to be an individual unit (Level II), with annual observations of the p/e rate across 15 

years (1990 – 2005) as the measurement occasions (Level I). There were thus 15 measurement 

occasions for each circuit. The use of GLMM also allowed us to assess the need to model 

random intercepts and slopes. Modeling a random intercept is necessary when individual circuits 

had different p/e ratios in 1990 whereas a random slope is necessary when the rates of change for 

circuits are different (e.g., circuit one increasing over time, circuit two decreasing over time). 

We treat 1990 as the zero point in time. 

Assuming that each emergency order has the potential to become a plenary order, the 

ratio of plenary/emergency is a binary outcome (e.g., the emergency order becomes plenary or 

not), with the ratio falling between zero and one. To model this ratio, we used heirarchical 

(multilievel) logistic regression (Molenberghs & Verbeke, 2006) and fit the model to data using 

the glimmix procedure in SAS version 9.1 . To assess model fit, a variety of fit indices were 

examined. Models were determined to have a better fit if (a) the information criteria are lower, 

(b) the -2 Res Log Pseudo-likelihood is lower, (c) the Chi-Square/df ratio is lower, and (d) chisquare change tests indicate one model is a significantly better representation of the data than a 

competing model. All of these indices, along with theory, are considered in balance to determine 

model fit. 

VIII.3.b – Arrest Rates 

There were many steps involved in preparing the original UCR data for analysis. First, 

data arrived in data sets per year (1996 – 2004). All data were combined into one data set. 

Second, all data from Cook county (i.e. Chicago) were deleted. Third, we only included 

incidents of domestic partner violence. Specifically, we included cases with one of the following 

 

2

 For example, some councils are only 5 years old while others are 10 years old; taking the average rate of 

plenary/emergency orders when councils are 5 years old would then include all councils at least 5 years old and 

would be inherently different from the average of councils that are at least 10 years old in part because they are 

comprised of a different subset of councils. 

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. 
107

relationship codes regarding the victim: “V was Boyfriend/Girlfriend” “V has child in common 

with offender”, “V was common-Law spouse”, “Same Sex Relationship”, “V was spouse”, “V 

was Ex-Spouse”. All other victim offender relationship codes were excluded. 

After this basic data reduction, we formed the study variables. The variable indicating 

arrest was coded for arrest, no arrest, and missing. In consultation with staff at the Illinois 

Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA), arrest was defined as having one of the 

following disposition codes: 86 (warrant arrest for other jurisdiction), 87 (arrested-held for 

prosecution (including released on bond), 91 (arrested by other agency), 95 (referred to juvenile 

court), 96 (referred to criminal or adult court), and 98 (arrest by other jurisdiction). All other 

codes indicated that no arrest occurred. When no code was provided the arrest position was 

coded as missing. In the analysis of the data, missing (i.e., had no information regarding 

disposition) and no arrest were combined into the no arrest variable. In consultation with ICJIA, 

the absence of an indication most likely indicated that no arrest was made. 

We also formed the variable dual arrest to indicate when more than one arrest occurred 

for a given incident. This variable was formed by identifying duplicate case numbers. A 

duplicate case number indicated that within the same incident that there were multiple offenders. 

Within duplicate case numbers, if both cases had an arrest and the gender of the offender was 

different between the cases, this was recorded as a dual arrest. Same sex relationships were 

individually examined to determine if a dual arrest occurred. 

VIII.3.c – Shelter Referral Rates 

The Information Network database is a system maintained by the ICJIA, the Illinois 

Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA), and the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic violence 

(ICADV). The system is completed by victim service providers in the State of Illinois (InfoNet 

Manual: www.ilcadv.org/about/dvinfonet_manual.html). For purposes of this analysis, the ICJIA 

provided InfoNet data specifically informing referral sources (i.e., agencies that referred victims 

to shelters over time). Though this field is not one that is mandatory to complete (InfoNet 

Manual, p.58) over 200,000 referral sources have been indexed and ICJIA staff report this field 

as one that is reliably completed for the years under investigation (personal communication, J. 

Hiselman, Feb 2009). For further description of this data source, see Grossman, Lundy, & 

Beniston, 20073

; for further elaboration on InfoNet data collection, see InfoNet Manual. 

The original dataset received from ICJIA included Illinois Shelter referral data from 1996 

to 2009 with a total 512,717 cases. Individuals under the age of 17 (N=112,619) were removed 

from the database, because the majority represented children of domestic violence survivors. 

Data from 2009 (N=4440) were also removed because of incomplete referral information from 

that year. Upon recommendation from ICJIA, only years 1998-2008 were analyzed and referral 

information with missing data (e.g., missing shelter information) were removed, (N=960). In 

pursuing analysis with these data, others have also removed data collected before 1998 due to 

incomplete and potentially unreliable information (e.g., Grossman, Lundy, & Beniston, 2007). 

Because we were interested in the first 21 judicial circuits in particular, analysis did not involve 

shelter referral information for Cook County (N=106,469), resulting in a final database with 

264,322 total referrals from 21 different sources. 

 

3 Grossman, S.F., Lundy, M., & Beniston, M. (2007). Analysis of infonet data from domestic violence agencies 

January 1998 through December 11, 2006. Report to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

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. 
108

Referrals for male individuals were maintained and constituted 5% of the sample. In 

addition, multiple referrals pertaining to the same individual were retained (i.e., referrals for case 

IDs greater than 1). Ninety four percent of the sample informed referrals for the first case ID 

assigned to an individual, presumably indexing their first referral to a shelter. Each shelter was 

assigned to its corresponding judicial circuit (and some shelters already had a judicial circuit 

assigned them in the dataset). In the event that a shelter served multiple circuits, it was assigned 

to the judicial circuit for which a family violence coordinating council was developed at the 

earliest point in time. 

VIII.4 – Results 

VIII.4.a – Orders of Protection 

VIII.4.a.i Historical Trends in the ratio of Plenary/Emergency 

 The graph of the proportion of emergency orders that became plenary orders (herein 

referred to as p/e ratio) illustrates there is a significant increase in the rate over time (see Figure 

1). We also graphed the pattern of change across time for each circuit independently, with all 

circuits represented in Figure 2 to illustrate that most circuits evidenced a general increase across 

time. 

Figure 1 OP: P/E ratio Change over Time 

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. 
109

Figure 2 OP: P/E ratio per Circuit by Year (each colored line represents a different circuit) 

As reported in Table 1, we engaged in a model building process to determine if and how 

the ratio of plenary/emergency orders changed over time. The progression of models is listed 

below, with statistical information reported in Table 2. Examining fit indices indicated that 

Model 6 which treated time as linear while allowing circuits to have different rates of change 

across time (i.e., a random slope) produced the best model. This model indicated a general, 

positive, linear trend across time with significant variation in slopes and intercepts across circuits 

(i.e., differences across circuits in the ratio of emergency orders becoming plenary orders at age 

“0” and differences in the rate of change over time). 

 Yet, although this model established a linear trend across time, this model does not 

indicate whether this trend would have existed without the formation of the councils. It is 

possible that council formation contributed to this general linear trend. More specific analyses 

were aimed at understanding how councils may or may not have impacted this general increase 

across time. Specifically, four sets of analyses were engaged to examine the effect of council 

formation on the rate of emergency orders becoming plenary orders (p/e rates): a) graphical 

examination, b) examination of change over time for the period prior to council formation, c) 

examination of change over time for the period following council formation and d) a model 

examining the presence/absence of a council and council age. 

Table 1 Steps in the Model Process 

1. Null model: No fixed random effects included. 

2. Random intercept model. 

3. random intercept model, time as linear. 

4. Random intercept model, time as linear and quadratic. 

5. Random intercept model, time as linear, quadratic, cubic 

6. Random intercept model, time as linear, random slope for linear 

7. Random intercept model, time as linear, quadratic, random slope for linear 

8. Random intercept model, time as linear, quadratic, random slope for linear, quadratic 

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. 
110

Table 2 OP: Modeling Historic Time 

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

1) Null 47855 47857 47857 47861 47862 47858 *Intercept -0.91 0.004 

2) Random Intercept (RI) 

 29077 29081 29081 29088 29090 29084 

*Intercept -0.87 0.11 0.27 0.09 3) RI, Time as linear 

 14517 14523 14523 14534 14537 14528 

*Intercept -1.85 0.12 0.29 0.09 *Time 0.11 0.001 4) RI, Time as linear, quadratic 

 14270 14278 14278 14293 14297 14284 

*Intercept -1.70 0.12 0.29 0.09 *Time 0.06 0.004 *Timesq 0.003 0.0002 5) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, cubic 

 14062 14072 14072 14091 14096 14079 

*Intercept -1.53 0.12 0.29 0.09 *Time -0.063 0.009 *Timesq 0.023 0.001 *Timecubic -0.001 0.001 

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. 
111

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM EFFECTS

COVARIANCE

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike 

P-AIC PAICC P-BIC P- CAIC P- HQIC 

6) RI, Time as linear, random slope for linear 

 10417 10425 10425 10440 10444 10431 

*Intercept -1.85 0.21 0.94 0.3  Slope 0.005 0.002 *Time 0.11 0.02 

7) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, random slope for linear 

 10273 10283 10283 10302 10307 10291 

*Intercept -1.76 0.21 0.92 0.29 

 Slope 0.005 0.002 

*Time 0.08 0.02 *Timesq 0.002 0.0002 8) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, Random Slope for linear, quadratic 

Model did not converge 

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. 
112

VIII.4.a.ii Historical Trends with the Introduction of a Council: Descriptive/Graphical

First, descriptive graphs were examined to determine p/e ratio trends across time for each 

circuit (see Figures 3 and 4 for illustrations of two of the 21 Circuit graphs). Imposed on each of 

the 21 graphs was a line to designate the introduction of a council. See Figures 3 and 4 for 

examples of individual graphs of each circuit with a vertical line indicating the year of council 

formation. Based on a visual inspection of these graphs for each Circuit, it appeared that council 

formation may have an impact on about half of the councils (11 of 21). Furthermore, it appeared 

that the p/e ratio began to increase the year after formation (Figure 5) or began to increase the 

year just prior to council formation (Figure 3) or appeared to increase beginning in their second 

year (Figure 4). Naturally, there was variability across councils regarding the degree to which 

increases were clearly related to council formation. For example, see Figure 6 for an illustration 

of circuits are on a positive trajectory which continues following council formation and Figure 7 

for an illustration of a circuit where there is no apparent change. 

Overall, the visual inspection of circuits it appeared that for at least some an increase in 

the p/e rate began for many circuits around the time of council formation; given that preparatory 

work occurred prior to the official “kick-off” event for councils and that cooperative efforts 

would begin in earnest after this event specific start dates for councils may be somewhat 

imprecise, but provide reasonable approximations for beginning dates. 

Figure 3 P/E Ratio Over Time with Council Formation Denoted 

Note: The vertical line represents council formation in 2001.

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. 
113

Figure 4 P/E Ratio: Example of Positive Trajectory Following Council Formation 

Note: The vertical line represents council formation in 1993. 

Figure 5 P/E Ratio: Example of Positive Trajectory Following Council Formation 

Note: The vertical line represents council formation in 2002.

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. 
114

Figure 6 P/E Ratio: Example of Positive Trajectory Prior to and Following Council Formation 

Note: The vertical line represents council formation in 1997. 

Figure 7 P/E Ratio Over Time: Example of No Detectable Change with Council Formation 

Note: The vertical line represents council formation in 1995. 

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. 
115

VIII.4.a.iii Historic Time Without Councils

Second, we examined historic time without the presence of a council (1990 – 2005), by 

including information for a given Circuit up to the point that their council was formed. For 

example, Circuit 1 formed a council in 1998. Therefore, historic time (without the influence of a 

council) would include the data from 1990 – 1998 for Circuit 1, for example. Likewise, given 

that Circuit 5 was formed in 2001, therefore we included the data from 1990 – 2001 for Circuit 5. 

This was determined for all circuits with the resulting data set representing historical time 

without the presence of councils. Using this data, we modeled the p/e ratio over time. 

As can be seen in the graph collapsing across circuits (Figure 8), there may appears to be 

a mild linear trend. At the same time, the data on the ends represent fewer circuits because in 

this graphic representation only circuits that still have no council are included. For a sense of 

how each circuit changes over the time period before a council is formed, see Figure 9 which 

shows each circuit overlaid onto one graph. As reported in Table 3, we engaged in a model 

building process to determine if and how the p/e ratio changed over time for the circuits that did 

not have a council. The progression of models is the same as listed in Table 1, with statistical 

information reported in Table 3. 

Again, an examination of fit indices indicated that Model 6 including a random intercept, 

time as linear, and random slope for time was the best fitting model. Even though this appeared 

to be the best model, linear time was indeed not a significant predictor of the p/e ratio, indicating 

that the p/e ratio did not vary systematically by historical time during the period in which there 

was no council in place. 

Figure 8 OP: P/E Ratio Including only Pre-Council Formation Rates Over Time 

 

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. 
116

Figure 9 OP: P/E Ratio Including only Pre-Council Formation Rates Over Time by Circuit 

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. 
117

Table 3 OP: Modeling Historic Time with NO Councils Present 

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM 

EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

1) Null 16524 16526 16526 16529 16530 16527 *Intercept -1.36 0.006 

2) Random Intercept (RI) 

 5201 5205 5205 5211 5213 5208 

*Intercept -1.39 0.16 0.51 0.16 3) RI, Time as linear 

 3848 3854 3854 3864 3867 3858 

*Intercept -1.76 0.15 0.49 0.16 *Time 0.09 0.002 4) RI, Time as linear, quadratic 

 3482 3490 3490 3502 3506 3495 

*Intercept -1.54 0.16 0.50 0.16 *Time -0.02 0.007 *Timesq 0.009 0.001 5) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, cubic 

 3274 3284 3285 3300 3305 3291 

*Intercept -1.39 0.16 0.53 0.17 *Time -0.20 0.01 *Timesq 0.05 0.003 *Timecubic -0.002 0.0001 

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. 
118

* p < .05 

FIXED

EFFECTS

RANDOM EFFECTS

COVARIANCE

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike 

P-AIC PAICC P-BIC P- CAIC P- HQIC 

6) RI, Time as linear, random slope for linear 

 2268 2276 2276 2289 2293 2281 

*Intercept -1.49 0.16 0.54 0.17  Slope 0.02 0.008 Time -0.01 0.03 

7) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, random slope for linear 

 2259 2269 2270 2285 2290 2276 

*Intercept -1.46 0.16 0.52 0.17  Slope 0.02 0.007 Time -0.03 0.03 *Timesq 0.003 0.0007 8) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, Random Slope for linear, quadratic 

Model did not converge 

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. 
119

VIII.4.a.iv Historic Time With Councils

 Third, we examined historic time with the presence of a council (1990 – 2005) by 

including information from a circuit from the year after the council was formed and beyond. 

This was the opposite strategy of the preceding analyses; instead of selecting data points with no 

council present, we only selected data points where councils were present in a given Circuit. For 

example, Circuit 1 formed a council in 1998. Therefore, we will only include the data from 

1999-2005. For Circuit 5, the council was formed in 2001; thus we only include the data from 

2002-2005. This was done for all 21 Circuits with the resulting data set representing historical 

time with the presence of councils. Again, we modeled the p/e ratio over time in this data. 

As can be seen in the graph collapsing across circuits (Figure 10), there appeared to be a 

possible linear trend, or increase over time when councils are present. Again, the data on the 

ends represent fewer circuits given that few were formed by the early 1990s. For a sense of how 

each circuit changes over the time period before a council is formed, see Figure 11 which shows 

each circuit overlaid onto one graph. As reported in Table 4, we engaged in a model building 

process to determine if and how the p/e ratio changed over time for the circuits that did have a 

council. The progression of models was engaged as described previously with statistical 

information reported in Table 4. 

Similar to the previous analysis, Model 6, including a random intercept, time as linear, 

and random slope for time was the best fitting model. However, in contrast to the previous set of 

analysis (i.e., historical time without councils), in this model (i.e., historical time with councils), 

time emerged as a significant linear predictor of the p/e ratio. Comparing these two findings 

indicates that in the presence of a council, the p/e ratio increased across time whereas without a 

council present, the p/e rate fluctuated at random. 

Figure 10 OP: P/E Ratio Including only Post Formation Rates (i.e., rates after Councils) 

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. 
120

Figure 11 OP: P/E Ratio only Post Formation Rates (i.e., rates after Councils) by Circuit 

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. 
121

Table 4 OP: Modeling Historic Time WITH Councils Present 

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM 

EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

1) Null 21500 21502 21502 21505 21506 21503 *Intercept -0.57 0.005 

2) Random Intercept (RI) 

 8031 8035 8035 8041 8043 8038 

*Intercept -0.47 0.12 0.33 0.10 3) RI, Time as linear 

 5874 5880 5880 5889 5892 5884 

*Intercept -1.55 0.12 0.28 0.09 *Time 0.09 0.002 4) RI, Time as linear, quadratic 

 5858 5866 5866 5878 5882 5871 

*Intercept -1.92 0.13 0.28 0.09 *Time 0.17 0.01 *Timesq -0.004 0.0006 5) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, cubic 

 5843 5853 5854 5869 5874 5860 

*Intercept -2.66 0.18 0.28 0.09 *Time 0.43 0.05 *Timesq -0.03 0.005 *Timecubic 0.001 0.0002 

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. 
122

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM EFFECTS

COVARIANCE

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike 

P-AIC PAICC P-BIC P- CAIC P- HQIC 

6) RI, Time as linear, random slope for linear 

 3100 3108 3108 3120 3124 3113 

*Intercept -1.75 0.50 4.95 1.61  Slope 0.02 0.008 *Time 0.11 0.03 

7) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, random slope for linear 

 3055 3065 3065 3080 3085 3071 

*Intercept -2.70 0.51 5.09 1.65  Slope 0.03 0.008 *Time 0.28 0.40 *Timesq -0.007 0.0007 8) RI, Time as linear, quadratic, Random Slope for linear, quadratic 

Model did not converge 

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. 
123

VIII.4.a.v Integrated Model to Examine Council Age and Rate of Plenary/Emergency

 Fourth, based on the findings from these two previous models with and without councils, 

we examined an integrated model to examine the influence of council age on the p/e ratio. This 

allowed us to model a linear relationship between council age and p/e ratio while simultaneously 

accounting for the randomness of p/e ratio prior to council formation. Taken together, the 

descriptive graphs and models indicate that the presence of a coordinating council relates to a 

positive, linear trend in p/e over time across circuits. 

The logic of the model is as follows. First, we created a variable that represents the age 

of the council in years (age). When this variable is zero (indicating that the council has not yet 

been formed), it effectually drops out of the model. Second, we created a dummy variable to 

account for the variation prior to council formation (nocouncil). This “nocouncil” variable is 

coded “0” if a council exists, and “1” if no council is present. In effect, when a council is present 

this variable drops out of the model. Therefore, when a council is present “age” stays in the 

model, whereas the nocouncil variable drops out (and vice-versa when a council is absent). 

At level II, the random intercept is included in a standard fashion. In order to account for 

the apparent random pattern of p/e prior to council formation, a random effect is included for the 

“nocouncil” variable. In effect, this random component for pre-council is only part of the model 

when no council is present (because when a council is present, this variable is 0 and drops out of 

the model, with the associated random effect dropping out of the model as well). This 

formulation of the model results in the ability to estimate both the presence of a council and the 

absence of a council simultaneously. 

As reported in Table 5, the best fitting model was Model 5, including a random intercept 

(to account for variation in the p/e ratio across circuits), council age, nocouncil, and a random 

component for nocouncil. In this model, council age had a significant effect indicating a 

positive, linear association between council age and p/e. That is, as councils age increases the 

ratio of emergency to plenary orders also rises. Furthermore, the dummy variable for a council 

being present or absent (i.e., nocouncil) was also significant. This represents the significant 

difference in the odds that an emergency order would become a plenary order when a council is 

present; specifically, the odds of an emergency order being extended to a plenary order when a 

council is present is 1.67 times the odds of an extension when a council is absent. In summary, 

this model shows a positive, linear association between council age and the p/e ratio, indicating 

that the presence and age of council relates to an increased ratio of plenary to emergency orders 

of protection. 

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. 
124

Table 5 OP: Modeling Council Age, Integrated Model 

 * p < .05 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM 

EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

1) Null 47855 47857 47857 47861 47862 47859 *Intercept -0.91 0.004 

2) Random Intercept (RI) 

 29077 29080 29080 29088 29090 29084 

*Intercept -0.87 0.11 0.27 0.09 3) RI, Council Age as linear 

 19001 19007 19008 19019 19022 19012 

*Intercept -1.28 0.13 0.36 0.11 *CounAge 0.14 0.001 4) RI, Council Age linear, NoCouncil 

 15978 15986 15986 16001 16005 15992 

*Intercept -0.80 0.13 0.37 0.12 *CounAge 0.07 0.002 *NoCouncil -0.68 0.01 

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. 
125

* p < .05 

FIXED

EFFECTS

RANDOM EFFECTS

COVARIANCE

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike 

P-AIC PAICC P-BIC P- CAIC P- HQIC 

5) RI, Council Age linear, NoCouncil, Random Nocouncil 

 11078 11088 11089 11107 11112 11096 

*Intercept -0.88 0.15 0.24 0.12  NoCoun Slope 0.24 0.07 *CounAge 0.09 0.002 *NoCoun -0.51 0.15 

6) RI, Council Age linear, quadratic, NoCoun, Random slope NoCoun 

 11092 11104 11104 11127 11133 11113 

*Intercept -0.90 0.15 0.24 0.12  NoCoun Slope 0.24 0.08 *CounAge 0.10 0.006 CounAge sq -0.001 0.001 *NoCoun -0.49 0.15 

Note: For Model 7 including: RI, Council Age linear, NoCoun, Random Slope NoCoun, Random slope and Council Age the mod

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. 
126

VIII.4.b – Arrest Rates 

VIII.4.b.i Description of Arrest Data 

To examine change over time in arrest rates (i.e., arrests/reported incidents), we 

graphically examined the arrest rates versus chronological year (i.e., 1996 - 2004) overall, for 

each judicial circuit, and each county. Figure 12 depicts the overall relationship between number 

of incidents by year. Of the 209,212 total number of incidents, the lowest number of incidents 

was in 1996 with 20,298 calls and highest in 1997 with 25,885. After 1997, there was a general 

downward trend in incidents that levels off at approximately 23,000 incidents per year. Dual 

arrest rates were quite low. Only 386 dual arrests were detected in 1996, 186 in year 2000 (out of 

23,866l), and 185 in year 2004 (out of 22,371). These estimations may be low because they had 

to be determined ad hoc given they were not systematically recorded. Given the very low number 

dual arrests were not modeled over time. 

Figure 12 Arrest: Overall Number of Incidents by Year 

Out of the 209,212 total incidents, 17.7% lead to an arrest. Figure 13 depicts the 

relationship between number of arrests and year. The number of arrests declined from 1996 to 

2004. Noteworthy is the fact that the number of arrests increased in 2000 and then returns to the 

1999 level in 2001. This pattern of arrest follows national data on arrests for domestic violence 

(National Crime Victimization Survey; Catalano, 2006). The importance of the year 2000 is not 

clear although it is notable that it is year in which the Violence Against Women Act was 

renewed and was also the millennium and a period of slight recession. 

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. 
127

Figure 13 Arrest: Overall Number of Arrests by Year 

 

Figure 14 Arrest: Proportion by Year 

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. 
128

Figure 14 illustrates the relationship between proportion of arrest and year. With the 

exception of 2000, there is a steady decline in the percent of arrests from approximately 25.5% in 

1996 to 15.0% in 2004. From Figures 12 and 13, we see increases in the number of incidents 

and arrests in 2000, and from Figure 14, we find an overall increase in the proportion of arrests 

in 2000. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that in 1996 when the number of incidents was at its 

lowest level, the rate of arrests was at its highest, and in 1997 when number of incidents was at 

its highest level, the arrest rate dropped down to approximately 19%. 

Since one of the goals of the study was to assess the possible effect of council formation 

and development (perhaps indicating a more coordinated response) on arrest rates, we also 

examined the relationship between number of incidents, number of arrests and the rate of arrests 

by year for each council. Figures 15 and 16 show the relationship between number of incidents 

and number of arrests by year with a different line for each judicial circuit. There is a 

considerable amount of heterogeneity between Circuits both in terms of the overall number of 

incidents and overall number of arrests. In general, the more incidents, the more arrests. An 

exception appears for one of the circuits where the number of incidents increases across time and 

has the second highest number of arrests. It might be the case that the sharp increase in number 

of arrests for this circuit in 2000 may, in part, account for the increase in the overall arrest rate 

for 2000. 

Figure 15 Arrest: Number of Incidents by Year and per Circuit 

 

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. 
129

Figure 16 Arrest: Number of Arrests by Year and per Circuit 

To better examine the circuits and look for systematic differences and change over years, 

the proportion of arrests for each circuit were plotted by year in Figure 17. From this figure we 

see that there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of level of arrest rate where circuit 10 has on 

average the lowest rate of arrests and circuit 8 has the highest rate. Most circuits show tendency 

for an initial decrease in arrest rates (i.e., 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21). Of 

those that exhibit an initial decrease, all except circuits 13 and 15 appear to level off (i.e., 

become more constant). Circuit 2 shows an increase from the beginning to the end of the time 

period. Of the remaining circuits, numbers 10, 17, and 19 have roughly constant rates of arrest, 

circuit 16 has a small increase over time, and number 20 is flat except for a spike (increase) in 

years 2001, 2002 and 2003. 

Although not presented here, we also found considerable heterogeneity between counties 

within circuits in terms of the number of incidents, number of arrests and arrest rates (county 

data is presented with the results of modeling of the data). Given the heterogeneities between 

circuits and between counties, these were considered in our modeling of the data. Furthermore, 

in some cases councils were implemented more regionally at the circuit level and in other cases 

focused more on a single county or only a couple of counties within a circuit. Chronological year 

is important and must be included; however, the potential for a council to influence arrest rates 

might be more dependent on length of time that a collaborative response has been in place. In 

the following figures, 18, 19, and 20, the number of incidents, number of arrests and rate of 

arrests are plotted against the age of the council (i.e., the time that a coordinated response has 

been used) where age is measured in terms of year. When examining these figures, keep in mind 

that there is only one council (i.e., Circuit 9) that is 12 or more years old and only four (i.e., 

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. 
130

Circuits 6, 9, 10, 17) that are 10 or more years. The data included are for councils who are at 

least one year old. 

Overall, there is a relatively smooth decline in both the number of incidences and the 

number of arrests. The rate of arrest generally decreases until councils are 12 years. Less weight 

should be placed on points for higher ages, because there are only three councils for which there 

is data for 12 through 14 years old. 

Continued on next page. 

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. 
131

Figure 17 Arrest: Proportion per Circuit 

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. 
132

Figure 18 Arrest: Number of Incidents by Age of Council since Council Formation (measured in 

year) 

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. 
133

Figure 19 Arrest: Number of Arrests by Council Age since Council Formation (measured in 

years) 

Figure 20 Arrest: Proportion of Arrests by Age of the Councils where Age is (measured in terms 

of years that a council has been in existence)

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. 
134

VIII.4.b.ii Modeling of Arrest Data

Random effects logistic regression was used to model the proportion or rate of arrest over 

time. The models were fit to data using SAS (version 9.1.3) PROC GLIMMIX and PROC 

NMMIXED. Although data were available on a daily basis, it was thought that systematic 

change would be best detected and as assessed by measuring time with year as a unit of time. 

Furthermore, within a calendar year there are potential seasonal effects in arrests rates that were 

not of interest in the current analysis. Taking seasonal effects into account is problematic 

because we also included chronological year in the models. Since both age of the council and 

chronological year were investigated as possible as measures of time, the unit of measurement of 

time was taken to be year. 

Data from municipalities were aggregated into counties (n=101, Cook county was 

excluded). While councils were organized at the Circuit level, there was considerable variability 

within a single circuit. Unlike the judicial response, the law enforcement response is not 

organized at the circuit level. Given that a significant number of councils had a de facto or at 

least partial organization at the county level (see Section IV), the county level provided a 

meaningful aggregate to examine any potential council effects. Time points (i.e., age of council 

or chronological year) were nested within counties and counties were nested within 21 the 

judicial circuits. Table 6 contains the number of counties per circuit and Table 7 contains the 

convening date of councils for each counties and the age (in years) of council in 2004. Note that 

two judicial circuits only include one county. Furthermore, most counties have councils that are 

7 to 9 years old at the end of the study (2004). Although some counties still do not have councils 

by 2004, these counties were still included in the data to which models were fit. 

In addition to time (i.e., age and/or calendar year), we also included as potential a 

predictor variable where a council existed during a particular year. It might be the case the mere 

existence of a coordinated effort had an effect on arrest rates over an above age of the council or 

historical effect. The culture within the state of Illinois differs between North and South. 

Previous research suggests that the northern and southern regions of Illinois are characterized by 

different norms and attitudes around violence and conflict resolution, with southern regions 

being characterized by a culture of honor in which traditional masculinity and violence are 

socially more appropriate (Cohen, Vandello, Puente, & Ranilla, 1999, Cohen & Nisbett, 1997). 

These norms have been traced to distinct historical migration patterns because of the unique 

ways in which northern and southern regions were settled by distinct groups. That is, cities 

roughly north and south of the line crossing Springfield have been classified as having northern 

and southern cultural characteristics, respectively (e.g., as indexed by voting patterns, diet, 

family traditions, race relations; Atack, 1989). Thus, as a potential predictor for the random 

intercept, counties were classified according to their geographical region: North, South and 

Mixed (i.e., including both “northern” and “southern” counties). 

Three level models where time is nested within counties and counties nested within 

circuits failed to reach convergence. The likely cause was that the three level models were too 

complex for the data (the effective sample size was equal to the number of councils); therefore, 

only two level models are discussed and reported here where age is nested within counties. 

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. 
135

Table 6 Number of Counties per Judicial Circuit. 

Circuit Number of 

counties 

Circuit Number of 

counties 

Circuit Number of 

counties 

1 9 8 8 15 5 

2 11 9 4 16 3 

3 2 10 5 17 2 

4 9 11 5 18 1 

5 5 12 1 19 4 

6 6 13 3 20 5 

7 6 14 4 21 2 

Table 7 Convening Date of Councils per County and Age in 2004. 

County Date 

convened 

Age in 

years 

County Date 

convened 

Age in 

years 

County Date 

convened 

Age in 

years 

1 Aug 1995 9 37 May 2002 2 71 May 2004 0 

2 Jul 1998 6 38 Jun 1997 7 72 Sep 1993 11 

3 Jun 1996 8 39 Jul 1998 6 73 Sep 1995 9 

4 Apr 1994 10 40 Oct 1997 7 74 Oct 1994 10 

5 Aug 1995 9 41 Jun 1999 5 75 Aug 1995 9 

6 Nov 1995 9 42 May 1998 6 76 Jul 1998 6 

7 Aug 1995 8 43 May 2004 0 77 Jul 1998 6 

8 May 2004 0 44 Jul 1998 6 78 Sep 1993 7 

9 Aug 1995 9 45 Nov 2000 4 79 Sep 1995 9 

10 Oct 1994 10 46 Jun 1997 7 80 Jun 1999 5 

11 Oct 1997 7 47 Nov 2000 4 81 May 2002 2 

12 Jun 2001 3 48 Sep 1990 14 82 Sep 1995 9 

13 Oct 1997 7 49 May 2003 1 83 Jul 1998 6 

14 Oct 1997 7 50 Nov 1995 9 84 May 1998 6 

15 Jun 2001 3 51 Jun 1999 5 85 Aug 1995 9 

17 Jun 1999 5 52 May 2004 0 86 May 1998 4 

18 Jun 2001 3 53 Jul 1995 9 87 Oct 1997 7 

19 Nov 2000 4 54 Jul 1995 9 88 Sep 1993 11 

20 Oct 1994 10 55 Sep 1990 14 89 May 2004 0 

21 Oct 1994 10 56 May 2003 1 90 Sep 1993 11 

22 Oct 2001 3 57 Jul 1995 9 91 Jul 1998 6 

23 Jun 2001 3 58 Oct 1994 10 92 Jun 2001 3 

24 Jun 1999 5 59 May 1998 6 93 Jun 1999 1 

25 Oct 1997 7 60 Jun 1996 8 94 Sep 1990 14 

26 Oct 1997 7 61 Oct 1997 7 95 Sep 1995 9 

27 Jul 1995 9 62 Sep 1993 11 96 Jun 1999 5 

28 Jun 1999 5 63 Aug 1995 9 97 Jun 1999 5 

29 Sep 1990 14 64 Jul 1998 6 98 May 2002 2 

30 Jun 1999 5 65 Aug 1995 9 99 Dec 1997 7 

31 May 1998 6 66 May 2002 2 100 Jul 1998 6 

32 Nov 1995 9 67 Sep 1995 9 101 Apr 1994 10 

33 Jun 1999 5 68 Oct 1997 7 102 Jul 1995 9 

34 May 2003 1 69 May 1998 6 

36 May 2003 0 70 Oct 1994 10 

 

Two level models with random slopes failed to converge in either PROC GLIMMIX and 

PROC NLMIXED. Table 8 summarizes the two-level random intercept models that were 

successfully fit to data using maximum likelihood estimation (PROC NLMIXED). Minus twice 

the log-likelihood, AIC, and BIC are given for each model and whether particular effects are not 

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. 
136

significant are indicated. Our major task was to determine whether historical effects and/or age 

of a council lead to change over time in arrests rates. Of note here is that all models that include 

calendar year or "Year" fit dramatically better than any model that uses "Age" as a metric for 

time. The only model where "Council" (i.e., whether a council was in place) was significant is 

the model where "Council" was the only predictor variable. Also noteworthy is the estimated 

variance of the random effects was of similar value in all models indicating significant variability 

in arrest rates across counties. This was expected given that variables except geographic 

locations are all level 1 variables, and geographic location was never significant in any model. 

From the graphs, we observed that the years 1996, 2000, and 2001 saw major shifts in 

arrest rates and there were historical factors that may have influenced arrest rates; however, these 

models did not yield better fitting models than when all years were included. 

As noted earlier, there appears to be a pattern in terms of the effect of calendar where 

there is an initial decline in arrest rate followed by a leveling off. Therefore, we defined a new 

time variable "YearLevel" such that "YearLevel" equals 1 in 1996, 2 in 1997, 3 in 1998 and 4 in 

1999 through 2004. This model is one of the best fitting models in terms of -2loglikelihood and 

is the best in terms of AIC and BIC. Adding "Age" and "Council" could not improve on this 

model. The estimated parameters of the model with only "YearLevel" are reported in Table 9 

and the estimated odds ratios between years are given in Table 10. The likelihood of an arrest 

decreases from 1996 through 1999 at which point the likelihood is the same. 

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. 
137

Table 8 Arrest: Summary of Two-level Random Intercept (RI) Logistic Regression Models Model Number of 

parameters 

-2 log 

likelihood 

AIC BIC C

Null/empty 2 157,723 157,727 157,737 Age 3 157,715 157,721 157,735 Age + Age2 4 157,713 157,721 157,740 Age2 is n.s. Council 3 157,719 157,725 157,739 Age + Age2 

+ Council 

5 157,712 157,722 157,746 Age2 and Cou

Year (nominal) 10 157,617 157,637 157,684 Years 1997-2Age + Age2 

+ Year(nominal) 

12 157,614 157,638 157,694 Age, Age2 & 

(model proble

Age + Age2 

+ Council + 1996 

6 157,636 157,648 157,676 Age2 and Cou

Council + 1996 4 157,640 157,648 157,667 Council n.s. Age + Council + 1996 + 2000 + 2001 

7 157,632 157,646 157,679 Year 2001, A

n.s. 

