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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Practical Implications of Current Domestic 

Violence Research 

Part III: Judges 

Author: Andrew R. Klein 

Document No.: 222321 

Date Received: April 2008 

Award Number: 2007 M-07032 

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

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

traditional paper copies. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Practical Implications of Current 

Domestic Violence Research 

Part III: Judges 

Andrew R. Klein 

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

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

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

the United States Department of Justice. 

National Institute of Justice Program Manager – Bernard Auchter 

 Bernie.Auchter@USDOJ.GOV - April 2008 

 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

Part III: Judges 

Andrew R. Klein 

Preface 

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

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

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

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

judges. 

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

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

unmarried, with or without children. 

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

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

several studies of women seeking hospital emergency room treatment for injuries 

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

medical community, these studies underscore victim characteristics found in criminal 

justice related research suggesting how representative the latter research is. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to state court data tapes of thousands of cases. 

While some research findings may be questionable because researchers employed less 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1

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

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

Interactions: A Failure to Replicate the Gottman et. al. (1995) Typology, Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 409-414.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the research has not yet been replicated. 

Note to Judges: 

 

While the following research and its implications are designed to address issues of 

concern to judges, judges wear different hats. Some of the research has implications for 

judges in their administrative role and other for their magisterial roles in criminal and 

civil courts. Obviously in the former role, judges need not be the same neutral arbiters 

they are in the latter. And, of course, once an abuser has been convicted, judges’ 

concerns necessarily broaden to include many victim-related issues. 

In regard to the judges’ magisterial role in civil courts, the research mostly addresses 

issues relating to civil protective orders. The research reviewed does not directly 

address judges’ roles in juvenile, divorce, and custody courts, other than addressing 

what is known about abusers, their victims, and domestic abuse in 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.
4

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

for Judges 

Table of Contents 

1. How widespread is the problem? 

How wide spread is nonfatal domestic violence? 

 What percent of police calls are for domestic violence? 

 How widespread is stalking? 

 How widespread are intimate sexual assaults? 

 How widespread is fatal domestic violence? 

 How widespread is multiple domestic violence victimization? 

II. What domestic violence actually reaches courts? 

 When do victims report? 

Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

 Are there other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

 Which domestic violence offenses are generally reported to law 

 enforcement and prosecuted? 

III. Should arrest be encouraged? 

 What should the response be when the suspect is brought in on an 

 arrest or court default warrant? 

Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

IV. Who are the Perpetrators? 

What is their gender?

What age are they? 

Are they likely already known to the criminal justice system? 

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

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

Do abusers stick with one victim? 

 

V. Who are their victims? 

Are victim characteristics important factors in assessing abuse 

 likelihood? 

 Is victim substance abuse associated with victimization? 

 Why do some victims behave as they do? 

 Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5

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

Are abusers at risk for committing new non-domestic violence 

 crimes, too?

When will abusers reabuse? 

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

Is gender important? 

Is age important? 

Is prior arrest history important? 

Is substance abuse important?

Are victims accurate predictors of reabuse? 

 Are there other common risk factors associated with reabuse? 

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

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

How critical are firearms? 

What are other lethality risk markers? 

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

IX. Does prosecuting and sentencing domestic violence offenders deter 

reabuse? 

 Should judges follow victim preferences in terms of fashioning 

 sentences? 

X. Will aggressive prosecution and sentencing increase the demand for 

trials? 

Do victims want their abusers prosecuted/sentenced? 

 Why do a minority of victims oppose prosecution? 

 Is victim fear of prosecution well founded? 

XI. What are appropriate sentences for convicted batterers?

What are current abuser sentencing practices? 

What accounts for dispositions? 

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

 than those that do? 

Can “first” offenders be safely diverted/discharged? 

 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6

XII. Do batterer intervention programs prevent reabuse?

Does the type or length of batterer intervention programs make a 

 difference? 

Do couples counseling or anger management treatment programs 

 prevent reabuse? 

 Does alcohol and drug treatment prevent reabuse? 

 Are court referred batterers likely to complete batterer programs? 

 Do batterer program completers do better than those who fail? 

Can batterer program attendance be enhanced by court 

 monitoring? 

Which batterers are likely to fail to attend mandated batterer 

 treatment? 

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

What should the judge’s response be if court referred abusers are 

 noncompliant with programs? 

What should the judge’s response be to abusers who reoffend while 

 enrolled in a batterer program or after completion? 

 What effect do batterer program referrals have on victims? 

XIII. Civil Protective Orders 

Who obtains civil protective orders? 

 When and why do victims ask for orders?

How many abusers violate court protective orders? 

 Do Protective Orders Work? 

Does Judicial Demeanor Make a Difference? 

XIV. Do Specialized Domestic Violence Courts Work? 

What makes specialized domestic violence courts different? 

Do enhanced domestic violence dispositions require enhanced postdisposition court time and resources? 

Does the type of post-dispositional monitoring matter? 

Does probation supervision of abusers reduce likelihood of reabuse? 

 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

I. How widespread is the problem? 

 How widespread is nonfatal domestic violence: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

those who were together.3

 Victimization rates vary among different subpopulations. The highest reported 

rates are for Native American women.4 

What percent of police calls are for domestic violence? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

chargeable index or other criminal offenses.6

 In San Diego, approximately 25% of calls 

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

 

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

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

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

domestic violence calls, arresting and prosecuting alleged offenders, judges must 

commit sufficient resources and attention to assure domestic violence cases are 

handled efficiently and effectively. 

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

and prosecution studies.

 

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice, NCJ 215916. 

6 Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: Evaluation of the Mandatory Arrest Provisions, 

Final Report, (2001) Albany, NY: Division of Criminal Justice Services and Office for the Prevention of Domestic 

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

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

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

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8

 How widespread is stalking? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

be stalked by strangers (36%) and acquaintances (34%).8

 Further, research suggests a 

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

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

prior to their murders by the stalkers.9 

Implications: Whether specifically charged or not, it is important for judges to 

correctly identify stalking behavior and recognize its significance in order to afford 

victims maximum protection against potentially lethal abusers. 

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

confirmed in other stalking studies.

 How widespread are intimate sexual assaults? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

restraining order.12

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

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

prosecution. Evidence of sexual assaults should be taken into account when judges 

 

8

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

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

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

Victims, 5(4), 236., 9

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

(4):300-316. 

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

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

Justice, NCJ 11678. 

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

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9

consider abuser risk and victim vulnerability in terms of bail decisions, issuance of 

protective orders and sentencing abusers after pleas or convictions. 

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

regions.

 How widespread is fatal domestic violence? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

approaching that for married or divorced couples. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

committed suicide.14

 

Implications: To reduce female homicides generally, judges must give priority to the 

protection of female intimates. Reduction of female intimate homicides will also 

reduce collateral homicides of children, other family members, and responding law 

enforcement officers as well as abuser suicides.

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

 How widespread is multiple domestic violence victimization? 

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

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

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

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

substantial overlap between physical and sexual victimization.16

 

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

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

Violence Fatality Review, Seattle, WA: Washington Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 15 Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. 

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

Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ199708., 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Implications: Although called upon to respond to discrete criminal charges, judges 

must insist they receive sufficient information to reveal any pattern of systemic, 

abusive behaviors in order to accurately understand victim vulnerability. 

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

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

students attend.

II. What domestic violence actually reaches courts? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reporting them to law enforcement. 

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

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

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

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

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

 Comparing hundreds of actual police domestic violence incident reports with 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incident actually reported.19 

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

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

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

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

 

17 Catalano, S. (2007). 18Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 19 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

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

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

Justice, NCJ 210301. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications: Judges typically see only a small minority of domestic violence cases 

that actually occur. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies across the country based on victim surveys, police 

arrest records, and court cases.

 

When do victims report? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assaults.26 

Implications: Judges should not assume that the civil petition or criminal case 

before them represents isolated, unique behaviors on the part of the involved 

parties, particularly the abuser. While this assumption may not be relevant until 

after the specific petition or case has been decided, it must be considered in terms of 

fashioning remedies/sanctions. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 25 Buzawa, et. al. (1999). 26 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

studies agree that battering likely to come to the attention of the criminal justice system 

represents repeated activity.

 

Are there are other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

 Unlike most crimes, there are parallel tracks for victim reporting domestic 

violence. They can call law enforcement or they can petition courts directly for civil 

protective orders. In many jurisdictions, more victims report intimate assaults and related 

crimes to civil courts than to law enforcement.27 Research from both sides of the country, 

Massachusetts28 and the state of Washington,29 however, indicates that the abuse 

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

enforcement.

Implications: Notwithstanding the court arena, civil or criminal, the abuse reported 

is typically as serious in one as the other. The major differences are the responses 

courts can offer. 

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

data from multiple states.

 Which domestic violence offenses are generally reported to law 

enforcement and prosecuted? 

Notwithstanding varying number and types of crimes that constitute “domestic 

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

domestic violence cited in law enforcement incident reports are for assaults.30 Similarly, 

in terms of cases selected by prosecutors for prosecution, assaults predominate. A study 

of domestic violence prosecutions in California, Oregon, Nebraska and Washington, for 

example, found assaults formed from 59% to 81% of all prosecuted domestic violence 

cases.31

 

27 Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 28 Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in Understanding Domestic 

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

In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 29 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the Likelihood of Future Partner 

Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 30 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

182781 

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

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

The percentage of felony assaults varies widely reflecting specific state felony 

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

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

classified as felonies.32 However, most studies find much smaller percentages of felony 

assault charges, including 13.7% in Charlotte, N.C.33 to only 5.5% in Massachusetts34 as 

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

NVCS found simple assaults against female intimates to be almost five times greater than 

aggravated assaults in 2005. Most assaults (80.5%) do not involve weapons.35

 

Implications: Reducing assault charges to non-assault charges allows convicted 

abusers to retain firearms otherwise prohibited pursuant to federal law, 18 U.S.C. 

§922(g)(9), that prohibits abusers convicted of misdemeanor assaults from 

possessing firearms or ammunition. Qualifying offenses must include the use or 

attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. Judges 

can facilitate application of the federal prohibition by making specific findings of 

these necessary elements in the federal law. 

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

finding of national victim surveys, 1993 – 2004.

III. Should arrest be encouraged? 

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

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

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

partners.36 Another major study based on 2,564 partner assaults reported in the NCVS 

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

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

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

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

whether a misdemeanor or felony.37 

 A Berkeley arrest study found, for example, that action taken by responding 

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

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

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

 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 33 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

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

215916. 

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

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

181427. 

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

Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 36 Maxwell, C., Garner, J. and Fagan, J. (June, 2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New 

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

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 188199. 37 Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault.

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

officers left it to the victim to make a “citizen arrest,” swearing out a complaint herself.38

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

that victims’ will secure protective orders.39 Further, studies have found that police 

arrests over victims’ objections do not reduce likelihood of victims reporting new abuse 

to police.40 

Implications: Judges encourage the arrest of abusers by ensuring that domestic 

violence cases that reach court are heard and not dismissed out of hand. 

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

prosecutors on law enforcement arrest behavior has been found in studies that find proarrest departmental policies mitigate anti-arrest personal views of individual officers.41

What should the response be when the suspect is brought in on an 

arrest or court default warrant? 

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

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

them, including the issuance of warrants, is associated with reduced re-victimization.43 

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

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

 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 39 Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic 

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

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

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

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

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

Institute of Justice, NCJ 210362. 

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

Violence, Violence Against Women, 9,1318. 41 Feder, L.(1999). Police Handling of Domestic Violence Calls: An Overview and Further Investigation. In 

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

Press, 49-69. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781; 42 Smith, B., Davis, R., 

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

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

Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772.

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

Quarterly, 7, 631-653. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

criminal histories and higher reabuse rates than those arrested at the scene.44 Similarly, 

another single study also finds higher reabuse if the victim is gone when officers arrive.45 

 Decreasing defendant defaults may also be associated with reduced reabuse. A 

study of Cook County’s four misdemeanor domestic violence courts found, for example, 

that no show defendants had a significantly greater number of new arrests than those who 

showed in court, .778 compared to .456.46 

Implications: Judges should treat alleged abusers brought to court on warrants at 

least as seriously as those arrested at the scene, even if the defendant appeared 

“voluntarily” to clear up the warrant. 

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

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

 Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

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

retaliation or self defense.47 In Massachusetts, more than a third of the female victims 

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

(59.1%) of those who did found it made their abuser more violent.48 Further, a substantial 

number of victims will not self-disclose their victimization.49 Consequently, 

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

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

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

words, less than 4% of all intimate partner arrests were dual arrests.50

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

predominate aggressor is particularly problematic when the intimate partner violence 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

181427. 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 46 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

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

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

47 Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. 48 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427. 

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

Former Spouses, Boyfriends and Girlfriends. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-167237. 50 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

female victims and 3% with female offenders and male victims.51

Implications: In dual arrest cases, judges should insist prosecutors provide 

evidence that one of the parties was the primary or predominant aggressor and the 

other the victim. This may be particularly important as advocates caution that 

female victims who are arrested along with their abusers may nonetheless plead 

guilty in order to be able to return home to care for minor children. Further, it 

appears that law enforcement finds it particularly challenging to determine 

primary/predominant aggressor with same sex couples. 

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

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

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

police departments across the country.

IV. Who are the Perpetrators? 

What is their gender? 

 While sociological research beginning with a national survey based on selfreporting thirty years ago, 52 finds equal male and female partner “conflict,” including 

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

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

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

surveys.53 

 The rate of male perpetrators that come to the attention of the criminal justice 

system range from 86% for both restraining order petitioners across Massachusetts54 and 

those arrested for domestic violence in California55 to 92% of all defendants placed on 

probation for domestic violence across Rhode Island56 to 97.4% in California.57

Jurisdiction with higher numbers of female suspects and male victims usually include 

higher number of non-intimate family violence cases as opposed to intimate partner 

violence cases.58 

 

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

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

218287). 

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

NY: Doubleday. 

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 54 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 55 Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner 

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 56 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

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

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

215916. 

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Implications: If upon reviewing domestic violence dockets, judges find much higher 

rates of female on male abuse cases that that are typically found across the country 

as a whole, they should be alert to potential gender bias on the part of police and/or 

prosecutors and ensure that they are presented with sufficient evidence to confirm 

correct designation of victim and offender. 

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

justice system, including civil protective orders, as opposed to studies focusing on family 

conflict, youthful aggression and the like outside of the criminal justice system. 

What age are they? 

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

about 33 years, although they range in age from 13 to 81.59 A large West coast study of 

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

20 and 29 years old, and slightly more, 33.4%, were between 30 and 39 years old.60

Are they likely already known to the criminal justice system? 

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon61 to 89% for at least one prior non-violent misdemeanor arrest for misdemeanor 

domestic violence defendants arraigned in a Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court.62 Not only 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772; Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Abuse of Older 

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

National Institute of Justice (NCJ pending). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCJ 182781 

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

Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 61 Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic 

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

of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

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

Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

prior record, 41.8% for a violent crime.63 A study of the Cook County (Chicago) 

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

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

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

arrests.64

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

criminal histories, ranging from a little more than 70% in a Texas65 to 80% in 

Massachusetts.66

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

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

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

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

incident reports.67 

Implications: Given the large overlap between domestic violence and general 

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

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

other concurrent criminal justice involvement. Conversely, in sentencing defendants 

for other crimes, judges should look for concurrent domestic violence that may be 

pending or previously prosecuted. 

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

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

enforcement and court practices and resources.

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

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

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

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

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

families as daily substance abusers for the prior month.68 Other studies have substantial 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 66 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 67 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic 

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

Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

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

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 000172. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

involved in 38% of the domestic violence incident arrests.69 Interviews with more than 

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

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

average of almost seven drinks resulting in more than half (58%) being drunk.70

 A domestic violence fatality review study in New Mexico documented that 

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

and 1996, 43% alcohol and 22% drugs.71

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

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

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

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

higher on days the men were drinking than on days of no drinking.72

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

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

it may be a necessary ingredient. 

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

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

types? 

 Batterers are no more likely to be mentally ill than the general population.73

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

“pitbulls” and silent “cobras”74 to “dysphoric/borderline” and “generally avoidance and 

anti-social,”75 attempts to utilize these classifications to predict risk of reabuse have 

proven unhelpful.76 However, researchers agree that batterers differ markedly.77 While 

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

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

“cobras.”78 Other research suggests that batterers can be classified as low, moderate and 

 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 70 Hutchison, I. (1999). The Influence of Alcohol and Drugs on Women’s Utilization of the Police for Domestic 

Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX-0047, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179277. 71 Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of the New Mexico Female 

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

Education, University of New Mexico School of Medicine. 

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

Consumption: A Longitudinal Diary Study. Journal of Consulting Psychology 71 (1), 41-52. 73 Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who Repeatedly Reassault: Psychopathic 

Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 361-380. 74 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 75 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally Violent: Scientific and 

Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 76 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in 

Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 77 Saunders, D.G.(1994). A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis, American 

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

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

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

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 567-572. 78 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

high and that, contrary to common beliefs, batterers remain within these categories.79

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

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

high level abusers, unlikely to respond to treatment.80

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

mental health counseling. 

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

battering propensity based on personality types or mental illnesses although multiple 

observational studies reveal different patterns of behaviors among batterers.

 Do abusers stick with one victim? 

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

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

members simultaneously.81 The Rhode Island probation study, for example, found that in 

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

for a new crime of domestic violence abused a different partner or family member.82 The 

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

almost half (43%) had two or more victims over six years.83 This confirms an earlier 

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

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

the subsequent six years.84

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

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

they tend to be younger, and not married to their partners.85

Implications: In fashioning protective orders or criminal sanctions, judges must be 

concerned with future as well as immediate intimate victims even if the immediate 

victims are no longer available to the abusers. 

 

79 Cavanaugh, M. & Gelles, R. (2005). The Utility of Male Domestic Violence Typologies, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 20 (2), 155-166. 80 Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704; 

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

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128. 81 Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in Understanding Domestic 

Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5). 82 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

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

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

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 84 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 85 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation; Klein, A., Wilson, D., 

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

Probationers. BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 

2002-WG-BX-0011. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

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

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

abusers.

 

V. Who are their victims? 

 

Are victim characteristics and actions relevant factors in assessing 

abuse likelihood? 

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

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

and age, have generally not been found to be associated with likelihood of abuse.86 For 

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

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

pregnancy.87

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

reabused as those who remain with them.88 Those who maintain civil restraining orders 

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

who drop them.89 Only one study90 comparing women with orders and those without, 

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

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

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

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

dropping a protective order, may all result in reabuse. In issuing orders, judges 

should advise victims of order limitations. 

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

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

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

subsequent section.

 

 Is victim substance abuse associated with victimization? 

 

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

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

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

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 87 Weiss, H., Lawrence, B., & Miller, T. (2004). Pregnancy-Associated Assault Hospitalizations: Prevalence and Risk 

of Hospitalized Assaults Against Women During Pregnancy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998-WTVX-0V16, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199706.. 88 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

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

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

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

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX0011. 

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

Police-reported Violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(5), 589-594. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

victimization.91 In the most dramatic findings, victims or (their families) reported in the 

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

day of their assault.92 The New Mexico fatality review study documented that a third of 

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

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

their system.93Among women treated in emergency rooms for injuries caused by their 

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

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

for, victim substance abuse is not associated with increased risk of violence.94 Another 

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

other injured women in an emergency room to test positive for substance abuse.95

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

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

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

with men who were high or binge drinkers.96 

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

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

abuse trauma.97 

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

continued abuse. If evidence of a victim’s drug use is offered, judges should conduct 

a hearing to determine if the evidence related to a victim’s “bad” character, 

including substance abuse, should be excluded if it does not directly relate to the 

abuse incident prosecuted and/or the victim’s ability to perceive or remember the 

incident. 

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

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

between November 1995 and May 1996. 

 Why do some victims behave as they do? 

 

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 92 Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, Research Review. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 000172. 93 Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of the New Mexico Female 

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

Education, University of New Mexico School of Medicine. 

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

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

1898. 

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

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

Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 96 Hutchison, I. (1999). The Influence of Alcohol and Drugs on Women’s Utilization of the Police for Domestic 

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346., 106A 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

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

trauma.98 Studies have found up to 88% of battered women in shelters suffer from Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).99 Other studies have found up to 72% suffer 

depression100 and 75% anxiety.101A meta-analysis across multiple samples of battered 

women found a weighted mean prevalence of 48% for depression and 64% for PTSD.102 

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

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

injured and treated in hospitals who were not injured by a partner.103 

 Research also suggests that some victims of intimate partner abuse have 

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

children.104 Such prior victimization has been found to be associated with greater risk of 

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

physical, sexual and stalking abuse.105 In short, some of the adult victims who suffer the 

greatest abuse may be the least able to protect themselves. 