Council + 1996 + 2000 5 157,637 157,663 157,682 Council is n.s

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. 
138

Model Number of 

parameters 

-2 log 

likelihood 

AIC BIC C

Year(nominal) + council 11 157,616 157,638 157,690 Years 1996-2

n.s. 

Year (continuous) + Council 

4 157,655 157,663 157,682 Council n.s. 

YearLevel (continuous) 3 157,623 157,629 157,643 YearLevel + Council 4 157,623 157,631 157,649 Council n.s. YearLevel + Age 4 157,621 157,629 157,648 Age n.s. Note: the information criteria are computed such that smaller is better. Effects that are not significant (i.e., n.s.) acomments column. 

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. 
139

Table 9 Arrest: Estimated Effects of the Best Random Intercept Logistic Regression Models 

Type of Effect Parameter Estimate Standard 

Error 

p-value 95% Confidence 

intervals 

Fixed intercept -1.3188 0.09445 <.01 -1.1334 -1.5042

yearlevel -0.2242 0.02225 <.01 -0.1805 -0.2679

Random Intercept 

variance 

2.3455 0.1476 <.01** 2.0558 2.6353

** The test for a significant variance used a likelihood ratio statistic compared to a mixture of 

chi-square distributions with 0 and 1 degree of freedom. 

Table 10 Arrest: Estimated Odds Ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) of arrest for row year 

versus column year and (for example, odds of arrest in 1996 (row year) is 1.25 times the odds of 

arrest in 1997 (column year). 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2001, 2002, 

2003, or 2004 

1996 1.00 1.25 

(1.20, 1.31) 

1.57 

(1.43, 1.71) 

1.96 

(1.72, 2.33) 

1997 0.80 

(0.76, 0.83) 

1.00 1.25 

(1.20, 1.31) 

1.57 

(1.43, 1.71) 

1998 0.64 

(0.59, 0.70) 

0.80 

(0.76, 0.83) 

1.00 1.25 

(1.20, 1.31) 

1999+ 0.51 

(0.45, 0.58) 

0.64 

(0.59, 0.70) 

0.80 

(0.76, 0.83) 

1.00 

The advantage of our modeling approach was that we were able to determine that 

historical effects rather than existence of a council played a major role in changes in arrest rates 

from 1996 through 2004. We found that on average arrests rates declined from 1996-1998 and 

then level off and there was considerable variability between counties in terms of the overall 

arrest rate (i.e., random intercept in our models). Council existence or age did not appear to have 

an impact on arrest rates per se. In many ways this is consistent with key informant reports of 

considerable variability in arrest practices within their circuits and even within counties and the 

more limited perceived influence of councils on law enforcement agencies. Interpreting the 

general decline in arrest provides the typical conundrum. It could be that the decline in reported 

incidents and arrest rates reflects a general decline in the amount of domestic violence occurring, 

but can also reflect a reduction in arrest relative to incidents. This trend is certainly consistent 

with national trends reflected in the National Crime Victimization Survey (Catalano, 2006) and 

Uniform Crime Report that show a general decline in reported incidents of crime and arrests. 

It is also important to note the limitations inherent in UCR data. The prevalence of 

missing arrest data and the procedures used by state and federal agencies to estimate and fill in 

the gaps are well documented (Lynch & Jarvis, 2008; Lott & Whitley, 2003; Maltz, 1999; Maltz 

& Targonski, 2002). There are multiple types of reporting agencies, including state, county, 

township and university police, plus state agencies that aggregate and analyze reported crime 

data and actual reporting of crime data is inconsistent and varies across type of reporting agency. 

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. 
140

Despite an Illinois state statute that requires all police agencies to complete monthly Uniform 

Crime Report (UCR) data reporting, there are no discernible sanctions for non-compliance. As 

such, data reporting is essentially a voluntary task (Lynch & Jarvis, 2008; Maltz, 1999). Some 

agencies do not complete a full twelve months of UCR reports, and national UCR data has 

demonstrated that, on average, only 85% of university police, 70% of city and rural police, and 

64% of suburban county police report 12 full months of data (Lynch & Jarvis, 2008). 

 Data reporting procedures are subject to a variety of factors that result in missing data at 

multiple levels. At the local level, police agencies may experience natural disasters or budgetary 

restrictions that require the allocation of resources to duties other than reporting. Personnel 

changes, inadequate training in reporting procedures, or a change of computer software can 

easily result in errors due to inexperience (Maltz, 1999; Maltz & Targonski, 2002). Small 

agencies often choose not to report due to a low number of criminal incidents, or may report 

once per year in order to ensure that their employee statistics are on record (Maltz, 1999). In fact, 

only 57% of jurisdictions with populations less than 25,000 have found to be complete reporters 

(Lynch & Jarvis, 2008). 

Additionally, local agencies may use different incident codes than state or UCR codes, 

which can affect reporting. For example, if a local agency has a code for “domestic complaint”, 

it is unclear whether this incident will be included in an official report if the state code for 

“domestic complaint” is not used. Another reason for missing data lies at the state level when 

states use offense codes that are incompatible with federal UCR reporting definitions or do not 

comply with the hierarchy rule classification system (Maltz, 1999). For example, Illinois has not 

been included in national UCR reports since 1985 due to the use of incompatible codes and 

failure to report in accordance with the UCR hierarchy rule (Maltz, 1999). 

Moreover, changes in legislation may impact how crime is reported. For example, in 

1999 the State of Illinois made numerous changes to the crimes of Domestic Battery and 

Violation of an Order of Protection, and added Aggravated Domestic Battery as a new crime. 

Then in 2000, Illinois enacted a statute that recognizes Orders of Protection issued out-of-state 

(http://www.ilcadv.org/legal/recent.htm). The impact of these changes in legislation on the 

number of reported incidents and arrests is unknown. 

VIII.4.c – Shelter Referral Rates 

VIII.4.c.i Description of Shelter Referral Data 

A final source of archival data examined over time were referral rates from domestic 

violence programs. Referral rates were reported by programs into a central database managed by 

the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (i.e., InfoNet). Thus, these rates reflect the 

primary source of referral reported by a survivor when she sought residential or non-residential 

services from a domestic violence program. Table 11 includes total number, range, and standard 

deviation of referrals over time for each referral source. Referrals from five sources – police, 

State’s Attorney, legal system, Circuit Clerk, and private attorney – were summed in order to 

create a composite indicator of referrals from the criminal justice system. The primary focus of 

the analyses to follow will be on referrals from criminal justice, though we explore other sources 

for patterns of change over time. 

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. 
141

Table 11 Shelter Referral Sources over Time 

Source 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 10616 11629 11228 10741 1142 12016 12772 11793 12227 Range----- SD---------

51-1509 385 

51-1422 389 

80-1352 375 

68-1236 361 

69-1333 376 

64-1762 420 

59-1748 395 

53-1604 363 

65-1694 370 

*Police 8853 8421 8250 8069 8488 8943 9533 8660 9289 Range----- SD---------

20-1378 353 

30-1253 8421 

39-1196 325 

40-1096 303 

40-1183 325 

46-1610 380 

50-1613 361 

39-1414 304 

54-1494 323 

*State Attorney 692 1489 1336 1139 1239 1360 1420 1269 1183 Range----- SD---------

2-137 34 

5-484 103 

6-426 93 

2-335 72 

2-373 82 

3-301 76 

1-365 86 

5-293 77 

4-208 61 

*Legal System 591 716 685 614 559 648 625 682 569 Range----- SD---------

3-111 25 

1-148 39 

2-134 34 

2-99 29 

2-97 26 

3-110 33 

1-91 27 

3-218 47 

1-81 23 

*Circuit Clerk 195 498 382 380 552 495 611 570 619 Range----- SD---------

0-47 11 

0-93 28 

0-87 19 

0-86 20 

0-105 30 

0-77 24 

1-125 34 

1-114 32 

1-174 41 

*Private Attorney 285 505 575 539 588 570 583 612 567 Range----- SD---------

1-56 12 

5-63 18 

3-95 25 

0-91 25 

2-85 26 

1-76 23 

2-83 23 

3-99 29 

0-109 28 

Hospital 949 768 682 646 650 755 756 737 710 Range----- SD---------

2-256 67

0-182 45 

0-158 38 

1-154 39 

0-165 38 

1-179 43 

1-181 42 

0-197 45 

1-195 43 

Medical 246 219 240 251 242 228 249 344 197 Range----- SD---------

0-70 15 

0-81 17 

1-66 15 

1-55 14 

1-52 12 

1-57 12 

2-63 13 

0-109 27 

1-56 12 

Public Health 42 71 93 125 132 288 194 154 226 Range----- SD---------

0-6 2 

0-14 3 

0-14 4 

0-22 6 

0-36 9 

1-110 26 

0-83 19 

0-42 11 

0-117 25 

DCFS 1 7 2 40 82 111 166 165 424 Range----- SD---------

0-1 0 

0-4 1 

0-1 0 

0-19 4 

0-24 6 

0-29 8 

0-29 45 

0-38 10 

2-111 24 

Medical Advocacy 288 357 404 544 446 348 340 301 383 Range----- SD---------

0-134 32 

0-133 35 

0-194 45 

0-241 66 

0-206 50 

0-221 48 

0-207 45 

0-168 38 

0-233 51 

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. 
142

Social Service 2405 2156 2257 2569 2244 2244 2437 2163 2255 Range----- SD---------

6-364 102 

4-379 91 

4-349 92 

3-554 129 

9-282 81 

3-285 79 

5-326 90 

6-346 90 

3-372 108 

Hotline 0 1 4 580 1129 1071 867 532 584 Range----- SD---------

0-0 0 

0-1 0 

0-2 1 

0-549 120 

0-944 205 

0-914 198 

0-698 151 

0-298 64 

0-299 66 

Clergy 150 111 95 109 137 121 107 104 123 Range----- SD---------

0-20 5 

0-17 5 

0-11 3 

0-17 5 

1-18 4 

0-19 5 

0-17 4 

0-19 5 

0-25 6 

Education 165 150 149 157 160 174 207 165 167 Range----- SD---------

0-51 11 

0-35 9 

0-42 10 

0-35 10 

0-36 9 

0-39 10 

0-52 14 

1-31 8 

0-29 9 

Other Project 453 406 266 270 366 359 333 342 300 Range----- SD---------

0-337 73 

0-220 47 

1-128 27 

0-133 28 

0-164 36 

0-155 34 

0-104 22 

0-144 31 

0-62 15 

Telephone 196 177 145 131 141 112 106 89 90 Range----- SD---------

0-36 9 

0-29 8 

0-22 7 

0-20 6 

0-31 9 

0-20 6 

0-25 6 

0-20 5 

0-12 4 

Relative 1112 1001 1054 959 1062 984 1101 1254 1163 Range----- SD---------

11-190 41 

3-184 40 

6-183 40 

3-158 35 

10-163 38 

4-151 35 

7-176 41 

5-200 48 

7-163 41 

Self 3720 2490 2262 2474 2735 2846 3513 3357 3394 Range----- SD---------

15-546 156 

8-429 102 

15-290 81 

15-297 85 

19-363 89 

18-359 2846 

15-526 130 

14-435 126 

10-419 120 

Friend 1895 1738 1873 1887 2011 1973 2004 1957 1944 Range----- SD---------

17-340 73 

11-358 76 

15-375 78 

14-366 78 

19-348 77 

21-307 67 

16-355 79 

11-336 78 

9-340 75 

Media 90 209 182 163 138 85 114 105 122 Range----- SD---------

0-39 8 

0-129 27 

0-101 21 

0-82 17 

0-39 9 

0-24 6 

0-41 9 

0-48 10 

0-36 8 

Other 1330 1196 1619 1811 1571 1533 1705 1682 1776 Range----- SD---------

4-157 53 

6-193 55 

1-256 75 

1-289 94 

2-369 90 

5-322 81 

3-301 81 

0-279 75 

0-310 85 

TOTAL 23658 22686 22555 23457 24672 25248 26971 25244 26085 Range----- SD---------

150-2775 777 

123-2835735 

154-2842 727 

120-2939810 

141-3048839 

130-3003853 

112-2751810 

98-2944 808 

105-2839 806 

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. 
143

Across all years, it appears that the proportion of referrals from each source remains 

relatively stable. To demonstrate, figures 21, 22, and 23 depict proportion of referrals from each 

source for the initial, mid, and last years for which data is available. The data suggest that the 

criminal justice system constitutes the primary source of referrals to shelters, and this rate (about 

45%) seems to remain relatively stable over time. However, the proportion of referrals from the 

criminal justice system is variable across judicial circuit, with a range of proportions between 20-

60%. The next greatest sources of referral to shelters across years seem to be from clients 

themselves, social services, and friends. 

 Figure 21 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 1998 

1998

45%

8%

6%

16%

10%

Clergy

Criminal Justice

DCFS

Education

Friend

Hospital

Hotline

Media

Medical

Medical Advocacy

Other

Other Project

Public Health

Relative

Self

Social Service

Telephone

Figure 22 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 2003 

2003

48%

8%

6%

11%

9%

Clergy

Criminal Justice

DCFS

Education

Friend

Hospital

Hotline

Media

Medical

Medical Advocacy

Other

Other Project

Public Health

Relative

Self

Social Service

Telephone

 

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. 
144

Figure 23 Shelter Referral: Proportion in 2008 

2008

45%

8%

7%

14%

8%

Clergy

Criminal Justice

DCFS

Education

Friend

Hospital

Hotline

Media

Medical

Medical Advocacy

Other

Other Project

Public Health

Relative

Self

Social Service

Telephone

We conducted some further descriptive analyses focusing on the proportion of referrals 

from criminal justice sources (i.e., criminal justice referrals given total number of referrals across 

all sources). Figures 24 and 25 depict these proportions over the 10 year time span informed by 

this data. Figure 24 shows the proportion of criminal justice referrals for each year. As depicted, 

there is no striking pattern of stable increase or decrease in this rate. However, this graph of 

referral ratio over time does not take the location of shelters in particular judicial circuits into 

consideration. Because we are interested in referrals in the context of specific judicial circuits, 

Figure 25 depicts the total proportion of referrals per year per circuit (i.e., a weighted average by 

circuit). In this graph, a pattern of increase in referrals over time is suggested, indicating that 

criminal justice referral ratios per judicial circuit may be increasing over time. As a next step, 

these data were examined in through more sophisticated modeling. 

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. 
145

Figure 24 Shelter Referral Ratio from Criminal Justice per Year 

Figure 25 Shelter Referral Ratio from Criminal Justice per Year per Circuit 

Criminal Justice Referral Ratio

0.4

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

0.52

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

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. 
146

VIII.4.c.ii Modeling of Shelter Referral Data: Criminal Justice 

Based on the pattern of change over time suggested in Figure 25, we engaged in a 

modeling approach similar to that described in Section VIII.4.a. Specifically, we were interested 

in understanding 1) the extent to which a pattern of significant change over time in the ratio of 

criminal justice referrals compared to total referrals is suggested and, 2) whether any pattern of 

change could be associated with the presence or formation of councils, as indexed by council 

age. To explore these questions, hierarchical nonlinear modeling was used to model the ratio of 

criminal justice/total referrals across time. We used the Glimmix Procedure in Statistical analysis 

Systems (SAS version 9.1.3) because it is well suited to explore nested data, which fits our data 

structure as referrals for shelters are nested within judicial circuits and therefore do not vary 

independently. In addition, Glimmix is well-suited to explore proportional/rate data, where the 

data are not necessarily normally distributed (e.g., rate data may follow a Poisson distribution). 

As reported in Table 12, our model building approach is as follows. 

1) Null model: no fixed or random effects included 

2) Random intercept model (RI) 

3) Random intercept model, time as linear 

As can been seen in Table 12, we found a drop in the fit indices when moving from the null 

(1) to the random intercept model (2), indicating important between circuit variance in criminal 

justice referral ratios. In contrast, we did not find a drop in fit indices when moving from a 

random intercept model (2) to a model which includes time as a linear effect (3).4 These results 

suggest that criminal justice referral ratios significantly vary between circuits (i.e., in their 

intercepts), but do not significantly linearly change over time (see Figure 26). Because no pattern 

of change over time was suggested, we did not pursue further modeling with these data. 

Figure 26 Shelter Referral: Criminal Justice Referral Ratio per Circuit Over Time 

 

 

4

 Quadratic and cubic effects for time were also examined, but did not demonstrate better fit for the data either 

statistically or graphically. 

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. 
147

VIII.4.c.ii Modeling of Shelter Referral Data: DCFS 

Though criminal justice referral ratios did not show a pattern of change over time, we 

were interested in examining other referral sources for change patterns and engaging in modeling 

to see if that change could be attributed to the presence of councils. Across all referral sources, 

ratio of referrals from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) suggested the 

most striking pattern of increase both generally (see Figure 27) and per judicial circuit (see 

Figure 28)5

. We engaged in the same modeling approach outlined above to examine this change. 

As reported in Table 13A., our model building approach is as follows. 

1a) Null model: no fixed or random effects included 

2a) Random intercept model (RI) 

3a) Random intercept model, time as linear 

Similar to the criminal justice referral findings, we found a drop in the fit indices when 

moving from the null (1) to the random intercept model (2), indicating important between circuit 

variance in DCFS referral ratios. We also found a drop in fit indices when moving from a 

random intercept model (2) to a model which includes time as a linear effect (3)6

. In contrast to 

results for criminal justice referrals, these results suggest that DCFS referral ratios significantly 

vary between circuits (i.e., in their intercepts) and demonstrate significant linear pattern of 

change over time (see Figure 29). 

Because model 3 was the best fitting model, follow up modeling was conducted in order 

to examine whether the presence of councils (as indexed by their age collapsed across historic 

time) could in part explain the linear trend of increasing rates of DCFS referral over time. A very 

similar modeling approach as that described in Section VIII.4.a was engaged. In particular, the 

same 3 models were examined in the context of referral ratios for historic time with and without 

the presence of Councils. These modeling results are reported in Table 13B and 13C, 

respectively. These results do not suggest that council age is a factor in explaining the pattern of 

increase over time of DCFS referral ratios. That is, a significant drop in fit indices is seen both 

with and without the presence of councils (i.e., between models 2b and 3b and models 2c and 

3c). This suggests that a random intercept and linear trend for time is present regardless of the 

presence of councils. 

 

5

 Importantly, it should be noted that DCFS referrals account for a very small proportion of total referrals and were 

almost negligible between 1998 and 2000. 

6

 Quadratic and cubic effects for time were also examined, but did not demonstrate better fit for the data either 

statistically or graphically. 

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. 
148

Figure 27 Shelter Referral: DCFS Ratio per Year 

DCFS Referral Ratio

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Figure 28 Shelter Referral: DCFS Ratio per Year per Circuit 

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. 
149

Figure 29 Shelter Referral: DCFS Referral Ratio per Circuit Over Time 

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. 
150

Table 12 Shelter Referral: Modeling Criminal Justice Referral Ratios Across Historic Time 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM 

EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

1) Null *Intercept -.093* .004 17411.00 17413.00 17413.02 17416.48 17417.48 17414.40 2) RI *Intercept -.116 .132 .384 .121 4006.94 4010.94 4010.99 4017.90 4019.90 4013.74 3) RI, Time linear *Intercept -.158 .133 .388 .122 3982.77 3988.77 3988.87 3999.20 4002.20 3992.97 *Time .008* .001 

*p<05. 

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. 
151

Table 13 Shelter Referral: Modeling DCFS Referral Ratios Across Historic Time 

FIXED 

EFFECTS

RANDOM 

EFFECTS 

COVARIANCE 

PARAMETERS

FIT STATISTICS

Model γ's SE Parameter SE 2 Res 

PLoglike

P-AIC P-AICC P-BIC P-CAIC P-HQIC 

A. DCFS Referrals

1a) Null *Intercept -4.789* .021 4545.98 4547.98 4547.99 4551.46 4552.46 4549.38 2a) RI *Intercept -4.858* .126 .329 .109 3593.11 3597.11 3597.16 3604.07 3606.07 3599.92 3a)RI,Time linear *Intercept -7.828* .154 .337 .112 1061.65 1067.65 1067.75 1078.08 1081.08 1071.85 *Time .434* .011 

B. DCFS Referrals – With NO Councils Present

1b) Null *Intercept -6.448* .128 210.24 212.24 212.34 214.00 215.00 212.89 2b) RI *Intercept -7.646* .619 2.600 1.698 230.03 234.03 234.33 237.50 239.50 235.30 3b)RI,Time linear*Intercept -9.442* .597 1.025 .771 208.37 214.37 215.01 219.51 222.51 216.24 *Time .652* .093 

C. DCFS Referrals – WITH Councils Present

1c) Null *Intercept -4.661* .0218 4008.49 4010.49 1010.51 1013.83 1014.83 4011.84 2c) RI *Intercept -4.695* .125 .319 .107 3068.76 3072.76 3072.82 3079.43 3081.43 3075.46 3c)RI, Time linear *Intercept -7.870* .159 .340 .114 924.18 930.18 930.30 940.16 943.16 934.22 *Time .439* .011 

*p<.05

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. 
152

VIII.5 – Brief Discussion 

VIII.5.a – Orders of Protection 

These descriptive graphs and modeling analyses indicate that the presence of a 

coordinating council has an influence on the ratio of emergency orders that move to plenary 

orders of protection. First, examining the descriptive graphs show that, for many councils, there 

is a discrete change or elevation in the p/e ratio around the time of council formation, with a 

continued increase as the council ages. This analysis is similar to a regression discontinuity, 

where at a discrete point in time there is a disruption (discontinuity) in the pre-existing pattern of 

change, or as may be more apt in this case, a pattern of changes begins at a certain point in time 

related to the formation of the councils (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). 

Second, examining the change of p/e over historic time in the absence of councils showed 

a rather flat, or non-changing pattern. This was further confirmed as the best fitting model to 

these data showed no significant effect for time. In contrast, examining the change of p/e over 

historic time in the presence of councils showed a linear trend. The modeling confirmed this 

trend as the best fitting model to these data showed a significant effect for time, indicating that in 

the presence of councils, the p/e rate increased over time. When no councils were present, this 

p/e rate stayed ostensibly the same over time as indicated by the non significant effect for time 

when no councils were present. 

Finally, an integrated model was built to examine both council age and the pattern of p/e 

ratio before councils were formed. This model fit the data fairly well, indicating that council age 

was positively associated with the p/e rate, indicating that as the council ages the p/e rate 

increased. The viability of this model suggests that council age is related in a systematic way to 

an increase in the p/e ratio, and that the variation in p/e rates before council formation does not 

demonstrate a consistent positive linear trend. 

Taken together, these findings suggest that indeed councils may be positioned to promote 

systems change in the judicial response to intimate partner violence. In particular, council 

formation and development was positively related to the movement of emergency orders of 

protection to plenary orders. Councils may be well-positioned to promote changes within the 

judiciary given that councils are organized by judicial circuits. Involvement of the Chief Judge 

(or their appointee) of each circuit as the formal council chair may create a unique opportunity 

for influence within the court system. The fact that there is some centralized authority within the 

courts (although there is also considerable autonomy for each judge) may allow for the 

dissemination of reforms within the Courts. That is, policy changes regarding the issuance of 

plenary orders can be diffused throughout courtrooms within counties across a given circuit. 

Further, advocates working within domestic violence programs may experience greater 

entrée and cooperation with court officials as a result of council activities. Indeed, council 

members frequently cited shifts in individual and organizational relationships as a critical 

achievement of councils. In fact, some advocates noted that circuit clerks and judges will 

routinely send victims to them for assistance with their orders. 

Finally, the movement of emergency orders to plenary orders may also reflect greater 

coordination among the relevant stakeholders. This coordination may create a more supportive 

process for survivors as they contemplate pursuing a plenary order. Greater coordination might 

result in their not only having contact with the criminal justice system, but also with advocates 

who can scaffold their next steps as they weigh the pros and cons of seeking a plenary order. 

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. 
153

VIII.5.b – Arrest Rates 

Unlike order of protection “return rates,” arrest rates consistently decreased over time and 

change was not attributable to council formation and/or development. The general downward 

trend was not unique to or driven by a single county, but the variability in arrest rates and trends 

across counties was considerable. Given the emphasis that some councils (61%) have placed on 

training and encouraging compliance with pro-arrest policies, one might have expected arrest 

rates to rise following council formation. This pattern is not evident and, indeed, councils are not 

implicated in the general decline observed. This is consistent with council coordinators own 

assessment that goals related to arrest were not appreciably achieved (see Table 5 in Section IV). 

The lack of a discernable impact of council formation and development on arrest rates 

suggests that councils may be less well positioned to affect institutionalized practices among law 

enforcement agencies than they are orders of protection. Councils are organized by judicial 

circuit, which may provide a very direct pathway to reform within the court system. The 

opportunity to influence reform may not be as obvious with regard to systems change in the law 

enforcement response. 

These analyses also highlight wide variability from one county to another. This was also 

consistent with key informant observations in all three case study sites that there is variability 

from agency to agency in their local response even within a single county. Examining one county 

in one of our case study sites demonstrates this pattern well. See Figure 30 for a single county 

within Circuit B. There is considerable variability across municipalities with some reporting 

almost no arrests/incidents and others reported relatively high arrests/incidents. Discussions with 

key informants within the legal system in this site suggests that this variability is indeed 

indicative of true variation across agencies. Key informants in this site frequently discussed their 

frustrations with this variation as a significant challenge in their efforts to reform their local 

systems response to domestic violence. As a result, this council had focused considerable efforts 

on training law enforcement in the area to encourage a more uniform response across 

jurisdictions. In addition, they engaged multiple law enforcement agencies and other key 

stakeholders (e.g., domestic violence advocates) in a subcommittee that developed a common 

law enforcement protocol. The council is currently working implement this protocol to create a 

uniform and more consistent response across the circuit. Still, the majority of their training 

efforts occurred from 2004 forward. Thus, follow-up in this Circuit, in particular, may provide 

the opportunity for a more focused examination of change over time. 

Attempting to look across sites to examine the extent to which councils have had an 

impact on arrest as a distal systems change marker may include too much “noise” given that 

sites vary considerably from one another and councils vary considerably in their ability to affect 

institutionalized change (see Section VI). Future research may benefit from focusing on single 

circuits where councils had a concerted effort to affect change in the implementation of arrest 

practices. Finally, it is important to note that the lack of a council effect statewide may also 

reflect that establishing a true baseline or “pre” council condition is difficult given that STOP 

grants to encourage arrest began in 1996 and many communities might have engaged in 

collaborative efforts prior to the formal beginnings of the circuit-wide. 

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. 
154

Figure 30 Arrest: Single County Variability (1996 to 2004) 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

450000

450200

450300

450500

450600

450700

450900

451000

451200

451300

451400

451500

451700

452700

Town/City Police A

SheriffÕs Department

Town/City Police D

Town/City Police F

Town/City Police G

Town/City Police B

Town/City Police C

Town/ City Police I

Town/City Police H

Town/City Police E

Town/City Police J

VIII.5.c – Shelter Referral Rates 

 Unlike order of protection return rates and arrest rates, referral rates from criminal justice 

to domestic violence service providers did not change appreciably over time. Impressively, 

referrals from the criminal justice system accounted for nearly 50% of referrals to shelter 

programs from 1998 to the present. Because the starting year in these analyses is 1998, we likely 

“missed the baseline” of criminal justice referral ratios. That is, it is possible that criminal justice 

referral ratios indeed saw a significant increase over time (and councils may have affected this 

increase). However, these data would not index this pattern if criminal justice referrals began to 

increase prior to 1998. That said, our analyses provides evidence that criminal justice referral 

ratios have not increased over the course of the last decade, but that they indeed make up a 

considerable portion of the overall referrals made to domestic violence shelter programs. 

 Given the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse, one might expect a greater 

rate of referral from DCFS to victim services. Even after a sharp rise in referral rates beginning 

in 2005, referrals from DCFS accounted for only 3.5% on average. This is consistent with the 

network analysis finding that councils were not perceived as influencing policy or practice 

within DCFS (see Section VII) and that DCFS was a relatively lower rates of representation on 

councils (about 50% of councils reported that DCFS was a member; see Section IV). It is 

interesting that referral rates varied across circuits. Future research might discern what 

characterizes circuits with higher referral rates overall. Given the significant challenges that 

survivors often face with DCFS (see Section X) encouraging DCFS to refer to domestic violence 

service providers may provide a critical additional resource for survivors navigating abusive 

relationships. 

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. 
155

SECTION IX 

FACTORS AND PROCESSES EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES IN

INSTITTUTIONALIZED CHANGE CAPACITY 

IX.1 Purpose 

To examine those factors and processes that affect the extent to which councils achieve 

systems change, with attention to a) councils’ collaborative capacity and b) local community 

context (e.g., geographic location, community support; see Section IX) 

IX.2 Overview 

Examination of the intermediary processes by which councils produce change 

demonstrates an overall process by which the promotion of social capital facilitates 

institutionalized change, which in turn influences the promotion of distal community change. 

However, this analysis also demonstrates that there is significant variability in the extent to 

which institutionalized change is produced and that councils are rated on average as having less 

institutionalized change capacity relative to other perceived outcomes (e.g., improved 

relationships among stakeholders). Because the promotion of institutionalized changes are 

closely linked with the effectiveness of councils in promoting distal community change, and that 

such changes in policies and practice closely represent the goals of FVCC, we explore a) the 

factors accounting for this variability through quantitative multilevel modeling and, b) the 

processes and mechanisms through which these factors can be elaborated and understood. 

IX.3 Quantitative Approach to Examination of Factors 

IX.3.a – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

 Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) was utilized to 

examine the factors related to the promotion of institutionalized change and social capital, 

allowing for disaggregation of council- and individual-level variance. Level II (i.e., council) 

aggregate score were created for each independent and dependent variable, and in each model 

presented below, Level I (i.e., individual perceptions) and Level II (i.e., council-level aggregated 

perceptions) effects are simultaneously entered for each variable of interest, which allows for 

examination of trends across councils and accounts for non-independence of errors. In addition, 

Level I variables were centered on respective council means (i.e., group-mean centered) in order 

to account for within council variation (i.e., variation in members’ perceptions within councils). 

 

IX.3.b Results 

IX.3.b.i Multilevel Modeling of the Factors Predicting Institutionalized Change 

The unconditional model (no predictors) indicated that a significant amount of betweencouncil variance exists in perceived institutionalized change (see Section IV.4.c for intraclass 

correlations (ICC)). To begin investigating the factors that account for this variance, multiple 

potential factors were modeled as predictors of institutionalized change (see Table 1). As shown 

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. 
156

in Table 1, the first model included the factors of council leadership (L), council climate (CC), 

council structure (S) and the breadth of active council membership (B)1, as all represent 

characteristics of councils and council work. All of these factors were significant predictors of 

institutionalized change at level I, and all but council climate were significant predictors at level 

II. 

In the next model, social capital was included among these factors. For the purposes of 

this study, social capital reflected the combination of the subscales assessing perceived council 

influence on improved stakeholders relationships and knowledge base. Interestingly, though 

social capital was a significant predictor at both levels I and II, all other factors dropped from the 

model as predictors in the expected direction2. As such, these factors related to council 

functioning (L, CC, S, B) were not included in the third model. These results provide partial 

evidence for mediation, whereby social capital mediates the relationship between features of the 

council setting and institutionalized change. 

Consistent with this framework, we included two other factors with social capital in the 

third model. The first factor, individual empowerment of members (IE), may also result from 

council work, and the second factor, community context, is an indicator of the context in which 

institutionalized changes may be advanced. Results indicate that all three factors – IE, C, and SC 

– are significant predictors of institutionalized change at levels I and II, and information criteria 

demonstrate it as the best fitting model. Thus, variability in institutionalized change is related to 

the extent to which individual members report experiencing empowerment as a result of working 

with the council, the level of support that exists in the community context, and the amount of 

social capital members may have acquired by virtue of their exposure to knowledge and 

relationships. 

IX.3.b.ii Multilevel Modeling of the Factors Predicting Social Capital 

 As alluded to in the previous models of institutionalized change, we hypothesized that 

council leadership, climate, structure, and breadth of active membership did not serve as factors 

predicting institutionalized change, when in the context of social capital because these factors 

may be related to institutionalized change only by virtue of their effects on more proximal 

outcomes. That is, because these factors are closer to the work of the council (i.e., they may 

create the conditions under which new relationships and knowledge can emerge) and may serve 

to foster outcomes that “come before” the achievement of institutionalized change, we explored 

their potential as predictors of social capital. 

To assess this question, we modeled each of these four factors both separately and 

together as predictors of social capital (see Table 2). The first four models in Table 2 (models a 

through d) indicate that each factor is a significant predictor of social capital at levels I and II. In 

the final model (model 4), all four factors were included as predictors simultaneously. Results 

indicate that all were significant predictors at both levels, except for council climate at level II, 

and that this model is the best fitting. It is highly likely that climate is no longer a significant 

predictor of social capital at the council level because there is lack of sufficient power to 

adequately assess this model (notice, however, that climate is a significant predictor when 

entered by itself; see model b in Table 2). That is, there is relatively less variability across 

councils in social capital to explain and there is not enough power to model four predictors 

simultaneously with a level II N of 21. In addition, members of these councils are often part of 

 

1 Council structure and breadth are level II predictors only.

2 Though leadership at level 1, and council climate at level II are significant, their effect is in the opposite direction 

as that expected (likely reflecting a restricted range). 

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. 
157

multiple subcommittees, which each are characterized by different climates, such that the level II 

climate variable may be confounded by the existence of multiple council level climates. 

Nonetheless, the first four models, with each factor entered separately as predictors demonstrate 

that each is a strong and significant predictor of social capital. Thus, there is evidence to suggest 

that the support and organization of council leadership, the quality and “health” of the council in 

terms of its climate influences, the structural capacity of the council, and the breadth of its active 

membership are all positively associated with the extent to which social capital is fostered among 

council members. 

IX.3.b.iii Summary of Quantitative Results 

 In sum, the seven factors explored as possible predictors of variability in institutionalized 

change included council leadership, council climate, council structure, breadth of active 

membership, individual member empowerment, community context for change, and social 

capital. Of these factors, the latter three were significant predictors of institutionalized change. 

Because the first four factors related particularly to aspects closely describing the characteristics 

and dynamics of the actual council, we hypothesized that they may predict proximal outcomes 

that develop prior to the promotion of institutionalized changes. As a result, we modeled them as 

predictors of social capital, and results suggested that they did indeed, individually and together, 

predict a significant amount of variance in the promotion of social capital. Taken together, a 

process is suggested whereby the quality of council leadership, the strength of its climate, the 

integrity of its structure, and its breadth of active membership work to promote the achievement 

of social capital among council members. In turn, the degree of social capital, together with the 

degree of empowerment experienced by members and the support of the community context for 

achieving council efforts may influence the degree to which the council can influence changes in 

institutional policies and practices in their local community (see Figure 1). 

 

Table 1 Institutionalized Change Regressed onto Council Factors. 

Predictors Fixed Effects γ

(SE) 

Random 

Effects 

-2 

Loglike 

AIC AICC BIC 

1. Leadership, 

Council Climate, 

Council Structure, 

Breadth of Active 

Membership 

I= .56 (1.23)

L1= .12* (.06)

L2= .92* (.26)

CC1= .66*(.07)

CC2= -.55(.38)

S2= .03* (.01)

B2= .04* (.02)

τ

2

=.02 

σ

2

=.93* 

1625 1643 1643 1653 

2. Leadership, 

Council Climate, 

Council Structure, 

Breadth of Active 

Membership, Social 

Capital 

I= .06 (.92)

L1= -.10* (.06)

L2= .08 (.28)

CC1=.08(.07)

CC2= -.08*(.07)

S2= .01 (.01)

B2= .00 (.02) 

SC1= .74* (.05) 

SC2= 1.48* 

(.32)

τ

2

=.01 

σ

2

=.64* 

1396 1418 1419 1430 

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. 
158

Predictors Fixed Effects γ

(SE) 

Random 

Effects 

-2 

Loglike 

AIC AICC BIC 

3. Individual 

Empowerment, 

Community Context, 

Social Capital 

I=-1.82 (.59)

IE1=.41* (.03)

IE2=.33*(.17) 

C1= .14* (.03) 

C2= .38* (.15) 

SC1= .40* (.04) 

SC2= .66* (.21) 

τ

2

=.01m 

σ

2

=.46* 

1234 1252 1253 1262 

Note: * indicates significance at p<.05. 