Implications: Judges should be prepared to allow appropriate expert witnesses to 

educate juries as necessary to explain problematic or counter-intuitive victim 

behavior as a result of abuse related trauma. 

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

although many studies use samples likely to include the most severely abused victims 

such as shelters.

 Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

 

98 Albucher R. & Liberzon, I. (2002), Journal of Psychiatric Research 36(6):355-367;,Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, 

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

of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 99 Arias, I. & Pape, K. (Spring, 1999). Psychological Abuse: Implications for Adjustment and Commitment to Leave 

Violent Partner, Violence and Victims 14 (1): 55-67. 100 Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic Abused Women.

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 101 Gleason, W. (1993). Mental Disorders in Battered Women: An Empirical Study. Violence and Victims, 8 (1), 53-68. 102 Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: A Meta-analysis. 

Journal of Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 103 Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, R., Anderson, 

E., Shaw, L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries Among Women in an Urban Area. New 

England Journal of Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930., Macmillan, R. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2005). Patterns of 

Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 

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

Court: A Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services; Buzawa, E., 

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

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

NCJ 181427. 

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

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

NCJ 208346. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Research on domestic violence victims brought to the attention of law 

enforcement and the courts find male victims differ substantially from female victims.106

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

victims than females suspects, 26% compared to 44.4%.107

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

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

killers.108 Several treatises suggest that the abuse experienced by male victims by female 

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

intimates.109

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

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

been found to be inappropriate for these defendants.110

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

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

male. Judges should be sensitive to this fact in issuing protective orders or 

fashioning sentences for such defendants. Typical batterer intervention programs 

may not be indicated for females convicted of an isolated abuse incident. 

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

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

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

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

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

regarding the prior status of male homicide victims as abusers. The analysis of batterer 

programs for court referred female defendants is based on limited qualitative research 

which focused on content relevance based on defendant abuse histories.

 

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 107 Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence 

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

215916. 

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

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

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

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

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

Kill,, Violence and Victims, 5 (4), 236. 

109 Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York, N.Y.: Oxford 

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

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

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

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

Violence, Violence Against Women, 12 (1), 89-115. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

violence offense.111 A half dozen batterer program studies published between 1988 and 

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

range from 26 to 41% within five to 30 months.112 Five studied published between 1985 

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

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

60%.113 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

threatened..114 Similarly, in a Bronx domestic court study, while only 14 to 15% percent 

 

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

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

Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

112 Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violence, 3, 121-130 113 Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 114 Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment 

Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing 

Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011 National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731; Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling 

for Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WTNX-0008 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

of defendants convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or violations were rearrested 

after one year, victims reported reabuse of 48%.115

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

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

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

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

to four years between arrests.116 An equivalently high rearrest rate for domestic violence 

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

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

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

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

abusers over an average of five years.117 

Implications: Given the substantial risk for reabuse in the short run and even 

greater risk in the longer run, judges should fashion civil or criminal 

remedies/sanctions that maximize protection for current and/or future victims from 

the abuser. 

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

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

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

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

reabuse notwithstanding gaps of several years between initial and subsequent reported 

incidents.

Are abusers at risk for committing new non-domestic violence 

crimes, too? 

Given extensive prior criminal histories, abusers typically do not confine their reoffending to domestic violence alone. Studies concur that abusers are also likely to 

commit new non-domestic violence crimes in addition to domestic violence-related 

crimes. Two New York City studies, one in the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence 

Court and the other the Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court, found 58% rearrests 

for any crime within 30 months in the former from study arrest118 and 44% within two 

years in the latter.119 Most of the new arrests, based on the face of the complaints, were 

for non-domestic violence related crimes, such as drug possession and/or sale or property 

offenses. 

 

115 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? 

Violence Against Women, 14(2), 185-207. (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html) 116 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career 

Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14(2) 136-157; Wilson. D. & Klein, A. (2006). A Longitudinal 

Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned in a Massachusetts District Court 1995-2004. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004-WB-GX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215346. 117 Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain News. 118 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on 

Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

119 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of program outcome & recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor 

Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Similarly, while 51% of the Massachusetts abuser arrestees were rearrested for 

new domestic violence over ten years, 57% were rearrested for non-domestic violence, 

including 15% who were not also arrested for new domestic violence.120 Among Cook 

County domestic violence misdemeanants, 26.1% were arrested within 2.4 years on 

average for new domestic violence while 46.5% were arrested for any offense.121

It is not surprising that research from the National Youth Survey found that most 

men (76%) who engage in domestic violence report also engaging in one or more deviant 

acts concurrently, including illegal or socially proscribed behavior such as stealing or 

illicit drug use.122 Nor is abuser violence limited to their households. In Cook County 

(Chicago, Illinois), the majority of prosecuted misdemeanor domestic violence offenders 

(55.6%) were found to have been violent with others, in addition to their partners.123

Implications: Judges have power to not only protect victims and their children, but 

also reduce non-domestic offenses often committed by abusers. 

Research Basis: While multiple disparate studies document that abusers identified by the 

criminal justice system are likely to have nondomestic criminal histories, at least one 

study of non-arrested young married or cohabiting men also finds domestic violence and 

other deviant behavior were associated both concurrently and prospectively.

 

When will abusers reabuse? 

Studies agree that those abusers who re-offend, a majority do so relatively quickly 

although a minority may avoid arrests for new abuse for multiple years. In states where 

no-contact orders are automatically imposed after an arrest for domestic violence, rearrests for order violations begin to occur immediately upon the defendant’s release from 

the police station and/or court. For example, in both a Massachusetts Misdemeanor arrest 

study and a Brooklyn, New York, felony arrest study, the majority of defendants rearrested for new abuse were arrested while their initial abuse cases were still pending in 

court.124 The latter included a 16% arrest rate for violation of no contact orders and 14% 

for a new felony offense.125 Similarly, a little more than one-third of the domestic 

violence probationers in Rhode Island who were rearrested for domestic violence were 

re-arrested within two months of being placed under probation supervision. More than 

 

120 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career Criminals. Violence 

Against Women, 14(2) 136-157. 121 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 122 Norwood, W., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R. & Swank, P. (2004). Domestic Violence and Deviant 

Behavior, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

199713. 

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

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

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

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

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

181427; Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons 

on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 

125 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on 

Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0005 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28

half (60%) were arrested within six months.126 A multi-state study of abusers referred to 

batterer programs found that almost half of the men (44%) who re-assaulted their partners 

did so within three months after batterer program intake and two-thirds within six 

months. The men who re-assaulted within the first three months were more likely to 

repeatedly reassault their partners than the men who committed the first re-assault after 

the first three months.127 In the Bronx, similarly, re-offending happened early among 

those convicted for misdemeanor or domestic violence violations. Of those re-arrested for 

domestic violence, approximately two-thirds re-offended within the first six months.128

Implications: Arrest is only the first step in stopping abuse. If abusers are 

automatically released pending trial, the worst abusers will reabuse the most 

vulnerable victims. This reabuse may further inhibit subsequent victim cooperation 

with prosecutors resulting in subsequent dismissals for lack of prosecution. This in 

turn may further encourage abusers to continue their abuse. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies from disparate jurisdictions have all found relatively 

quick reabuse by those that reabuse within the first year or two. 

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

 The research consistently finds that the basic information usually available on 

most defendants provides as accurate a prediction of abuser risk to the victim as more 

extensive and time consuming investigations involving more sources, including clinical 

assessments.129 As a Bronx study on batterer treatment concluded, intensive individual 

assessments of attitudes or personality are not required to make reasonable judgments 

regarding abusers’ risk.130 

 Is gender important? 

 Of course, the most powerful predictor of risk is gender. All of the research 

concurs that males are more likely to reabuse than females.131 

 Is age important?

 

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

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

127 Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men Who Batter: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Family Violence, 

2 (2), 177-191; Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Program; Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. 

Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute. 

128 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. ( ) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? New 

York: Center for Court Innovation.

129 Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by Batterer Program Participants and Their 

Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197; Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s 

Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve 

Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24; Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate Partner 

Violence: The Current Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing Offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-

198. 

130 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor 

Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. 131 See, e.g., Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx 

Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 Younger defendants are more likely to reabuse and recidivate than older 

defendants.132 This has been found true in studies of arrested abusers, batterers in 

treatment programs, as well as court restrained abusers.133 

 Is prior arrest history important? 

 If the abuser has just one prior arrest on his criminal record for any crime, not just 

domestic violence, he is more likely to reabuse than if he has no prior arrest.134 A multistate study of more than 3,000 police arrests found that offenders with a prior arrest 

record for any offense were over seven times more likely than those without prior records 

to be rearrested.135 I 

 The length of prior record is predictive of reabuse as well as general 

recidivism.136 In looking at all restrained male abusers over two years, Massachusetts 

research, for example, documented that if the restrained abuser had just one prior arrest 

for any offense on his criminal record, his reabuse rate of the same victim rose from 15 to 

25%; if he had five to six prior arrests, it rose to 50%.137 In the Rhode Island abuser 

 

132 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An 

Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

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

WG-BX-0011.; Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the 

Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation; Rempel, M., 

Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008) Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? Violence 

Against Women, 14(2), 185-207; Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case 

Conviction and Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center; Wordes, 

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

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

182781

133Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered 

Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by 

Batterer Program Participants and Their Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197; Wordes, M. (2000). 

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

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781; Macmillan, R. & 

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

Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 134 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court Referred 

Batterers in Four Cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; see 

also Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?

Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community 

Response to Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 135 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501 National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

136 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K. & Kane, K. (October 2001).Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Courts: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute. 137 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

probation study, abusers with one prior arrest for any crime were almost twice as likely to 

reabuse within the year compared to those with no prior arrest, 40% compared to 22.6%. 

And if they had more than one, reabuse increased to 73.3%.138

 Of course, prior civil or criminal records specifically for abuse also increase the 

likelihood for reabuse.139

 Related to the correlation between prior arrest history and reabuse, research also 

finds similar increased risk for reabuse if suspects are on warrants. In the Berkeley study, 

for example, researchers documented that having a pending warrant at time of the 

domestic violence incident for a prior non-domestic violence offense was a better 

predictor of reabuse than a prior domestic violence record alone.140 Similarly, in the one 

study that looked at it, suspects gone at arrival of police were twice as likely to reabuse as 

those found on the scene by police.141

 Similarly, one large state study found that if the suspect before the court for 

domestic violence is already on probation for anything else or another domestic violence 

case was also pending at the time of a subsequent arrest for domestic violence, that 

defendant was more likely than not to be arrested again for domestic violence within one 

year.

142

Implications: The absence of a prior domestic violence arrest is not as powerful a 

predictor of no reabuse as the absence of a prior arrest for anything. On the other 

hand, a prior record for any crime is as accurate a predictor of subsequent domestic 

violence as a prior record of domestic violence. Judges should understand that if an 

abuser has a prior record for any crime, he is a high risk domestic violence offender, 

not a low risk “first” offender. Judges should demand access to prior criminal and 

abuse histories before fashioning civil orders, making pretrial release decisions, or 

sentencing abusers. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions find both prior criminal 

history as well as prior domestic violence correlate with reabuse, although the power of 

prior domestic violence history may be less revealing if domestic violence arrest rates 

are low in that specific jurisdiction and vice versa. 

 

 

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

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 139 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427; Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. (2006). 

Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured DecisionMaking Model for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-

IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781. 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 141 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427. 

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

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 Is substance abuse important? 

Acute and chronic alcohol and drug use are well established risk factors.143 This 

also applies to domestic violence. Prior arrests for drug and alcohol also correlate with 

higher rates of reabuse.144 Just one prior arrest for any alcohol or drug offense (e.g. drunk 

driving, possession of a controlled substance), for example, doubled the reabuse rate from 

20% (no prior drug/alcohol arrest) to 40% (at least one arrest for drugs/alcohol) in a 

restraining order study over two years.145 

 Defendant alcohol and substance abuse, similarly, are predictive of reabuse and 

recidivism.146 The multi-state batterer program referral study found “heavy drinking” to 

be a significant predictor for reabuse. For the same reason, it found that abuser 

participation in drug treatment predicted repeated reassaults.147 Batterers who complete 

batterer intervention are three times more likely to reabuse if they are intoxicated at any 

three month interval.148 

 Multiple,149 but not all studies, 150 have found that abuser and/or victim abusing 

drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident to be a consistent risk marker. 

 

143 Hirschel, J.D. & Dawson, D. (2003). Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for Law Enforcement 

Officials, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-K001 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 198372; 

Wekerle, C. & Wall, A. (2002). The violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and clinical issues in substance abuse 

and relationship violence. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. 144 Goldkamp, J. (1996). The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and its Treatment: Dade County’s 

Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 145 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do 

Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 146 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) 

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

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

Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 

2002-WG-BX-0011.; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention in 

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

NCJ 182781 

147 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 148 Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction 

Training Program; Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and 

Victims, 16, 693-704; Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, 

PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute; Gondolf, E. (2000). A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court Referred Batterers 

in Four Cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128. 

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 149 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and 

Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501 National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355; Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat 

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

NCJ 210301; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic 

Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974.

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

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

181427. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

Implications: Seemingly unrelated, nonviolent offenses like drunk driving or drug 

possession that suggest substance abuse by the abuser should be considered as risk 

markers for continued abuse. Substance and alcohol abuse should be considered by 

judges in bail, sentencing and fashioning civil orders. 

Research Basis: Multiple disparate studies suggest that any disagreement regarding the 

relationship between domestic abuse and substance abuse has to do with whether or not 

substance abuse “causes” domestic violence, not that the correlation exists.

 

Are victims accurate predictors of reabuse? 

 Victim perception of risk has been found to be largely accurate.151 Victim 

perception of risk, for example, significantly improve the accuracy of prediction over 

other risk factors, increasing prediction sensitivity from 55 to 70% (Sensitivity is the 

proportion of true positives that are correctly identified by the test).152 

 However, researchers find that women’s perceptions have to be interpreted. 

Women who felt very safe were less likely to be repeatedly reassaulted than those that 

felt somewhat safe. But women who were uncertain or felt somewhat unsafe were more

likely to be reassaulted repeatedly than those who felt in much danger. The reason for this 

apparent contradiction is that women who felt in greatest danger took effective counter 

measures during the study. In other words, the research suggests that if women are not 

certain they will be safe, they err by giving the benefit of the doubt to their abuser. For 

these reasons, these researchers conclude the best predictions of repeated reassaults can 

be obtained by using risk markers, including women’s perceptions.153 The researchers 

concern over victim underassessment of risk is born out by a large study of more than 

1,000 women who sought protective orders or shelter or whose abusers were arrested in 

Los Angeles and New York City. Almost a quarter of these victims who thought their 

risk of reassault was low were, in fact, reassaulted within one year.154

 Victim perception of risk also affects their reaction to criminal justice 

intervention. Arrest study research finds that victims who were not re-victimized over 

two years were twice as likely to have opposed arrest over those who were revictimized. 

Those who thought police and court intervention did not go far enough were also 

accurate. Those who said police actions were too weak were three times more likely to 

 

151 DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). 

Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800; Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate 

Partner Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: 

Validation of Tools for Assessing Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0011 National Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731. 

152 Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in 

Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 153 DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). 

Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 154 Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment 

Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing 

Risk from Violent Intimate Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011 National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 209731. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

experience revictimization; those that said courts failed them were seven times more 

likely to experience revictimization.155 

Implications: Victim input should be an important part of any risk calculation. If 

victims are in doubt as to their safety, judges should assume the worst. 

Research Basis: Extensive examination of multiple domestic violence risk studies agree.

 Are there other common risk factors associated with reabuse? 

Several studies have found other consistent risk markers for reabuse, many 

associated with the variables described above. These include increased risk associated 

with abusers who flee the scene of a domestic,156 abusers who are unemployed,157

economically disadvantaged and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods,158 live in a 

household with firearms,159 and if the abuser is not the father of children in the 

household.160

Implications: Judges should review the status of the above variables for 

determination of risk to be used in bail hearings, sentencing and fashioning civil 

orders. 

Research Basis: These specific risk factors generally have been found in multiple studies 

as cited but may vary in relevance and power across jurisdictions.

 

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

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

181427. 

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

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

181427. 

157 Benson, M. & Fox, G. (2004). Concentrated Disadvantage, Economic Distress, and Violence Against Women in 

Intimate Relationships. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199709; 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. 

Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547; Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate 

Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of Low-Income Native American Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703.; Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated 

Community Response to Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final 

Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

179974.

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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 159 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 160 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). I Homicide, National Institute of Justice 

Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

Generally, the seriousness of the presenting incident does not predict reabuse, 

whether felony or misdemeanor, including whether there were injuries or not, or what the 

specific charge is.161 Abuser personality types have not been found to be associated with 

increased risk of reabuse.162 Actuarial data offer improvement over clinical data.163

Victim characteristics, including relationship with abuser, marital status and whether the 

parties are living together or separated, have not been found to predict reabuse.164 At 

least one study has found that victim cooperation does not predict recidivism.165

Implications: Charges should not be confused with criteria for determining future 

risk. Abusers charged with misdemeanors are as likely to be as dangerous as those 

charged with felonies. Although constrained by statute, judges should seek to 

minimize offender risk to the maximum extent allowed by law. 

Research Basis: Wide agreement among multiple studies across the nation involving 

different abuser populations.

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

 Prediction of lethality is much more difficult than predicting reabuse and 

recidivism because, fortunately, it is much rarer. Also, the risk of lethality may increase 

due to situational circumstances, as opposed to static abuser characteristics. Nonetheless, 

researchers have found some key factors that increase the likelihood of homicide and/or 

significant injuries. 

 How critical are firearms? 

 According to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, more female intimate 

partners are killed by firearms than all other means combined.166 Firearms in the 

household increase the odds of lethal as opposed to nonlethal violence 6.1 to 1. Women 

 

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

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

181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained

Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-

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

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.; Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. 

(2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New 

York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ); Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to 

Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 162 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 163 Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence: The Current Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing 

Offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 164Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427. 

165 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial 

Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ) 166 Paulkossi, L. (October 2001). Surveillance for Homicide among Intimate Partners-United States, 1991-1998,

Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries, 5, 1-16. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

who were previously threatened or assaulted with a firearm or other weapon are 20 times 

more likely to be murdered by their abuser than other women.167 Prior firearm use 

includes threats to shoot victim; cleaning, holding, or loading a gun during an argument; 

threatening to shoot a pet or a person the victim cares about; and shooting a gun during 

an argument.168

 A significant Massachusetts study of 31 men imprisoned for murdering their 

female partners willing to talk to researchers found that almost two-thirds of the guns 

used by men who shot their partners were illegal because the suspect had a prior abuse 

assault conviction or contemporary protective orders.169

Implications: One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal violence is to disarm 

abusers and keep them disarmed. Judges should take all steps possible to have 

firearms prohibitions enforced and refuse to approve alternative sanctions that 

preclude federal firearm prohibitions (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)). Victims in criminal 

cases should be advised to obtain protective orders if firearms cannot be removed 

through the criminal process (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) and vice versa. In 2007, in 

Weissenburger vs. Iowa District Court for Warren County, No. 47 / 05-0279, Filed 

October 26, 2007, the Iowa Supreme Court reminded judges they are legally 

obligated to enforce federal domestic violence firearm prohibitions notwithstanding 

contrary(or silent) state statutes. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies, national, state, and local, support this as does a state 

by state correlation between existence of restrictive gun laws for batterers, state 

registries to enforce them and lower domestic homicide rates.170

What are other lethality risk markers? 

Other lethality markers that multiply the odds of homicide five times or more over 

non-fatal abuse have been found in a national study to include: a) threats to kill (14.9); b) 

prior attempts to strangle (9.9); c) forced sex (7.6); d) escalating physical violence 

severity over time (5.2); and e) partner control over the victim’s daily activities (5.1).171

A Chicago study found death was more likely if the partner threatened or used a knife or 

 

167 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., 

Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of 

Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 168Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732; Rothman, E., Hemenway, 

D., Miller, M. & Azrel, D. (2004). Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners. (Winter 2005). Journal of the 

American Medical Women’s Association 60 (1). 

169 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN: 

Vanderbilt University Press. 

170 Vigdor, E.& Mercy, J. (2006). Do laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders 

Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide? Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 313-346. 171 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., 

J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). 