Table 2 Social Capital Regressed onto Council Factors. 

Predictors Fixed Effects γ

(SE) 

Random 

Effects 

-2 

Loglike 

AIC AICC BIC 

No predictors 

(unconditional model) 

4.38* (.06) τ

2

=.04* 

σ

2

=1.17*

1832 1838 1838 1842 

a. Leadership (L) I=.11 (.67) 

L1= .76*(.04) 

L2= .84* (.13)

τ

2

=.00 

σ

2

=.76* 

1532 1540 1540 1544 

b. Council Climate 

(CC) 

I=.27 (1.05)

CC1=.97*(.04) 

CC2=.95*(.24)

τ

2

=0.02* 

σ

2

=.57* 

1344 1354 1354 1359 

c. Council Structure I= 3.94* (.16)

S2= .04* (.01)

τ

2

=0.01 

σ

2

=.1.17*

1825 1833 1834 1838 

d. Breadth of Active 

Membership 

I= 3.67* (.19)

B2= .07* (.02)

τ

2

=0.00 

σ

2

=.1.18

* 

1822 1830 1830 1834 

4. Leadership, 

Council Climate, 

Structure, Breadth of 

Active Membership3

I= .52 (.76) 

L1= .30* (.05) 

L2= .58* (.17)

CC1= .79* (.05)

CC2= .10 (.24)

S2= .01* (.01)

B2= .03* (.01)

τ

2

=.00 

σ

2

=.52* 

1274 1290 1291 1299 

Note: * indicates significance at p<.05. 

 

3 Note: the estimated G matrix for this model is not positive definite. However, according to Littell et al. (2006), 

SAS for Mixed Models (2nd Edition), fixed effects can still be interpreted in this context. 

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. 
159

Figure 1 Factors Related to Institutionalized Change 

Institutionalized 

Change 

Council 

Climate 

Leadership 

Council 

Structure 

Breadth of 

Active Mem 

Social 

Capital 

Member 

Empowerment 

Community 

Context 

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. 
160

IX.4 Qualitative Approach to Examination of Factors

IX.4.a Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

In addition to examining the factors associated with institutionalized change capacity, we 

examined the qualitative data gathered from our case study sites to understand the specific 

factors and processes by which council might influence such change. The primary analytic 

approach employed in the current study was content analysis (Berg, 1995; 2004). Berg (1995) 

describes content analysis as “any technique for making inferences by systematically and 

objectively identifying special characteristics of messages” (p. 175). The analysis of “messages” 

from a variety of sources (e.g., interview transcripts, observation of meetings, meeting minutes 

and agendas) involves creating a set of codes or “themes” that best characterize the data (Berg, 

1995). Content analysis was employed to identify common themes that illustrated the processes 

by which councils facilitate institutionalized change. This was done primarily by the principal 

investigator who also conducted the majority of interviews. This allowed for continuity between 

the data gathering and analytic process. However, the findings presented here were “finalized” 

through a collective effort including ongoing consultation with research team members and 

community collaborators. To ensure the credibility of qualitative analysis Guba and Lincoln’s 

(1994) criteria were imposed. For example, “member checks” were utilized to discuss the 

interpretation of findings with study participants to examine accuracy (i.e., following analysis of 

the original interviews with 30 key informants, an additional 10 key informant interviews were 

conducted that specifically “tested” emerging themes and ideas); throughout the analytic process 

negative case analysis was employed to actively search for evidence that disconfirmed emerging 

hypotheses; emergent themes and theories were discussed with members of the research team 

and community collaborators in regular meetings; finally, a second analyst was engaged to 

conduct an “audit” of the emergent themes and to examine the extent to which themes were 

indeed supported by multiple data sources and whether important themes were left out. 

IX.4.a.i Human and Social Capital: Synergistic Processes 

 Current study findings suggest that councils may indeed foster institutionalized, or 

systems, change. This is reflected in both members’ assessments of councils (see Section VI), 

annual reports regarding council activities (see Section IV) and objective systems change 

markers (e.g., return rates for orders of protection; see Section VIII). However, it is also clear 

that councils vary in their relative success in achieving systems change. The quantitative results 

reported in this section suggest that factors both internal to the council and external to the council 

may be instrumental in explaining variation across councils. Internal factors included the degree 

to which councils a) were characterized by an inclusive climate, broad and active membership, 

effective leadership, and effective organizational structures, b) fostered enhanced social capital 

(relationships and knowledge among critical stakeholders), and c) empowerment (ability to affect 

change) among members. Factors more external to the council (i.e., not within their direct 

control) were also important. Specifically, the degree to which councils operated within a 

supportive community context was an important predictor of the degree to which they achieved 

institutionalized change (as reported by members). 

 Further, this analysis revealed that features of the council including the quality of the 

leadership and the inclusiveness of the council climate were indirectly related to systems change 

via their relationship to the degree to which councils fostered enhanced knowledge and 

relationships (together termed “social capital”). This suggests a dynamic process in which the 

degree to which councils foster an inclusive climate and have effective leaders is related to the 

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. 
161

extent to which they improve stakeholders’ knowledge and relationships which, in turn, affects 

the extent to which they achieve institutionalized change. 

 The primary aim in our study of three case study sites was to examine the processes and 

contextual factors that facilitate and constrain councils’ role in facilitating a systems change 

process. Our emergent findings reveal synergistic processes that hinge on the confluence of 

human capital (e.g., member effort, knowledge and status) through social capital processes in 

each Circuit. Our qualitative analysis aimed to a) understand the various transactions that seemed 

to facilitate or constrain council efforts and to b) elaborate our quantitative findings by 

describing relationships in terms of a confluence of events rather than a set of factors that 

independently contribute to desired changes. In this way, we are attempting to move away from 

“static” factors (e.g., inclusive climate) and toward an explanation of how social capital 

processes operate to facilitate institutionalized change, or changes in policy and practice. Thus, 

our use of mixed methodology in this way is considered complementary and aims to elaborate 

our quantitative findings with the aim of illuminating complex social processes (Greene, 2007). 

IX.4.b Results 

 Based on our analysis we developed a conceptual model that reflects a) prominent social 

capital processes and how they explain the councils’ potential to effect institutionalized change, 

b) requisite council features that may facilitate the expression of these practices, and c) critical 

“contextual” factors in the community that have implications for council functioning and the 

extent to which desired institutionalized changes emerge: strong, local, vocal, and 

knowledgeable domestic violence advocates and engaged or willing local leaders key agencies in 

the community response to IPV. Each of these model components is discussed and elaborated on 

to create a more complete picture regarding the institutionalized change potential of councils and 

the factors and processes that may facilitate and/or constrain their efforts. See Figure 2 for an 

illustration of our emergent model. 

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. 
162

Figure 2 Emergent Conceptual Model of Institutionalized Change Capacity 

Institutionalized

Change

(New Policies 

& Practices)

Generation of

Specific, Local

Knowledge

Access to/Influence of 

Powerful 

Stakeholders

Formation of

Interpersonal &

Organizational

Relationships 

Shifts in

Member/Individual

in Practice

Development of

New Protocols &

Trainings 

Informed by Multiple Voices

Inclusive Climate/

Power Sharing

Strong, Local, 

Knowledgeable

Advocates & Change Agents

Social Capital Processes

Critical Council Features

Engaged/Willing 

Local Leaders

Contextual Factors

Contextual Factors

Broad Membership 

From Key Stakeholders

Committed Members

Leaders & “Worker Bees”

Reflective, Reflexive, 

& Flexible Structure

Engaged Leadership &

Coordination

IX.4.b.i Social Capital Processes 

 Again, echoing our quantitative findings the generation of social capital figured 

prominently when key informants described the value of councils. First, it was common for key 

informants to point to the potential of councils to generate new knowledge among council 

members and in the community at large. Second, improved relationships – both personal and 

organizational – were frequently mentioned as a direct benefit of council efforts. Echoing their 

robust quantitative relationships, these outcomes were often tightly coupled and discussed in 

tandem. Illuminating the intermediary process in our quantitative findings improved 

relationships and knowledge went “hand in hand.” 

 The resulting social capital that occurred spurred change in the community response to 

intimate partner violence via a few prominent pathways: a) generating local knowledge informed 

by multiple perspectives enabled committed council members to plan and engage in specific 

action, b) stimulating shifts in individual members’ practices as responders, c) cultivating 

interpersonal and organizational ties that allowed for more coordinated efforts among front line 

providers, d) informing powerful stakeholders about needed changes in the response to IPV 

(those in positions to affect policy change or influence others), and e) developing new protocols 

and trainings that are informed by multiple voices. See Figure 2 for an illustration of these 

processes. 

 Local Knowledge Informed by Multiple Perspectives Stimulates Action. It was common 

for council members to view education as a core part of their mission. This included general 

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. 
163

education on domestic violence among stakeholders in the systems response and for the general 

population via sometimes extensive training and prevention education efforts. As one key 

informant said, “I think ignorance about domestic violence is one of our key pitfalls”. It was 

clear that many council members viewed education as a critical part of getting responders and 

community members “on board” regarding domestic violence as a social problem that requires a 

multi-faceted response – both within and beyond the criminal justice system. 

Education I would think would be one of the key goals [of the council] not only for the public, 

but for the agencies as well. 

Getting information out. We’re supposed to get information to public groups that don’t know 

about domestic violence, that it’s a problem and that we have services and to get information 

and education to groups dealing with domestic violence, perpetrators and victims. 

Interviewer: What do you view as the purpose of the council? 

Participant: To educate and train the public in domestic violence issues. 

Interviewer: And when you say the public you mean the general public or do you mean the 

public of responders as well, you mentioned police? 

Participant: Everybody who lives within our council area. Now that’s professionals as well as 

the general public. 

 Knowledge of domestic violence is indeed important, and clearly reflected in council 

activities (see Section IV for a review of council training activities), but perhaps even more vital 

to councils’ institutionalized change capacity is the specific knowledge of the local realities in 

the community response to intimate partner violence that emerge through councils’ work. 

 In each case study site without exception, key informants could pinpoint specific areas of 

weakness in their response. Efforts to create a “coordinated response” must move from this 

general aim to the identification of specific system weaknesses that invite specific written 

remedies (Allen, Watt & Hess, 2008). Indeed, the Duluth Safety and Accountability Model 

provides a potent method for identifying specific issues that can be articulated as 

recommendations for change. While none of our case study sites engaged in such a formal audit 

(including, for example, interviews and observations), they did engage in a form of mutual 

inquiry that interrogated what was going right and wrong in the current response. 

I’m on the law enforcement committee, at that meeting I have face to face contact with the state’s 

attorney, the sheriff, usually representatives from both of the shelters in the area, victims’ 

assistance advocate, people from legal services, people that I normally, outside of the states’ 

attorney and the sheriff, people I normally wouldn’t have access to and to get everybody at the 

table at the same time to discuss issues of importance to law enforcement either from the 

standpoint of shortcomings and things that need to be fixed or what we’re doing right. It’s great 

to have the input from, you know, people from so many different disciplines. 

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. 
164

Each stakeholder group can offer its unique vantage point and insight. Importantly, the council 

provides a forum for exchange of information that might not otherwise happen. As one advocate 

explained: 

I think, personally, with the Law Enforcement and Courts Committee, this is gonna sound weird. 

We are not people who would have normally come together in a nice way. And what I mean by 

that is I have cops, who I don’t necessarily like what they do on a daily basis, who are sitting 

next to me, who don’t like what I do on a daily basis, and we come together and talk about how 

we can do better on a daily basis. I would never have that interfacing time with them and 

probably such a free exchange of information and support. So I mean I have access to the 

people or their perspectives that I wouldn’t normally have. 

 In case study councils, stakeholders consistently exchanged information with one another 

about current strengths and liabilities in the systems response. This was often evident in our 

observations of council meetings. For example, during a single steering committee meeting, we 

observed that subcommittee members had identified gaps in translating FOID law language into 

practice. In response to this confusion, two members with some knowledge in the area were 

linked by the chair and asked to clarify the link between this policy and its implementation. 

During this same meeting, the coordinator of the Faith Committee reported the gaps that his 

committee had identified around an underserved population (Spanish-speaking families), an 

untapped stakeholder group (parish nurses), and a resource poor community that could be 

involved in the council (a local village). This committee was in the process of creating a public 

awareness event that would target each of these gaps. Along similar lines, the council discussed 

the initiatives of the law enforcement committee in response to disseminating knowledge and 

affecting practice around State firearms laws, including creation of an information document to 

have ready at bond call. During this discussion, it was made explicit that the council aimed to 

disseminate this information to both front end (i.e., bond call) and back end (i.e., law 

enforcement) providers. 

 From this local analysis of the community response to family violence, specific actions 

could follow, including, for example, training or protocol development. In one site, an advocate 

summarized her council’s assessment as follows and went on to describe the council’s heavy 

emphasis on reforming law enforcement practices: 

For the most part, probation, the court systems are really a lot on the same page. Even between 

you know, state’s attorney, probation, service providers the judges. It seems likes what kind of 

contained in the judicial center is pretty much moving in the same direction. And the one piece 

that we’ve not been able to I think, bring fully into the system has been probably the law 

enforcement stuff, which has been harder. 

 Key informants frequently described the ways in which the diversity of perspective 

among stakeholders matters for the generation of knowledge and the formation of ideas about 

how to proceed with council activities. It was not uncommon for changes within one system to 

be generated by input from someone working from an entirely different standpoint. For example, 

in one of the case study sites, digital cameras were purchased for all of the law enforcement 

agencies within a single county. Prior to that point only some agencies had cameras and the 

presence of photographs seemed to be a particularly powerful tool in the prosecution of cases. 

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. 
165

The idea to purchase cameras came from a council member outside of the criminal justice 

system. In response to her observation, a local leader within the county was able to identify 

funding making cameras an evidence gathering tool in family violence cases for all agencies. 

 Along these lines, key informants pointed to a variety of examples of how ideas were 

“born” in council committee meetings that could be enacted by council members. For example, 

in one case study site the Chief Judge suggested a new way to enhance communication regarding 

orders of protection using electronic communication based on the concerns raised in the council. 

In another example, efforts to form a visitation exchange center were developed out of issues 

raised within the context of the council. To generate funds, council members worked 

independently from the council (because of judicial ethics) to effect changes in legislation that 

would allow for fees to be assessed differently in towns with populations smaller than 100,000. 

Thus, the knowledge of local needs generated within councils can stimulate action. 

In fact, it seems that the beauty and challenge of council-based approaches to change 

seems to be that they are inherently local. The beauty is that councils are positioned to effect 

change that is explicitly locally informed. This cannot be accomplished by people outside of the 

system because while outsiders may craft the best policy in the world, it is enacted through its 

local instantiation and that requires an explicitly local process. Councils are positioned to read 

the “lay of the land” and to act accordingly. The challenge is that councils must then operate 

locally with the specific resources – including human and material resources – that may shape 

what they are positioned to accomplish. This requires a locally informed approach – both with 

regard to what changes are required and what specific strategies are appropriate for a given 

setting at a given point in time. 

 In one case study site, the council was consistently aware of needed changes in their 

criminal justice response. Specific concerns had to do with encouraging a consistent response 

across law enforcement agencies and across officers within agencies and encouraging a 

consistent response from state’s attorneys and judges. Yet, many key criminal justice 

stakeholders (i.e., agency representatives and leaders) were not directly involved in the council. 

In fact, only two criminal justice stakeholders were consistently represented. To further 

complicate local realities, this circuit included 6 counties and a total of 43 law enforcement 

agencies, and six state’s attorneys. Thus, this local council had to think about how to address the 

response across multiple municipalities and counties. To do so, they began to organize 

roundtable discussions in each county. In partnership with local leaders within those counties, 

they organized groups including the state’s attorney, law enforcement leaders, probation, 

batterers intervention, local advocates, etc. and began a dialog about the current strengths and 

weaknesses in the response in that County. From these meetings, they hope to generate a 

specific agenda for each County regarding what issues need to be addressed and how to foster 

such changes. 

We had a pretty good one in round table discussion in [County A]...We had state’s attorney, 

several different, either police officers, chiefs of police, and the sheriff in that county, and we 

talked about things, like, we had someone from DCFS...And that’s one thing that we’re trying to 

do in every county and I think if we can, it's just hard to get everybody together...We’re trying to 

get...law enforcement to recognize certain things. [Then] we arrange trainings through that law 

enforcement, or through that round table. 

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. 
166

[With] the roundtable discussions ...they’re trying to bring everybody to the table, specifically 

targeting prosecution. So from the arrest on, I think is very important. ...But they gotta bring it 

to the local level before you get, I’m mean you gotta have our local guys invested. You can’t just 

say oh we did these round table discussions, we’ve decided this is how you should do it. So if 

they can it into our community, because what I understand is, the communities they’ve done it in, 

the counties that they have completed the session with, it's going very well. 

 Knowledge Leads to Changes in Personal Practice. It was also clear that exchange of 

information had the potential to translate into individual changes in practice among those directly 

involved in council activities and sitting in council meetings (i.e., members). Stakeholders 

sometimes described learning new things from other council members that they could bring 

directly to their work. The following exchange demonstrates this process: 

Participant 1: That’s the key right there. If there are individuals, at least from what I’m 

observing, the individuals that are around that table, are all very committed to the cause... 

Participant 2: And they’ve been around for a long time, at that cause. 

Participant 1: Right. And so that adds to a lot of powerful, powerful stuff and you know, like I 

say, I’m not just, I am in the [criminal justice system] and I really don’t have the knowledge base 

like everyone else around me, so I try and absorb, that’s all I can do is just absorb. 

Interviewer: But you can bring your perspective from [that part of the system]? 

Participant 1: Yeah, I do that. 

Participant 2: Well and you guys are just an important piece of the puzzle, ‘cause so many of our 

clients are the same. And working a lot together.... 

Participant 1: But I also take the perspective of the committee to my job. And I try and educate 

whenever I can. 

Interviewer:...What do you bring back? 

Participant 1: Well let’s expand just the concept of domestic abuse.... by having the little 

knowledge that I do have of it, I’m better able to assist the staff that come to me and say, I got 

this guy, he’s stalking me, doing this and doing that. So I’m better prepared to have answers for 

the person and it appears that the person was pretty comfortable with what I had to say with, to 

her, and that was good. 

Participant 2: I think yeah, things definitely go in and out. I’m sure. Information we get goes 

out to all the different places that we work and all the different things that we do, and then 

everyone brings their stuff in. 

One stakeholder in a position of authority mirrored this perspective when he offered that 

participating in the council disrupted his practice as usual. He suggested that the knowledge he 

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. 
167

gained participating in the council caused him to approach his work in new ways and this 

challenged him to move beyond his typical response and consider new approaches. This was 

echoed in our observations of council meetings. In one council, we noted that the coordinator 

disseminates information on local events, changes in legal statutes and policy, and updates on 

relevant technology (e.g., global positioning devices). During one meeting, an update was given 

on State firearms laws, including a handout summarizing effective practice based on these laws. 

Notably, the same council’s law enforcement committee informed the handout. All members at 

this meeting indicated that knowledge of these laws was important for their work, indicating 

ways in which this knowledge would potentially help shift their personal practice (e.g., one 

member worked with perpetrators in substance use programs and compliance with firearms laws 

could be leverage for their treatment). Members also planned (verbally committed) to 

disseminate information about these laws to their respective agencies. 

 It seemed evident that direct involvement in council efforts yielded a certain benefit – one 

that might not be equally realized by those not attending council meetings where the heart of the 

exchange process takes place. One law enforcement officer expressed the wish that others were 

also involved “at the table.” 

I don’t believe that there’s enough police departments represented there and it would be good to 

have more of the chiefs on board with this because it does alter your perspective of the 

problem...to get more of the chiefs into direct contact with the other people that are at the 

table... Maybe we ought to be rotating people every two or three years to get more in. 

Being “at the table” may indeed be quite important considering that network analysis findings 

indicate that council influence on understanding, relationships, policy and practice were 

consistently perceived for member agencies, but to a lesser extent for nonmember agencies (see 

Section VII). 

 Formation of Interpersonal and Organizational Ties. Key informants also frequently 

discussed how the interpersonal ties formed in the council translate into more effective 

networking in response to individual cases of intimate partner violence. The formation of such 

relationships was frequently invoked as a benefit of council formation and might be one of the 

most readily achievable outcomes. One key informant summarized this benefit as follow: 

I think a big part of it really is just the fact that you’ve got different people that you wouldn’t 

normally be able to talk to maybe as closely as you do, when you’re kind of working with them in 

that capacity. So you know, cold calling, the state’s attorney’s office is a lot you know, less 

effective than, you know, knowing specific people who are involved in the case. But you’re able 

to then call and work with and they know they can work with you...The personal relationship 

stuff has been enormous. And I know even just with [a local shelter program] and our [local 

shelter program] director having that connection with the chief judge, with this, I mean, it just, 

information goes smoother. 

 Yet, personal ties can become dependent on the particular stakeholders who are 

connected remaining involved in the systems response and there was also evidence that 

interagency connections were also formalized at an organizational level. When queried about 

what happens when there is turn over key informants noted that as long as agency directors 

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. 
168

remained involved and committed to collaboration, those working on the front lines would 

remain involved by virtue of their job descriptions. Having such executive support would create 

continuity even when the individual representatives (e.g., particular officers, advocates) changed. 

And there kind of is an institutional connection as well, and I know just on our committee we’ve 

had different you know, especially in the DV units or the DV Probation Office specifically, 

there’s been a lot of turnover. And we’ve worked with a lot of different people but, each next 

person steps in and kind of fills that spot and is sort of connected so, and I think it goes back to 

having the people at the top be connected because...[then] you know, this is part of your job, 

you’re involved in the council. So anybody else who comes in, if somebody leaves, it's like part 

of your position is your being involved in this. 

 Access to and Influence of Powerful (and Informed) Stakeholders Can Lead Directly to 

Changes in Policy and Practice. A prominent theme in key informant interviews is that the key 

to the success of councils was the presence of powerful stakeholders in positions of leadership 

and involved in the membership. The role of powerful stakeholders in council success seemed to 

operate in a variety of ways, including: a) creating a venue for those on the front line to inform 

leaders in positions to alter policies and implement protocols, and b) wielding influence over 

others both within and beyond the council (i.e., stakeholders not currently involved). Each is 

illuminated here. 

 Front Line Access to those in Decision-Making Roles. The ability to form new 

relationships, gain greater access to powerful stakeholders and attract a diverse array of members 

may result in creating a foundation on which institutionalized change can ensue. Challenging the 

popular adage, “it is not what you know, but who you know,” councils seem to foster success as 

a result of both of these components: knowledge and relationships. The councils also fostered 

access to powerful players that might not have otherwise been in place. An executive director of 

a domestic violence agency notes that her council “creates a venue. I don’t believe that I had 

access to any judge before this started.” Importantly, new relationships were formed between 

those working on the front lines and those in positions to effect policy change. Those on the front 

lines brought unique perspectives about the current response to family violence from a variety of 

standpoints. 

One of the really beneficial things about this steering committee is that you’ve got the people 

that are out there, you know, slogging in the mud, doing the heavy lifting, doing the work, doing 

the face to face, and then you’ve got the people who you know, have some policy influence and 

who know people ...in the political end of it. 

Those working on the front lines would bring local stories regarding the strengths and 

weaknesses in the current response. Some key informants felt this created positive pressure for 

those in positions of influence to act. Those with the power to create changes within their own 

agencies become aware of issues that might have otherwise been unseen. This influence could 

come through council meetings where issues arise and are discussed and also through formal 

training. As one key informant described council efforts created access to judges who could be 

trained on domestic violence issues: 

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. 
169

[The council] makes a huge difference I think... just in terms of even training judges that are in 

the Domestic Violence Court, about the domestic violence issues. And I mean, just everyone 

having a better understanding, seems to sort of fuel everything else, in terms of the way they 

respond and the way that kinda things go, on the operational level. I think a big thing is just 

getting judges trained. That was very, very helpful I know to, well especially me because I’m in 

domestic battery court with the abusers and just having judges really understand, you know, 

what’s going on with the victims, what’s going on with the perpetrators and you know, they have 

an investment in sort of holding them accountable. But also, I know that it's helped with victims 

in terms of them getting orders of protection and really having the judges kind of understand 

what those issues are. 

Powerful Stakeholders can Influence Others. Yet, it was also clear that not all Councils 

had equal access to and rapport with their judges or other powerful players within their system’s 

response. In fact, this is a critical contextual factor that may serve to constrain council success in 

certain areas (e.g., implementation of proarrest policies; access to orders of protection; more 

stringent sentencing practices). One key informant commented: 

I get very frustrated, you know, sitting and listening to a professional in the courthouse who 

says, well, it was the first time he was arrested, you know. How bad can it be? She’s still with 

him. And I’m like, excuse me: “ Let me educate you,”... but yet there’s, we know that the people 

within the system, be they state’s attorneys or judges, only like to be educated by their peers. 

They don’t like to be educated by advocates. They don’t like to be educated by people outside of 

the system. There’s a lack of respect there. 

This raises important issues about how councils can marshal influence with key stakeholders 

who are not currently engaged or willing to participate in a council’s change agenda. 

 Certainly, when thinking about council capacity to produce institutionalized change, the 

question of the councils’ ability to influence organizations’ policies and practice becomes 

central. Organizations typically operate with considerable autonomy. Some of the social capital 

processes described provide this influence. For example, councils may serve to disrupt relative 

isolation of stakeholders by bringing organizations and their members into direct contact with 

one another (as described). However, councils do not have an inherent mandate to require 

desired changes if an organization leader is unwilling or uninterested to participate in council 

activities. 

 It was clear in the case study sites that a critical opportunity for council influence came 

through the powerful (or influential) member stakeholders who were active in the council (via 

meetings, trainings, events). As one key informant reflected on the ingredients that have 

facilitated their council efforts he focused on the influence that came from the council 

membership. 

I would say it would be the members of the steering committee are such influential in the 

community regarding this subject, that they wield a lot of power in my eyes. To be able to get, 

you know, I can get so and so to do this...And I think that has been a binding thing, plus the fact 

that you got the big hammer, saying that I like what you guys are doing and I’m going to support 

you, and that’s the chief judge. 

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. 
170

 Having a “big hammer” may be critical given that councils can not necessarily mandate 

changes within their communities, but when those in positions of authority endorse council 

efforts and apply pressure to comply with council recommendations or requests for participation 

this facilitates council efforts. As one key informant put it, the council “does not have the 

authority” to require changes. Thus, when the council creates a new protocol, resource or 

program it is likely via the influence of its members that implementation may ensue. 

 Development of New Protocols and Trainings. Councils managed a wide variety of 

“outputs” or products that emerged from their collective effort. This often involved sharing inkind resources and pooling human capital in the form of know-how and devoted time. Recall that 

annual reports between only 2000 and 2006 revealed 276 council “products” including protocols, 

pamphlets, training materials, educational materials, and tools to facilitate the local response 

(e.g., law enforcement checklists; see Section VI). It was also clear that training events were a 

regular part of council activities. In fact, between 2000 and 2006 council trainings had over 

33,000 attendees (this does not include training provided by the State IFVCC).

 Importantly, locally developed training can draw on information regarding best practices 

in the systems response to intimate partner violence (available from external sources), but then 

engage in a locally informed process to identify specific training needs. This results in a tailored 

training and approach to maximizing the potential impact of the training and one that is informed 

by multiple perspectives. This was particularly well exemplified in one Local FVCC where a law 

enforcement training was developed. Recognizing the need to encourage “buy-in” from all levels 

within law enforcement, the subcommittee employed an inclusive strategy. First, they involved a 

wide variety of stakeholders from multiple standpoints to develop the training curriculum. Then, 

they developed three training modules: one for Chiefs, one for mid-level supervisors and one for 

front-line officers. They began the training with Chiefs. They followed the training with Chiefs 

with the mid-level supervisors. Then after broad engagement from the leadership structure they 

trained front line officers. They then identified a core of individuals and conducted a train the 

trainer program so that they had a full panel of possible trainers they could draw on as interest in 

training arose. One key informant described this process: 

And they not only go place to place but when they do their concerted training, they start with 

who’s even above the chiefs? They start with the top layer and they train them. And then they 

went to the next layer and trained them. And then they went to the line officers, and trained 

them. And then they’re going to go to the dispatchers and train them. Because you can, in 

anything you can come in and train the line people. And if these people aren’t buying it, then it 

doesn’t matter what you teach them. 

 They assessed the local realities of their response, based on specific concerns about the 

law enforcement response informed by those working within and outside of the system they 

crafted a training that could be offered free of charge to agencies. Council activities frequently 

involve these types of efforts created and executed by stakeholders across systems. Thus, 

councils have the potential to have a local impact on systems change by virtue of a broad base of 

actively participating members who pool their resources to engage comprehensive efforts. It is 

the confluence of stakeholders’ knowledge of the system, their respective expertise, and their 

access to policy makers that affords them the opportunity to effect change. 

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. 
171

IX.4.b.ii Critical Council Features 

 Just as our quantitative findings highlighted the relationship of a variety of council 

features to the degree to which social capital emerged from council efforts, our qualitative 

inquiry illuminates the features of the council that may be critical to their ability to effect 

community change. In fact, absent these features it is not clear that council environments would 

be conducive to stimulating the social capital processes implicated in achieving institutionalized 

change. Specifically, councils must a) foster an inclusive climate that encourages all voices, b) 

establish broad membership from the array of key stakeholders implicated in a comprehensive 

community response to intimate partner violence, c) have a “working core” of committed 

members and, ideally, influential leaders, d) have sufficient leadership to guide and coordinate 

the effort , and e) maintain a reflective, reflexive, and flexible structure (with regard to 

organization, goals and activities). 

 Inclusive Council Climate. It was clear in all of the case study sites that councils had 

highly inclusive climates. Key informants frequently spoke of the ability to incorporate multiple 

voices and the value of encouraging multiple perspectives. An internal process that did not 

encourage honest exchange would be unlikely to realize the transactional process described 

above in which those with greater power become informed by those with relatively less power. 

[In this region] you’re gonna see people again. So you probably just don’t want to blow away 

all your bridges right off the bat because the next time you need to help somebody, it’s gonna be 

somebody’s sister-in-law or...somebody that you worked with before...[And] not just because 

it’s [this region], but the more we understand what each other’s piece of the process is, the more 

respectful we are of that. I mean, we can conflict right... we can do whatever as long as we 

bring that around full circle before we leave the room, and say I understand why you got heated 

about that, I hope you understand why I got heated about that, and what is it that we’re going to 

do about it together as opposed to just leaving the room...And from the judges... from the top to 

the bottom I think we...encourage everybody [to have input], not just the state’s attorney’s office 

but also the public defender’s office. Not just the advocates but perpetrator services. So, you 

know, because we see that it’s gonna take everybody to resolve this. 

 In fact, in the absence of such exchange the work of councils could potentially be 

characterized by cooptation rather than cooperation. One advocate expresses this concern 

emphasizing the importance of genuine respect for the domestic violence advocates, in 

particular, and suggests that in the absence of such respect collaborative approaches to change 

may be less desirable. 

No I think for some [advocates] there is too great a risk. I really believe that. They’re not 

positioned and I believe everything comes down to politics and the broader sense. And the fact 

of the matter is, they’re not positioned well enough in their community. If the judge...or the 

state’s attorney did not respect...[the domestic violence service provider agencies], I can go 

back and marshal our communities into responding.

To avoid that risk, one advocate described her perspective as follows: “you catch more flies with 

honey than you do with vinegar. You know that old cliché but it's very true.” 

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. 
172

 Gray (1985) suggests that collaborative efforts can only ensue when roughly equal power 

has been established. It was clear in all of the case study settings that in the context of the 

council all perspectives were encouraged and incorporated. 

 Broad Membership from Key Stakeholders. Clearly, the nature of council membership 

can be both a facilitating and constraining factor (as described above). In one site, council 

membership included a solid and active group of stakeholders, but as one member described 

them they were all “in the choir.” 

A lot of times at out meetings you’re preaching to the choir. There are those of us who are very 

dedicated to, you know, working on the issue of domestic violence and it’s, those are the ones 

that we need to be preaching to. We need the other ones in here that are helping us to do that. 

Another participant echoed this concern saying: 

We need to get the civil attorneys in there that are getting restraining orders for people instead 

and telling them that, the same thing, or jotting on the back of some sheet of paper an order 

that’s supposed to be an order of protection and the sheriff’s office complains and the judge 

signs it because they’re an attorney and lots of little issues like that. 

 

 Councils actively sought membership from key stakeholders, but this was met with 

varied success at varied points in time. Sometimes new interest and buy-in was cultivated in the 

council by virtue of a new person taking on a key role within an organization. 

 All councils actively cultivated interest from relevant stakeholders through training 

throughout their circuits. In fact, every council was formed with a “kick off” symposium. 

Subcommittees were formed directly from this initial event. Training is thus not only an 

educational event, but also serves as a catalyst for direct engagement in council efforts. 

 Local FVCC are chaired by a member of the judiciary (the Chief Judge or an appointee). 

Key informants frequently discussed the influence of the judge in inviting and attracting new 

members. They reported that the judge’s involvement enhanced the credibility of the council. 

They also indicated that personal invitations from the judge encouraged participation from other 

agency leaders that might not otherwise have become involved. 

 Some key informants felt that sustaining membership was dependent on who the Chief 

Judge was and how influential he/she was in maintaining membership. 

[Our first chief judge] had a lot of authority and was an active participant and really helped a 

lot and when we lost [this judge] we started to slide back a little bit on getting participation from 

various entities, which is unfortunate. 

This may make councils highly dependent on the power of their Chair to extend their authority to 

council matters. While it does seem that councils can develop their own credibility and visibility 

having a powerful judge, encouraging participation from other powerful players is likely to 

matter more in settings where those players are less invested in getting involved. 

 A council’s ability to effect change may be limited by its membership, but that does not 

have to be a foregone conclusion. Councils across case study sites tried to engage critical 

stakeholders in an ongoing fashion by remaining aware of who was missing and continually 

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. 
173

looking for the right person to step into the council. Indeed, recruitment is best described as an 

ongoing, rather than one-time, process: 

One of our goals . . . has been trying to recruit more members. And that, it's just, and I don’t 

know why it's difficult to do that, but that’s kind of been a goal that we’ve, an on, like a running 

goal you know? That we always want to try to recruit more members. And I know we do, but we 

probably, we would like to have more. 

 Not surprisingly, councils addressed a variety of issues related to the criminal justice 

response. However, the FVCC did not confine their activities to criminal justice issues and this 

was reflected in their membership. A diverse array of stakeholders was invited to participate in 

councils. This is reflected in council’s subcommittee structures which included faith, health care, 

elder, community education, children/youth (see Section IV committees) and in their 

membership. Some key informants credited the broad engagement of stakeholders to council 

efforts. 

The council has drawn in other groups (inaudible) getting the churches involved, the schools 

involved, different entities that I don’t think had really dealt with domestic violence before and 

now they are being informed as to what the situation is, how to identify domestic violence issues 

that arise and we now have more resources... I mean my office and domestic violence agencies 

in the circuit, we always knew how to contact each other, but now these other entities know what 

the resources are out there and I think that has a lot to do with the council acting as a 

coordinator and bringing in all these other entities that are gonna eventually deal with domestic 

violence whether it be the churches, the schools. 