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097;Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., 

Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

gun; strangled his partner or grabbed her around her neck, and both were drunk.172

Research has also found that male abusers are more likely to kill if the children in the 

household are his partner’s by another man.173 

A series of interviews with 31 men imprisoned for partner murders revealed how 

quickly abusers turned lethal. Relationships with short courtships were much more likely 

to end in murder or attempted murder, and also to have quicker ends to the relationships 

than those following longer term courtships. Half of the murderers had relationships of 

no more than three months and almost a third, only one month.174

In terms of female murders of male partners, the research suggests abused women 

who killed their partners had experienced more severe and increasing violence over the 

prior year. They also had fewer resources, such as employment or high school education, 

and were in a long-term relationship.175

Implications: For judges to make safe decisions about bail, sentencing or fashioning 

civil orders, they must insist on appropriate information about prior activities 

including at least those associated with increased risk for lethality. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies have found similar risk factors for lethality. While all 

suffer from false positives, their consideration will avoid false negatives that prove 

deadly for victims.

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

While most domestic homicides appear to be purposeful, some may be the 

unintended result of severe abuse.176

Medical researchers have looked at severe injuries, those causing victims to seek 

hospital emergency room treatment. They have found alcohol abuse, drug use, 

intermittent employment or recent unemployment, and having less than high school 

education to distinguish partners of women seeking medical treatment from domestic 

violence injuries compared to partners of women seeking treatment for non-domestic 

violence injuries. In one study, researchers found 63.7% of the abusive partners were 

alcohol abusers, 36.7% abused drugs; a slight majority, 51.6%, was drinking at the time 

 

172 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732 173 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732, Campbell, J., Webster, 

D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. 

Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk Factors for 

Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health, 

93 (7), 1089-1097; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, 

National Institute of Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547. 174 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt 

University Press. 

175 Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women in Chicago. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732. 176 Adams, D. (2007). Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners. Nashville, TN: 

Vanderbilt University Press. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

of the assault, and 14.8% admitted to drug use at the time.177 A similar hospital study 

found cocaine use and prior arrests distinguished the violent partners from the nonviolent partners of women admitted to hospitals for treatment of injuries.178

Implications: Prior threats to kill, prior strangulation, stalking, and sexual assaults 

should be taken very seriously as well as drinking and drugging histories and 

current use in considering offender danger. 

Research Basis: Although not exact, repeated studies overlap with the same or similar 

risk factors for injury and lethality, including hospital studies (of severe injuries) of 

victims not necessarily involved in the criminal justice system.

IX. Does prosecuting and sentencing domestic violence offenders deter 

reabuse? 

The research is fairly consistent. Simply prosecuting without regard to the specific 

risk they pose, unlike arresting domestic violence defendants, does not deter further 

criminal abuse.179 The minority of abusers arrested who are low risk are unlikely to 

reabuse in the short run whether prosecuted or not. Alternatively, without the imposition 

of significant sanctions including incarceration, the majority of arrested abusers who are 

high risk will reabuse regardless of prosecution. 

 A study of a large number of arrests in three states, Connecticut, Idaho and 

Virginia, found that those who were prosecuted and convicted for domestic violence were

more likely to be rearrested than offenders who were not convicted. However, in this 

study, those prosecuted and convicted were significantly more likely to be higher risk 

offenders as measured by prior criminal history.180 

 A number of studies have found prosecution can reduce subsequent arrests and 

violence.181 The key to reduced reabuse may not be whether the case is prosecuted or 

 

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

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

1898. 

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

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

Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 

179 Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Friday, P., Lord, V., Exum, M. & Hartman, J. 

(2006). Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US 

Department of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916; Fagan, J., Friedman, 

E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). The National Family Violence Program: Final Evaluation Report, San 

Francisco, CA: URSA Institute; Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, 

J. (2000). Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The Role of 

Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department 

of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112, Gross, M., Cramer, E., Forte, J., 

Gordon, J., Kunkel, T. , & Moriarty, L. (2000). The impact of sentencing options on recidivism among 

domestic violence offenders: A case study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 301-312. 180 Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining the Prevalence, 

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

of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 181 Ford, D. and Regoli, J. (1992). The Prevention Impacts of Policies for Preventing Wife Batterers, in E. 

Buzawa & C. Buzawa, Eds, Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response, Westport, CN: 

Auburn Press; Tolman, R. & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated Community Interventions for Domestic 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

not, but the dispositions imposed. For example, a Toledo, Ohio misdemeanor court study 

found conviction was significantly associated with reduced rearrests for domestic 

violence one year following court disposition, even when controlling for batterers’ prior 

history of domestic violence arrests, age, gender, education, employment and marital 

status. The specific disposition, however, mattered. The more intrusive sentences, 

including jail, work release, electronic monitoring and/or probation, significantly reduced 

rearrest for domestic violence over the less intrusive sentences of fines or suspended 

sentences without probation. The difference was statistically significant with rearrests at 

23.3% for defendants with more intrusive dispositions compared to 66% for those with 

less.182 

 Another study of 683 defendants in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio arrested 

for misdemeanor domestic violence also confirmed that sentence severity was 

significantly associated with reduced recidivism, especially for unmarried defendants, 

although in this study the actual sentence length (number of days in jail) was not found to 

be significant.183 Similar research looking at the cumulative effects of arrest followed by 

prosecution and court dispositions, including those with batterer treatment, has found 

modest reductions in reabuse to be associated with greater post-arrest criminal justice 

involvement.184 Research of almost 2,000 domestic violence defendants in Alexandria, 

Virginia found that repeat offenders over 3 and 1⁄2 years were associated with those who 

had a prior criminal history and not sentenced to incarceration for the study arrest during 

that period, leading researchers to recommend jail sentences for domestic violence 

defendants with any prior criminal history.185

 The Ohio felony study, however, found mixed results. While jail sentences were 

significantly related to lower odds of subsequent misdemeanor or felony intimate assaults 

after two years, prison sentences were not. While likelihood of these new charges were 

9% less for those jailed, compared to those probated, it was only 2% lower for those 

imprisoned compared to those placed on probation.186

 Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Women Abuse Perpetrators, Crime & 

Delinquency, 41 (4), 481-495); Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond 

Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968; Gover, A., MacDonald, 

J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluat5ion of a local domestic 

violence court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 109-129; Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and 

incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 35, 379-389; Wooldredge, J. & Thistlethwaite, A. (2005). Court Dispositions and Rearrest for 

Intimate Assault, Crime & Delinquency, 51 (76). 182 Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case Conviction and Recidivism in 

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 183 Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998).. Severity of Dispositions and Domestic Violence 

Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 184 Murphy, C.M., Musser, P.H., Maton, K.I. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for domestic 

abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 263-

284.Syers & Edleson (1992). Syers, M. & Edleson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated 

criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490-502. 185 Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: The 

Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 186 Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds 

of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39

 

Implications: Prosecution and convictions of high risk abusers alone have not been 

shown to reduce the risk of reabuse. Judges should consider more intrusive 

sentences, including incarceration, for repeat abusers and those with prior criminal 

histories. 

Research Basis: Although studies are conflicting on abuse prosecution, several 

sentencing studies suggest that more intrusive sentences may significantly deter reabuse.

 Should judges follow victim preferences in terms of fashioning 

sentences? 

 While victim perceptions of the dangerous of suspects have been found to be a 

good predictor of subsequent re-victimization,187 victim preferences of how the case 

should be disposed are not. Those victims, in the Quincy study, for example, who 

wanted charges dropped were as likely as those who did not want them dropped to be revictimized, 51% compared to 48% after one year.188 Similarly, studies in New York 

found that victim cooperation with prosecutors did not predict recidivism. In other words, 

where judges imposed sentences objected to by victims, these victims were no more or 

less likely to be revictimized than victims that wanted their abusers to be prosecuted and 

sentenced.189

Implications: Although judges should be open to the victims views, they should 

explain to victims (and, as important, to defendants) that the court is obligated to 

sentence as it deems best, with or without victim agreement. 

Research Implication: Only one study directly compared victim prosecution wishes and 

subsequent reabuse.

X. Will aggressive prosecution and sentencing increase the demand for 

trials? 

A study of four prosecution programs in four states where prosecutors specifically 

adopted (what they claimed to be) “no drop” prosecution policies (and in fact proceeded 

with the majority of all cases brought by law enforcement) found that trial rates ranged 

from a high of 13% to just one percent. Further researchers suggested the highest rates 

would recede after the aggressive prosecution programs were more established. In San 

Diego, which had adopted a “no drop” a decade earlier, only 2% of the cases 

 

187 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk 

Versus Risk Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19

(7), 778-800; Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve 

Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 188 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427

189 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and 

Judicial Monitoring: Results from a Randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation. 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40

subsequently went to trial. Further, in these “no drop” jurisdictions, sentencing included 

incarceration in 21 to 76% of the four jurisdictions.190

Implications: Judicial administrators need not fear that aggressive domestic 

violence prosecution will result in dramatically increased and sustained demand for 

jury or bench trials. 

Research Basis: While this is based on one study, the study looked at four different no 

drop prosecution programs in four states.

 Do victims want their abusers prosecuted/sentenced? 

 If asked to declare publicly in court in front of their abusers, victims may express 

ambivalence about the prosecution and/or sentencing of their abusers. However, in 

interviews with researchers, often a majority of victims support domestic violence 

prosecutions and sentencing, especially mandatory referral to batterer programs. In a 

Chicago Misdemeanor Court Study, for example, a little more than two-thirds of victims 

(67.6%) reported they wanted their abusers to be prosecuted and jailed.191 A study of 

four prosecution programs in California, Washington, Oregon and Nebraska, found threequarter (76%) of the victims interviewed wanted their abusers arrested, and 55% want 

them prosecuted. Further, 59% expressed satisfaction with the outcome, although 67% 

expressed satisfaction with the judge. 192 

 Even where the majority of victims opposed prosecution, after trial they may 

change their mind. In the Quincy arrest study, for example, only 46.8% wanted their 

abusers to be prosecuted as charged or wanted more serious charges filed. However, after 

trial, 53.4% said the court experience gave them a “sense of control,” while 36.9% said it 

motivated them to end the relationship with their abuser and 38.8% said it “made them 

safer.” Most victims (71%) who did not want the case to go to court expressed 

satisfaction after trial.193 

 

Implications: Judges should not fear allowing cases to proceed over victim 

objections will necessarily embitter or jeopardize victim safety. 

Research Basis: Numerous studies from disparate jurisdictions on victim attitudes on 

prosecution, but only several on court sentencing.

 Why do a minority of victims oppose prosecution? 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

193 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Although studies have found multiple reasons for victim opposition to 

prosecution, fear is among the leading reason expressed by victims. Fear of the abuser is 

first and foremost, followed by fear of testifying in court.

 A study of five jurisdictions in three states found that victims across all sites 

reported that fear of defendant retaliation was their most common barrier to participation 

with prosecutors.194 Even in a Chicago study where the majority of Chicago victims 

wanted their abusers prosecuted, fear was the biggest factor for those who opposed 

prosecution, representing 55% of all victims opposing prosecution. A quarter of victims 

opposing prosecution reported being threatened by their abusers against prosecution. 

Others expressed fear that their abusers would become more violent. In addition, almost 

half who wanted prosecution dropped thought it wouldn’t make any difference. A 

minority, about a third opposed prosecution because they depended upon their abuser for 

housing.195

 In addition to fear of the abuser, an Ohio study, found that more victims were 

actually afraid of testifying in court than they were of the defendant or compromising 

their relationship with the defendant. Specifically, victims expressed fear that the 

prosecutors would not prepare them adequately to testify. They were also concerned that 

the defendant might be found not guilty.196 

 Is victim fear of prosecution well founded? 

 Victim fear of their abusers appears well founded. Multiple prosecution and arrest 

studies broadly concur that abusers who come to the attention of the criminal justice 

system who reabuse are likely to do so sooner rather than later. In the Quincy court 

study, for example, about 40% of the arrested abusers reabused their victim within a year. 

Forty-four percent (44%) did so before the study arrest was prosecuted in court. The 

average case took about six months from arraignment to prosecution.197 Similarly in a 

Cook County study, 30% of the defendants were rearrested within six months after their 

study arrest, including half for a new domestic violence offense. The average rearrest 

time was only 29 days after initial arrest. In addition, in almost half of the cases, 45.9%, 

defendants tried to talk women out of testifying. Moreover, 29.1% of these defendants 

stalked their victims pretrial and 8.7% specifically threatened them.198

 

194 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

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

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

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

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

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

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

197 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

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

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

 In the Brooklyn Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court, where it took on 

average 6.5 to seven months for cases to be disposed, 51% of defendants charged with 

domestic felonies other than violation of protective orders were rearrested predisposition, 14% for a crime of violence and 16% for violation of a protection order. 

Among those charged with order violations, a felony in New York, the rearrest rate was 

47%, including more than a third, 37%, for violating the protective order again.199

 While these studies do not demonstrate that prosecution causes reabuse, they 

indicate that pending prosecution in and of itself does not deter recidivist abusers. 

Implications: Judges should insist that police and/or prosecutors document and 

inform the court if defendants reabuse, threaten or intimidate victims while cases 

are pending so that the court can fairly allow for substitute hearsay testimony if the 

victim does not appear at trial. The equitable doctrine of forfeiture, affirmed in 

Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2280 (2006), precludes a defendant from using 

his right to confrontation to bar the admission of a victim’s statements when his 

wrongdoing caused her unavailability at trial. 

Research Basis: Rapid reabuse rates are documented in multiple studies from disparate 

jurisdictions. Victim fear is documented in several victim studies in different 

jurisdictions.

 

XI. What does the research reveal about sentencing abusers?

 What are current abuser sentencing practices? 

Just as prosecution rates vary widely, so does sentencing of domestic violence 

perpetrators even though the vast majority of domestic violence defendants are 

prosecuted for misdemeanor assaults. Although the United States Civil Rights 

Commission and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have opposed the 

practice, 200 many jurisdictions routinely divert abuse cases. In the Brooklyn 

Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court study of 9,157 cases in 2002, of those pleading 

or found guilty, 51% received a conditional discharge, 35% received jail, 7% received 

probation, 5% were ordered to complete community service, and 1% were fined.201 

In Chicago, a little less than a third was given conditional discharges, 24 % probation or 

court supervision, and 23 % jail (including time served pending trial).202 While in 

 

199 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 200 United States Civil Rights Commission (1982). Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the 

Administration of Justice, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice; Family Violence Project (1990). 

Family Violence: Improving Court Practice, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 41 (4), 14-15. 201 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes Between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

202 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): 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.
43

Massachusetts, where three quarters of the suspects (74.1%) were charged with some 

form of assault and/or battery, a quarter of the defendants was diverted, a quarter placed 

on probation and 13.5% imprisoned.203 In Ohio, of those found guilty, almost 70% were 

incarcerated with the largest number incarcerated between 30 and 45 days, although 

18.8% were incarcerated 150 to 180 days.204 The number of domestic violence offenders 

sent to Ohio prisons increased nine-fold between 1991 and 2005.205 In three different 

states with specialized prosecution programs, 52% to 76% of convicted abusers were 

incarcerated.206

 If placed on probation, supervision ranges from unsupervised to intensive with a 

variety of special conditions. Most defendants in the specialized prosecution courts along 

with jail were placed on probation with a condition of no victim contact, batterer 

treatment, drug and alcohol abstinence and testing, attendance at fatherhood programs or 

women’s groups for female offenders, mental health evaluations, mandatory 

employment, and restrictions on weapons.207 A study of over a thousand domestic 

violence arrests across three states, Connecticut, Idaho and Virginia, found of those 

convicted, a little less than half (46.7%) was ordered into either anger management or 

batterer programs.208

By statute, Cal. Penal Code § 1203.097, California batterers must be sentenced to 

three years probation; criminal protective orders must be incorporated to protect victims 

from further violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse and harassment; the defendant must 

complete a batterer program of no less than a year, make a minimum $200 payment, 

perform a specified amount of community service, as well as attend as needed substance 

abuse treatment, pay restitution and in lieu of fine pay up to $5,000 to a battered women’s 

shelter. However, a 2005 study revealed widespread variance with the law in practice by 

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

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

203 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427 

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

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

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

205 Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds 

of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389, quoting Bates, J., Gonzales, C., Muncy, 

V., Boyd, R., Easter, R., & Van Dine, S. (2005). 2005 Intake reports, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction (http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/reports/reports12asp. 206 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

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

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

207 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

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

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

of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 218355. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

allowing defendants to plead guilty to non-domestic violence crimes such as assault or 

trespass.209 

 What accounts for dispositions? 

The research suggests that domestic violence dispositions do not always follow 

standard sentencing patterns, often not reflecting defendants’ prior criminal histories, 

suggesting that prosecutors and judges disregard prior records that are not domestic 

violence-related. In a large Ohio court study, for example, researchers found no 

correlation between offenders’ prior criminal histories and sentence severity.210 

Similarly and surprisingly, the Toledo, Ohio study found defendants with prior felony

convictions were the least likely to be prosecuted and sentenced.211 In contrast, in both 

Quincy, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, prior criminal history was significantly 

associated with severity of sentences.212

 Victim preference was not found to be a significant factor in sentencing in 

Quincy, Ohio, Everett, Klamath Falls, Omaha and San Diego studies of court cases.213

In these jurisdictions, factors associated with more severe sentences varied considerably 

and included whether there was strangulation, the gender of the defendant, whether the 

defendant and victim were living together, the size of the prosecutor’s caseload, and so 

on. There were no consistent patterns noted from study to study. 

Implications: Sentences should reflect defendants’ prior criminal histories as well 

as abuse histories as both indicate risk of reabuse as well as general criminality. It is 

a mistake for judges to consider abusers with prior criminal histories as “first 

offenders,” simply because they have no prior record specifically for domestic 

violence. 

 

209 Task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. (2005). Domestic Violence: 

Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Attorney 

General. 

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

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

Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112. 

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

Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 212 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An 

Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

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

WG-BX-0011.. 

213 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & 

Sutherland, J. (2000). Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: 

The Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, Executive Summary. Washington D.C.:U.S. 

Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0004 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184112; Smith, B., Davis, R., 

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

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

Institute of Justice, NCJ 187772. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45

Research Basis: Disparate sentencing studies find inconsistent variables including 

consideration of prior records. 

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

than those that do? 

 The Chicago study found that no-show defendants prosecuted by specialized 

prosecution team had significantly greater number of post-arrests than those that showed, 

.778 compared to .456.214 While this has not been examined elsewhere, in a Berkeley 

arrest study, researchers similarly documented that having a pending warrant at time of 

the domestic violence incident was a significant predictor of reabuse.215 The Quincy 

arrest study also found that suspects who flee the scene before police arrived were 

significantly more likely to reabuse than those arrested at the scene.216

Implications: If defendants default in court prior to sentencing, judges should 

consider them higher risk for reabuse for purposes of bail, fashioning civil orders 

and sentencing. 

Research Basis: While only one study looked at this issue directly, several others found 

the same association between defendant conduct and reabuse pre-prosecution.

 Can “first” offenders be safely diverted/discharged? 

The few studies that have examined reabuse among diverted or discharged 

abusers have consistently found a steady minority continued to reabuse notwithstanding 

none or minimal prior records. 

 In the Quincy arrest study, for example, a quarter of the arrested defendants were 

continued without a finding to be dismissed if they remained arrest free for six months to 

a year, a disposition reserved for first or lesser defendants. A quarter were arrested or 

had new protective orders taken out against them within two years of their study arrest. 

Although this reabuse rate was still half that of defendants with more substantial prior 

criminal histories, it was substantially higher than prosecutors and judges had 

anticipated.217 Similarly, a little over a quarter of the abusers (27.5%) given a conditional 

discharge in Cook County violated the conditional discharge.218 While those placed on 

probation in Rhode Island with guilty findings was higher than those placed on probation 

 

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

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

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

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 216 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427. 

217 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 136-147. 218 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46

without guilty findings, the rearrest rate for domestic violence over one year was still 

35%.219 

Implications: Judges cannot assume that defendants with no or limited prior 

records for domestic violence can be diverted pre-adjudication or given conditional 

discharges without consistently compromising safety for at least a quarter of their 

victims. 

Research Basis: Limited site studies as well as broader research on offender risk 

previously cited.

XII. Do Batterer Intervention Programs Prevent Reabuse? 

Commonly, whether diverted, probated, even jailed, a high proportion of domestic 

violence offenders are required to attend batterer treatment programs. There have been 

more than 35 evaluations of batterer intervention programs. They have yielded 

inconsistent results. Two meta-analyses of the more rigorous studies find they have, at 

best, a “modest” treatment effect, producing a minimal reduction in re-arrests for 

domestic violence.220 In one of the meta-analyses, the treatment effect translated to a 

five percent improvement rate in cessation of reassaults due to the treatment.221 In the 

other, it ranged from none to .26, roughly representing a reduction in recidivism from 13 

to 20%.222

On the other hand, only a few studies have found batterer programs make 

abusers more likely to reabuse,223 while most that have not found positive effects have 

found none at all.