 Committed Membership: Leaders and Worker Bees. The importance of committed, 

engaged members was repeatedly emphasized across case study sites. Meaningful participation 

took a number of forms. In some cases, leadership was provided by powerful stakeholders who 

communicated their investment in the council to their staff and to agency and community 

members. For example, the role of judicial leadership in lending credibility to the councils, in 

recruiting participation from other key players in the community response to domestic violence, 

and in implementing policy and practice changes was evident across sites. 

It's a great benefit to be able to talk to people . . . and be able to say you know, your county 

State’s Attorney is firmly behind this, this committee and the chief judge of the . . . circuit 

supports us completely, you know? And that carries some weight. 

I think that chief judge’s name opens doors. So if someone in the school system got a call from 

the chief judge, to sit on a council that he in fact chairs, it's like oh, I’d like to be there. 

Leadership was also demonstrated at the committee-level by chairs or members who were able to 

inspire and motivate others. Council members observed the “contagious” influence of passionate 

participants, who provided inspiration and motivation to others. For example, “And it’s . . . 

catching or whatever, you know. When you have somebody who’s that enthused and you’re at a 

meeting and that person’s enthused and then you got, okay, these people are enthused and then 

we get enthused.” Yet another form of leadership was provided by strong advocates who 

functioned to ensure that council efforts did not stray from a larger focus on victim safety and 

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. 
174

victim’s experiences. For example: 

I think it's the fact that the [domestic violence agency] programs, in our area, are established 

programs. And we don’t, we did not attend the steering committee with our hat in our hand. We 

definitely attended from a point of view that we are the most experienced sitting there. And if 

you make any decisions, you know, we’re going to have something to say about it. We’re not shy 

and there is no risk to us. 

Finally, successful efforts reflected the contribution of “worker bees,” those members who 

pushed to create concrete tasks, worked hard to implement projects, and who mobilized others. 

For example: 

When we said we’re gonna do it we develop it and we get her moving. So I think our outlining of 

a plan of action and our facilitating it is a positive thing for the committee and for the large 

council. We’re getting something done and we’re just not there to have lunch and talk about it 

but we’re doing it . . . the key ingredients is the people. You get positive people, people who 

want to contribute, people who want to see the end product, not just talk about it. 

It was also clear that councils acknowledged and recognized their members’ contributions – 

some sites even did this through formal ceremonies. It seemed that many of the council 

“champions” for change were not just born, but made. That is, the process of engaging interested 

stakeholders, encouraging their active involvement, and recognizing their contributions their 

participation can be maintained and leadership possibilities enhanced. 

 Reflective, Flexible and Reflexive Structure. A feature of council settings not reflected in 

our quantitative analysis is the importance of a reflective and reflexive structure. Specifically, a 

strength of councils may be their ability to be flexible – changing their structure and focus as 

needed. 

[Creating a county committee] was new and we’re sort of like... I wonder why we didn’t think 

about this, years ago, you know...But you know that’s one of the things you just over time you’re 

like well you know what: We’re not doing very well and that’s really it. You’re always looking 

at for what we’re not doing very well and seeing what we can do to improve that. 

By organizing locally they can attend to local realities and adjust accordingly. Councils, by their 

nature, are organizations without walls; they are not bound by rigid organizational structures, but 

rather can flex and bend as they figure out what their pressing needs are and what their current 

resource array provides. Thus, if a council does not have representation from critical stakeholder 

groups they need not remain stuck on a single issue. Councils appear to work with what they 

have at the same time they attempt to effect change in their local reality. 

 Given the centrality of council membership in achieving desired ends, maintaining 

participation is critical. One critical strategy may be to focus on “small wins,” or achievable 

goals to build momentum and to excite participation and engagement. Creating systems change 

in the response to intimate partner violence inevitably involves a complex systems change task. 

Focusing only on the “big issues” – particularly if there are important barriers to achieving those 

issues – may be overly discouraging and result in disengaged members. However, councils seem 

to break this task down into smaller, specific goals. For example, the larger goal may to reform 

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. 
175

arrest practices, but a tangible first step in that process may be to create an information resource 

card for victims that law enforcement can distribute. For at least some this was a deliberate 

strategy to maintain involvement, build relationships, and continually work toward larger, more 

complicated efforts. 

Well you want to maximize the number of groups in the community that you can get involved. 

But to do that, partly, you have to convince those groups that there’s a problem, and then, that 

they can help resolve it because people will recognize that there are problems but they have to 

feel as if there’s something that they can accomplish... to some extent a committee completing 

even something as simple as a resource packet...[has] accomplished something. And then they 

see that in writing and then they take it places and they pass it out and they realize they’re 

getting information out. So you really have to, as you start the stuff, break your goals down. 

Because you’re not gonna find your council’s goal is to end domestic violence... you can’t have 

that as the ultimate goal of your subcommittees or they’ll go away. You have to have something 

that everybody can work for and a short-term goal that they can see the end of within two weeks, 

three weeks, a month, whatever and it complete and then feel good about that and then set 

another short goal... We’re a bureaucracy. We’re like a huge ocean liner and you want to end 

up over there but you’re heading this way. ...it’s a slow turn. 

This key informant went on to describe how from these small wins, more complicated change 

opportunities arise and then there is a committed group ready to act when the more complex 

change opportunities emerge (e.g., beginning a visitation exchange center, creating new 

processes for accessing orders of protection). 

 Leadership. Some stakeholders viewed the model of having a designated, paid 

coordinator as a critical part of facilitate FVCC success. One key informant coupled the presence 

of a breadth of stakeholders, powerful chairs and paid coordinators as particularly important. 

I think, you know, people that have good...big ideas, that can think big and think outside the box 

and then you have someone like [the] Judge that says let’s move it along and let’s do something 

with it and then you have someone like [our coordinator] that says okay then these are the tasks 

that have to get done. 

Having paid coordinators reduces the diffusion of responsibility that can sometimes occur in 

collaborative work. To be clear, a single, part-time coordinator cannot execute everything that is 

done by a council, but they can provide the “glue” that binds the council’s efforts across 

subcommittees. Multiple observations of council meetings revealed that coordinators can be 

critical in finding and disseminating knowledge (e.g., regarding local and state laws), fostering 

inter-committee communication (e.g., updating each committee on the council’s broader 

accomplishments, taking ideas from one committee to another), as well as providing 

encouragement and support for member participation (e.g., through verbal praise, formal 

nominations for recognition). 

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. 
176

IX.4.b.iii Contextual Factors 

 Similar to our quantitative analysis factors “external” to the council emerged as powerful 

shaper of council institutionalized change capacity. Two issues were particularly salient: a) 

engaged or willing local leaders in critical responding agencies, and b) strong, local, vocal, and 

knowledgeable domestic violence advocates. 

 Engaged/Willing Organizational Leaders. Punctuating the importance of a supportive 

external environment, it is not always the case that those in positions of authority within 

respective agencies responding to intimate partner violence are directly involved in council 

efforts. For example, in one case study site, during a two year process a new law enforcement 

protocol was developed that could be used across the Circuit. This would create a uniform 

process for all law enforcement agencies and would incorporate current best practices. The 

subcommittee responsible for the creation of this protocol described the effort as a dynamic 

process with disagreement and compromise and representation from many of the respective law 

enforcement agencies in the Circuit. One stakeholder suggested that the law enforcement 

agencies themselves would not necessarily have relationships with one another. 

Not only [is it that the law enforcement response] varies but there...[are] agencies where they 

have their difficulties in communicating with each other...just take [Town 1] and [Town 2] as 

examples. I’m not so sure they even want to acknowledge that either one exists. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, when the protocol was complete, it was not adopted by the Chiefs of 

respective agencies. Councils may be positioned to provide expertise and guidance regarding 

best practices in the response to intimate partner violence, but lack a mandate to encourage 

respective agencies to adopt and implement those practices. For example, in the absence of 

involvement from health care agencies, councils are less likely to directly influence the health 

care response. This is true for other facets of the response as well (e.g., faith communities, law 

enforcement, etc.). Current council efforts aim to engage the respective Chiefs and to resurrect 

the effort to have the model protocol implemented throughout the Circuit. This requires another 

process that councils appear positioned to facilitate sometimes by virtue of their current 

membership base. Those with influence within respective systems begin to use their respective 

social capital to engage other powerful players. 

 In the absence of engagement from willing leaders and/or support for council activities 

councils’ may have limited capacity to affect institutionalized change. In this case they may 

choose to focus their efforts in areas over which they have influence, including, for example, 

organizing training events. Such events may also play a role in engaging new critical 

stakeholders. However, in the meantime, councils institutionalized change capacity may be 

truncated by a lack of key organizational support. 

 Local Stakeholders (Advocates and Change Agents) Must be “In the Know” to Guide 

Local Efforts. Political savvy was also evident in councils’ approach to change. In the example 

where the training of law enforcement attended to agency leaders first followed by mid-level 

supervisors they demonstrated their understanding of the need to package the training in a way 

that made sense from the perspective of their end users. As one member from law enforcement 

suggested, council ideas and initiatives must be marketed in a way that is attractive to those in a 

position to make changes.

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. 
177

I think the idea of showing that number one you’re going to be providing a better service to the 

citizens that you’re sworn to protect. But also if we can show how we can streamline the process 

to get the officers in and out of this case, you know, in a reasonable amount of time and do a 

good enough case that we don’t get called back to court on numerous occasions on these where 

we give the states’ attorney really, really good ammunition to take this thing to trial and get a 

conviction you know, without a lot of monkey business. That’s gonna be to the chiefs’ benefit.... 

And I think the issues of bringing the advocates in it’s gonna be a whole lot easier. I mean if we 

have to take a victim to the hospital wouldn’t it be nice for the chiefs to be able to turn that 

victim over to one of the advocates as opposed to having an officer down there for the next 

several hours. I mean that’s just one aspect. 

Figuring out this “hook” may be a critical part of motivating broader participation. One key 

informant working within the criminal justice system bemoaned the lack of involvement from his 

agency, indicating that he was the only one to his knowledge that had taken advantage of training 

because it was entirely voluntary. 

And there’s no mandate to go and ... they don’t think that they’re gonna get anything from 

going. So just somehow get them that education or motivated to get themselves the education so 

that they can deal with [domestic violence]...There are many different perspectives and many 

different reasons why certain cases are prosecuted and not prosecuted and specific to domestic 

violence. And depending on what a particular assistant sees or, and their perspective on it will 

determine whether or not it’s prosecuted or not...I would agree that it’s idiosyncratic... On the 

other hand, if you know a little bit about the cycle of violence and the (power) and control and 

everything, you’ll realize...[the] whole cycle. Look, you’ve got that one dropped there. You’ve 

got that one dropped there. You’ve got that one dropped there. It’s not an isolated incident. 

You have to prosecute this. You’ve got the information... I think ignorance about domestic 

violence is one of our key pitfalls. 

Another participant reflected on the sensitivity required to approach agencies that may think you 

are telling them how to do their job or accusing them of doing a poor job. 

And we do see some of that resistance at times from a smaller agency. They’re like, well, I know 

how to do my job. You don’t need to tell me. But yet their investigations are so pathetic the 

prosecutor can’t win that case. They haven’t given them anything to win it with. It just makes 

that, the victim then even more victimized cause now they’ve got to go back home and this guy 

didn’t get the proper punishment or, you know, and next time you’re not gonna want to call the 

police again. 

 Along with political savvy, it is also essential that local stakeholders – and domestic 

violence advocates and program directors, in particular – know what constitutes effective 

practice in the systems response to domestic violence. This echoes Adler’s (2002) findings 

regarding the importance of strong local advocacy organizations. Indeed, a critical role of 

coordinated efforts is systems accountability, and part of holding systems accountable is being 

aware of what the desired end goals are and where the local community is along those 

dimensions. Yet holding systems (and the people in them) accountable raises a set of delicate 

issues regarding how to effectively engage or leverage engagement. This illustrates a primary 

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. 
178

tension in the need for a supportive community context. Once a given stakeholder group is “on 

board” and “at the table” in collaborative approaches to change, the work of creating changes to 

the text of protocols and policies can begin and likely proceeds via many of the social capital 

processes described. However, when there is not sufficient willingness to engage in partnership, 

those invested in change (other law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, etc.) may want to 

engage in other tactics to encourage systems accountability (e.g., organizing a court watch to 

encourage consistent practices in the courts, or using the local media to bring the public’s 

attention to local deficits). 

 The challenge is that some of these tactics may appear at odds with a collaborative 

approach. Still, not to act may inadvertently maintain the status quo. For example, some 

communities have successfully utilized court watch programs to encourage systems 

accountability in the courts. The goal is to pay close attention to what is occurring in the courts 

by sitting and observing on a regular basis. This systematic observation can be reported to 

appropriate outlets including the media and other court officials. If the goal is reform in the 

judicial response, court watch is another venue for encouraging systems change and could lead to 

“changes in the text” when key stakeholders are unwilling to participate in a collaborative 

approach to change. Operating in a collaborative environment (i.e., using councils to encourage 

change) can sometimes make taking actions that could be viewed as “adversarial” difficult. 

However, if the goal is institutionalized change, collaboration should be viewed as one means to 

an end, not an end unto itself (Pence, 1999). Participants in councils must be vigilant to be clear 

about their goals even in situations that invite compromise. Participants must also regularly 

assess the degree to which desired outcomes are occurring so that they do not inadvertently 

“settle” for better relationships, but more of the same in the systems response. The absence of 

clarity regarding desired ends may increase the risk of cooptation of a systems change agenda. 

Indeed, there is some evidence that collaboration is particularly effective when co-empowerment 

occurs; in this approach all stakeholders retain their agenda and unique priorities even as they 

engage and compromise with others (Bond, & Keys, 1993). 

IX.5 Brief Discussion 

The current study suggests that councils vary with regard to the extent to which they are 

positioned to produce institutionalized change and that various factors and processes are related 

to this variability. This is not surprising given consistent findings that collaborative approaches 

to change pose significant challenges and do not routinely result in desired outcomes (e.g., 

Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). Importantly, those factors facilitating institutionalized change could 

be found “within” (internal) and “outside” (external) of councils. Recall that internal factors 

included the degree to which councils a) were characterized by an inclusive climate, broad and 

active membership, effective leadership and effective organizational structures, b) fostered 

enhanced social capital (relationships and knowledge among critical stakeholders) and b) 

empowerment (ability to affect change) among members. Factors more external to the council 

(i.e., not within their direct control), or the degree to which councils operated within a supportive 

community context was an important predictor of the degree to which they achieved 

institutionalized change (as reported by members). 

This analysis also suggested that the degree to which social capital emerged from 

councils’ work mediated the relationship between features of the council itself (e.g., the quality 

of the leadership and the inclusiveness of the council climate) and achieving institutionalized 

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. 
179

change. This suggests a dynamic process in which the degree to which councils foster an 

inclusive climate and have effective leaders is related to the extent to which they generate social 

capital which, in turn, affects the extent to which they achieve institutionalized change. 

There are many studies that have established various facilitators and barriers to 

collaboration. However, the current study advances research on the facilitators of collaboration 

by looking not only at features of the council as a body, but at other factors including member 

empowerment and community support. This firmly locates the efforts of councils in a broader 

context and subject to forces outside of their immediate control. Yin and Kaftarian (1997) have 

called for such attention in the evaluation of collaborative efforts, but this study is among the 

first to establish the relevance of such external factors. 

Further, the current study aimed to move beyond a focus on factors – which may be 

conceived of as isolated forces – but on processes. This is consistent with recent calls to advance 

theories of change regarding not only whether or not collaboration is effective and what council 

features facilitate or pose barriers to effectiveness, but how councils affect change (Allen, Watt, 

& Hess, 2008; Lasker & Weiss, 2003). Our qualitative findings mirror those that emerged in the 

quantitative analysis, but added texture and illustrated the dynamic processes inherent in 

collaborative work. Specifically a set of social capital processes emerged that illustrated how 

relationships and knowledge may operate to effect councils’ potential to effect institutionalized 

change. Further, this analysis added to our understanding of the requisite council features that 

may facilitate the expression of these practices (e.g., leadership and membership emerged, but 

our qualitative analysis illustrated how they matter). Finally, our qualitative analysis elaborated 

on the importance of “community support” by highlighting two key features that emerged 

repeatedly in our ethnographic inquiry: strong, local, vocal, and knowledgeable domestic 

violence advocates and engaged or willing local leaders in critical responding agencies. 

Illuminating the specific processes by which councils can affect change expands potential 

points of intervention regarding how council operations can be more effective. For example, the 

lack of involvement of key stakeholders is a profound complication in collaborative work. 

However, the current study suggests that outreach and recognition from powerful leaders (e.g., 

judges, prosecutors) can serve as a motivating force for new members. 

Some agencies are viewed as resistant (and perhaps impervious) to change, but the 

current study demonstrates how specific, local knowledge can result in find-tuned and locally 

sensitive approaches that may be primed for success. It seems councils frequently struggled with 

improving the law enforcement response (see more on this from the analysis of archives, Section 

VIII, and the perspective of survivors in Section X). This reflects a relatively decentralized 

structure across jurisdictions and agencies. One site seemed to engage a potentially successfully 

strategy by tailoring training to each group and taking training “on the road.” Another site used 

county-specific roundtables to stimulate a relevant discussion about what kinds of change were 

needed and how they could be facilitated. 

Still, councils may lack a mandate to facilitate desired local change. In this way specific 

supports may be necessary. This is where the “third party” structure of the Illinois FVCC 

(statewide) and State IFVCC staff may be particularly powerful. The steering committee may be 

positioned to enhance local influence, supply technical knowledge regarding the mechanics of 

fostering an inclusive climate, conducting an effective meeting, informing legislators, engaging 

local leaders who are reticent, preparing members not only to attend meetings, but to become 

agents of change, informing local FVCC about cutting edge policies and practices, bringing key 

state-level figures influence to bear on reticent local stakeholders, etc. (see Section IV for a 

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. 
180

thorough review of the nature of state support). These are all potential “external” supports that 

function to facilitate local action. In other states, councils may operate in relative isolation from 

one another, but in Illinois there is the opportunity to connect the councils to a broader 

knowledge base, power base and action base. In all of these ways, the interconnected structure 

and technical support may foster what is ultimately locally informed action. 

 The collaborative model advanced by the Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils 

– which hinge on “bringing stakeholders together” and forming new relationships – appear to 

have a generative effect. That is, social capital may indeed spur other desirable outcomes in the 

institutional response to intimate partner violence. The conceptualization of social capital in the 

current study is in keeping with its more traditional use in the field of sociology. Coleman (1990) 

suggests that social capital exists by virtue of relationships, and in this way, is not an attribute of 

any particular individual. As such, social capital is defined by its function, is granted through 

relationships, and confers capacity for action. In his review of the origins and use of social 

capital, Portes (1998) suggests that social capital speaks to the ability to attain social resources 

and can be distinguished from the resources themselves. This functional definition of social 

capital lends itself to conceptualization as an intermediary process. Further, Portes (1998) posits 

that social capital emerges through membership in social structures and networks, and may 

develop through mechanisms such as reciprocity expectations and group norms. Results from the 

current study suggest that councils may operate as one such social structure that facilitates social 

networking, and that it is in turn by virtue of the formation of these relationships, within which 

knowledge is acquired, that councils may promote distal changes in the community response to 

IPV. In essence, social capital is acquired by virtue of relationships and represents a critical 

component of the collaborative process because it can characterize coordination that facilitates a 

process of change versus coordination to its own end. 

 This is critical as Ellen Pence (1999) and others have warned that the formation of 

stakeholder relationships should not be an end unto themselves. Still, it is clear that 

institutionalized change is not an automatic outcome for councils – this variability was evident in 

the wide variation across communities in the extent to which arrests were made and plenary 

orders of protection were granted and in council members perceptions (as examined here). 

Importantly, the current study illuminates the conditions under which council capacity to achieve 

such ends are maximized and what may prove to be “fatal flaws” in efforts to improve the 

systems response. 

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. 
181

SECTION X 

SURVIVORS’ VOICES: A CRITICAL WINDOW INTO THE 

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE COMMUNITY RESPONSE

X.1 – Purpose 

To engage survivors’ perspectives regarding what is currently working well in the 

community response to IPV and what needs improvement. 

X.2 – Overview 

 A final and critical source of information about the community response to intimate 

partner violence in each site was survivors. While it was not an aim of the current study to 

evaluate the impact council efforts have on survivors’ lives (indeed, this study was designed to 

examine councils’ systems change capacity as a precursor to the systematic examination of such 

efforts on survivors’ lives), we wanted to gauge council members’ assessments of their councils 

and the current strengths and weaknesses in the community response in light of survivors’ 

reported experiences. This seemed particularly important given a) the role that councils appear to 

play in developing a local understanding of such strengths and weaknesses, and b) our argument 

that such assessment is a fundamental component of the local instantiation of policy (e.g., proarrest laws) and locally informed action (e.g., training, protocol development). 

X.3 – Data Sources and Analytic Approach 

Thus, our focus groups and the analysis that follows were guided by three primary 

questions: a) how do women describe their experiences of the community response to violence in 

their lives?; b) to what extent do council efforts and priorities aim to address the challenges 

survivors face?; and c) to what extent do survivors perceive coordinated efforts among 

responding agencies? 

Following the analytic strategy described in Section IX.4.a, we engaged in a content 

analysis to establish emergent themes in response to each of our guiding questions. These themes 

were discussed and reviewed with research team members including those who assisted in 

conducting the focus groups. A final set of emergent themes are presented that speak to our 

guiding questions. Finally, each of our major questions is addressed, in turn, in our discussion. 

 In order to frame our findings, it is important to recall that we spoke with women who 

were largely low income and all of whom had come into contact with a domestic violence 

program (for a combination of non-residential and residential services). Also, many of the 

women had come into contact with various facets of the criminal justice system and a few had 

experiences with other elements of the formal systems response (e.g., human service agencies, 

public health, DCFS). 

X.4 – Results 

Our findings suggest that a) survivors report a wide variety of needs, some of which can 

be met by mobilizing an improved systems response, and some of which reflect broad social 

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. 
182

inequities (e.g., persistent poverty), b) survivors describe domestic violence programs and 

advocacy as indispensable, c) survivors have varied experiences with the criminal justice 

response – even within the same community, d) DCFS poses significant challenges for women in 

abusive relationships, and e) women perceive coordinated efforts across human service agencies, 

but not across systems. Each of these themes will be described in turn following a summary of 

survivors’ closed ended responses regarding their experiences with various systems. 

X.4.a – Description of Focus Group Survey Data 

Participants were recruited through domestic violence programs, so it is not surprising 

that all participants had contact with domestic violence shelters or programs. The vast majority 

of participants found these programs helpful or very helpful (96%), as well as helpful or very 

helpful for promoting safety (96%). Additionally, 88% participants reported that these programs 

or shelters made things better. Tables 1, 2, and 3 present these data. Only participants who had 

contact with the listed community resources are included in the frequencies reported in these 

tables. 

With regard to orders of protection, a slight majority of women (53%) found them helpful 

or very helpful and reported that these orders promoted safety (53%) and made things better 

(40%). However, a considerable minority - over one third of participants - found orders of 

protection not helpful at all, and over 40% reported that they did not help with safety. In fact, 

24% of participants reported that protective orders made things worse for them. While protective 

orders assist many women in maintaining their safety, a significant number of women still do not 

experience the intended benefits of orders of protection. Similarly, the majority of participants 

found the police and state’s attorney to be helpful and to have helped with safety, yet close to 

one third of participants did not find the police or state’s attorney to be helpful or to help with 

safety. These findings illustrate the variation in survivors’ experiences with the criminal justice 

system. Such experiences are echoed in our qualitative findings. Finally, on average, survivors 

reported generally positive experiences with the human services, health care and faith based 

settings. Still, survivors experiences are not uniformly positive even within the same service 

delivery settings suggesting that there may be important individual differences in women’s 

experiences as they navigate the systems response. 

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. 
183

Table 1 Perceived Helpfulness

Helpful (%) 

Scale 1-4 

Never 

Had 

Contact 

Mean

(SD) 

Not at 

all 

helpful

Somewhat 

Helpful Helpful

Very 

Helpful

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 0 3.64 

(0.57)

0 4 28 68 

Health Care Organizations 16 2.85 

(0.88)

5 30 40 25 

Human or Social Services Agencies 16 2.80 

(0.95)

10 25 40 25 

Orders of Protection 32 2.47 

(1.28)

35.3 11.8 23.5 29.4 

Police Response 8 2.27 

(1.12)

27.3 40.9 9.1 22.7 

State’s Attorney 52 2.55 

(1.37)

36.4 9.1 18.2 36.4 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of 

abuser) 

28 2.60 

(0.99)

13.3 33.3 33.3 20 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, 

mosques or synagogues) 

16 3.05 

(0.97)

10.5 10.5 42.1 36.8 

Other: _____________ 4 2.20 

(1.30)

40 20 20 20 

Table 2 Perceived Helpfulness with Safety 

Helped Safety (%) 

Scale 1-4 

Never 

Had 

Contact

Mean

(SD) 

Not at 

all 

helpful

Somewhat 

Helpful Helpful

Very 

Helpful

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 0 3.64 

(0.57)

0 4 28 68 

Health Care Organizations 24 2.74 

(1.05)

15.8 21.1 36.8 26.3 

Human or Social Services Agencies 20 2.90 

(0.85)

5 25 45 25 

Orders of Protection 28 2.47 

(1.37)

41.2 5.9 17.6 35.3 

Police Response 20 2.25 

(1.12)

30 35 15 20 

State’s Attorney 40 2.36 

(1.28)

35.7 21.4 14.3 28.6 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of 

abuser) 

28 2.44 

(1.09)

18.8 43.8 12.5 25 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, 

mosques or synagogues) 

24 3.00 

(1.05)

15.8 5.3 42.1 36.8 

Other: _____________ 16 2.00 

(1.73)

66.7 0 0 33.3 

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. 
184

Table 3 Perceived Effect of Help (Better, No Change, Worse)

Made Better or Worse or No Change (%) 

Scale 1-3 

Never 

Had 

Contact

Mean 

(SD) 

Made 

Things 

Worse 

Made 

No 

Change 

Made 

Things 

Better 

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 0 2.88 

(0.33) 

0 12 88 

Health Care Organizations 16 2.52 

(0.60) 

4.8 38.1 57.1 

Human or Social Services Agencies 20 2.60 

(0.50) 

0 40 60 

Orders of Protection 32 2.24 

(0.83) 

23.5 29.4 47.1 

Police Response 16 2.05 

(0.76) 

25 45 30 

State’s Attorney 44 2.17 

(0.83) 

25 33.3 41.7 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of abuser) 24 2.22 

(0.81) 

22.2 33.3 44.4 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, mosques or 

synagogues) 

28 2.53 

(0.72) 

11.8 23.5 64.7 

Other: _____________ 12 1.80 

(0.84) 

40 40 20 

Table 4 First Contact with Resource

Indicate when you first started contacting community resources for help 

with abuse: 

% 

Within the past month 16 

Within the past six months 8 

About a year ago 32 

2 to 4 years ago 20 

4 to 6 years ago 0 

7 to 10 years ago 8 

More than 10 years ago 16 

X.4.b – Survivors’ Wide Variety of Needs 

 Survivors reported a wide variety of needs. Some of these needs clearly reflected those 

that the formal helping system should be prepared to levy in an ideal world. For example, some 

survivors discussed needing shelter, and wanting police to follow through with arrests for 

protection order violations. However, while such priorities varied across women, almost all 

discussed needing financial assistance to meet basic needs (e.g., child care, housing, 

transportation). After a full discussion of many facets of the systems’ response, when asked 

about what changes they would like to see, one survivor followed with the need for material 

assistance above all. 

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. 
185

If there was a group that had help, like financial help with people that need it because that was 

like my situation I was kicked out on the street with a ten month old baby, no clothes, no nothing 

and got accepted into an apartment and had a job and paid first month’s rent and then couldn’t 

pay the next month’s rent and no one could help me. And I thought that was kind of shitty. 

Her recommendation was supported by others with broad agreement and followed by concerns 

about recent budget cuts to social services in Illinois. This was also related to housing needs. One 

survivor discussed how abusive situations did not create any priority within the housing system. 

Well it’s like first come, first serve, kind of place, but if you’re in a crisis situation wouldn’t that 

take priority you know over someone that has a home and is not in any danger? That’s what I 

would think. But they said that it doesn’t matter...They said that even though you’re in a crisis 

situation and you are in the predicament that you’re in it doesn’t matter. You still have to wait 

just like everybody else. 

Another woman echoed housing concerns noting that if she did not have a history of 

abuse, her only option would be a homeless shelter which she felt was populated by drug addicts 

and provided an inherently unsafe environment. Women frequently discussed how difficult it 

was to find housing within the allotted time for emergency shelters (e.g., 30 to 45 days). 

Another salient unmet need was legal assistance for civil actions, including for example, 

divorce and child protection proceedings. For example, at least two women struggled with the 

policy that for legal assistance with divorce, the divorce had to be uncontested. One woman said: 

The told me they couldn’t help me with a divorce unless it was uncontested, which that don’t 

make any sense because most of the time... how are we supposed to know? If you’re not really 

getting along with somebody how are you supposed to know if it’s gonna be uncontested? 

Another participant added: 

See, I’m going through that same thing trying to get a divorce. It just so happen my husband 

want to bullshit me around and now he wants to contest and now my attorney’s mad at me 

because you came in here and told me he wasn’t gonna contest. 

 Another survivor was concerned that she had no help as she contested the loss of her 

children through child protective action. 

It’s just like this DCFS thing there was nobody to help and like the Family Defense Center I told 

her about, that’s all the way in Chicago. All I can do is talk my lawyer over the phone but I’m 

going to be going to court all by myself. I don’t know what questions to ask...I’m gonna get 

together like, everything that I want to prove and then just have the lady go over it with me but 

I’m scared to death. 

 Another survivor discussed the challenges of getting assistance with a will and final 

testament that would assure that custody of her daughter would never be granted to her abusive 

husband or his family. 

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. 
186

I just want to draw up a will and the paralegal won’t help me with that. I mean there’s no way I 

can let my daughter get back up into his family’s hands because they’re sick. That’s why I took 

off and I’m here. And she’s doing so...she’s flourishing. And I need just a simple will done in 

case something happens to me that she goes to her dad’s [family]. 

 Finally, many women described complex physical health care needs. This is not 

surprising given increasing knowledge of the links between physical health and domestic 

violence. Yet, health care may be inadequate to meet women’s needs and women’s health 

insurance was often lacking. Some women described their conditions not being adequately 

diagnosed. 

And one thing that I have learned is that as a result of everything I’ve been through I have all the 

disabilities that I have and people don’t understand my healthcare situation because there’s no 

such thing as a doctor that works on the entire body. They simply see it as a bit or a piece And 

not only that but that’s just complicated regular health care stuff but then when you get into the 

psychiatric end of it and you have a diagnosis, I found out, post traumatic stress syndrome. And 

the things that is so very much keeping me from seeking that is the trauma. And when you are so 

afraid and put yourself over that cliff backwards into the unknown. 

Women also discussed wanting to have access to computers, but facing challenges 

getting access to public library resources as nonresidents. There were also the chronic needs of 

transportation and daycare – two resources which become intimately linked to finding and 

maintaining employment or educational opportunities. One woman compared her own 

circumstances (where she had some familial support for child care for her children) to other 

women’s predicament. 

Because you know, due to not having any type of childcare, within the shelter that can help you 

to move up the ladder, you know? To advance, to go find work, or to fill out applications or to 

apply for public assistance?...I actually seen people have to walk to get to where they need to get 

to, because they didn’t have money for a cab or a bus, they didn’t have transportation. So if you 

think about these women that are fearing for their lives? To have to get out and walk in the 

public, with some with little babies. Some of this I’m referring to is not here in (this shelter), it's 

my total experience, with little babies in the cold, it's like, the shelter didn’t you know, it didn’t 

hold up to it's purpose. 

X.4.c – Domestic Violence Programs and Advocacy 

Many women talked about the indispensable support of domestic violence programs and 

the advocacy they provide. One woman fled her abusive relationship and arrived in a new town 

with the clothes on her back (literally). With the support of a local domestic violence program 

she has been able to rebuild her life. The organization assisted her with connecting with a variety 

of health agencies to address her complex health needs and was able to connect her with 

transitional housing. Her experiences were uniformly positive as she met her physical health 

needs, and established employment. Importantly, she also described the process as empowering – 

meeting her needs and doing so while preserving her sense of choice and self-direction. 

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. 
187

As they give you a direction in which to pursue they’re not telling you what to do. You do this all 

on your own but they’re there for support and if you come to a roadblock, let’s say I’ve got many 

mountains to climb. And between the therapy and my daughter having a little help...It’s a long 

journey and I’m still in the middle of it. ... I did all the work on my own with them shadowing 

me because it’s extremely frustrating when you don’t have a social security card and birth 

certificate and things like that. ... I came here with nothing and I hooked up with the [domestic 

violence program] immediately. 

Another woman noted how much emotional support she received from the domestic violence 

shelter program and contrasted it to other homeless shelter programs from which she had sought 

assistance. 

[This shelter] I’d give A+ to. They’re very helpful. They’re very friendly people. You can talk 

to anyone at anytime and they always have their doors open to anybody. And they try to pamper 

you. They try to make you, even though you’re in this crisis, they try to make you feel like...like 

you need girl time, or your own time. Like the other day [they] gave us little spa bags with, you 

know, lotions and scrubs and perfume, you know, stuff that we weren’t able to bring with us, you 

know, and it was really nice for someone to care about you like that. 

Another participant echoed praise for the same shelter setting saying: 

Well when I came in I was so scared. I had never been in a shelter before in my life. I mean I 

was married for twenty-two years and I mean I was just used to the whole family thing... They 

were just so comforting and made you feel like it’s okay, there’s...that you weren’t the only one 

going through it, that there was other people...And we have like one meeting out of the week that 

we all go to, like, they come from outside and that... And then you have your own counselor, too, 

that you talk to and they try to help you get your goals set like they want you to name three goals 

when you first come in. Mine: get a car, get a job, get an apartment and they try to help you do 

those kinds of things. 

Women also discussed the safety features in domestic violence shelter programs as 

particularly important. They described the physical setting, and “buzzing in” residents and 

visitors as helpful for maintaining a safe space. Other participants noted how advocates through 

the domestic violence programs could help them with material needs and assist them as they 

accessed resources from other systems. For example, some participants expressed gratitude for 

the role of legal advocates in seeking and obtaining orders of protection. 

Yeah they’ll actually go to court with you and get the order of...it’s like a short order of 

protection and he (the abuser) doesn’t have to be there but you get it so he can’t come near you. 

And then like in two weeks or something they go back and they do like a long one where he 

would have to be in court. But they have people that totally help you with that. 

Another expressed appreciation for the range of resources with which advocates could help. 

I like the fact that the advocates go with you like wherever you need them to go. Like if you need 

someone to advocate for you they’ll go with you regardless of where it is whether it’s to court, to 

the hospital to wherever it may be like. 

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. 
188

 

Another survivor added that the advocates in her domestic violence program kept in touch with 

the state’s attorney to keep her up to date on her case as it moved through the criminal justice 

system. 

They keep in touch with state’s attorneys and the state’s attorneys will update them because they 

know from, well, I’m here. So they know I’m here and they will tell me, you know, how the court 

date went or whatever. And sometimes they’ll go and observe themselves. 

Two women specifically discussed the value of the victims advocate within law enforcement 

being exceptionally helpful and “a relief.” 