224 

 The multi-state study of four batterer programs concludes that a hard core of 

approximately a quarter of batterers appears to be unresponsive and resistant to batterer 

intervention. In this long term study, approximately half of the men reassaulted their 

initial or new partners sometime during the 30-month follow-up based on victim, abuser, 

 

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

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

220 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of 

Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053; Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). 

A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ 

Behaviors? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262. 221 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of 

Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053. 222 Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention 

Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ Behaviors? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262. 223 Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of a Court-Ordered Treatment For Domestic Violence Offenders. 

Washington , D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. 

(2003). The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence Recidivism. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior 30 (1), 118-134.

224 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752; Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce 

Violence? A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 94-IJ-CX-004, 

National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772) (Eight Week Program); Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop 

Out Among Men Who Batter: A Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and Victims, 

15, 137-160. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

or police arrests, although most of the reassaults occurred within the first 6-months of 

program intake. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the men repeatedly reassaulted their partners 

during the follow-up. These men also accounted for nearly all of the severe assaults and 

injuries.225 

Implications: Batterer Programs, alone, are not likely to protect most victims or 

new intimate partners of referred abusers from further harm from higher risk 

abusers. Consequently, if mandated or utilized, judges should supplement batterer 

programs with other measures to assure victim safety from these abusers.

Research Basis: Multiple single studies as well as two meta-analyses of studies from 

disparate jurisdictions in different contexts across the country.

 Does the type or length of batterer intervention programs make a 

difference? 

Several studies have found that the type of batterer program, whether feminist, 

psycho-educational, or cognitive-behavioral, does not make a difference in terms of 

reabuse.226 One study also found that a “culturally focused” program specifically 

designed for African American male abusers did no better than the regular program 

offered all abusers. In fact, those assigned to a conventional, racially mixed group were 

half as likely to be arrested for reassaults compared to those assigned to a completely 

African American culturally-focused counseling group or a conventional group of all 

African Americans.227 

 However, a rigorous New York City study found the length of the program (26 

weeks compared to 8 weeks) may make a difference, with the longer program proving 

more effective at deterring reabuse. The researchers suggest that the longer program’s 

increased effectiveness was due to its longer suppression effect while abusers were 

mandated to attend, whether or not they actually attended.228 On the other hand, a multistate study of four programs in lengths from 3 to 9 months found no difference in 

subsequent reabuse.229

 

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

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704.. 226 Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004. Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of Domestic 

Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053; Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy 

Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions for Men Who Assault Their Wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 68, 468-476; Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and 

Victims, 16, 693-704. 227 Gondolf, E. & Williams, O. (2005). Culturally Focused Batterer Counseling for African American Men.

Washington D.C.; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 228 Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A Randomized Experiment 

in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772). 229 Gondolf, E. (1997). Results of a Multi-site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems. Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

Implications: As long as the batterer program is focused on preventing reabuse, the 

type of program makes no difference. However, longer batterer programs are 

better than shorter programs. 

Research Basis: While only one study speaks to the suppression effects of batterer 

programs, the findings that batterer programs provide little treatment effect suggest that 

programs’ effectiveness may result from their suppression effect and/or the context in 

which they operate including probation supervision or periodic court compliance 

hearings. These findings argue for longer programs. 

 Do couples counseling or anger management treatment programs 

prevent reabuse? 

 There has little recent research on the application of couples counseling involving 

batterers and their victims230 as most batterer treatment standards prohibit couples 

counseling.231 While an early study in 1985 found it ineffective with half of the couples 

reporting new violence within six weeks of couples counseling,232 other studies found 

lower reabuse rates.233 A small study suggests that couples counseling after separate 

counseling for batterers and victims may be safe and beneficial for couples who want to 

remain together.234

 While anger management is often a part of batterer intervention programs based 

on cognitive psychology, generic anger management programs, by themselves, like 

couples counseling, have been generally prohibited by most state batterer treatment 

standards.235 

 In one of the largest studies to date, the Office of the Commissioner of Probation 

in Massachusetts studied a sample of 945 defendants arraigned for violating a protective 

order and as part of their subsequent disposition were ordered into a program, including a 

certified batterer intervention program, anger management, mental health treatment 

and/or substance abuse treatment, although 13% were sent to multiple programs. The 

study found those referred to 12 to 20 week anger management programs had a higher 

completion rate than those referred to the much longer 40 week batterer intervention 

programs. Notwithstanding higher completion rates, unlike those referred to batterer 

intervention programs, there was no difference in rearrest rates for those who completed 

anger management and those that failed to complete it. Further those who completed 

anger management recidivated at higher rates than those that completed batterer 

intervention programs even though those referred to batterer programs had significantly 

more criminal history, including more past order violations, more long standing 

substance abuse histories, and less education than those referred to anger management.236

 

230 Stith, S., Rosen, K., & McCollum, E. (2003). Effectiveness of Couples Treatment for Spouse Abuse, 

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29 (3), 407-426. 231 A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs (www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet.standard.htm.). 232 Lindquist, C., Telch, C. & Taylor, J. (1985). Evaluation of a Conjugal Violence Treatment Program: A Pilot Study.

Behavioral Counseling and Community Interventions, 3, 76-90. 233 Deschner, J.P., McNeil, J.S., & Moore, M.G. (1986). A treatment model for batterers. Social Casework, 67, 55-60. 234 Johannson, M. & Tutty, L. (1998). An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for Wife Abuse, 

Family Relations, 47 (1), 27-35. 235 A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs (www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet.standard.htm.). 236 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 An earlier study of a program in Pittsburgh found that abusers who relied on 

anger management control techniques were more likely to reabuse their partners than 

those who relied on increased empathy, a redefinition of their manhood, and more 

cooperative decision-making as a means to ending their abuse.237

 

Implications: There is no evidence that anger management or couples counseling 

programs effectively prevent court mandated abusers from reabusing or 

committing new offenses after treatment.

Research Basis: The limited research that has been conducted has been at best 

inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of these programs while one large state study 

finds court referred batterers are less apt to commit new offenses, including both 

domestic and non-domestic violent offenses, if they complete batterer programs 

compared to those that complete anger management programs. The difference, however, 

may also be accounted for by the fact that the batterer programs were twice as long as 

the anger control programs.

 Does alcohol and drug treatment prevent reabuse? 

The correlation between alcohol and drug treatment has been confirmed in 

numerous studies previously cited.238 It is therefore not surprising that studies find 

substance abuse treatment can be effective in reducing domestic violence.239 In one such 

study, for example, researchers found that among 301 alcoholic male partner abusers, of 

whom 56% had physically abused their partners the year before treatment, partner 

violence significantly decreased in half a year after alcohol treatments, but still was not as 

low as the non-alcoholic control group. Among those patients who no longer drank at all, 

reabuse dropped to 15%, the same as the non-alcoholic control group and half that of 

treated alcoholics who failed to maintain sobriety.240 As this study suggests, however, 

alcohol and drug treatment, in and of itself, may not be sufficient for all abusers. This is 

supported by the Massachusetts treatment study of 945 defendants convicted of violating 

protective orders and ordered into a program. It found that those who completed a variety 

of alcohol and drug treatment programs had higher rates of re-arraignment over six years 

for any crime or violations of protective orders than those who completed batterer 

programs (57.9% vs. 47.7% for any crime and 21.1% v. 17.4% for violation of protective 

orders). Further, there was no significant difference in re-arraignment rates between the 

substance abuse treatment completers and non-completers.241 

 On the other hand, studies suggest alcohol and drug treatment may be a necessary 

component of successful intervention to prevent reabuse. The multi-state study of four 

 

237 Gondolf, E. (1984). How Some Men Stop Battering: An Evaluation of a Group Counseling Program

(Paper, Second National Conference on Family Violence, Durham, NH), cited in Gondolf, E. & Russell, D. 

(1986). The Case Against Anger Control Treatment Programs for Batterers, Response 9 (3), 2-5. 238 See IV D. Are they likely to be drug and/or alcohol abusers? 

239 Stuart, G. (2005). Improving Violence Intervention Outcomes Integrating Alcohol Treatment. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence 20 (4), 388-393. 240 O’Farrell, T., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M. & Murphy, C. (2003). Partner Violence Before and After 

Individually Based Alcoholism Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients. Journal of Consulting Clinical 

Psychology 71 (1), 92-102. 241 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

batterer programs, for example, found that among program completers, those that became 

intoxicated within a three month period were three times more likely to reassault their 

partners than those that did not.242

 

Implications: Incorporating alcohol and/or drug treatment as a standard 

component of batterer intervention adds to the likelihood of reductions in reabuse 

among batterers, many of whom abuse alcohol and drugs. Effective treatment 

should include abstinence testing to assure sobriety and no drug use. 

Research Basis: Extensive research in both clinical and court settings confirm the 

correlation between substance abuse and increased likelihood of reabuse as well as 

reduction in reabuse among offender successfully treated for drug abuse.

 Are court referred batterers likely to complete batterer 

programs? 

Multiple studies of disparate programs around the country have found high noncompletion rates ranging from 25% to 89% with most at around 50%.243 Rates vary as 

different programs have different standards for monitoring attendance, as well as policies 

regarding re-enrollment, missed meetings, and the like. A study in California, for 

example, found that of ten counties examined, only one maintained a database to track 

offender participation in the mandated batterer program and it reported 89% did not 

complete the program.244 

Not surprisingly, adding on additional treatment programs increases noncompletion. For example, while 42% of the referred batterers in the Bronx failed to 

complete the batterer program, that increased to 67% for those also required to also 

complete drug treatment. For those required to complete drug treatment alone, the noncompletion rate was 60%.245

 High technical violation rates are common in general for probationers sentenced 

for domestic violence for all common conditions, including no contact orders, drug 

abstinence, as well as batterer intervention programs. Various probation studies find 

technical violation (non-crime) rates ranging from 34% of those sentenced in the 

Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court, 246 41% in Colorado,247 61% in Champaign 

 

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

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-128; Gondolf, E. (2001). The 

Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence and Victims, 16, 693-704. 243 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation; Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop Out 

Among Men Who Batter: A Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and 

Victims, 15, 137-160; Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally-Focused Batterer Counseling for African-American Men, Final 

Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 244 Lockyer, B. (2005). Domestic Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability, Report to 

the California Attorney General from the task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. 