X.4.d – Other Human Service Agencies 

It is important to note that some survivors mentioned supportive responses from human 

service agencies including, for example, public aid. In one case a caseworker actively advocated 

for a woman to be rehired after being fired for missing work due to abuse. Yet, many survivors 

mentioned the difficulties of meeting eligibility requirements to get assistance with basic needs 

or having to tell their stories again and again (“I was wondering if you could put that on 

tape...and give it to them and say...I don’t want to repeat it anymore”). One woman described 

being ineligible for rent assistance because she was currently unemployed (a job she lost because 

of abuse). Other women chronicled the challenges they faced just figuring out where to go, and 

navigating eligibility requirements to get help. 

What was frustrating, was that I was given so much information, so many phone numbers, you 

know, so many pieces of paper, you know, pages and pages of things and then I’d get 

appointments and I just had a pay as you go phone that someone had given me. So every second 

on that phone was, you know, another minute I didn’t have money to spend and I would have to 

call many of these places every single day to get an appointment. I just didn’t have the money to 

keep calling. And then I felt like I wasn’t acting fast enough or getting fast enough responses. 

And a lot of places that I did get a hold of people they’d give me a hard time, especially about 

housing. And all that did was seriously, seriously compact and add more and more trauma to 

what I already knew was that there was nothing for me. 

And each time you do contact a [homeless] shelter or at least when I did and you get turned 

down by (inaudible), you know, there’s something you don’t qualify for, I mean something, it just 

demean you. I mean you don’t want to do it anymore because each time you’re getting kicked in 

the face. 

Some women complained of the bureaucracies they had to deal with to get and maintain 

assistance. In fact, at multiple points in the small group interviews women exchanged 

information with another in an attempt to clarify the resources offered from particular agencies 

and how they could be accessed. Interacting with such systems seemed impersonal and 

acontextual (not concerned with abuse history). One woman described her frustration having to 

deal with having her case moved to another county when she was certain her stay in the other 

county would only be temporary. 

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. 
189

I think DHS they don’t really care to hear anything you’re going through. You either qualify or 

not qualify. I mean like, you know, saying I’m only gonna be at this shelter of forty-five days, 

you know, I’m at a shelter and that I’m gonna be going back to [my home]. They don’t care, 

they...I mean that doesn’t matter to them because really once you get it all transferred over it 

would pretty much take forty-five days. 

Another woman expressed dismay at the difficulty of reaching people who could help: “If they’d 

just put people in resources behind these telephone numbers.” It is not surprising that advocacy is 

highly valued considering the challenges women face when they are seeking assistance. 

X.4.e – Criminal Justice Response 

 Women’s needs were clearly much further reaching than those confined to the criminal 

justice response, but all of the survivors who participated in interviews had experience with the 

police. While women shared many positive impressions of their experiences of the human 

service response, the criminal justice responses were quite variable. Some women described 

feeling supported by local law enforcement while others described a non-response; still others 

reported having both positive and negative responses depending on who the responding officer 

was. Similarly, some survivors described a States Attorney who actively and assertively pursued 

their cases while others described a lack of action. 

These implementation issues are not new, but talking with survivors’ highlights the 

immense frustration and compromised safety such inconsistency can engender. Positive 

experiences were characterized by: a) enhanced immediate safety by responding with arrest, and 

b) law enforcement that provided referral information, and validation. Negative experiences were 

characterized by: a) no response from law enforcement, lack of validation and support b) lack of 

follow through when arrests were made, and c) orders of protection as an insufficient tool to 

encourage safety. Each of these major themes will be discussed in turn. 

X.4.e.i Enhanced Immediate Safety 

 Some survivors pointed to positive experiences with police. One woman described five 

consecutive police responses in her community. The survivor’s experience was positive. 

They’ve [the police] been real helpful. Actually every time the cops have shown up at my house, 

it’s been life five times in the last month...they happen to be the same cops. And this last time the 

cop showed up and asked if I wanted to press charges and I said no and he ended up taking the 

guy to jail anyways because he’s like I’ve been here so many times ...I don’t want to see it 

happen again. He’s gonna have to learn his lesson and he ended up taking him to jail even 

though I didn’t press charges. And he’s been really helpful through everything. 

However, it was also the case that the survivor’s impression was that it was up to her to 

press charges. This is inconsistent with the pro-arrest law in the State which is not dependent on 

women’s indication (or not) that they will press charges. Still, for some participants the police 

response played an important role in addressing their immediate safety needs. 

X.4.e.ii Provided Information and Referrals, Validation and Emotional Support 

 For some women, coming into contact with the police was also viewed as a source of 

referral and information, as well as validation and emotional support. This is reflected in our 

analysis of referral sources to domestic violence programs in Illinois – roughly half of which 

come from criminal justice agencies. 

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. 
190

Well, yeah, the police are the ones who gave me information about [the domestic violence 

program]. That’s how I came in contact with them so that was helpful. 

Another woman echoed this sentiment, noting that some police have special domestic violence 

units. She said: 

They have ...a special department for handling cases for domestic violence...It was helpful 

because, you know, they were very understanding and they wrote everything down and you 

didn’t have to wait a long time. 

Another woman reflected on how different the police response was compared to her own 

childhood where she witnessed her mother’s abuse: 

It’s nice to see that the police are actually...they’re a lot better on domestic violence and what, 

you know, it used to be. Like my mom used to get abused and back then it was, you know, they 

just kind of ignored it. But now they...like she said, they do, you know, they’re very 

understanding and, you know, they do take note that, you know, that you’re scared and they’re 

there to help you not to feel so scared. 

One woman attributed her seeking shelter to the police. In particular, she described how a 

detective followed up with her even one month later and reminded her about the domestic 

violence shelter program as an option if she felt unsafe. 

The detective called me [one month later] which I though was really good, and left a message on 

my phone, just wanted to know how I was doing and if I still wanted to press charges I could 

definitely do that or if I needed someone to talk to, you know I could call him and that don’t 

forget there’s always [the domestic violence shelter program] that you could go to, which to me I 

thought was really cool. I mean I did. It was over a month afterwards and they were calling to 

see how I was doing, which I appreciated that. And that was one of the ways I found out about 

this place.

X.4.e.iii No Response, Invalidation and Lack of Support 

 Not surprisingly, women’s experiences with the criminal justice system were not 

uniformly positive. Some of these experiences were invalidating and others did not result in 

desired action. One survivor described continued efforts to get the police to respond to stalking 

without result. 

But like the police stopped taking my calls, like they wouldn’t come to my house when the person 

would be driving around. They’d be like well there’s nothing we can do. Anyone can drive on a 

public street. It’s not physical harassment, you know. You’re not being beaten or whatever. Oh, 

so, psychological terrorism is okay. Okay, that’s great. 

Interestingly, though, this survivor said that one officer would consistently respond to her calls 

and that at times she would wait for his shift to make a report. 

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. 
191

I ended up working with one officer who was really awesome. And I would wait until he came on 

his shift and go see him and he would take the report. 

Other women in the same group related to this inconsistency. In one exchange, they discussed 

their frustration with being told that arrests were up to the officer’s discretion. 

Participant 1: Yeah and then a lot of people tell me, you know, I said why won’t they do such and 

such like, you know, they only made a report. They don’t press charges and he said well it’s up 

to the officer’s discretion. What does that mean? 

Participant 2: It means every officer’s different and they can... 

 

Participant 1: Yeah that’s just...I don’t remember exactly. I think I was inside the office and 

they were just telling me that it was the officer’s discretion...I’ve heard people tell me well 

maybe you should have got a different officer who maybe has some... 

Participant 2: Different discretion? 

Participant 1: ... And it’s well like, you know, they kind of...it’s just it shouldn’t be like, oh, I 

hope I get a good one. 

Participant 3: You can’t just pick and choose. 

Later in this interview, the women discussed wishing the law required police to arrest, to 

give women the benefit of the doubt, and take action to make women and children safer 

regardless of the officers’ own personal opinion. In essence, they described pro-arrest policies. In 

their collective experience, the arrest process seemed entirely dependent on who the officer was. 

Yet, in another illustration of inconsistency, one woman in this same group had very different 

experiences in the neighboring county were her abuser of nine years was consistently arrested, 

where his violations of the order of protection were consistently reinforced and where officers 

chided her to keep her order and get away from him (something she appeared to find supportive 

in that they were not condoning or dismissing his abuse). 

In other instances women described that arrests were made, but there was a sense that it 

was done begrudgingly or was a bother to the police. 

The police department here, they make you feel like...they make you feel like you’re powerless, 

you know, that you don’t have the right half the time...or they have this nonchalant attitude like 

if you’re a person that don’t know your rights which a lot of citizens really, really don’t know 

their technical rights, then they just... they made me feel like they just trample all over your 

rights. Because I mean I know that certain things are not right but they...they didn’t want to do 

anything. 

Still another described an incident where she had visible physical injuries and still felt she was 

chastised by the officers making the arrest. 

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. 
192

And I’m like no, I don’t want to go back up there... I’m done with him. I want to press charges. 

They’re like, “ok, you press charges. Don’t go running back to him.” And he’s [the officer] like 

“don’t waste our time.” I’m like, “ok.” [They are] not supposed to be talking to me like that. I 

damn near got killed...and y’all telling me don’t run back to him and everything. 

 Another women described a long history of contact with the police in her community 

where she was arrested multiple times because her abuser “knew how to...talk” to the police. 

Her experiences were uniformly negative where her concerns for her safety were dismissed, 

where she was kept from her home and not provided with assistance to retrieve her belongings 

(until she found a sympathetic officer), and where she was forced to allow her abuser back into 

her home. While some survivors clearly conveyed positive experiences with the police, these 

were often juxtaposed with experiences that conveyed the response one might expect to be 

occurring only in the past. Even within the same jurisdictions, women conveyed varied 

experiences. 

Other women discussed how hard it was to seek a plenary order of protection knowing 

that they would have to face the abuser. At least one woman chose not to pursue the order even 

though she wanted it because she did not want to see him. 

Participant 1: I think that in order to go to court you shouldn’t have the person that violated you 

or in the order of protection in the same room so you won’t feel threatened again. 

Participant 2: That’s a good...yeah, and that...I mean have them right in a different area or 

something so you don’t have to... 

Participant 1: And I mean it might not be physical but it’s just a mental state that that person is 

in the room with you that abused you and you’re there seeing that person again so I think that 

should change. 

X.4.e.iv Lack of Follow Through 

Survivors sometimes expressed dismay regarding the perceived lack of follow-through in 

the criminal justice response. She continued saying: 

Yeah the police had gotten a lot better but it took a lot of fighting with them and saying no, you 

guys need to do something, but the state’s attorney...the guy that did it to me ended up with thirty 

weekends sitting in jail which only amounts to the sixty days and one year probation. And he was 

on probation when it happened, which my understanding of that was that if you were on 

probation and you screwed up your probation you went straight back to prison, but apparently 

that doesn’t happen. 

This survivor elaborated saying that the police will not bother responding anymore because the 

prosecutor will not do anything and the police know this. In her words: 

Like my problem is, is that my state’s attorney doesn’t do anything so the police don’t want to 

waste their time going out and arresting him when they know that the state’s attorney is just 

gonna drop it. Like he had six different, six or seven different violations so the order of 

protection only got charged with one. And they dropped all the rest of them... [the police] said 

I’m not gonna waste my time going out and arresting him when it’s just gonna get dropped. 

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. 
193

Still, this survivor thought the police had gotten better. Specifically, she felt that over time they 

were taking what she was saying, “into consideration as to where before they just kind of ignored 

it all.” Specifically, she reflected that intervention from a male family member who spoke to the 

police on her behalf seemed to encourage a more serious response including one arrest that 

resulted in a 72 hour jail stay. Finally, she indicated that the quality of the response depended on 

which officer arrived. 

And it also I think depends on the police officer you get, especially where I’m from. Some of 

them don’t want to deal with it. 

Despite evidence of a serious assault and full cooperation with the states attorney, the case 

resulted in a plea bargain and a minimal sentence (30 weekends and 1 year of probation). 

Further, the survivor endured good natured “banter” between the judge and the batterer during 

the sentencing hearing. 

X.4.e.v Orders of Protection as an Insufficient Tool 

 Across sites, women confirmed that getting an order of protection was viable (e.g., “oh, 

it’s easy to get it”), but also expressed concern that the order is a “piece of paper and it doesn’t 

do anything.” 

And actually to tell the truth I know an order of protection sounds all good and dandy but it’s 

really nothing I mean until the cops get there. And again, like I said, if he wants you he’s gonna 

get you, you know. That piece of paper is not gonna stop it. 

This sentiment was broadly shared in one site where women consistently discussed an almost 

total lack of follow-through from prosecutors and law enforcement. 

X.4.e.vi Criminal Justice and the Complex Realities of Women’s Lives 

 While some women were very grateful that the police responded with arrest and others 

wanted to see police arrest when they did not, still others did not want the police to make arrests. 

Sometimes women’s preferences changed as their circumstances changed. One woman who 

ultimately agreed to participate in the prosecution of her abuser recounted times when she did 

not want the police to arrest. 

I was involved with the police quite a few times like other people would call, the neighbors...but 

well I just never would press the charges, you know. I think you get to a point to where, or at 

least I did, where you [don’t want to] press the charges. You know you’re thinking okay it’s just 

gonna get worse if you do. But the police were always good about, you know, they would try to 

get me to and...or he’d take off before the police got there is what it mostly was. And the last 

time they were gonna issue a warrant out for him but I begged them not to. I know, how stupid. 

But I mean they wanted to but I asked them please. I mean they were like no, we have to, we 

have to and I just begged them, please, don’t. I just wanted to be done with him. I didn’t want to 

go to court and have to face him. I didn’t want to have to go through all that. I just wanted it 

done so.

In one instance, a survivor indicated she wished there was some opportunity for mediation. She 

wanted the police to arrest her abuser to teach him a lesson, which she thinks he has learned. 

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. 
194

However, while she wants him to get help she does not want him to be “locked up.” And while 

she plans to testify against him in court she hopes they will remain together. 

X.4.f – DCFS 

 Some survivors consistently reported challenges with DCFS. Many participants had 

active cases and some had recently lost custody of their children. Without exception, women 

reported feeling they were treated unfairly by DCFS and that the abuse they experienced was not 

understood or considered in their cases. In one case, the survivor’s proactive effort to pursue an 

order of protection against her husband seemed to create an opportunity for her ex-husband (also 

abusive) to bring action against her and have her children removed. The active order of 

protection became the sole source of evidence that her current husband had been abusive to her. 

In her case, seeking support from the system increased her vulnerability. Her DCFS was founded 

and her children were removed from her care and awarded to her ex-husband. As a result of the 

substantiated case, she also lost her job. 

In another instance, despite substantial documented evidence (e.g., police reports) that a 

partner was abusive, the survivor was concerned that her the children’s father would be awarded 

custody of her children who were recently removed to foster care. The plight of women with 

abusive partners and child protective services is well-documented (e.g., see the the National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Greenbook for a thorough discussion of the 

intersections of child abuse and domestic violence and implications for a coordinated response). 

X.4.g – Survivors Perceived Some Coordination 

 Survivors did report some instances of perceived coordination to assist them. The 

examples they could provide were primarily within the human service system. For example, one 

women needed to reestablish her identification cards, social security information, etc. and found 

that a local human service agency and the local domestic violence program were able to work 

together to assist her in getting what she needed. 

While her observations about potential connections among agencies were the exception 

to the rule, one woman noted that the resource sheet she was provided was the same across 

agencies and was aware of many agencies who had started to address domestic violence. 

They’re (agencies) all connected. They, I don’t know any other way to say it, than they’re, 

they’re all connected. They work together you know? They come up with a lot of their referrals, 

it's like the paper that I seen it for, the referrals, is like it's the same for everybody else. You 

know like around here in the general area? They all give the same one, they all, you know 

communicate with the school, you know the school board, the transportation, they all you know, 

communicate with the YWCA, oh, a lot of the other different child care agencies you know? And 

plus you know they got laws now that reflect on the homeless in the school system, you know? 

...it's a lot of little rules up under their laws, that refer to you know, for people like us. So I 

guess, I think they’ve come together more, you know? As a community. It's not like a shelter 

problem anymore. It's a, or shelter agenda anymore, it's not something the shelter is doing but 

the whole community, is coming together as one, to pull together to try to pull something, you 

know? Each one is doing something to try to help, you know domestic violence as a whole. 

Even the Cancer Society, you know? You know they’re talking women’s health oh, Mary Kay is 

another one that has pulled in there, you know? Is focusing on domestic violence so, I don’t 

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. 
195

think one thing is left out that another one you know, doesn’t know about. Maybe one agency 

might have ran across something else but I see it now as a unity. 

Interestingly, women discussed a desire for more community-based education on 

domestic violence, prevention/education in schools, training for law enforcement, and changes in 

laws. While many of these efforts were ongoing in their communities, they were not necessarily 

aware of what was happening. This suggests that councils are not highly visible to survivors. In 

some ways this might be by design; councils work behind the scenes. However, a more visible 

presence might send a stronger message that there is a large group of concerned citizens in town 

that are addressing this issue. 

X.5 – Brief Discussion 

Our interviews with survivors aimed to address the following overarching questions to 

inform our study of coordinating councils and systems change: a) how do women describe their 

experiences of the community response to violence in their lives and how does this compare to 

councils’ assessments of the local response?, b) to what extent is do council efforts and priorities 

aim to address the challenges survivors face?, and c) to what extent do survivors perceive 

coordinated efforts among responding agencies? 

Clearly, women describe widely variable experiences of the community response to 

violence in their lives. In some ways, women’s experiences of the systems response were as 

variable as their unique stories and life circumstances. Women reported both positive and 

negative experiences with police – sometimes the same women could speak to both ends of this 

continuum. Women reported equally varied experiences with other facets of the “community” 

response including human and social services agencies. Survivors had uniformly negative 

experiences with DCFS and, generally speaking, uniformly positive experiences of domestic 

violence programs and advocacy. 

Fortunately, the challenges women described were largely reflected in the issues council 

key informants raised as they reflected on the goals and efforts of their FVCC. Importantly, this 

pattern of strengths and liabilities in the systems response corresponded with those described by 

council members. For example, council member key informants in one site discussed the 

strength of at least two of their state’s attorneys’ offices response while another site described 

consistent challenges with their state’s attorneys across counties. In both sites, council members 

reported struggles with achieving a consistent response across law enforcement agencies, and 

sometimes across officers within single agencies. These sentiments were reflected in survivors’ 

experiences and it is promising that councils were actively addressing these issues (albeit with 

varied success). 

There were some issues, though, that seemed less salient for councils, but quite salient for 

women. Chief among these were concerns raised about DCFS and the lack of a response that 

considered their abusive experiences. From survivors’ vantage point (at least those who 

participated in these groups), the response was not just. This was, in fact, consistent with council 

members’ assessments of the adequacy of DCFS as a network member. Interestingly, in our 

social network analysis of council members contact and perceptions of other agencies in the 

community response, DCFS was consistently perceived as having a less adequate response, was 

more peripherally connected to other agencies, and was not perceived as having shifted policy or 

practice in response to council efforts (see Section VII.4.b). In contrast, concerns about DCFS 

did not spontaneously arise when we spoke with council key informants about council priorities 

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. 
196

and goals. Thus, while council members’ perceptions echoed survivors’ stories, DCFS did not 

figure prominently in councils’ priorities (as far as we could discern). In one of our formal 

observations a committee chair raised the issue – framed as possibly unpopular – of inviting 

DCFS to future meetings. Despite his concern, this suggestion was met with enthusiasm and in 

the spirit of including all perspectives. On a different occasion, one council key informant 

mentioned the difficulty of getting anyone involved in the councils from DCFS. Considering that 

council impact may be largely dependent on agencies’ direct engagement with councils and that 

generating local interest from reticent key stakeholders can be a significant barrier to council 

efforts engaging a third party to encourage DCFS engagement and using existing well-thought 

out protocols (e.g., as offered by the Greenbook Initiative) may be an important agenda for 

councils if they aim to reduce women’s revictimization as they navigate the complex 

bureaucracies of the systems response. 

Paying close attention to women’s experiences can serve to “ground” our assessment of 

councils and reinvigorate an orientation to the “big picture” regarding women’s lives and the 

complex pathways to safety and freedom from abuse. The mission of the FVCC is clearly stated 

as one of improvement in the systems response to family violence. This reflects a long-standing 

priority of the movement to foster changes in institutions with whom survivors interact. The 

work of Illinois FVCC clearly reflects a broad conceptualization of systems including, for 

example, criminal justice and human services, but also health care, business, education, and 

faith. Thus, council efforts focus, by design, on encouraging a more effective response in the 

institutions with which survivors interact as a result of abuse. 

Women’s expressed needs transcend and interact with their abuse experiences and occur 

within the full complexities of their lives. For example, women discussed the challenges they 

face in getting their physical and mental health needs met. Councils do address issues related to 

health care, but are more focused on instituting universal screening practices, for example, and 

not necessarily on addressing issues of access to basic health care. It is likely beyond the scope 

of councils, conceived as interagency partnerships to address family violence in particular, to 

address the broader social inequities that may exacerbate women’s risk (e.g., to focus on 

women’s economic and educational opportunities). However, survivors’ needs and the issues 

that may foster women’s risk are not confined to an institutional response and require 

fundamental social change regarding complex issues including, for example, persistent poverty, 

gender discrimination, and lack of educational and employment opportunities. This reminds us of 

the broader battered women’s movement goals to address fundamental social inequalities and 

calls our attention to the need for alliances (of domestic violence programs, for example) with 

coalitions that address broad social justice aims, including for example, but not limited to: a) 

livable wage campaigns, b) women’s leadership and empowerment programs, c) the availability 

of high quality low-income housing, and d) health care reform initiatives (e.g., increasing access 

and quality of care). The need to address such efforts can not be confined to the work of councils 

and would undoubtedly involve partnerships with, and the formation of coalitions with, broader 

social justice missions. Yet, the efforts of such coalitions would undoubtedly impact women’s 

options as they navigate their safety and well-being. 

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. 
197

SECTION XI 

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

XI.1 – Overview 

The current study examined a statewide network of Family Violence Coordinating 

Councils (FVCC) – one established in each of the 22 Judicial Circuits in the State of 

Illinois. Specifically, the current study examined the effectiveness of Illinois FVCC and 

their statewide structure by a) describing their structure, goals and activities, as well as 

their collaborative capacity b) investigating the extent to which FVCC have an impact on 

distal goals (e.g., objective systems change markers in the CCJ response to IPV) and 

proximal goals (e.g., perceived improved knowledge and relationships among key 

stakeholders), and c) examining those factors and processes that facilitate FVCC success. 

Finally, the current study included survivors’ perspectives as a way to illuminate the 

“current realities” of the systems response to intimate partner violence and to examine the 

extent to which councils addressed the issues survivors’ raised. Sections IV through X 

detail our findings and associated discussion regarding each of our major research 

objectives. The current Section aims to provide a broader overview of some of the 

general conclusions we draw and the specific implications we believe emerge from this 

work. 

XI.2 Conclusions 

 Creating a coordinated response to intimate partner violence is a remarkably 

complex systems change task. While we sometimes talk about systems change as a 

singular process (e.g., we need to “change the system”) in reality it is one that involves 

multiple systems, hundred of agencies, and thousands of actors within such agencies. 

Systems change also involves changing the linkages between relevant agencies so that 

they do not operate in isolation, but in concert with one another. In the current study, just 

over 1000 agencies were included in the network rosters across 21 Circuits (not including 

the most metropolitan county in the state). These agencies reflected only domestic 

violence service provider agencies and criminal justice agencies (law enforcement, 

prosecutors, courts, probation, circuit clerk). Adding other systems including, for 

example, health care, human service, faith, educational, and local business, the systems 

change task becomes exponentially more complex. When pursuing a coordinated 

response, one must consider affecting changes in the practices of individual actors, the 

policies of agencies, and the infrastructure of interagency linkages. 

Given this complexity, it is not surprising that many researchers have noted 

implementation challenges (e.g., Klevens, Baker, Shelley, & Ingram, 2008; Klevens & 

Cox, 2008) and called for careful consideration of whether coordination is actually in 

place (e.g., Garner & Maxwell, 2008). The current study was concerned with exploring 

the potential of councils to affect local change in proximal (perceived improvements in 

stakeholder knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change) and more distal 

systems change outcomes (e.g., arrest rates, order of protection rates). Specifically, the 

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. 
198

current study explored the role of councils in the implementation of change in the 

response to intimate partner violence. 

 Indeed, it seems that Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils (FVCC) 

may play an important role in the local instantiation of currently known “best practices” 

in the community response to intimate partner violence.1

 FVCC have mobilized 

thousands of individual actors and hundreds of agencies in their efforts. There are over 

100 active subcommittees across 21 judicial circuits in any given year. Membership in 

these settings consistently includes diverse stakeholders from multiple systems. Local 

FVCC bring such stakeholders “to the table” to discuss local realities and capitalize on 

local human and material resources to affect change. 

Councils’ potential for influence may be most obvious when considering the 

training capacity of councils; taken together, councils offered training to over 33,000 

attendees covering a broad swath of topics and often bringing premiere speakers from 

around the country. It seems clear that councils can play a critical educational function 

bringing “Domestic Violence 101” and advanced topics to their communities. This was 

almost uniformly true of councils – all had sponsored and organized training events. 

Many worked across regional boundaries to offer their training events to neighboring 

FVCC. Councils also mobilized their own local experts and resources to create 

sustainable training processes for local groups including schools, faith settings and law 

enforcement. In this way, FVCC have a clear focus on enhancing the knowledge base of 

responders; for example, many operated as event planning committees, reaching 

hundreds of stakeholders in their local communities (see Section IV for a more detailed 

review of training activity). 

Importantly, councils were also consistently viewed as transforming stakeholders’ 

relationships with and knowledge of one another (see Section VI and IX). These proximal 

outcomes – enhanced relationships and knowledge - may be the most natural “byproducts” of council efforts and are bolstered by the generally positive and inclusive 

council climate and effective local leadership broadly perceived by members across 

councils (see Section V). Taken together our findings suggest that bringing stakeholders 

“to the table” has the desired influence on the nature of their relationships with and 

knowledge of one another and, further, their knowledge of their local systems response. 

Drawing on classic intergroup theory provides some insight into the salience of new 

relationships and knowledge as outcomes readily emerging from council efforts. In one 

sense, councils form new groups in which previous “outgroups” may become more 

intimate with one another and less likely to view each other in uniform or simplistic ways 

(Tajfel, 1982). One might imagine that only stakeholders already “on board” regarding 

the issue of family violence are present in councils. This may be true to some extent, but 

our key informant interviews make clear that stakeholders who previously had limited 

contact with one another are coming together in new ways. 

 

1

 The author recognizes and appreciates current controversies in whether coordinated efforts and even the 

component parts of a coordinated response are truly effective for survivors. This study does not address or 

add to this controversy, but instead interrogates the extent to which councils – as a form of social 

intervention – facilitate locally desired changes that generally reflect the implementation of existing laws 

(e.g., pro arrest) and commonly thought of “best practices” (e.g., that civil orders of protection should be 

accessible to survivors who want them). 

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. 
199

Our network analysis further highlighted the possible role of councils in 

enhancing information exchange and referrals among agencies involved in council 

activities, and demonstrated the potential for greater understanding of and relationships 

with local victim service programs by criminal justice entities. This supports previous 

research that established the value of human service coordinating councils in creating 

more tightly coupled partnerships among member agencies relative to nonmember 

agencies (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Allen, Fahrbach, 2001). Still, this finding may reflect 

that agencies that are more linked are more likely to join councils. This many punctuate 

the concern that agencies that are on the periphery (with regard to exchange of 

information, referral or council membership) may be relatively “untouched” by council 

efforts. 

This study also advances previous research employing network analysis by 

providing preliminary evidence that the degree to which such information exchange 

linkages are achieved – that is, how densely connected the network of agencies is – is 

positively related to the extent to which members report that councils have encouraged 

shifts in policy and practice within organizations involved in the response to intimate 

partner violence. This may also reflect a synergistic (non-recursive) process where more 

tightly coupled networks may encourage greater institutionalized change which may 

encouraged more tightly couple networks, etc. Indeed, dense interagency networks 

(indicating greater interagency contact) may be important in light of the organizational 

change theory. Shinn and Perkins (2000) review of organizational change processes cite 

Pfeffer (1998) who found that organizations “model their structures and practices on 

others...with which they interact” (p. 627). Thus, bringing organizations involved in the 

community response to intimate partner violence into closer contact with one another 

may indeed facilitate the diffusion of desired practices. 

Our case studies revealed some of the salient pathways by which the human and 

social capital encourage a synergistic process that facilitates institutionalized change, 

including: a) generating local knowledge informed by multiple perspectives enabled 

committed council members to plan and engage in specific action, b) stimulating shifts in 

individual members’ practices as responders, c) cultivating interpersonal and 

organizational ties that allowed for more coordinated efforts among front line providers, 

d) informing powerful stakeholders about needed changes in the response to IPV (those 

in positions to affect policy change or influence others), and e) developing new protocols 

and trainings that are informed by multiple voices. Thus, councils may encourage 

institutionalized change at least in part via the knowledge and relationships generated by 

virtue of council involvement. These processes orient us to some of the specific 

mechanisms by which councils can facilitate the local implementation of desired 

outcomes – including training activities (e.g., educating responders, conducting 

prevention education campaigns in schools) and new policies and practices (see Section 

IX for a thorough review of these processes). 

It was also clear that councils generated hundreds of “products” to enhance the 

community response to domestic violence (e.g., educational pamphlets, intervention 

checklists) and to harness the involvement of local stakeholders in the development and 

dissemination of such products (see Section IV for a review of these “products” and also 

reported changes in policy). Councils developed products collaboratively in response to a 

perceived local need. For example, for many councils there was concern that seeking 

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. 
200

orders of protection was an intimidating and confusing process. Thus, council committees 

focused on how to make the process of seeking an order smoother and created 

educational pamphlets to offer survivors as they sought orders. This seemingly simple act 

invites participation and cooperation from many stakeholders and may serve to galvanize 

committee efforts by identifying and focusing on specific and achievable goals. The end 

“product” may not just be the pamphlet itself, but the collaborative action across 

agencies, the increased awareness of various stakeholders regarding issues of access to 

orders in the local community, and the possibility of uncovering other local barriers to 

orders that must be locally addressed. 

Indeed, access to orders of protection was an issue many councils addressed and 

that coordinators indicated were among the most successful efforts. Importantly, 

councils’ ability to affect change was also evident in distal systems change markers 

related to orders of protection. Specifically, there is evidence that council formation and 

development is implicated in the extent to which emergency orders of protection become 

plenary orders (i.e., “return rates”) reflecting perhaps greater accessibility and also 

coordination. This provides at least preliminary evidence of the systems change potential 

of councils. Change in this arena might also reflect that councils are organized by judicial 

circuits and may have a sphere of influence in this aspect of the criminal justice response 

that they lack in other areas. Indeed, while there was a significant decline in arrest, it was 

not associated with council formation and development. 

The current study also demonstrates considerable variability across councils in the 

accessibility of orders and of return rates for plenary orders. This variability across 

communities was also reflected in arrest and criminal justice referral rates to domestic 

violence programs. It was also clear that survivors had widely variable experiences with 

the systems response – even within the same community. Consistent with this view, 

council members consistently rated council effectiveness in producing institutionalized 

change more modestly relative to their ability to affect changes in knowledge and 

relationships. Specifically, councils were rated, on average, as only moderately effective 

at promoting institutionalized change (see Section VI). Further, examination of the 

network pictures generated for the case study sites suggests that council members are 

able to make distinctions regarding the specific agencies for which council efforts are 

more or less influential regarding shifts in policy and practice. This variable view of 

council influence is not surprising given the consistent finding that collaboration does not 

always lead to desired outcomes (e.g., Allen, 2005; Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Roussos 

& Fawcett, 2000). Given the centrality of improving the systems response, the current 

study aimed to understand what differentiated councils’ capacity to promote 

institutionalized changes. 

While institutionalized change capacity was positively related to features of the 

council setting (e.g., climate, leadership and membership) and the capacity of councils to 

facilitate social capital processes, factors outside of councils (e.g., support from their 

broader community environment; vocal local advocates for change) were also implicated. 

Councils are not equally positioned to affect institutionalized change and some may lack 

a mandate to influence change depending on their local realities. This raises important 

issues about how to best support local councils in translating the human and social capital 

they harness into the systems improvement central to their mission. A general lack of

support from the broader community of responders (i.e., those not directly engaged 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. 
201

council activities) or a lack of local expertise regarding what systems changes are 

desirable and the savvy to pursue those changes my impede council efforts to facilitate 

institutionalized changes. 

The sometimes harsh reality of local contexts (e.g., not being able to engage 

critical stakeholders) make the multi-level (local and state) and regional structure 

(organized by judicial circuits) particularly valuable in Illinois. The Illinois FVCC 

balances the need for local informed processes with the provision of external support 

well. By having both a centralized (a single state FVCC Steering Committee and Office) 

and decentralized (local FVCC with considerable autonomy) they capitalize on the “best 

of both worlds” including locally-driven action and externally-supported efforts. The 

former may be particularly important when a local council lacks some of the requisite 

human resources (e.g., local leadership knowledgeable about current best practices and 

issues in the systems response to intimate partner violence) to move toward 

institutionalized change. Further, by mobilizing stakeholders across a full judicial circuit, 

council leaders have a broader set of stakeholders across systems who they can engage. 

For example, an assistant states attorney from one county can inform council efforts (e.g., 

the development of a new protocol) even if they are not all from the same community 

(i.e., county). 

Finally, by engaging both state-level and local-level structures, councils may 

provide a critical venue for the local instantiation of policy and the statewide network 

facilitates this. For example, this was directly observed in the current study as 

information about firearms laws being discussed at the state-level began to be discussed 

and grappled with at the local level. The issue was brought to the State IFVCC by those 

struggling with these laws locally, they interrogated the laws, developed a comprehensive 

training to train local stakeholders to educate within their communities, etc. Local 

councils then engaged in the implementation of local training efforts. In this way, the 

network of councils provides a conduit for the dissemination of information – from local 

councils to the State, the State to local councils and between local councils. This may be 

a critical way to encourage more consistent implementation in the local response to 

intimate partner violence. 

XI.3 – Implications for Policy and Practice 

There are a number of implications that flow from the current study. Perhaps the 

most obvious is that coordinating councils are a worthy investment, perhaps particularly 

when they are connected through a statewide infrastructure that enhances their local 

capacity to produce change. Councils value was reflected not only in the collective 

perceptions of their members and the documented output of their efforts (e.g., products, 

trainings), but also in a distal system change marker – changes in the accessibility to 

plenary orders of protection over time. This said, study findings suggest that those who 

organize councils and those who participate must consider a variety of issues to ensure 

their success. These include: a) appropriate resources, b) articulated infrastructure, c) 

assessment of local realities, d) clearly articulated principles and an inclusive process, e) 

recognition of the complexity of systems change processes and f) enhanced evaluation 

capacity. 

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. 
202

Appropriate Resources 

Illinois FVCC receive funding for one part-time staff person in each of the 21 

Judicial Circuits. This person plays a critical role in convening and organizing local 

activities. Thus, while councils rely heavily on volunteers and in-kind resources from 

member agencies, at the very least they have a single, paid coordinator who can support 

their efforts. This said, it was clear that managing councils over the expanse of judicial 

circuits was challenging. As funds allow, creating full-time positions and/or adding 

additional part-time coordinators would likely enhance council efforts. The latter model 

(more part-time coordinators) might be particularly appropriate when councils – by virtue 

of their geographic realities – use county-specific versus circuit-wide structures to 

organize their efforts. Using such a model would require yet another level of 

communication – among coordinators within a circuit – but would likely increase 

councils capacity to achieve their multi-faceted mission. 

Articulated Infrastructure 

 One of the great strengths of the Illinois FVCC is that they have a clearly 

articulated infrastructure – one that was created deliberately and with change in mind. In 

some states, councils “crop-up” locally, sometimes in response to funding requirements. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with locally formed councils. Yet, isolated councils 

may reproduce each other’s work dealing only with local realities and drawing only on 

local resources. Connected councils can use each other’s materials, build on each other’s 

efforts, and learn from each other’s challenges and successes. 

The Illinois FVCC (state-level) has a ready network of councils throughout the 

state through which training opportunities can be organized, and knowledge and 

information can be disseminated. This has important implications regarding concerns 

about bridging the research and practice gap often observed in prevention and 

intervention efforts (Klevens & Cox, 2008; Wandserman, et al., 2008). There is 

substantial evidence that information regarding desired innovations be accessible, and 

easy to consume (see Wandserman, et al., 2008 for a review). The State IFVCC can 

provide a relevant intermediary and provide needed support for coordinators and other 

stakeholders to enhance their knowledge of current best practices and current research 

controversies. 

The State IFVCC staff can also play a critical role in directly building the capacity 

of their coordinators and of council leaders and members. Wandersman and colleagues 

(2008) refer to this as “general capacity building” which can accompany the 

implementation of a specific intervention. In the current scenario, collaboration is a 

remarkably difficult task and involves multiple skills sets including leadership skills (e.g., 

running an effective meeting), interpersonal skills (e.g., engaging new stakeholders, 

talking with local legislators), and organizational skills (e.g., mobilizing multiple 

stakeholders, garnering resources). State IFVCC staff are positioned not only to offer 

substantive guidance through their Projects and Initiatives (e.g., elder abuse, visitation 

exchange centers, firearms law), but also through their training and technical assistance 

on the mechanics of collaborative processes. 

An area of growth in the realm of technical assistance at the state and local level 

may be to focus more on the empowerment of individual members to act as change 

agents within their respective organizations. Some case study key informants discussed 

how their own practices were transformed in response to council participation, but it was 

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. 
203

less common for them to discuss how they actively pursued broader transformations in 

practice in their respective organizations. Along the same lines, council members did not 

report being empowered by council participation to a great degree. The potential for 

councils to have a radiating impact likely hinges on members being the rays of light that 

emanate from what is generated in the council core. Yet, council members may need to 

build specific skills to think about when and how they can bring what they are learning 

and experiencing in councils to their work environments, and even into their personal 

lives. 

Further, organizing councils through the courts – while not without challenges 

(e.g., locates efforts firmly within the criminal justice system which could limit problem 

definition, priorities, and ability to lobby) – may also be a powerful infrastructure to 

consider reproducing in other states. It is not unusual for local councils to often struggle 

to engage judges in their efforts (e.g., Allen, 2005). In Illinois, judges’ participation – at 

least organizationally in the role of chair – is “built in.” Clearly, there is variability across 

sites regarding how invested a given Chief Judge is in their local FVCC or how seriously 

an appointed judge engages their role, but it seems clear that having this powerful 

stakeholder involved is essential (recruiting and maintaining members, gaining influence 

to enforce change) – particularly when criminal justice reform is a primary aim. This 

organizational structure may be central to why we see distal systems change in the ratio 

of emergency orders becoming plenary orders. The council infrastructure itself actively 

engages the judiciary. Judicial organization might not be possible in other states, but 

achieving a connected structure and one that has “authority” beyond what is generated 

locally seems to powerfully enhance local efforts. 

Assessment of Local Realities 

 It was clear that not all councils were created equal or were enjoying the same 

success. Operating within a collaborative milieu places an emphasis on building 

relationships as the primary venue by which change can (and perhaps should) be 

achieved. However, councils must actively and consciously assess local realities as they 

pursue their work. This was clearly evident in the case study sites each of which had 

considerable strengths. In the absence of a core set of preconditions, collaborative 

approaches to change may not be appropriate or ideal. While this must be addressed 

locally, other change strategies may be equally viable and even more effective. For 

example, a number of communities in Illinois have organized court watch initiatives. 

These efforts need not be in lieu of collaborative approaches, but could be a critical 

enhancement in communities where such public accountability may invite reticent 

criminal justice stakeholders to revisit their policies and practices. 

 Pence (1999) warns not to engage in coordination for coordination’s sake. 

Collaborating and forming new relationships is not meant to be an end unto itself. Thus, a 

constant orientation to self-assessment and engaging new strategies (something clearly 

evident in our case study sites) is essential and may be the key ingredient to avoid 

perpetuating the status quo (implicitly or explicitly). 

Conscious Principles and Inclusive Process 

Illinois FVCC were consistently viewed as inclusive and driven by their collective 

mission to pursue systems change in the community response to IPV. Yet, a cautionary 

tale is always in order when operating within a collaborative milieu. There is a danger in 

any collaborative approach to become co-opted by the needs and priorities of one’s 

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. 
204

partners. In this way, the press to form and sustain positive relationships may outweigh 

the assertion of one’s agenda. Indeed, this is challenging given that cooperation and 

perspective-taking are critical features of any collaborative endeavor. That said, Bond 

and Keys (1993) advanced the idea of co-empowerment. In this way, every stakeholder is 

clear about his/her own agenda and priorities. This does not suggest that compromise will 

not occur, but it does suggest that every stakeholder has touchstones that they actively 

and consciously engage as they pursue collaborative work. 

 Again, Ellen Pence (1999) offers guidance through a checklist of key principles in 

the pursuit of policy change. For example, this list includes: a) “focus on changing the 

institutions, not the victim;” b) “balance between the need to standardize and the need to 

be attentive to the particulars of a case;” c) “focus on building cooperative relationships;” 

d) “focus on practices, not people;” and e) “build in methods for ensuring compliance” 

(see p. 62 in Coordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence for the full 

thoughtful list). The implication here is not that councils adopt this list per se, but that 

they visit their own priorities and articulate them as a constant guide as they make 

choices about what changes to pursue and how to allocate precious resources. 

Recognize the Complexity of Systems Change Processes 

 Organizational change theorists bring our attention to the complexity of systems 

change processes. Systems change is an inherently dynamic process (Foster-Fishman et 

al., 2008) and one that is unlikely to follow a simple linear path. Thus, councils may play 

a variety of roles within a given system to foster change. This is important because it is 

not likely that training – or knowledge enhancements alone – will have the desired 

influence on responders’ ultimate practices. As previously noted, Pence (1999) 

emphasizes “changing the text” rather than changing hearts and minds (hence her 

directive to “focus on practices, not people”). Thus, it is likely the institutional shifts in 

policy and practice are most important and most sustainable particularly when they are 

accompanied by accountability structures that will encourage regular implementation 

(Klein & Sorra, 1996). In a study of health care providers routine screening for domestic 

violence, multi-level modeling revealed that the most important predictor of the extent to 

which providers engaged in screening – above and beyond perceived capacity and beliefs 

– was expressed institutional support for screening (e.g., leaders made it a priority, 

policies were in place, screening tools were available, accountability structures were 

enforced; Allen et al., 2007). 

 In fact, it is the combination of those expected to engage in new behaviors having 

the necessary knowledge and skills, clear communication of support from organizational 

leaders, organizational norms and routines that encourage the desired change (e.g., new 

protocols and tools to encourage implementation; Klein & Knight, 2005) that in tandem 

are likely to encourage organizational change. To the extent to which councils address 

their local change priorities in a dynamic way, via training, engagement of critical 

stakeholders, creation of new products to support the response (e.g., checklists, protocols) 

and development of new protocols and policies, they may indeed be positioned to achieve 

desired ends. Thus, it is critical to revisit institutionalized change priorities and to 

interrogate how those are addressed. 

Councils Are Just One Venue 

 It is important to recognize that councils are just one venue for the pursuit of 

change. Not only can councils co-exist with other efforts (e.g., court watch), but they 

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. 
205

must. If whole communities are meant to be engaged in the response to domestic 

violence, there are ripe opportunities for other groups – particularly those comprised of 

concerned citizens to be “taking on” this issue. Further, our interviews with survivors 

illustrate clearly that many of the most challenging issues they face are related to 

persistent poverty, poor housing, lack of employment and limited educational 

opportunities. 

Efforts to reform the criminal justice response are laudable, but not sufficient to 

support women’s safety in the broadest sense of the term (see Section X for a more 

complete discussion of these issues). Indeed, Garner and Maxwell (2008) suggest that 

addressing intimate partner violence outside of the criminal justice system is not a new 

idea and reflects a historical tension. We face an interesting historical moment where our 

next steps regarding what constitutes an effective community response are not entirely 

clear. Councils may be called upon and supported to extend their focus. Fortunately, 

casting a “broad net” already characterizes many Illinois councils who have engaged faith 

leaders, local businesses, schools, and health care organizations among others to 

encourage a broad response. 

Further, many councils have explicitly engaged in prevention education, 

particularly in schools and the Choose Respect campaign; which is being piloted in five 

locations in Illinois. Peterson (2008) and Klevens and Cox (2008) note the importance of 

building local capacity to engage in prevention of intimate partner violence. Peterson 

(2008) offers recent efforts to encourage informal social control (e.g., men stopping 

violence efforts) and Klevens and Cox (2008) detail an array of approaches including 

early intervention with youth who demonstrate anti-social behavior and parent training. 

Thus, councils focusing their efforts on multiple systems and reinvigorating a focus not 

only on the quality of the systems response, but on the prevention capacity of their local 

communities may yield even greater long-term gains. 

Enhanced Evaluation Capacity 

 The implications section would not be complete without a call for more 

systematic self-evaluation efforts among councils (Allen & Hagen, 2003). While many 

engaged in pre/post measures at training (or at least post measures), there is relatively 

little information regarding the extent to which councils have a wholesale effect on their 

communities. Efforts to examine all facets of the criminal justice process from arrest to 

sentencing to probation are limited by inconsistent local data gathering or the complete 

absence of systematic tracking. 

XI.4 – Implications for Research 

 The current study made some important advances in the study of the council 

processes and outcomes. First, this study utilized longitudinal archival data to explore 

change over time in distal systems change markers and found that, indeed, councils 

appeared to influence the trajectory of the ratio of emergency orders becoming plenary 

orders. This punctuates the value of future research seeking and utilizing existing data 

sources to understand outcomes associated with collaborative processes. However, using 

existing archives is not without challenges. For example, council influence was not 

evident with regard to arrest rates when looking statewide. This may be a substantively 

accurate finding but considerable variability across communities in arrest rates and varied 

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. 
206

degrees of council effort to address arrest rates likely create “noise” that make discerning 

council influence difficult. Future research could focus on single circuits examining 

change over time in a more bounded space and more tightly linked to when councils have 

actually engaged in training efforts, for example. This would provide a more focused use 

longitudinal archives and might be particularly prudent when the variability appears to 

exist to a greater extent within single Circuits (or communities) than it does across 

Circuits. 

 Second, the current study advances research on councils by conducting a 

statewide study using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This allowed for 

stronger conclusions given the ability to look for convergence (and divergence) across 

sources of data. This also allowed for the comparison of councils and the exploration of 

variability between councils – particularly with regard to their institutionalized change 

capacity. Future research can build on the findings of the current study to track particular 

efforts to alter local practices or instantiate state policy. Our case studies were an 

important first step in this process, but additional work is required to track such efforts 

over time and establish systems impact. Importantly, coordination should not be assumed 

because councils or other coordinated efforts are in place. The simple presence of a 

council does not imply the presence of a truly coordinated response. To better assess 

local implementation, communities could be engaged in creating and sustaining more 

sophisticated tracking process (e.g., Domestic Abuse Information Network or DAIN from 

Duluth; see Falk & Helgeson, 1999) so that there is a more ready way to examine 

councils’ systems impact with regard to particular outcomes (e.g., arrest, sentencing, 

probation, parole, recidivism) and to establish the degree of coordination actually in place 

particularly as it relates to specific incidents of intimate partner violence. 

 Third, the qualitative components of the current study helped to elaborate on 

council processes; hopefully providing a more complete picture of how councils function 

and the processes by which they produce change. This is important because it may shift 

our attention away from simply identifying copious facilitators of collaboration and 

toward understanding the unique ways in which councils pursue change and the inherent 

limitations of these processes. Future research can expand on the current study 

particularly as it relates to how external forces affect council efforts. 

 Fourth, the current study brings in survivors’ voices as a way to “check” on 

councils own self-assessment of their community response. The current study was not 

designed to examine outcomes for survivors, but future research must continue to 

examine how initiatives spawned within a desire to have a coordinated response actually 

affect survivors’ lives. This poses significant methodological challenges given there are 

no true comparison communities (Illinois provides a case in point where all communities 

have at least some coordination occurring albeit to widely varying degrees and 

characterized by different strengths and weaknesses). Hierarchical linear modeling might 

provide a powerful tool for examining women’s experiences over time and exploring how 

interactions with various systems affect their safety and well-being. This would require a 

well-coordinated, multi-site study in settings already “known” to investigators so there is 

a clear understanding of the nature of the response (e.g., what policies are in place, how 

they are implemented, what the nature of interagency relationships is like). Importantly, 

though, this approach might serve to move us away from intervention-focused evaluation 

to survivor-centered assessments. It may be that we often fail to find wholesale positive 

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. 
207

effects for survivors because the complexities of women’s lives makes even wellimplemented and well-conceived interventions effective for some and not for others. 

Such an approach to evaluation would parallel recent calls to return to survivor-centered 

advocacy (e.g., Allen, Bybee & Sullivan, 2004; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). 

XI.5 – Limitations 

Like all research, the current study is not without limitations: 

Self-report and self-selection biases. First, the current study relies in part on selfreported data largely gathered from council members. Indeed, this was by design given it 

is our assertion that council members are uniquely positioned to self assess. Yet, this also 

invites the possibility of both self-selection and self-report biases. Still, in both our 

survey data and our key informant interview data there was considerable variability and 

often frank assessments of what councils had accomplished and also were less effective 

(e.g., perceived improvements in relationships among stakeholders were viewed 

positively, but perceived institutionalized changes were only moderately endorsed 

overall). Further, we experienced excellent convergence across data sources. For 

example, we found considerable variability in the arrest and order of protection rates; this 

mirrored key informants assertions that they struggled to achieve a consistent law 

enforcement response across their judicial circuits. Finally, our measure of perceived 

institutionalized change was moderately and positively correlated to our assessment of 

the number of products produced and policy changes reported in annual reports over a six 

year period. That is, councils which had produced more and reported more specific policy 

shifts were also rated on average by their members as having achieved institutionalized 

change. Still, it is safe to assume that our findings over-represent those having a relatively 

positive experience with councils. Those who are not engaged in council efforts – 

because they were involved and stopped being involved or never became involved in the 

first place – might value the settings less than those directly involved. Those who 

completed the survey represent roughly half of those indicated as members. While we 

suspect that the membership lists contained many non-active members, this response rate 

likely reflects input from the most engaged and committed members and likely privileges 

their perspective. 

Cross-sectional data and causal assumptions. In our assessment of the degree to 

which councils have affected change based on members’ reports and the factors 

associated with council capacity to facilitate institutionalized change we can not make 

firm causal statements. These data are cross-sectional. Thus, our assumptions regarding 

causality are based in theoretical assertions about the direction of these relationships, 

particularly when findings converged from multiple data sources. This is a common 

limitation in studies of collaborative settings given these efforts generally begin prior to 

the involvement of researchers. 

It is promising that we found that the formation and development of councils was 

positively related to order of protection return rates, one source of longitudinal data in the 

current study. In this case, we capitalized on a natural, quasi-experimental design given 

that we had data for all councils, pre- and post- formation, and an analytic approach that 

helps to address historical effects. Still, the use of this longitudinal data is not exempt 

from potential historical effects. While no single year stands out as explaining shifts 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. 
208

orders of protection (e.g., 1994 with the passage of VAWA), some councils demonstrated 

a positive trajectory that continued and increased following council formation. While our 

analysis does reveal a wholesale effect of council formation and development on councils 

we cannot account for circuit to circuit variation in the degree to which councils were 

central to this process. Still, we view this as a finding worthy of continued development 

given we were able to link a distal systems marker to council formation and development. 

Shared method variance. Shared method variance is also a concern when 

considering, in particular, our analysis of the factors predicting institutionalized change. 

While we clearly operationalized and measured each construct of interest, it could be that 

the survey measures capture a global sense of a “positive” or “mediocre” response as the 

case may be. Thus, it may not be the specific constructs that relate, but a methodological 

artifact. Still, we are emboldened by the extent to which similar factors emerged as 

themes in our qualitative inquiry and our observations of council settings. Thus, we have 

reason to believe that our assertions are triangulated and our conclusions warranted. 

Contextual variation. While community-level indicators of the systems response 

allow for the examination of change over time, the nature of field research is such that all 

extraneous variables can never be adequately accounted for and controlled. Thus, we can 

not say with certainty that order of protection rates were influenced only by council 

formation and development; other factors unaccounted for in the current study may have 

influenced this association. That said, we accounted for historical time in our analysis and 

looked across multiple settings in which many the effect was evident. Further, we 

attempted to capture some of the salient contextual realities that affected local council 

efforts, but these are undoubtedly just a sample of a far more complex process. As we 

make “global” statements about councils (one of the benefits of a statewide analysis) we 

also risk mischaracterizing the efforts of particular councils and/or overstating (or 

understating as the case may be) their particular capacity to facilitate change. 

XI.6 – Closing Remarks 

 FVCC are a common approach to improving the local response to intimate partner 

violence. The current study suggests that councils facilitate stronger relationships and 

enhanced knowledge among stakeholders. Further, there was evidence that at least some 

councils are positioned to facilitate local community change in the systems response to 

intimate partner violence. Councils were a training tour de fore, offering local and 

regional training that reached 33,000 participants between 2000 and 2006. In that same 

period, councils also generated numerous products (over 275 pamphlets, protocols, 

intervention checklists, etc.) to enhance the local response and reported over 20 specific 

instances shifts in local policy (e.g., domestic violence screening policy). 

Councils also played a visible role in encouraging greater exchange of 

information among member agencies, and their formation and development was linked to 

the ratio of emergency orders of protection that became plenary orders. Still, councils 

were not uniformly effective at producing institutionalized change. Multiple factors were 

implicated in councils’ success, including features of the council itself (as mediated by 

the degree to which social capital was fostered), social capital (the dynamic duo of 

enhanced knowledge and improved relationships), support from the broader community, 

savvy local leadership (by advocates and others) and members empowered to pursue 

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. 
209

change in their own organizations. Thus, councils must engage in an inherently local 

process and grapple with a set of inherently local challenges to encourage the 

implementation of best practices in the community response to intimate partner violence. 

Finally, Illinois councils were characterized by a multi-level structure including 

local councils, a State-level steering committee, and a State level office with permanent 

staff. This facilitated cross-council communication, the provision of technical support, 

and the dissemination of knowledge (e.g., regarding new policies in the State, best 

practices in the response). In this way, local efforts were bolstered by state-level efforts 

and state-level initiatives were informed by local issues. 

Importantly, Illinois FVCC have mobilized literally thousands of agencies in the 

community response to intimate partner violence. Councils maintain a flexible structure 

and work with their local realities to continually self-assess and identify their next goals 

and priorities. While council work is nowhere near “done” (this is part of their strength), 

they do not orient themselves to simple end goals, but to an ongoing process of enhancing 

survivor safety and batterer accountability. In this way, the presence of councils in 

communities throughout the state create an invaluable resource as we collectively 

struggle to determine how to best respond to intimate partner 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. 
210

SECTION XII 

REFERENCES AND APPENDICES

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. 
211

References 

Adler, M. A. (2002). The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the 

coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland. Evaluation in Program 

Planning, 25, 203 – 213. 

Allen, N. E. (2001a). An overview of domestic violence coordinating councils, 

committees and task forces in the State of Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan State 

University. 

Allen, N. E. (2001b). Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils: Facilitators, Barriers 

and Supports. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 

Allen, N. E. (2005). A multilevel analysis of community coordinating councils. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (1/2), 49 – 63. 

Allen, N. E. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of domestic violence 

coordinating councils. Violence Against Women, 12 (1), 46 – 67. 

Allen, N. E., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2004). Battered women’s multitude of needs: 

Evidence supporting the need for comprehensive advocacy. Violence Against 

Women, 10 (9), 1015-1035. 

Allen, N. E., & Hagen, L. (2003). A Practical Guide to Evaluating Domestic Violence 

Coordinating Councils. Harrisburg, PA: National Council Against Domestic 

Violence. 

Allen, N. E., Watt, K., & Hess, J. Z. (2008). The outcomes and activities of domestic 

violence coordinating councils. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 

(1 - 2), 63 - 73. 

Atack, J. (1989). The evolution of regional economic differences within Illinois, 1818-

1850. pp.61-94 in Diversity, Conflict, and State Policites, P. Nardulli (Ed). 

Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 

Berg, B.L. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (2nd edition). 

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Berg, B.L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (5th edition). 

Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Berkowitz, B. (2001). Studying the outcomes of community-based coalitions. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (2), 213-227. 

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. 
212

Bond, M.A. & Keys, C.B. (1993). Empowerment, diversity, and collaboration: promoting 

synergy on community boards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 

37-57. 

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for 

prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8 (3), 315-330. 

Butterfoss, F.D. & Kegler, M.C. (2001). Toward a comprehensive understanding of 

community coalitions: moving from practice to theory. In R.J. DiClemente, R.A. 

Crosby, & M.C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice 

and Research (pp. 157-193). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Buzawa, E.S., & Buzawa, C.G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Catalano, S.M. (2006). Criminal Victimization, 2005. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau 

of Justice Statistics Bulletin: NCVS (NCJ214644). 

Chavis, D. M. (1999). Evaluation of community collaborations and building their 

capacity. Evaluator’s Institute, Washington D. C. 

Clark, S. J., Burt, M. R., Schulte, M. M., & Maguire, K. (1996). Coordinated community 

responses to domestic violence in six communities: Beyond the justice system. 

Final Report to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services by the Urban 

Institute. Washington, D. C. 

Cohen, D., Vandello, J., Puente, S., & Ranilla, A. (1999). "When you call me that, 

smile!" How norms for politeness, interaction styles, and aggression work 

together in southern culture. 

Cohen, D. & Nisbett, R. (1997). Field experiments examining Culture of Honor. 

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1188-1199. 

Coleman J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of 

Harvard University Press. 

Falk, D.R. & Helgeson, N. (1999). Building Monitoring and Tracking Systems. In M. F. 

Shepard & E. Pence (Eds.) Coordinating community responses to domestic 

violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 89-114).

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. 
213

Fawcett, S., Foster, D., & Francisco, V. (1997). Monitoring and evaluation of coalition 

activities and success. In G. Kaye & T. Wolff (Eds.), From the ground up: A 

workbook on coalition building and community development (pp. 163 – 172). 

Amherst, MA: AHEC/Community Partners. 

Florin, P. (1996). 1996 Task Force Member Survey. Community Research and Services 

Team: Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies. Brown University, Rhode 

Island. 

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. E. 

(2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and 

integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (2), 241-

261. 

Foster-Fishman, P.G. Perkins, D.F., & Davidson, W.S. (1997). Developing effective 

evaluation partnerships: paradigmatic and contextual barriers. Analise 

Psicologica, 3, 389-403. 

Foster-Fishman, P.G, Salem, D.A., Allen, N.E., & Fahrbach, K. (2001). Facilitating 

Interorganizational Collaboration: The Contributions of Interorganizational 

Alliances. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(6), 875-905. 

Gamache, D. & Asmus, M. (1999). Enhancing networking among service providers. In 

M. F. Shepard & E. Pence (Eds.) Coordinating community responses to domestic 

violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 65–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Gamache, D. J., Edleson, J. L., & Schock, M. D. (1998). Coordinated police, judicial, and 

social service response to woman battering: A multiple-baseline evaluation across 

three communities. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, & J. T. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), 

Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 193-209). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Garner, J.H. & Maxwell, C.D. (2008). Coordinated Community Responses to Intimate 

Partner Violence in the 20th and 21st Centuries. CRIMINOLOGY & Public Policy, 

7(4), 525 – 535. 

Goodman, L., L. Bennett, & Dutton (1999). “Legal report: Obstacles to victims' 

cooperation with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social 

support.” Violence and Victims, 14 (4): 427-444. 

Goodman, L.A., & Epstein, D. (2008). Listening to Battered Women: A SurvivorCentered Approach to Advocacy, Mental Health and Justice. Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association. 

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. 
214

Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human 

Relations, 38 (10), 911-936. 

Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Grossman, S.F., Lundy, M., & Beniston, M. (2007). Analysis of InfoNet data from 

Domestic Violence Agencies, January 1998 through December 11, 2006.

Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

Guba & Lincoln (1994). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Hart, B. J. (1995, March). Coordinated community approaches to domestic violence.

Paper presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women, 

National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C. Retrieved January 23, 2000 from 

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.pdf

Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: 

From social service to social justice. In C. Huxham’s (Ed.), Creating 

collaborative advantage (pp. 19-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Javdani, S. (2008). Proximal outcomes matter: A multilevel examination of the processes 

by which coordinating councils produce change. Unpublished master’s thesis, 

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA. 

Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Tam, B. K. Y., Lamontagne, M., Johnson, S. A. (2003). 

Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. 

Exceptional Children, 69 (2), 195 – 209. 

Keilitz, S. L. (1994) Civil protection orders: A viable justice system tool for deterring 

domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 9 (1), 79-84. 

Keilitz, S. L., Hannaford, P. L. & Efkeman, H. S. (1997). Civil Protection Orders: The 

benefits and limitations for victims of domestic violence. National Center for State 

Courts Research Report. 

Klein, K.J. & Knight, A.P. (2005). Innovation Implementation. Current Directions in 

Psychological Science, 14 (5), 243-246. 

Klein, K. J. & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. 

Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055-1080. 

Klein, A.R. (2001a). Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research. Part 

I: Law Enforcement. Sudbury: 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. 
215

Klein, A.R. (2001b). Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research. Part 

II: Prosecution. Sudbury: National Institute of Justice. 

Klein, A.R. (2001c). Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research. Part 

III: Judges. Sudbury: National Institute of Justice. 

Klevens, J., Baker, C.K., Shelley, G.A., & Ingram, E.M. (2008). Exploring the Links 

Between Components of Coordinated Responses and Their Impact on Contact 

With Intimate Partner Violence Services. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 346-

358. 

Klevens, J. & Cox, P. (2008). Coordinated Community Responses to Intimate Partner 

Violence: Where do we go from here? CRIMINOLOGY & Public Policy, 7(4), 

547 – 556. 

Koehly, L. M., & Shivy, V. A. (1998). Social Network Analysis: A New Methodology 

for Counseling Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 3-17. 

Koss, M. (2000). Blame, shame, and community: Justice responses to violence against 

women. Awardee address delivered at the 108th annual meeting of the American 

Psychological Association in Washington, DC. Retrieved 12/21/04 from 

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/koss/koss.html

Lasker, R.D., & Weiss, E.S. (2003). Broadening participation in community problem 

solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. 

Journal of Urban Health, 80, 14-47. 

Lott, J. R., & Whitley, J. (2003). Measurement error in county-level UCR data. Journal 

of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 185-198. 

Lynch, J. P., & Jarvis, J.P. (2008). Missing data and imputation in the uniform crime 

reports and the effects on national estimates. Journal of Contemporary Criminal 

Justice, 24, 69-85. 

Malik, N.M., Ward, K., Janczewski, C. (2008). Coordinated Community Response to 

Family Violence: The Role of Domestic Violence Service Organizations. Journal 

of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (7), 933-955. 

Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data, a discussion paper from the 

BJS Fellows Program. Report No. NCJ-1176365, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 

Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bgpcd.pdf

Maltz, M.D., & Targonski, J. (2002). A note on the use of county-level UCR data. 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 297-318. 

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. 
216

Maxwell, C. D., Fagan, J. A., Garner, J. H. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate 

 partner violence: New evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program. 

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. 

Molenberghs, G., & Verbeke, G. (2006). Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. New 

York: Springer. 

Pence, E.L. (1999). Some Thoughts on Philosophy. In M. F. Shepard & E. Pence (Eds.) 

Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth 

and beyond (pp. 25–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Peterson, R.R. (2008). Reducing Intimate Partner Violence: Moving Beyond Criminal 

Justice Interventions. CRIMINOLOGY & Public Policy, 7(4), 537-545. 

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual 

Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. 

Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion of innovation (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press, Simon & 

Schuster, Inc. 

Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a 

strategy for improving community health. Annual Review Public Health, 21, 369-

402. 

Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental & Quasi-Experimental 

Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Shepard, M. (1999). Evaluating coordinated community responses to domestic violence. 

Applied Research Forum: National Electronic Network on Violence Against 

Women. Retrieved 12/21/04 from 

http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_ccr.php 

Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (Eds.), (1999). Coordinated community response to domestic 

violence: Lessons from the Duluth model. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Shinn, M. & Perkins, D.N.T. (2001). Contributions from Organizational Psychology. In J. 

Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology (pp. 615-

641). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

Snijders, T. & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and 

Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Steinman, M. (1990). Lowering recidivism among men who batter women. Journal of 

Police Science and Administration, 17, 124-132. 

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. 
217

Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-based 

advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 67 (1), 43-53. 

Syers, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice 

intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490-502. 

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, England: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Effects, nature and consequences of intimate partner 

violence. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. National 

Institute of Justice Research Report. 

Uniform Crime Report: Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Crime in the United 

States, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Visher, C.A., Harrell, A., Newmark, L., & Yahner,J. (2008). Reducing Intimate Partner 

Violence: An Evaluation of a Comprehensive Justice System-Community 

Collaboration. CRIMINOLOGY & Public Policy, 7(4), 495 – 523. 

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. 

(2008). Bridging the Gap Between Prevention Research and Practice: The 

Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171-181. 

Yin, R. K., & Kaftarian, S. J. (1997). Introduction: Challenges of community-based 

program outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20 (3), 293 – 

297. 

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. 
218

APPENDICES

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. 
219

Appendix A 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils Historical Statement 

I. IFVCC Purpose Statement

 The purpose of the IFVCC’s local family violence coordinating councils and its state council is 

to establish a forum to share and discuss information in order to promote a coordinated response to 

family violence in our communities. The Councils work to improve the institutional and professional 

response to family violence issues. The Councils engage in prevention, education, and the coordination 

of intervention and services for victims and perpetrators of child abuse, domestic violence, and elder 

abuse. A goal of the Councils is to contribute to the improvement of the legal system and the 

administration of justice. 

II. IFVCC Background

 

 The Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils (IFVCC) was convened by the Chief Justice 

of the Supreme Court of Illinois in 1993 and transferred to the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority in 

2000 to enhance the management of IFVCC’s financial resources and operations. The IFVCC’s funding 

comes through the IVPA from an annual appropriation of the State General Assembly. The IFVCC is a 

non-mandated, informal organization composed of a state-level Steering Committee; 26 local family 

violence coordinating councils, with jurisdictions covering the entire state; and statewide projects that 

address systems improvements through collaborations of partners, professional education, and 

integrated-systems protocols. 

 Since 1990, twenty-seven (27) local coordinating councils have been formed in 22 judicial 

circuits, covering 102 counties. Cook County has 6 councils formed on the basis of its judicial 

municipal districts. Each local council is typically staffed by a part-time coordinator, hired by the chief 

judge, and funded through IFVCC allocations, which are managed through IVPA’s grant program. 

 Since 1997, the IFVCC has received funding from the Illinois state legislature initially through 

the Illinois Supreme Court, and since 2000 through the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority. This 

funding provides for the grants, staffing and operations of the IFVCC. The councils are funded equally 

through an allocation, of $19,500, which typically provides for a part-time local council coordinator and 

partially pays for the expenses of the local council. 

 Local family violence coordinating councils are formed using a judicial model. The judicial 

circuit's chief judge convenes and chairs the council, using that position's charge to develop programs 

that improve the court's ability to serve the community and dispose of cases. Local councils emphasize 

prevention through strengthened services, comprehensive systems, coordination, protocol development, 

public education, professional training, data analysis, and information exchange. 

 Local council membership is comprised of policy level and practitioner decision makers, 

representing the many systems that interact with family violence victims and perpetrators. Professions 

involved include judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement, probation, circuit clerks, 

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. 
220

victim advocates, nurses, doctors, social services professionals, coroners, animal control officers, clergy, 

school personnel, businesses, and housing authorities. 

 Each council is launched with a family violence symposium hosted by the chief judge, where 

typically over 700 professionals have attended the one-day program presented on two consecutive days. 

National and state experts address topics such as the dynamics of domestic violence, effects on children, 

elder abuse, and effective responses by the criminal justice system, schools, health systems, court 

system, and faith community. 

 IFVCC recognizes that each jurisdiction has unique resources and practices that must be honored 

for local leadership to be receptive to implementing a council. Because local jurisdictions are in 

different developmental stages based on the extent of previous local collaboration experience, technical 

support must recognize the need for individualized approaches and strategies. The IFVCC’s continued 

and growing local acceptance over the last 13 years has been based on the principle of individualized 

technical support that is respectful, resourceful, and empowering. 

III. IFVCC Organizational Development 

 The physical design of the IFVCC is an infrastructure that operates in all of Illinois’ judicial circuits 

and at the state level to empower people to work with systems to better fashion, more useful approaches 

to domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse and the nexus between these forms of violence. The 

strategy is to bring together the policy and practitioner levels, to create cooperation across systems with 

all the involved players. 

 The methods we use are reflective interviewing, dialogue, facilitated exploration–all of which 

provide experiences of remembering the values and meaning that drive the work; reflecting on what has 

worked and why; gaining an overview of a system; and envisioning and creating desired outcomes. 

Utilizing collaboration of small numbers of people–10 to 20, county by county, 100 to 200 circuit by 

circuit, many are mobilized through cooperating and coordinating their efforts to build relationships 

across boundaries, honoring both their uniqueness and their interdependence. Watching this happen, 

one realizes again the simple truth that quality relationships between even a few committed people has 

great possibility. 

 A comprehensive, coordinated approach to preventing family violence, since the 1970's, has been 

promoted as the most efficient and effective way to penetrate systems and mobilize them for the greatest 

change. Illinois is one of the few states that has systematically organized a statewide infrastructure 

based on a comprehensive approach. 

 We have shown through the IFVCC, this is a way that works to bring professionals together through 

time to work cooperatively and, then, collaboratively. It lays the groundwork for ultimately manifesting 

our best hopes and greatest possibilities to prevent further family violence, to prevent homicides, and to 

eliminate secondary damage caused by systems that operate in isolation and without access to the 

necessary training, relationships, data, ideas, and collaborative models. 

 

 The 13 years since our beginning finds us, now with over 30,000 professionals across the state 

participating in trainings and councils’ projects from 97 Illinois counties. Judge Bruce Black, the IFVCC 

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. 
221

Chair during nearly all of those 13 years, speaking at the January, 2003, IFVCC Semi-Annual Meeting 

in Chicago, said: “The ability to pursue justice depends on the partnerships that we cultivate.” It would 

seem that a similar perspective is shared by many and fires the energy of professionals statewide who 

have continued to pursue relationships with their partners from other disciplines through the IFVCC. 

 

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. 
222

Appendix B 

IFVCC Council Coordinator Interview Instrument 

Circuit: 

Name of Coordinator: 

DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE OF COUNCIL

I’d like to know about how your council is 

structured. In particular, I’m interested in the 

degree to which it works at a circuit-wide or at a 

county-wide level. 

Tell me about your steering committee and any 

other committees of the council. 

If not addressed, ask: 

How active are these committees? 

How often do they meet? 

Are they circuit-wide or county-wide (or another 

alternative?) 

In your opinion, what are the strengths of a circuitwide structure? 

What are the weaknesses? 

NATURE OF COUNCIL’S GOALS

Does your council have a mission statement? If 

so, what is it? 

If not, how would you describe the mission of 

the council? 

How would you describe the goals of your 

council? 

What objectives is your council working toward? 

If not addressed in primary question ask: 

How were these goals determined? 

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. 
223

In what ways, if any, was there disagreement about 

the nature of your FVCCs goals? 

How do your goals relate to the overall 

goals/mission of the statewide IFVCC? 

HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF COUNCIL

Community Context 

What are the most pressing or salient issues in the 

community response to domestic violence in your 

circuit and in the communities within the circuit? 

(By community response, I mean the way that law 

enforcement, human service, general public, etc. 

responds) 

(Are these similar or different across 

communities? 

Have there been other coordinating or collaborative 

efforts in the circuit? 

If not addressed in primary question ask: 

Did they exist before the council was founded or 

come into being after? 

What is their relationship to the council? 

What are their mission and goals? 

Who are the key players in these efforts? 

What was the relationship, if any, among the 

agencies currently involved in the council before it 

began? 

If not addressed in primary question ask: 

Was there any tension or conflict historically 

between any agencies? 

What were the dynamics among these agencies? 

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. 
224

CRITICAL EVENTS (FGU) 

We are interested in learning about critical events in your council’s lifetime. Critical events refer to 

first time events; changes in resources; changes in staff or leadership; changes in policy, practice or 

policy implementation; and major activities (e.g., training or a media campaign, public recognition). 

 What are the critical events that have 

happened in the history of the council? 

[DESCRIBE EACH EVENT BELOW.] 

Have participants generate as many as possible, 

then have them identify the 3 most important 

events for follow up 

1. 

2. 

3. 

[After identifying the several particularly important events, state them back to participant for agreement. 

For each critical event, ask the following questions. Note these may overlap with goals, activities and accomplishments 

described above.]

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. 
225

CRITICAL EVENTS (FGU) 

EVENT (completed for each critical event) 

1. Why was this important? 

2. When did the event occur? What was going on at the time of the event? 

What made the conditions right for this to happen? 

3. Who were key actors? What key actions brought about the critical event? 

4. Were the council’s actions met with any barriers or resistance? What types of barriers? 

Who resisted? 

5. What key resources (people, financial resources, political influence, etc.) were used to bring about 

the event? How were these resources used to overcome barriers and resistance? 

6. What were the consequences or results of the event for the council? 

7. What were the consequences for the community? [TAP INTO IMPACT/OUTCOMES] 

 

CRITICAL EVENTS (FGU) 

Closing Question 

Thinking about the three critical events you just described, are there any important lessons learned that 

you want to share? 

NATURE OF COUNCIL’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

You’ve mentioned a number of accomplishments of 

your council (such as....). Are there any other 

important accomplishments that you haven’t 

mentioned yet? 

If covered in “critical events” section probe to see 

if there is anything else. 

 If not addressed in primary question ask: 

How did your council accomplish [SUCCESS]? For 

example, how was your council instrumental in 

[SUCCESS]? 

What changes in the community or systems response 

to domestic violence do you attribute to the council? 

Why? 

Specifically related to IPV? 

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. 
226

It is true across the country that coordinating 

councils are not able to address all the issues they 

wish they could in a given year (or even 5 years!). 

Are there any issues that you wish your council was 

addressing that it hasn’t gotten to yet either because 

of barriers or time constraints?

In what ways has your council fallen short of 

expected goals? 

What have been the council’s setbacks or 

challenges? 

In what ways, if any, have changes in knowledge 

among council members or others resulted from the 

work of the council?

In what ways, if any, have changes in relationships 

among council members or others resulted from the 

work of the council? 

In what ways, if any, have changes in policy or 

procedures in member or non-member organizations 

resulted from the work of the council? 

COUNCIL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

Role of Coordinator 

How do you see your role as coordinator of the 

council? 

How do council members see your role as 

coordinator of the council? 

How long have you been the coordinator of the 

council? 

What is your professional background? Have 

you received any training on family violence? 

 

Has there been a coordinator since the beginning? 

1. YES 

2. NO 

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. 
227

IFVCC STRUCTURE

What is the role of the state IFVCC staff as it relates t

your council? 

Describe your relationship with the staff FVCC staff –

kinds of support do they provide? 

What kinds of challenges does a state relationship 

pose? 

What is most useful about the state-level staff? 

Least useful? 

[Try to get MOST meaningful thing]

What types of support (technical support, training, 

etc) would be most helpful to your council now? 

PHILOSOPHY AND ANALYSIS OF DV 

Do you see any tensions or dilemmas for any 

of your members between efforts to 

collaborate on the one hand and some 

agency’s goals of doing systems advocacy?

Has your council identified issues of survivor 

safety as a goal? 

Batterer accountability? 

Has your council ever identified any tensions 

between these goals? 

CLOSING QUESTIONS

1. From your position as a council coordinator, 

what advice would you give to another 

community that is interested in starting a 

council? 

2. Is there anything else you want to share 

about your council? 

 

Thank you so much for your time. You have provided a rich account of the [COUNCIL NAME] and we really 

appreciate your time and effort. 

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. 
228

Appendix C 

IFVCC Council Coordinator Interview Coding Form 

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number 

Definitions and comments 

1. Council Structure 

(circle one): 

 Circuit-wide 1 All cttes operate across entire circuit 

 One county circuit 2 Circuit and county are same 

 Primarily focused on one 

county 

3 Most cttes county specific, some circuitwide stuff 

 Exclusively organized by 

county 

4 All cttes at county level 

 Mix of circuit and county 

level organization 

5 About half of circuit and county specific 

activities 

 Other 6 

• Missing 7 

 

2. Any county-specific activities 

or committees? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

3. Any circuit-wide activities or 

committees? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

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. 
229

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number

Definitions 

and comments 

4. Total number of active cttes: 

 

5. Does KI report any strengths of circuitwide structure? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

If yes, describe: 

 

6. Does KI report any weaknesses of 

circuit-wide structure? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

If yes, describe: 

7. Does council have a mission statement? 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

8. Did KI describe clear council goals? 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

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. 
230

Variable Response 

Options

Line 

Number

Definitions 

and comments 

9. Was there disagreement about nature of 

goals? (circle one) 

 

•Yes 1 

 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

10. Are the goals primarily focused on 

(circle all that apply): 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’tjudge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

a. Training 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Pubic education 1 2 6 7 9 

c. Change in systems’ policies and 

procedures 

1 2 6 7 9 

d. Change in systems’ practice 1 2 6 7 9 

e. Other: 1 2 6 7 9 

f. Not applicable (re goals overall) 8 

g. Missing (re goals overall) 9 

 

11. Were there other coordinating or 

collaborative efforts in the circuit? 

(circle one) 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

12. Who is driving council activities? 

•Coordinator 1 

•Council chair 2 

•Committee chair(s) 3 

• Steering committee 4 

• Strong council member 5 

• can’t judge 6 

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. 
231

Variable Response 

Options

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

13. Was there historical tension among 

ANY member agencies? (circle one)

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

 

•Missing 9 

 

14. How many critical events were noted? 

 

15. For any of the critical events, were the 

council’s actions met with resistance 

(circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

16. Did any of the critical events “result 

in” changes in knowledge (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

17. Did any of the critical events “result 

in” changes in relationships (circle 

one)?

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

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. 
232

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

18. Did any of the critical events “result 

in” changes in policy or procedures? (circle 

one)

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

19. Did any of the critical events “result 

in” changes in practice (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

 

20. Did any of the critical evens “result in” 

community impact (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

• Not applicable 8 

•Missing 9 

21. KI reported the following changes in 

community or systems response to 

domestic violence: 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing

 

a. Increase in public awareness 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Change in members; knowledge 1 2 6 7 9 

c. Change in relationships among members 1 2 6 7 9 

d. Change in organizational policy and 

procedures 

1 2 6 7 9 

e. Change in organizational practice 1 2 6 7 9 

f. Survivor safety 1 2 6 7 9 

g. Batterer accountability 1 2 6 7 9 

h. Others 1 2 6 7 9 

i. if other, specify: 

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. 
233

Variable Response 

Options

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

22. Coordinator sees her role as 

PRIMARILY (circle one):

 

•Administrative 1 

•Active Leader 2 

 

• “Bridge” or liaison between 

organizations 

3 

• Source of knowledge or information 4 

• Other 5 

• If other, specify: 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

23. Coordinator also sees her role as 

being: 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

a. Administrative 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Active/Leader 1 2 6 7 9 

c. “Bridge” or liaison between 

organizations 

1 2 6 7 9 

d. Source of knowledge or 

information 

1 2 6 7 9 

e. Other: 1 2 6 7 9 

f. If other, specify: 

 

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. 
234

Variable Response 

Options

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

24. Members see coordinator’s role as 

PRIMARILY (circle one):

 

•Administrative 1 

•Active/Leader 2 

• “Bridge” or liaison between 

organizations 

3 

• Source of knowledge or information 4 

•Other 5 

• If other, specify: 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

25. Members also see coordinators role 

as being: 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

•Administrative 1 2 6 7 9 

•Active/Leader 1 2 6 7 9 

• “Bridge” or liaison between 

organizations 

1 2 6 7 9 

• Source of knowledge or information 1 2 6 7 9 

•Other 1 2 

• If other, specify 

26. Is there disagreement between how 

coordinator and members see the 

coordinator role (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

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. 
235

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

27. How long has current coordinator 

been the coordinator? Months

 

 

28. Does coordinator have previous 

training or experience in family violence? 

 

•Yes 1 Any FV training 

•No 0 

• Can’t judge 6 

•Missing 9 

 

29. KI has _______ previous training or 

experience in family violence (circle 

one):

 

•A lot 1 worked in the field 

•A little 2 attended training(s) 

•None 3 

•Missing 9 

•Type of training or experience: 

 

30. Does coordinator have previous 

training or experience in IPV, in 

particular? 

 Any training 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

31. KI has _______ previous training or 

experience in IPV (circle one)

 

•A lot 1 worked in the field

•A little 2 attended training(s)

•None 3 

•Missing 9 

•Type of training or experience: 

 

32. Professional background of KI: 

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. 
236

Variable Response 

Options

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

33. Has KI been the coordinator since the 

beginning (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

34. Has the council had a coordinator 

since its formation (circle one)?

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Don’t know 7 

•Missing 9 

 

 

35. What types of support does the State 

provide? 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

a. Technical support 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Knowledge/information 1 2 6 7 9 

c. Emotional support 1 2 6 7 9 

d. Training 1 2 6 7 9 

e. Guidance (i.e. “next steps) 1 2 6 7 9 

f. materials 1 2 6 7 9 

g. financial resources 1 2 6 7 9 

h. Other 1 2 6 7 9 

i. if other, specify: 

j. Missing (omnibus) 9 

 

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. 
237

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

36. What is useful about state 

relationship? (circle all that apply) 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

a. Technical support 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Knowledge/information 1 2 6 7 9 

c. Emotional support 1 2 6 7 9 

d. Training 1 2 6 7 9 

e. Guidance (i.e. “next steps) 1 2 6 7 9 

f. materials 1 2 6 7 9 

g. financial resources 1 2 6 7 9 

h. Other: 1 2 6 7 9 

i. If other, specify: 

37. Any challenges or things NOT useful 

about state staff/relationship? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

 

38. If yes, specify:

39. What types of support would be most 

useful to council now? 

1=yes 

2=no 

6=can’t judge 

7=DK 

9=missing 

 

a. Technical support 1 2 6 7 9 

b. Knowledge 1 2 6 7 9 

c. Emotional support 1 2 6 7 9 

d. Training 1 2 6 7 9 

e. Guidance (i.e. “next steps”) 1 2 6 7 9 

f. Financial support 1 2 6 7 9 

g. Clear explication of coordinators 

role 

1 2 6 7 9 

h. Other: 1 2 6 7 9 

i. If other, specify: 

j. Don’t know 7 

k. Missing 9 

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. 
238

Variable Response 

Options 

Line 

Number

Definitions and 

comments 

40. Tensions indicated between 

collaboration and advocacy (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

41. Has council identified survivor safety 

as a goal (circle one)?

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

42. Has council identified batterer 

accountability as a goal (circle one)? 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

•Missing 9 

 

43. KI makes suggestions for 

improvement of FVCC process or 

structure. 

 

•Yes 1 

•No 0 

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. 
239

Appendix D 

IFVCC Subcommittee Member Survey Instrument 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council (IFVCC)

Subcommittee Member Survey

ID Number: ______________ 

Please respond to this survey regarding your perceptions and experiences with your council as a whole

rather than only one subcommittee or work group. In this survey, the use of the term council refers to 

your Circuit Family Violence Coordinating Council. 

Note that the term “intimate partner violence” is used specifically to refer to family violence perpetrated 

by one intimate partner (i.e., boyfriend, husband, etc.) against another. The term “family violence” is 

used to reference the broader umbrella that encompasses many forms of violence including, for example, 

intimate partner violence, child abuse, sibling abuse, etc. When responding to questions that discuss 

intimate partner violence, please respond thinking of this specific form of family violence in particular. 

1. To which circuit does your council belong? __________________________________________ 

2. What agency or group do you represent at council meetings? Please specify. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

3. To which count(ies) does the organization you represent provide services? 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

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. 
240

Your Participation

4. Are you currently a member of a family violence coordinating council (FVCC)? 

 Yes No 

 ⎥

 If NO: 

 1a. How many months ago did you stop being a member?______ 

 1b. For what reason(s) did you stop being a member? 

 _______________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 Please continue to the next question even if you answered NO.

5. When did you join this council? _______ Month ______ Year 

6. Please indicate the total number of FVCC committee meetings you attended over the past 12 

 months. If you were not part of a particular committee, please circle N/A (N/A = Not 

 Applicable). 

6a. How many full council meetings did you attend?....................................._____ N/A 

6b. How many FVCC sponsored symposia or workshops did you attend? _____ N/A 

6c. How many steering/planning committee meetings did you attend? ........_____ N/A 

6d. How many total subcommittee meetings did you attend? ........................_____ N/A 

 If you are/were a subcommittee member, to which subcommittee(s) do/did you belong? Please list. 

(a)_____________________________________ (f) ________________________________________ 

(b)_____________________________________ (g)________________________________________ 

(c)_____________________________________ (h)________________________________________ 

(d)_____________________________________ (i) ________________________________________ 

(e)_____________________________________ (j) ________________________________________ 

7. Is (or was) your participation in the council: (Please check one) 

 (a) _____ Voluntary and unpaid (not compensated by any source; not a representative of a 

particular agency) 

(b) _____ Voluntary, but part of your job for an agency or organization 

(c) _____ Mandated as part of your job for an agency or organization 

(d) _____ As a direct employee of the council (e.g., paid staff or coordinator) 

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. 
241

8. In the past 12 months, to what extent did you engage in the following activities with or for the 

FVCC? 

 

How often do (or did) you EVER: (please circle) 

a. Attend any FVCC meetings (e.g., steering, 

subcommittee, full)? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

b. Talk at meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

c. Did work for the council outside of meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

d. Help organize activities other than meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

e. Work on the implementation of a program or policy 

recommended or designed by the FVCC? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

f. Make effort in your “home” organization to change 

policies, procedures or practices in the response to 

intimate partner violence? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

g. Attend FVCC educational events (workshops, 

symposia)? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

h. Chair the entire council? YES NO N/A 

i. Chair a subcommittee? YES NO N/A 

j. Chair a steering/planning committee? YES NO N/A 

k. Did you engage in any other kinds of activities not mentioned here? 

 If YES, please describe your other activities: 

_______________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________ 

YES NO N/A 

9. Family Violence Councils often have members who come from many different community 

sectors, such as law enforcement, education, etc. What community sector do you come from or 

represent at council meetings? (Please check the sector you primarily represent at meetings). 

(a) _____ Business (k) _____ Higher Education 

(b) _____ Batterers’ Intervention Programs (l) _____ Human Services 

(c) _____ Child Welfare Agencies (m) _____ Justice Systems/Courts 

(d) _____ Civic/Volunteer Organizations (n) _____ Law Enforcement 

(e) _____ Community/Neighborhood Group (o) _____ Local Government 

(f) _____ Cooperative Extension (p) _____ Preschool/K-12 Education 

(g) _____ Cultural/Ethnic Group (q) _____ Religious Organizations 

(h) _____ Domestic Violence 

Service/Providers/Advocates 

(r) _____ Media 

(i) _____ Domestic Violence Survivors (s) _____ Youth Members 

(j) _____ Health Services (t) _____ Other (please specify) 

10. Do you have authority to make decisions on behalf of your organization or group at council 

meetings? Please check one: 

 (a)_____ Yes 

 (b)_____ Only with approval from others in my organization 

 (c)_____ Only with approval of my board or membership 

 (d)_____ No 

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. 
242

Council Partners

11. In the chart that follows on the next page, please provide responses to the set of questions in the top row for each m

the far left column. Write in the number that best corresponds to your experience with each agency in the approskip the row for your own agency. Further, if you have NO knowledge of, contact with or opinions about a particul

check mark in the first column of the appropriate row and go to the next organization.

A. Please use the following definitions to determine how frequently you have interacted with each agency. 

Exchanging Information: Refers to any exchange of information, including, but not limited to information about intimate partner violence, community 

services, and specific cases/clients that you have had with each agency listed. Referrals: Making a referral refers to any time you refer someone to the particular agency listed either directly by calling that agency or indirectly by 

that agency’s contact information. Receiving a referral refers to any time you were contacted by an individual who was directed to your services by th

B. We are also interested in how council membership has affected your knowledge of and relationships with each age

practices within each agency. For each agency, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot) indicate the extent to which council 

opinion - has affected a) your understanding of each agency listed, b) the quality of your relationship with each agency listeprocedure in each agency listed, and d) practices in each agency listed. Practices refer to the actual behavior of organizationor may not match stated or written policies and procedures. (You may indicate 7 if you “don’t know”) C. Finally, we are interested in your general impressions of each agency. Please indicate your agreement from 1 (stron(strongly agree) regarding the extent to which the agency listed can be relied upon to respond adequately to intimate partnecommitted partner in the FVCC collaboration. (You may indicate 7 if you “don’t know”). While FVCCs address many aspects of family violence, we are interested in the degree to which issues surrounding the rpartner violence have been addressed. Thus, please respond to the following table thinking about intimate partner violence

Sample Table (begin completing the table on the following page) 

If you have NOknowledge of, contact with or opinions about a particular organization place a check mark in the appropriate row and go to the next organization. 

A.On average, in the last year, how often have you... 

1 = Never 2 = Once/year 3 = Twice/year 4 = Monthly 5 = Weekly 

 6 = Almost Daily

B. To what degree has membership in the Council ... 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = Somewhat 4 = A lot 7 = Don’t know

 Exchanged 

information with... 

Made a referral to... 

Received a referral from... 

Improved your understanding of... 

Improved your relationship with... 

Changed policy and procedure within... 

Changed the practices of... 

Sample Agency 3 4 6 1 2 1 1 

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. 
243

If you have NO

knowledge of, contact with or opinions about a particular organization place a check mark in the appropriate row and go to the next organization. 

A. On average, in the last year, how often have you... 

1 = Never 2 = Once/year 3 = Twice/year 4 = Monthly 5 = Weekly 

 6 = Almost Daily

B. To what degree has membership in the Council ... 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = Somewhat 4 = A lot 7 = Don’t know 

Exchanged information with... 

Made a referral to... 

Received a referral from... 

Improved your understanding of... 

Improved your relationship with... 

Changed policy and procedure within... 

Changed the practices of... 

Domestic Violence Shelter Batterer’s intervention program Sheriff’s office City police County police State police Office of the State’s Attorney Circuit court District court Circuit Clerk Probation 

Note: A unique network roster was created for each Circuit including all relevant agencies by county. 

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. 
244

Council Leadership

12. Below are several statements about leadership within councils. Circle the number to the right 

that indicates your agreement with each statement regarding council leadership. “Council 

leadership” refers to the official chair or co-chairs of your council. “Committee leadership” 

refers to the chair or co-chairs of subcommittees. Council coordinator refers to the paid staff of 

your FVCC. 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree Somewhat 

Disagree 

Somewhat 

Agree 

Agree Strongly 

Agree 

a. Council leadership is committed to the 

council’s mission. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Council leader(s) provide leadership and 

guidance in maintaining the council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Council leader(s) have appropriate time to 

devote to the council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Council leader(s) promote equality and 

collaboration among members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Committee leader(s) plan meetings 

effectively and efficiently. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Committee leader(s) have knowledge in the 

area of intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Committee leader(s) are flexible in accepting 

different viewpoints. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Committee leader(s) is/are adept in 

organizational and communication skills. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Committee leader(s) are competent in 

negotiating, solving problems and resolving 

conflict. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. Committee leader(s) are adept in obtaining 

resources. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. Committee leader(s) value members’ input. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. Our council coordinator plays a vital role in 

organizing the IFVCC in our circuit. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. The council coordinator facilitates 

communication across FVCC participants. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. The council coordinator supports the 

council’s goals. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
245

Council Dynamics

13. Below are several statements about how your council functions. Circle the number to the right 

that indicates the extent to which this characterizes your council. 

 Not at 

All 

A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. The input of all active council members 

influences the decisions the council makes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. The council does not move forward with 

decisions or actions until all input is heard. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. General membership has real decisionmaking control over the policies and action 

of the council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d.. Council decisions are dominated by a few 

members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. My input influences the decisions the 

council makes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. My stance for or against an issue can sway 

the council in that direction. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. There are differences in opinion among 

council members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Disagreements among council members 

are often resolved by compromise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Disagreements among council members 

have led to effective problem solving. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. When disagreements arise the council 

ignores it. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. Differing opinions among council 

members have created opportunities for open 

discussion among council members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. The council has avoided addressing diverse 

viewpoints represented on the council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. When faced with conflict or 

disagreements council members ‘agree to 

disagree.’ 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. My council’s mission is shared and 

supported by all council members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

o. Council members have a shared vision 

regarding what changes are needed in the 

community response to intimate partner 

violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

p. The council has experienced conflict. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

q. When planning goals and activities, the 

council considers their ultimate impact on 

survivor safety. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

r. Every decision the council makes is made 

in light of its impact on survivor safety. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
246

Council Impact

14. We are interested in your perceptions of the extent to which your IFVCC has contributed to 

change in a variety of areas. We recognize that not all councils address all areas. Below are 

statements describing the impact or outcomes that your FVCC may have had on your 

community. Rate the extent to which each statement characterizes the impact or outcomes that 

have resulted from the work of your FVCC. Keep in mind that no one will have access to the 

data about your FVCC in particular. Please be candid in your responses. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Led to improved communication among 

FVCC partners. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Increased members’ knowledge of 

options available for victims/survivors of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Led to increased safety for intimate 

partner violence victims. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Led to increased accountability for 

intimate partner violence abusers. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Resulted in changes in policy or 

practice that will improve the response to 

intimate partner violence in this 

community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Led to increased knowledge among 

council members of various agencies’ 

policies and procedures in cases of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Resulted in increased knowledge about 

intimate partner violence among council 

members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Built trust among FVCC partners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Increased coordination among member 

agencies. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. Increased members’ respect for each 

other’s work. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. Increased members’ knowledge of 

other members’ roles and limitations. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. Increased survivors’ access to needed 

community resources (e.g., housing, 

shelter, financial assistance, legal aid, 

etc.) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. Addressed shortcomings in practices 

in community organizations regarding 

their response to intimate partner 

violence (e.g. police, probation, 

prosecution, domestic violence shelters). 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. Led to a better educated public 

regarding family violence 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
247

14. Continued. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

o. Resulted in overcoming “turf wars” or 

territoriality between organizations that 

respond to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

p. Led to council members gaining new 

perspectives on how to effectively 

address intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

q. Stimulated policy changes within my 

organization regarding our response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

r. Led to organizations responding to 

intimate partner violence accomplishing 

more than they could have on their own. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

s. Resulted in organizations working 

together to generate creative solutions to 

ending intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

t. Improved the criminal justice system’s 

ability to enforce meaningful sanctions 

for batterers. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

u. Solutions to intimate partner violence 

have been generated that connect 

multiple services, programs, or systems. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

15. Now, think about the impact of participating in the FVCC on you in particular. Indicate the 

degree to which each statement characterizes your experience. 

As a result of participation in the FVCC: 

Not at 

All 

A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. I have more control over policies and 

practices affecting intimate partner violence 

survivors in my community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect intimate partner 

violence survivor safety. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect batterer 

accountability. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. I have become more knowledgeable about 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. I am more aware of what issues need to be 

addressed to combat intimate partner 

violence in our community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
248

16. Indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize the communities in which 

your FVCC works. 

 Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Our Circuit has champions for change 

in the community response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Powerful stakeholders (e.g., judges, 

government officials) have a 

commitment to holding batterers 

accountable. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Our Circuit has adequate resources to 

improve the systems response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Local leaders are committed to 

increasing survivor safety in our Circuit. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

17. Indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize the organization which you 

represent. 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. My organization has a strong 

commitment to reforming its policies, 

protocols and practices in the response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. My organization provides necessary 

resources and support for front line staff 

to engage in best practices in the 

response to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. My organization removes barriers to 

engaging in best practices in the response 

to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Leaders in my organization convey a 

commitment to creating the best possible 

response to intimate partner violence to 

employees. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Staff in my organization have the 

knowledge and skills to respond 

effectively to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Leaders in my organization pay 

attention to the extent to which staff are 

implementing desired practices in the 

response to intimate partner violence and 

take action to correct inadequate 

responses. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
249

18. Are there other collaborative efforts addressing family violence in your community? 

YES NO Don’t Know 

19. Do you belong to any other collaborative efforts addressing family violence?..............YES NO 

 If YES, how many? __________________. 

20. To what extent does the effort of your Circuit FVCC address issues important to your 

community (i.e., your local county), in particular? Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

21. In your opinion, to what extent is the FVCC able to meet the needs of each of the following types 

of geographic communities: 

 Not at 

all 

A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

a. Rural 1 2 3 4 

b. Suburban 1 2 3 4 

c. Urban 1 2 3 4 

 

22. To what extent have the perspectives and priorities of intimate partner violence survivors been 

incorporated into council efforts. (LPS – a). Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

23. Family violence coordinating councils address many forms of family violence. Indicate the 

percent of council effort spent addressing each of the following forms of family violence. Your 

total percent should add to 100. 

_______ Adolescent Assault of Parents 

_______ Child Abuse 

_______ Elder Abuse 

_______ Intimate Partner Violence 

_______ Sibling Abuse 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

 100% Total 

Continue on the next page.

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. 
250

24. Please indicate the extent to which your council engaged in the activities listed below regarding 

intimate partner violence (IPV), in particular. 

Activities: To what extent has the FVCC... Not at all A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

a. Discussed issues related to the community response to 

intimate partner violence (e.g., best practices to promote 

victim safety) 

1 2 3 4 

b. Shared information (e.g., regarding programs, grants) 1 2 3 4 

c. Identified weaknesses in the systems response to IPV 1 2 3 4 

d. Provided training to improve the community response 

to IPV 

1 2 3 4 

e. Engaged in public education efforts regarding IPV 1 2 3 4 

f. Lobbied or reached out to nonmember stakeholders to 

improve their response to IPV 

1 2 3 4 

25. In what ways do you view your FVCC as improving the community response to intimate partner 

violence, in particular? 

26. In what ways do you view your FVCC as “falling short” of improving the community response 

to intimate partner violence? 

27. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about your experience of working with 

your Circuit FVCC? 

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. 
251

Background Information 

Please respond to the items below. Your responses will be held in the strictest confidence. For each 

question, please circle the appropriate response. 

B1. AGE B4. RACE/ETHNICITY 

 

 (1) under 20 (1) African-American/Black 

 (2) 20 to 29 (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 

 (3) 30 to 39 (3) Hispanic/Latino 

 (4) 40 to 49 (4) Native American 

 (5) 50 to 59 (5) White/Caucasian 

 (6) 60 or over (6) Other: ________________ 

 

B2. GENDER B5. YEARS WORKING ON FAMILY VIOLENCE ISSUES

 

 (1) female (1) 6 months or less 

 (2) male (2) 7-12 months 

 (3) other: _________________________ (3) 13 months to 2 years 

 (4) 2.1 years to 4 years 

B3. ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE (5) 4.1 years to 6 years 

 (Circle one) (6) 6.1 years to 10 years 

 (7) 10.1 years to 15 years 

 (1) Social Services Case Worker (8) more than 15 years 

 (2) DCFS Case Worker 

 (3) Clergy 

 (4) Domestic Violence Service 

 Provider 

B6. Have you attended any training regarding family 

violence issues? 

 (5) Judge 

 (6) Nurse (1) YES (0) NO 

 (7) Police Officer 

 (8) Probation Officer If YES, approximately how many hours of family 

violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 (9) Prosecuting Attorney 

 (10) Psychologist B7. Have you attended any training regarding intimate 

partner violence issues, in particular? 

 (11) Social Worker 

 (12) School Administrator (1) YES (0) NO 

 (13) Teacher 

 (14) Other _______________________ If YES, approximately how many hours of intimate 

partner violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! 

We may contact council members in the future to complete a second similar survey to examine change over time and to better 

understand the impact of councils. You are not obligated to participate in the future. If you do not wish for us to contact you

at all for a future survey, please check here: ____. 

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. 
252

Appendix E 

IFVCC Non-Committee Member Survey Instrument 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council (IFVCC)

NON-Subcommittee Member Survey

ID Number: ______________ 

Please respond to this survey regarding your perceptions and experiences with your council as a whole

rather than only one subcommittee or work group. In this survey, the use of the term council refers to 

your Circuit Family Violence Coordinating Council. 

Note that the term “intimate partner violence” is used specifically to refer to family violence perpetrated 

by one intimate partner (i.e., boyfriend, husband, etc.) against another. The term “family violence” is 

used to reference the broader umbrella that encompasses many forms of violence including, for example, 

intimate partner violence, child abuse, sibling abuse, etc. When responding to questions that discuss 

intimate partner violence, please respond thinking of this specific form of family violence in particular. 

2. To which circuit does your council belong? __________________________________________ 

2. What agency or group do you represent at council meetings? Please specify. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

3. To which count(ies) does the organization you represent provide services? 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

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. 
253

Your Participation

4. Are you currently a member of a family violence coordinating council (FVCC)? 

 Yes No 

 ⎥

 If NO: 

 1a. How many months ago did you stop being a member?______ 

 1b. For what reason(s) did you stop being a member? 

 _______________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 Please continue to the next question even if you answered NO.

5. When did you join this council? _______ Month ______ Year 

6. Please indicate the total number of FVCC committee meetings you attended over the past 12 

 months. If you were not part of a particular committee, please circle N/A (N/A = Not 

 Applicable). 

6a. How many full council meetings did you attend?....................................._____ N/A 

6b. How many FVCC sponsored symposia or workshops did you attend? _____ N/A 

6c. How many steering/planning committee meetings did you attend? ........_____ N/A 

6d. How many total subcommittee meetings did you attend? ........................_____ N/A 

 If you are/were a subcommittee member, to which subcommittee(s) do/did you belong? Please list. 

(a)_____________________________________ (f) ________________________________________ 

(b)_____________________________________ (g)________________________________________ 

(c)_____________________________________ (h)________________________________________ 

(d)_____________________________________ (i) ________________________________________ 

(e)_____________________________________ (j) ________________________________________ 

7. Is (or was) your participation in the council: (Please check one) 

 (a) _____ Voluntary and unpaid (not compensated by any source; not a representative of a 

particular agency) 

(b) _____ Voluntary, but part of your job for an agency or organization 

(c) _____ Mandated as part of your job for an agency or organization 

(d) _____ As a direct employee of the council (e.g., paid staff or coordinator) 

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. 
254

8. In the past 12 months, to what extent did you engage in the following activities with or for the 

FVCC? 

 

How often do (or did) you EVER: (please circle) 

a. Attend any FVCC meetings (e.g., steering, 

subcommittee, full)? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

b. Talk at meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

c. Do work for the council outside of meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

d. Help organize activities other than meetings? Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

e. Work on the implementation of a program or policy 

recommended or designed by the FVCC? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

f. Make effort in your “home” organization to change 

policies, procedures or practices in the response to 

intimate partner violence? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

g. Attend FVCC educational events (workshops, 

symposia)? 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

h. Chair the entire council? YES NO N/A 

g. Chair a subcommittee? YES NO N/A 

i. Chair a steering/planning committee? YES NO N/A 

j. Did you engage in any other kinds of activities not mentioned here? 

 If YES, please describe your other activities: 

_______________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________ 

YES NO N/A 

9. Family Violence Councils often have members who come from many different community 

sectors, such as law enforcement, education, etc. What community sector do you come from or 

represent at council meetings? (Please check the sector you primarily represent at meetings). 

(a) _____ Business (k) _____ Higher Education 

(b) _____ Batterers’ Intervention Programs (l) _____ Human Services 

(c) _____ Child Welfare Agencies (m) _____ Justice Systems/Courts 

(d) _____ Civic/Volunteer Organizations (n) _____ Law Enforcement 

(e) _____ Community/Neighborhood Group (o) _____ Local Government 

(f) _____ Cooperative Extension (p) _____ Preschool/K-12 Education 

(g) _____ Cultural/Ethnic Group (q) _____ Religious Organizations 

(h) _____ Domestic Violence 

 Service Providers/Advocates 

(r) _____ Media 

(i) _____ Domestic Violence Survivors (s) _____ Youth Members 

(j) _____ Health Services (t) _____ Other (please specify) 

10. Do you have authority to make decisions on behalf of your organization or group at council 

meetings? Please check one: 

 (a)_____ Yes 

 (b)_____ Only with approval from others in my organization 

 (c)_____ Only with approval of my board or membership 

 (d)_____ No 

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. 
255

Council Partners

11. In the chart that follows on the next page, please provide responses to the set of questions in the top row for each m

the far left column. Write in the number that best corresponds to your experience with each agency in the approskip the row for your own agency. Further, if you have NO knowledge of, contact with or opinions about a particul

check mark in the first column of the appropriate row and go to the next organization.

While FVCCs address many aspects of family violence, we are interested in the degree to which issues surrounding the rpartner violence have been addressed. Thus, please respond to the following table thinking about intimate partner violence

Sample Table (begin completing the table on the following page) 

If you have NO knowledge 

of, contact with or opinions about a particular organization place a check mark in the appropriate row and go to the next organization. 

A.On average, in the last year, how often have you... 

1 = Never 2 = Once/year 3 = Twice/year 4 = Monthly 5 = Weekly 

 6 = Almost Daily

B. Overall, what is your perception o

1 = Strongly disagree2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly agree 

 7 = Don’t know 

Had any contact with (including exchange of information and making and/or receiving referrals)...? 

Can be relied upon to respond adequat

Sample Agency 3 

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. 
256

If you have NO knowledge 

of, contact with or opinions about a particular organization place a check mark in the appropriate row and go to the next organization. 

A. On average, in the last year, how often have you... 

1 = Never 2 = Once/year 3 = Twice/year 4 = Monthly 5 = Weekly 

 6 = Almost Daily

B. Overall, what is your perce

1 = Strongly disagree2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly agree 

 7 = Don’t know 

Had any contact with (including exchange of information and making and/or receiving referrals)...? 

Can be relied upon to respond apartner violence. 

Domestic Violence Shelter Batterer’s intervention program Sheriff’s office City police County police State police Office of the State’s Attorney or prosecutor Circuit court District court Circuit Clerk’s Office Probation/ Parole 

Note: A unique network roster was created for each Circuit including all relevant agencies by county. 

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. 
257

Council Impact

21. We are interested in your perceptions of the extent to which your IFVCC has contributed to change in a 

variety of areas. We recognize that not all councils address all areas. Below are statements describing 

the impact or outcomes that your FVCC may have had on your community. Rate the extent to which 

each statement characterizes the impact or outcomes that have resulted from the work of your FVCC. 

Keep in mind that no one will have access to the data about your FVCC in particular. Please be candid 

in your responses. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Led to improved communication among 

FVCC partners. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Increased members’ knowledge of 

options available for victims/survivors of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Led to increased safety for intimate 

partner violence victims. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Led to increased accountability for 

intimate partner violence abusers. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Resulted in changes in policy or 

practice that will improve the response to 

intimate partner violence in this 

community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Led to increased knowledge among 

council members of various agencies’ 

policies and procedures in cases of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Resulted in increased knowledge about 

intimate partner violence among council 

members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Built trust among FVCC partners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. increased coordination among member 

agencies. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. increased members’ respect for each 

other’s work. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. increased members’ knowledge of 

other members’ roles and limitations. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. Resulted in agencies working together 

more efficiently. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. addressed shortcomings in practices 

in community organizations regarding 

their response to intimate partner 

violence (e.g. police, probation, 

prosecution, domestic violence shelters). 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. Led to increased public education 

regarding family violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
258

Continued. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

o. Resulted in overcoming “turf wars” or 

territoriality between organizations that 

respond to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

p. Led to council members gaining new 

perspectives on how to effectively 

address intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

q. stimulated policy changes within my 

organization regarding our response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

r. Led to organizations responding to 

intimate partner violence accomplishing 

more than they could have on their own. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

s. Resulted in organizations working 

together to generate creative solutions to 

ending intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

t. Resulted in a better understanding of 

how to best address intimate partner 

violence in our Circuit, in particular. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

u. Solutions to intimate partner violence 

have been generated that connect 

multiple services, programs, or systems. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

22. Now, think about the impact of participating in the FVCC on you in particular. Indicate the degree to 

which each statement characterizes your experience. 

As a result of participation in the FVCC: 

Not at 

All 

A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. I have more control over policies and 

practices affecting intimate partner violence 

survivors in my community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect intimate partner 

violence survivor safety. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect batterer 

accountability. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. I have become more knowledgeable about 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. I am more aware of what issues need to be 

addressed to combat intimate partner 

violence in our community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
259

23. Indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize the communities in which your 

FVCC works. 

 Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Our Circuit has champions for change 

in the community response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Powerful stakeholders (e.g., judges, 

government officials) have a 

commitment to holding batterers 

accountable. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Our Circuit has adequate resources to 

improve the systems response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Local leaders are committed to 

increasing survivor safety in our Circuit. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

24. Indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize the organization which you represent. 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. My organization has a strong 

commitment to reforming its policies, 

protocols and practices in the response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. My organization provides necessary 

resources and support for front line staff 

to engage in best practices in the 

response to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. My organization removes barriers to 

engaging in best practices in the response 

to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Leaders in my organization convey a 

commitment to creating the best possible 

response to intimate partner violence to 

employees. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Staff in my organization have the 

knowledge and skills to respond 

effectively to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Leaders in my organization pay 

attention to the extent to which staff are 

implementing desired practices in the 

response to intimate partner violence and 

take action to correct inadequate 

responses. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
260

25. Are there other collaborative efforts addressing family violence in your community? 

YES NO Don’t Know 

26. Do you belong to any other collaborative efforts addressing family violence?..............YES NO 

 If YES, how many? __________________. 

27. To what extent does the effort of your Circuit FVCC address issues important to your community (i.e., 

your local county), in particular? Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

21. In your opinion, to what extent is the FVCC able to meet the needs of each of the following types of 

geographic communities: 

 Not at 

all 

A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

a. Rural 1 2 3 4 

b. Suburban 1 2 3 4 

c. Urban 1 2 3 4 

 

23. To what extent have the perspectives and priorities of intimate partner violence survivors been incorporated into 

council efforts. (LPS – a). Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

Continue on the next page.

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. 
261

24. In what ways do you view your FVCC as improving the community response to intimate partner 

violence, in particular? 

25. In what ways do you view your FVCC as “falling short” of improving the community response to 

intimate partner violence? 

26. What factors – if any – do you view as being barriers to your participation as a subcommittee member in 

your FVCC? 

27. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about your experience of working with your 

Circuit FVCC? 

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. 
262

Background Information 

Please respond to the items below. Your responses will be held in the strictest confidence. For each question, 

please circle the appropriate response. 

B1. AGE B4. RACE/ETHNICITY 

 

 (1) under 20 (1) African-American/Black 

 (2) 20 to 29 (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 

 (3) 30 to 39 (3) Hispanic/Latino 

 (4) 40 to 49 (4) Native American 

 (5) 50 to 59 (5) White/Caucasian 

 (6) 60 or over (6) Other: ________________ 

 

B2. GENDER B5. YEARS WORKING ON FAMILY VIOLENCE ISSUES

 

 (1) female (1) 6 months or less 

 (2) male (2) 7-12 months 

 (3) other: _________________________ (3) 13 months to 2 years 

 (4) 2.1 years to 4 years 

B3. ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE (5) 4.1 years to 6 years 

 (Circle one) (6) 6.1 years to 10 years 

 (7) 10.1 years to 15 years 

 (1) Social Services Case Worker (8) more than 15 years 

 (2) DCFS Case Worker 

 (3) Clergy 

 (4) Domestic Violence Service 

 Provider 

B6. Have you attended any training regarding family 

violence issues? 

 (5) Judge 

 (6) Nurse (1) YES (0) NO 

 (7) Police Officer 

 (8) Probation Officer If YES, approximately how many hours of family 

violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 (9) Prosecuting Attorney 

 (10) Psychologist B7. Have you attended any training regarding intimate 

partner violence issues, in particular? 

 (11) Social Worker 

 (12) School Administrator (1) YES (0) NO 

 (13) Teacher 

 (14) Other _______________________ If YES, approximately how many hours of intimate 

partner violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! 

We may contact council members in the future to complete a second similar survey to examine change over time and to better 

understand the impact of councils. You are not obligated to participate in the future. If you do not wish for us to contact you at all for a 

future survey, please check here: ____. 

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. 
263

Appendix F 

IFVCC Coordinator Survey Instrument 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council (IFVCC)

Key Informant Survey

ID Number: ______________ 

Please respond to this survey regarding your perceptions and experiences with your council as a whole rather 

than only one subcommittee or work group. In this survey, the use of the term council refers to your Circuit 

Family Violence Coordinating Council. 

Note that the term “intimate partner violence” is used specifically to refer to family violence perpetrated by one 

intimate partner (i.e., boyfriend, husband, etc.) against another. The term “family violence” is used to reference 

the broader umbrella that encompasses many forms of violence including, for example, intimate partner 

violence, child abuse, sibling abuse, etc. When responding to questions that discuss intimate partner violence, 

please respond thinking of this specific form of family violence in particular. 

Council Processes and Structure

3. To which circuit does your council belong? __________________________________________ 

4. When did you first become involved with the council? _______ Month ______ Year 

5. When did you become the coordinator of this council? _______ Month ______ Year 

6. For what reason(s) did you become coordinator of the council? 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________ 

7. To what degree does your council have adequate staff/volunteers to complete desired objectives? Would 

you say your council has ___________ staff/volunteers to complete desired objectives (circle one): 

a. Not at all adequate 

b. Somewhat adequate 

c. Adequate 

d. Very adequate 

8. Please circle the appropriate answer regarding the structure and processes of your council. 

Does your Council: 

a. Have a written agenda YES NO 

b. Record and distribute minutes YES NO 

c. Have bylaws/rules of operation? YES NO 

d. Have a mission statement in writing? YES NO 

e. Have goals and objectives in writing? YES NO 

f. Have regular meetings? YES NO 

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. 
264

g. Have organization chart? YES NO 

h. Have written job/role descriptions? YES NO 

i. Have a core planning group? YES NO 

j. Have established processes for decision making? YES NO 

 [If YES, specify type ________________________________________] 

k. Have established processes for problem solving and 

conflict resolution? YES NO 

l. Have established processes for resource allocation? YES NO 

m. Have established mechanisms for process and 

n. impact evaluation? YES NO 

o. Have a mechanism established for accountability 

 of members completing assignments in a timely manner? YES NO 

p. Have a mechanism in place to encourage accountability 

 among member organizations? YES NO 

q. Have a mechanism in place to encourage accountability among 

 non-member organizations in the community? YES NO 

r. Have a mechanism for new member orientation? YES NO 

s. Have a mechanism for training new and old members? YES NO 

t. Have a domestic violence survivor member? YES NO 

 If YES, how many __________? 

u. Have an advisory group made up of domestic survivors? YES NO 

v. Have subcommittees or workgroups? YES NO 

If YES, please fill out chart below: 

9. How frequently has your council used the following types of support from the state-level IFVCC staff? 

Type of support Very often Often Rarely Never 

1. Technical assistance. 1 2 3 4 

2. Training 1 2 3 4 

3. Financial resources 1 2 3 4 

4. Material resources (guidebooks, handouts, fliers, etc.) 1 2 3 4 

5. Information sharing 1 2 3 4 

6. Administrative support 1 2 3 4 

7. Emotional support 1 2 3 4 

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. 
265

Membership and Participation

8. Please circle the appropriate answers regarding the membership status and participation level for each of the following 

organizations. Active participation in the council means the organization is active in sponsored council activities that are 

not necessarily committee meetings. Active participation in a committee means the organization sends someone to 

committee meetings regularly . 

Organization Is this group currently 

an active participant of

the COUNCIL? 

Is this group 

currently 

represented in the 

Council Steering 

Committee? 

Is this group 

currently 

represented in the 

Council sub 

committee? 

Is this group 

currently an active 

participant in a 

COMMITTEE?

The representative from 

this group has decision 

making authority in their 

organization 

Batterer’s Intervention Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

DCFS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Circuit Court (Judge) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

District Court (Judge) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Domestic Violence 

Shelters/Service Providers 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Health Care Organizations Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Legal Aid Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Local Businesses Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Law Enforcement Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Mental Health 

Organizations 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Religious Organizations Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Probation Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Prosecuting Attorney’s 

Office - Prosecuting 

Attorney 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Prosecuting Attorney’s 

Office - 

Victim’s Rights Advocate 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

School Administrators/ 

Educators 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Social Services (e.g., FIA) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Humane Society Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Others: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

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. 
266

9. Please list all of your council’s committees and subcommittees, including steering/planning committee if 

applicable, and how often they meet: 

Committee Name How often committee meets 

 

10. How often does your FULL council meet? _________________________________________. 

11. Overall, what percent of the members of your council are in attendance at the average steering 

committee meeting? ____% 

12. Overall, what percent of the members of your council are in attendance at the average subcommittee 

meeting? ____% 

13. Overall, what percent of those invited attend full council meetings or symposia? _____% 

14. Are there any organizations or other community groups that you wish were represented on the council? 

These could be organizations that have refused to join or have not yet been asked to join. (Please circle) 

 YES NO 

If YES, who? (Please list) 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 Why do you wish they would join? ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

15. Since the council’s inception, are there any organizations or other community groups that were council 

members, but have since left or discontinued their participation? YES NO 

 If YES, who? (Please list) 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 Why did they leave? ____________________________________________________________ 

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. 
267

Goals and Accomplishments

16. We are interested in learning about the goals of your councils. We understand that not all councils will 

address all of these goals. Please indicate the extent to which your council has accomplished the 

following goals: 

Is/was this 

a change 

targeted 

by your 

council? 

To what extend did your 

council address these issues?

To what extent did your council 

facilitate needed changes in this 

area? 

Not 

at all 

A 

Little 

Some 

what 

Very 

Much 

Not at 

all 

A 

Little 

Some 

what 

Very 

Much 

a. improving access to 

personal protection orders 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

b. reforming arrest practices 

(e.g., adopting mandatory or 

pro arrest policies). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

c. reforming prosecution 

practices (e.g. encouraging 

evidence based prosecution). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

d. reforming the processing of 

court cases (i.e., speed of 

processing, notifying women 

about court cases; providing 

advocacy to women during 

trial). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

e. altering sentencing 

practices (e.g., extending 

minimum sentence; extending 

probation period; mandating 

batterers intervention). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

f. identifying weaknesses or 

‘holes’ in the criminal justice 

or human service delivery 

system (e.g., conducting a 

death review). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

g. developing or supporting 

batterer’s intervention 

program(s). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

h. implementing early 

identification policies in 

healthcare settings (e.g. 

emergency rooms; doctor’s 

offices). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

Continued on the next page...

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. 
268

i. providing training or 

community education 

regarding domestic violence. 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

j. making it easier for women 

to access needed community 

resources (e.g. housing, 

financial support, 

transportation). 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

k. developing new services 

for battered women and their 

children. 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

l. encouraging partnerships 

between child protective 

services and domestic 

violence advocates. 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

m. evaluating outcomes 

related to the council’s work. 

YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

Other: YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

Other: YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

Other: YES NO 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

17. Has your Council or another agency in your community gotten feedback or input from domestic 

violence survivors regarding your work? YES NO 

 If yes, how did you/they get this feedback from survivors? 

 ____________________________________________________________________ 

 ____________________________________________________________________ 

 ____________________________________________________________________ 

18. Thinking back to before the council began, on a scale from 1 to 6, 1 being not at all effective and 6 being 

very effective, how effective was your community’s response to domestic violence? _____________ 

Now, thinking about the time since your council’s inception, how effective is your community’s 

response to 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. 
269

Council Dynamics

19. Below are several statements about how your council functions. Circle the number to the 

right that indicates the extent to which this characterizes your council. 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. The input of all active council 

members influences the decisions the 

council makes. 

1 2 3 5 6 

b. The council does not move forward 

with decisions or actions until all input 

is heard. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. General membership has real 

decision-making control over the 

policies and action of the council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d.. Council decisions are dominated by 

a few members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. My input influences the decisions 

the council makes. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. My stance for or against an issue can 

sway the council in that direction. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. There are differences in opinion 

among council members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Disagreements among council 

members are often resolved by 

compromise. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Disagreements among council 

members have led to effective problem 

solving. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. When disagreements arise the 

council ignores it. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. Differing opinions among council 

members have created opportunities 

for open discussion among council 

members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. The council has avoided addressing 

diverse viewpoints represented on the 

council. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. When faced with conflict or 

disagreements council members ‘agree 

to disagree.’ 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. My council’s mission is shared and 

supported by all council members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

o. Council members have a shared 

vision regarding what changes are 

needed in the community response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

p. The council has experience conflict. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
270

Council Impact

20. We are interested in your perceptions of the extent to which your IFVCC has contributed 

to change in a variety of areas. We recognize that not all councils address all areas. 

Below are statements describing the impact or outcomes that your FVCC may have had 

on your community. Rate the extent to which each statement characterizes the impact or 

outcomes that have resulted from the work of your FVCC. Keep in mind that no one will 

have access to the data about your FVCC in particular. Please be candid in your 

responses. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Led to improved communication among 

FVCC partners. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Increased members’ knowledge of 

options available for victims/survivors of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Led to increased safety for intimate 

partner violence victims. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Led to increased accountability for 

intimate partner violence abusers. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Resulted in changes in policy or 

practice that will improve the response to 

intimate partner violence in this 

community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Led to increased knowledge among 

council members of various agencies’ 

policies and procedures in cases of 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Resulted in increased knowledge about 

intimate partner violence among council 

members. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Built trust among FVCC partners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. increased coordination among member 

agencies. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. increased members’ respect for each 

other’s work. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

k. increased members’ knowledge of 

other members’ roles and limitations. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

l. Resulted in agencies working together 

more efficiently. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

m. addressed shortcomings in practices 

in community organizations regarding 

their response to intimate partner 

violence (e.g. police, probation, 

prosecution, domestic violence shelters). 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

n. Led to increased public education 

regarding family violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
271

20. Continued. 

The Council’s efforts have: 

Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

o. Resulted in overcoming “turf wars” or 

territoriality between organizations that 

respond to intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

p. Led to council members gaining new 

perspectives on how to effectively 

address intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

q. stimulated policy changes within my 

organization regarding our response to 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

r. Led to organizations responding to 

intimate partner violence accomplishing 

more than they could have on their own. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

s. Resulted in organizations working 

together to generate creative solutions to 

ending intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

t. Resulted in a better understanding of 

how to best address intimate partner 

violence in our Circuit, in particular. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

u. Solutions to intimate partner violence 

have been generated that connect 

multiple services, programs, or systems. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

21. Now, think about the impact of participating in the FVCC on you in particular. Indicate 

the degree to which each statement characterizes your experience. 

As a result of participation in the FVCC: 

Not at 

All 

A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. I have more control over policies and 

practices affecting intimate partner violence 

survivors in my community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect intimate partner 

violence survivor safety. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. I have influenced decisions about policy 

and practice that will affect batterer 

accountability. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. I have become more knowledgeable about 

intimate partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. I am more aware of what issues need to be 

addressed to combat intimate partner 

violence in our community. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

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. 
272

22. Indicate the degree to which the following statements characterize the communities in 

which your FVCC works. 

 Not at All A little 

Bit 

Somewhat Quite a 

Bit 

Very 

Much 

To a 

Great 

Extent 

a. Our Circuit has champions for change 

in the community response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Powerful stakeholders (e.g., judges, 

government officials) have a 

commitment to holding batterers 

accountable. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Our Circuit has adequate resources to 

improve the systems response to intimate 

partner violence. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Local leaders are committed to 

increasing survivor safety in our Circuit. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

23. Are there other collaborative efforts addressing family violence in your community? 

YES NO Don’t Know 

24. Do you belong to any other collaborative efforts addressing family 

violence?..............YES NO 

 If YES, how many? __________________. 

25. What percentage of the effort of your FVCC addresses issues that are also addressed by 

other collaborative efforts (e.g. other councils, task forces) in your community (out of 

100%)? 

 ________________% 

Please Explain: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

26. To what extent does the effort of your Circuit FVCC address issues important to your 

community (i.e., your local county), in particular? Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

27. What type(s) of geographic communities does your council encompass? (circle all that 

apply): 

a. Rural 

b. Suburban 

c. Urban 

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. 
273

28. In your opinion, to what extent is the FVCC able to meet the needs of each of the 

following types of geographic communities: 

 Not at 

all 

A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

a. Rural 1 2 3 4 

b. Suburban 1 2 3 4 

c. Urban 1 2 3 4 

 

29. To what extent have the perspectives and priorities of intimate partner violence survivors 

have been incorporated into council efforts. Circle one. 

1 – Not at all 

2 – A little 

3 – Somewhat 

4 – Very much 

30. Family violence coordinating councils address many forms of family violence. Indicate 

the percent of council effort spent addressing each of the following forms of family 

violence. Your total percent should add to 100. 

_______ Adolescent Assault of Parents 

_______ Child Abuse 

_______ Elder Abuse 

_______ Intimate Partner Violence 

_______ Sibling Abuse 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

_______ Other: ____________________ (specify) 

 100% Total 

31. Please indicate the extent to which your council engaged in the activities listed below 

regarding intimate partner violence (IPV), in particular. 

Activities: To what extent has the FVCC... Not at 

all 

A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

a. Discussed issues related to the community 

response to intimate partner violence (e.g., best 

practices to promote victim safety) 

1 2 3 4 

b. Shared information (e.g., regarding programs, 

grants) 

1 2 3 4 

c. Identified weaknesses in the systems response to 

IPV 

1 2 3 4 

d. Provided training to improve the community 

response to IPV 

1 2 3 4 

e. Engaged in public education efforts regarding 

IPV 

1 2 3 4 

f. Lobbied or reached out to nonmember 

stakeholders to improve their response to IPV 

1 2 3 4 

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. 
274

32. Some circuits include many counties. Often, not all counties are equally targeted or 

involved in FVCC activities. To the best of your abilities, list all counties in your circuit 

and indicated the degree to which each county is targeted by the efforts of your circuit 

FVCC. 

To what extent does your FVCC target or involve the following counties? 

List Counties below: Not at 

all 

A little Somewhat Very 

Much 

1 2 3 4 

 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

 1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

 1 2 3 4 

... 1 2 3 4 

33. In what ways do you view your FVCC as improving the community response to intimate 

partner violence, in particular? 

34. In what ways do you view your FVCC as “falling short” of improving the community 

response to intimate partner violence? 

35. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about your experience of working 

with your Circuit FVCC? 

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. 
275

Background Information 

Please respond to the items below. Your responses will be held in the strictest confidence. For 

each question, please circle the appropriate response. 

B1. AGE B4. RACE/ETHNICITY 

 

 (1) under 20 (1) African-American/Black 

 (2) 20 to 29 (2) Asian/Pacific Islander 

 (3) 30 to 39 (3) Hispanic/Latino 

 (4) 40 to 49 (4) Native American 

 (5) 50 to 59 (5) White/Caucasian 

 (6) 60 or over (6) Other: ________________ 

 

B2. GENDER B5. YEARS WORKING ON FAMILY VIOLENCE ISSUES

 

 (1) female (1) 6 months or less 

 (2) male (2) 7-12 months 

 (3) other: _________________________ (3) 13 months to 2 years 

 (4) 2.1 years to 4 years 

B3. ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE (5) 4.1 years to 6 years 

 (Circle one) (6) 6.1 years to 10 years 

 (7) 10.1 years to 15 years 

 (1) Social Services Case Worker (8) more than 15 years 

 (2) DCFS Case Worker 

 (3) Clergy 

 (4) Domestic Violence Service 

 Provider 

B6. Have you attended any training regarding family 

violence issues? 

 (5) Judge 

 (6) Nurse (1) YES (0) NO 

 (7) Police Officer 

 (8) Probation Officer If YES, approximately how many hours of family 

violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 (9) Prosecuting Attorney 

 (10) Psychologist B7. Have you attended any training regarding intimate 

partner violence issues, in particular? 

 (11) Social Worker 

 (12) School Administrator (1) YES (0) NO 

 (13) Teacher 

 (14) Other _______________________ If YES, approximately how many hours of intimate 

partner violence training have you had? 

________________ 

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! 

We may contact council members in the future to complete a second similar survey to examine change over time 

and to better understand the impact of councils. You are not obligated to participate in the future. If you do not wish 

for us to contact you at all for a future survey, please check here: ____. 

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. 
276

Appendix G 

IFVCC Case Study Key Informant Interview Instrument 

As you know, we are speaking with FVCC members and various individuals who have had some 

contact with the FVCC. In collaboration with State staff, we are conducting a research study on 

FVCC statewide as well collecting more in-depth information from a few exemplar councils. 

What you share today will not be linked to you specifically, but your perspectives will inform 

this research. 

I would like to audio tape the interview today if that is OK with you. This will help us accurately 

record your responses and review them later. The digital audio file and the resulting transcript of 

the file will not be shared with anyone other than research staff. 

Is audio taping OK with you? YES NO 

1. What do you view as the purpose of your FVCC? 

2. What do you view as the major goals of your FVCC? 

3. Can you describe your role in the council? How do you participate? 

4. What has your FVCC accomplished so far? What do you view as successes to date? 

Regarding facilitators/barriers probe specifically about: 

- Processes by which changes occurred (What lead to X? You mentioned X, then what 

happened? For what reasons did X lead to Y) 

- Community context (What influences outside of the council mattered?) 

- Organizational climate/commitment (What is the relevance of the action/inaction of 

specifics organizations? What steps, if any, were taken to ensure actual implementation 

of proposed protocols, policies, etc.?) 

5. What contributed to these accomplishments? What facilitated them? 

6. In what ways has your council fallen short of its goals/purpose so far? 

7. What barriers has your council faced? What if anything got in the way of 

accomplishing council goals? 

8. What, if anything, would you do differently? 

a. In terms of your own participation... 

b. Regarding the council as a whole... 

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. 
277

9. What would you keep the same? What was a key ingredient that you would not alter? 

10. What advice would you give to others participating in councils such as the FVCC? 

11. What would you like to learn about your local FVCC from the case study? What 

questions do you have? What initiatives/efforts do you think have been most 

important? 

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. 
278

Appendix H 

Focus Group Protocol for Domestic Violence Survivors 

[Please note that this is an open-ended protocol. Major questions are included here, but probes 

and clarifying questions may be added as they relate to the major questions. The questions may 

also be asked out of order or not at all depending on the flow and trajectory of the discussion that 

ensues.] 

General Probes to be used throughout: 

You mentioned [ISSUE], can you say more about this? 

You talked about [EXPERIENCE], is there a specific example of a time that happened that you 

can provide? 

In what ways has [PARTICULAR EXPERIENCE] happened in the past? 

Section A: General Experiences 

I’d like to begin with a very general question: What have your experiences with community 

resources been like as you have tried to get assistance with abuse in your lives? 

Probes: 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section B: Shelter/Domestic Violence Programs 

I want to get a little more specific. Have any of you stayed in a shelter or accessed services from 

a domestic violence program? What has this been like for you? 

Probes: 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section C: Orders of Protection 

Many women who have had an abusive partner are seeking orders of protection, have any of you 

done so? What has this been like for you? 

Probes: 

How easy was it to get the order (if community with electronic orders as about this in 

particular)? 

Who, if anyone, helped? 

How has having the order changed anything for the better? For the worse? 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

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. 
279

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section D: Police Response 

Have any of you come into contact with the police because of the abuse? 

Probes: 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section E: Human Service/Health Care 

Many times women try to get help from general resources like human service or social service 

agencies or health care. Have any of you interacted with these kinds of resources? 

Probes: 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section F: Other Resources 

Before I move on to another section, are there any other resources you want to mention, like 

faith-based settings or anyone else? 

Probes: 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

Section G: Councils/Coordination 

a. Many communities are trying to coordinate their efforts to provide a better response to 

domestic violence. That means they are trying to work together. When you think about responses 

you have experienced, have you noticed any ways that agencies have worked together? 

Probes: 

How did they work together? 

What did you notice? 

What have you found particularly helpful? 

What have you found unhelpful or even harmful? 

What has been the most essential for contributing to your safety? 

b. Have you heard of the Family Violence Coordinating Council? 

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. 
280

Probes: 

If yes, how did you hear about it? 

What do you think it does? 

Have you ever heard about an event it sponsors? 

Have you ever attended one? 

c. From your experience, where would you like to see more coordination or working together? 

Section H: Future Directions 

I have just a few more questions. You have mentioned many ways that the community response 

has been helpful and ways that it could be improved. 

a. What would you recommend continue just like it is? 

b. What would you recommend change? And how would you change it? What would you like to 

see in the future? 

Thank you again for your time. I am going to ask you to complete a short survey that should 

take no more than 15 minutes. You are free to skip items. Once you are done you are free to go. 

Thanks again. 

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. 
281

Appendix I 

IFVCC Focus Group Survey Instrument for Survivors 

Short Survey 

Please provide some information about yourself. 

1. Age: _____ 

2. Gender (Please circle one): M F 

3. Race/Ethnicity (please check one): 

a. _____ African-American 

b. _____ Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander 

c. _____ Caucasian 

d. _____ Hispanic/Latino 

e. _____ Native American 

f. _____ Biracial 

g. _____ Other (please specify): _____________ 

4. In which County do you live? _____________________ 

5. On a scale of 1 to 4, how helpful have the following local community resources been? You can also 

indicate you had no contact with that type of resource by checking the first column. 

 Never 

Had 

Contact 

Not at 

all 

helpful 

Somewhat 

Helpful 

Helpful Very 

Helpful 

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 1 2 3 4 

Health Care Organizations 1 2 3 4 

Human or Social Services Agencies 1 2 3 4 

Orders of Protection 1 2 3 4 

Police Response 1 2 3 4 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of abuser) 1 2 3 4 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, mosques or 

synagogues) 

 1 2 3 4 

Other: _____________ 1 2 3 4 

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. 
282

6. Now, specifically think of your safety including, your physical safety or how safe you feel. On a scale 

of 1 to 4, how helpful have the following local community resources been in making you more safe? 

 Never 

Had 

Contact 

Not at 

all 

helpful 

Somewhat 

Helpful 

Helpful Very 

Helpful 

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 1 2 3 4 

Health Care Organizations 1 2 3 4 

Human or Social Services Agencies 1 2 3 4 

Orders of Protection 1 2 3 4 

Police Response 1 2 3 4 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of abuser) 1 2 3 4 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, mosques or 

synagogues) 

 1 2 3 4 

Other: _____________ 1 2 3 4 

7. Sometimes when women come into contact with community resources they feel things get better 

regarding abuse but other times they do not notice a change or even think things get worse. Consider 

whether each of the following resources made things worse, no change or better. 

 Never 

Had 

Contact 

Made 

Things 

Worse

Made 

No 

Change 

Made 

Things 

Better

Shelter or Domestic Violence Programs 1 2 3 

Health Care Organizations 1 2 3 

Human or Social Services Agencies 1 2 3 

Orders of Protection 1 2 3 

Police Response 1 2 3 

Court Response (e.g., prosecution of abuser) 1 2 3 

Faith-based Settings (e.g., churches, mosques or 

synagogues) 

 1 2 3 

Other: _____________ 1 2 3 

8. Indicate when you first started contacting community resources for help with abuse (circle one): 

a. Within the past month 

b. Within the past six months 

c. About a year ago 

d. 2 to 4 years ago 

e. 4 to 6 years ago 

f. 7 to 10 years ago 

g. More than 10 years ago 

9. Please feel free to add anything else you would like to share: 

Thank you for your time and participation. 

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. 
283

Appendix J 

IFVCC Archives Coding Instrument 

FVCC Archival Analysis 

Coding Categories 

 

*For every question the source of the response was specified (e.g., Circuit X, Annual Report 

Quarter 1, 2000). 

**II = Insufficient Information 

 

1. Circuit ID Number 

2. Year 

3. Coded By 

4. Number of Members in council 

5. Were new members recruited this year? NO YES II** 

6. Number of counties the circuit serves 

7. Number of committees in council 

8. What types of committees are there in 

the council? 

Planning 

Steering 

Law Enforcement 

Judicial 

Interfaith 

Health 

Helping Services 

Schools 

County 

Elder Abuse 

Youth 

Other (please specify) 

9. Are there special interest 

subcommittees? 

NO YES II** 

10. Were any committees canceled this 

year? 

NO YES II** 

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. 
284

11. What agencies does the council feel 

need to get more involved? 

Domestic Violence Shelter 

Batterers intervention 

Law Enforcement 

State Attorney's Office 

Circuit Court 

District Court 

Clerk's Office 

Probation/Parole 

Human Service 

DCFS 

Schools 

Religious Institutions 

Health care Agencies 

Public Health 

Business/Employers 

Humane Society 

Higher Education 

Physicians 

Mental Health 

Insufficient information to answer 

Other (please specify) 

12. How often does the full council meet? Monthly 

Bimonthly 

Trimonthly 

Quarterly 

Biannually 

Annually 

As needed 

Insufficient information to answer 

13. How often does the planning committee 

meet? 

Weekly 

Monthly 

Bimonthly 

Trimonthly 

Quarterly 

Biannually 

Annually 

As needed 

Insufficient information to answer 

14. How often do other committees meet? Weekly 

Monthly 

Bimonthly 

Trimonthly 

Quarterly 

Biannually 

Annually 

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. 
285

As needed 

Insufficient information to answer 

15. How often do individual counties meet? Weekly 

Monthly 

Bimonthly 

Trimonthly 

Quarterly 

Biannually 

Annually 

As needed 

Insufficient information to answer 

16. Did the council sponsor training/ 

educational events this year? 

NO YES II** 

17. How many training/educational events 

did the council sponsor? 

18. How many events did the council 

collaborate in? 

19. Which Stakeholders was 

training/educational event 1 aimed at? 

(Note – the same question was asked 

for trainings 2 – 20)

Domestic Violence Shelter 

Batterers Intervention Program 

Law Enforcement 

State Attorney's Office 

Circuit Court 

District Court 

Clerk's Office 

Probation/Parole 

Human Service 

DCFS 

Schools 

Religious Institutions 

Healthcare Agencies 

Public Health 

Business/Employers 

Humane Society 

Higher Education 

Physicians 

Mental Health 

Other (please specify) 

20. What was the content of the 

training/educational event 1? 1

21. What was the date of 

training/educational event 1?

22. What was the date of 

training/educational event 1 

 

1

 The same set of questions was asked about training/educational events 2 to 20 (depending on 

how many had been held in a given Circuit in a given year). 

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. 
286

23. How many participants were at 

training/educational 1?

24. Does the council engage in media 

outreach? 

NO YES II** 

25. How many agencies are in the council's 

media outreach list? 

26. What type of agencies are in the 

council's media outreach list? 

Television 

Radio 

Newspaper 

News magazine 

Popular magazine 

Other (please specify) 

27. Has the council developed/distributed 

products to enhance response to 

domestic violence? 

NO YES II** 

28. How many materials/products has the 

council developed/distributed? 

29. What is the content of product 1?2 

30. What type of material is product 1? Pamphlet/Brochure (short literature) 

Poster 

Video 

Protocol 

Card 

Flyer 

Packet 

Manual 

Other (please specify) 

31. Does the council have goals for a given 

year? 

NO YES II** 

32. Does each committee have goals for the 

year? 

NO YES II** 

33. Does the council have a method for 

evaluation by its members? 

NO YES II** 

34. Does the council evaluate its impact and 

success? 

NO YES II** 

35. Has the council produced changes in 

policy/practices this year? 

NO YES II** 

36. What changes did they produce in 

policy/practices? 

37. Has the council been part of a statewide 

initiative? 

 

 

2

 The same set of questions was asked about council “products” 2 to 5 (depending on how many 

different products had been produced in a given Circuit in a given year). 

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. 
287

Appendix K 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Council Mission Statement 

Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils 

Purpose Statement 

The purpose of the Family Violence Coordinating Councils, at both the state and local/circuit level, 

is to establish a forum to improve the institutional, professional and community response to family 

violence including child abuse, domestic abuse, and elder abuse; to engage in education and 

prevention; the coordination of intervention and services for victims and perpetrators; and, to 

contribute to the improvement of the legal system and the administration of justice. 

Guiding Principles 

The Family Violence Coordinating Councils, at both the state and local/circuit level: 

• Address child abuse, domestic abuse, and elder abuse. 

• Include those agencies providing services for both victims and perpetrators to ensure 

a balanced, comprehensive response. 

• Promote a Coordinated Community Response through service integration, problem 

solving, relationship building, and protocol development. Support the broad array of 

non-criminal justice community responses to family violence in order to effect change at the 

societal level. Participating organizations represent community agencies, court system, 

criminal justice system, health systems and service providers. 

• Provide a forum and act as catalyst for relationship building that in turn leads to 

systems change. By providing a network that is multi-disciplinary, diverse and inclusive, 

the local councils provide the networking opportunity to build trust, cooperation and respect 

that is key to making institutional improvement, thus creating a better response to family 

violence. 

• Provide a process that allows the councils to evolve as experience is gained. 

• Recognize that judicial leadership is paramount to the effectiveness of the councils. 

Judicial leadership with oversight of the Judicial Ethics Committee helps ensure that the 

entire system is represented. 

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. 
288

The Local Family Violence Coordinating Councils: 

• Determine direction based on the local needs of communities, available resources, 

and input from the state level council. Depends on the foundation and leadership of the 

steering committees for the state and local councils and the continued technical assistance 

and connection to IFVCC staff. 

• Provide training to insure that critical services, the criminal justice system and court 

officials are involved. The system response, the community, and the councils are mutually 

strengthened by their interactions. 

Decisions on projects, full council meetings and the overall direction of the Illinois 

Family Violence Coordinating Councils are based on emerging trends and research by 

state staff, input from the steering committee, and from the experiences and questions of 

the local councils.

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.