Sacramento, CA: Office of the Attorney General (www.safestate.org/domesticviolence). 245 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation. 246 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 247 Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain News. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51

County, Illinois,248 and 25 to 44% Rhode Island (regular compared to specialized 

domestic violence supervision).249 

Implication: Judges should take all appropriate steps to make sure that court 

conditions are enforced, violators are returned to court promptly, and heard 

expeditiously.

Research Basis: Multiple studies from disparate jurisdictions across the country.

 Do batterer program completers do better than those who fail? 

 Abusers who complete batterer programs are less likely to reabuse than those that 

fail to attend, are noncompliant, or drop out.250 The differences can be substantial. 

 A Chicago study of more than 500 court referred batterers referred to 30 different 

programs, for example, found that completers’ recidivism after an average of 2.4 years 

was 14.3% while that for non-completers was more than twice that at 34.6%.251 Those 

who did not complete their program mandate in the Bronx court study were four times 

more likely to recidivate than those that completed their program.252

 The multi-state study of four programs found program completion reduced risk of 

reassault from 46 to 66%.253 A Florida study found that the odds that abusers who 

completed the program would be rearrested was half that of a control group of those not 

assigned the program while the odds of rearrest for those who failed to attend the 

program as ordered was 2.53 higher than the control group.254 

 A Massachusetts study found that over a six year period, those who completed a 

certified batterer intervention program were significantly less likely to be re-arraigned for 

any type of offense, a violent offense, or a protection order violation. (Massachusetts 

does not have a domestic violence statute so researchers could not differentiate domestic 

 

248 Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation Evaluation of the 

Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign County. Springfield, IL: University of 

Illinois at Springfield. 

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

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

250 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation; Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic 

Violence Batterer Treatment on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield County Experience. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 30, 118-134; Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for 

Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322.; Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who 

batter: Four Years of Outcome data from the Domestic Abuse Project, Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12.; 

Chen, H., Bersani, S., Myersm S., & Denton, T. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Court-Sponsored Abuser 

Treatment Programs. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 137-160.; Babcock, J. & Steiner, R. (1999). The Relationship 

Between Treatment, Incarceration, and Recidivism of battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated 

Community response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 46-59; Gondolf, E. (2005). CulturallyFocused Batterer Counseling for African-American Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2001-WT-BX-003, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 

251 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 252 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation. 253 Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 254 Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for Domestic Violence Offenders: The 

Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 199729. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

from non-domestic violent offenses.) The rate differences for these offenses between 

completers and non-completers was 47.7% vs. 83.6% for any crime, 33.7% vs. 64.2% for 

crime of violence, and 17.4% vs. 41.8% for violation of protective order.255 The Dallas 

study found that twice as many program drop outs were rearrested within 13 months than 

completers, 39.7% vs. 17.9%, for any charge and 8.1% vs. 2.8% for assault arrests.256 An 

Alexandria, Virginia study of almost 2,000 domestic violence defendants found that noncompliance with court ordered treatment was significantly associated with being a repeat 

offender.257

 While also finding reduced reabuse for completers, a few studies have found the 

reductions to be less dramatic, including Broward County where the difference was only 

4% v. 5%258 and Brooklyn where it was 16% v. 26%.259

 

Implications: Compliance with mandated batterer programs provide judges with a 

dynamic risk instrument based on defendant’s on-going current behavior. Reabuse 

can be reduced if courts respond appropriately and expeditiously to batterers who 

fail to attend or comply with court referred batterer programs. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies of batterer programs in diverse jurisdictions across the 

country.

 Can batterer program attendance be enhanced by court 

monitoring? 

Batterer program attendance rates can be increased by court monitoring, 

specifically through periodic court compliance hearings. In the multi-state evaluation of 

four difference programs, researchers found that batterer program completion rates rose 

from under 50% to 65% after a court introduced a mandatory appearance 30 days 

following imposition of batterer program mandate.260 Similarly, implementation of a 

specialized domestic violence court in San Diego significantly increased attendance. 

Among other changes, the court instituted post-dispositional compliance hearings.261 

Other domestic violence courts have demonstrated completion rates over 50% including 

the Brooklyn Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court where completion rates for 

batterers referred to two different batterer programs was documented at 68 and 77%. The 

 

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

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 256 Eckhardt, C. (2003). Stages and Processes of Change and Associated Treatment Outcomes in Partner Assaultive 

Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 

205022). 

257 Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: The 

Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 258 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752 

259 Taylor, B., Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2001). The Effects of a Group Batterer Treatment Program: A Randomized 

Experiment in Brooklyn, Justice Quarterly 18 (1), 171-201. 260 Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program Compliance: An Evaluation of the 

Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence Abuse Counseling Center, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training 

Institute.

261 San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence Courts, Report 

submitted to State Justice Institute. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53

26-week program had only a slightly higher completion rate than the 12-week 

program.262

 In a related finding, the large Massachusetts study found those defendants ordered 

to attend programs as a condition of probation had a completion rate of 62% while those 

ordered to attend without probation supervision had a completion rate of only 30%.263 A 

Rhode Island found that a specialized probation domestic violence supervision program 

more aggressively monitored and enforced program compliance as measured by the 

number of violation hearings brought to court than the state’s regular probation program 

involving officers with mixed caseloads.264 A study of three domestic violence courts in 

Michigan, Wisconsin and Massachusetts found significantly increased offender 

compliance with batterer programs, both in showing up and staying enrolled. All three 

courts featured post-dispositional review hearings.265

Implications: To increase program participation, judges should hold postdispositional compliance hearings as well as the place abusers on supervised 

probation even if their convictions were for misdemeanors or ordinance violations. 

Research Basis: Limited research has been conducted on this issue but none suggests 

increased judicial monitoring does anything but increase attendance.

Performance measures: A 75% completion rate has been documented for batterers 

referred from the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago) to 30 area batterer programs. 

Research Basis: Single study of 549 male domestic violence probationers who were 

referred to 30 area batterer intervention programs and completed them or were terminated 

at the time of the study.266

 Which batterers are likely to fail to attend mandated batterer 

treatment? 

 Researchers generally agree that there are a number of variables associated with 

likelihood of program completion. They include being younger, having less education, 

having greater criminal histories and violence in their family of origin, being less 

employed and less motivated to change, having substance abuse problems, having 

children, and a lack of court sanctions for non-compliance.267 A number of studies 

 

262 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 263 Bocko, S., Cicchetti, C., Lempicki, L. & Powell, A. (November 2004). Restraining Order Violators, Corrective 

Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 264 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

265 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

266 Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest in a Batterer Intervention 

System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 267 Bersani & Chen (1988); DeHart, Kennerly, Burke, & Follingstad (1999); DeMaris (1989), Gondolf 

(1999); Grusznski & Carrillo (1988); Hamberger & Hastings (1989), Pirog-Good & Stets (1986); Saunders 

& Parker (1989); Feder, L. & Forde, D. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

emphasize the positive correlation between program completion and “stakes in 

conformity,” including specifically age, marital status, and employment.268 

 Studies also find that many of the same variables that predict non-completion also 

predict reabuse or general recidivism. In the Florida probation study, for example, an 

examination of the court referred batterers found that the same characteristics that 

predicted rearrest, including prior criminal history and stakes in conformity, also 

predicted missing at least one court-mandated program session.269 Other studies, 

including the study of two Brooklyn batterer programs, also found employment positively 

correlated with both completion and negatively with rearrest.270

 However, prior criminal history remains the strongest and most consistent 

predictor of non-completion and new arrests. For example, defendants with a prior arrest 

history were found to be four times more likely than defendant without prior arrests to 

fail to complete programs in Brooklyn.271 The Bronx court study similarly found that 

prior arrests as well as history of drug abuse predicted both non-completion and 

recidivism, similarly finding background demographics to be less important.272 

Implications: Program failure can be reduced by screening referrals based on the 

common variables found to correlate with successful completion, including age, 

prior criminal history, and substance abuse. Alternatively, supplemental conditions 

targeting abusers with these characteristics may be necessary to assure successful 

program participation. 

Research Basis: While not all studies find the same exact array of variables that predict 

program completion and/or reabuse and general recidivism, almost all of them find 

overlapping variables including age, prior criminal history and substance abuse.

 

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

Several studies have found that batterers who do not complete batterer programs 

are likely to be noncompliant from the start. Further, it has been found that noncompliance at the first court monitoring predicted both program failure and recidivism. In 

the Brooklyn study, for example, the strongest predictor of program failure was early 

non-compliance: defendants who had not enrolled in a program by the time of their first 

compliance hearing were significantly less likely to complete the program than those 

 

268 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752; Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Rearrest in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54.

269 Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence 

Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752.

270 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 271Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 272 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
55

enrolled by the first hearing.273 These findings are similar to those found in the Bronx. 

Defendants who were not in compliance at their first monitoring appearance were six 

times more likely to fail to complete the program than those in compliance at that time.274

 These findings are consistent with extensive research indicating that the largest 

proportion of court identified abusers who re-abuse are likely to do so sooner rather than 

later.275

Implications: To safeguard victims and/or new partners, courts should respond 

immediately to an abuser’s first failure to enroll or attend a court-mandated 

batterer program. 

Research Basis: Although most studies do not report when non-compliant abusers failed 

their programs, the consistent findings among abusers referred to multiple programs 

utilized by two different courts in New York strongly support their findings.

 What should the judge’s response be if court referred abusers are 

noncompliant with programs? 

 Among lower risk abusers on probation for domestic violence, one study found 

that increased enforcement of batterer program compliance as indicated by significantly 

more violations brought in court by probation for non-compliance was one of the major 

ingredient that correlated with reduced reabuse over two year compared to a control 

group of probationers were also referred to batterer programs but who were not as 

rigorously monitored or brought back to court to answer for noncompliance. As a result 

of the court violation hearings, most of the non-compliant probationers were required to 

attend weekly compliance court sessions until they completed the program. Low risk 

abusers included those who had not previously been probated for domestic violence. In 

addition to increase revocation hearings, these probationers had slightly more contact 

with probation officers, officers attempted to contact victims at least once, and the 

supervising probation officers supervised specialized domestic violence caseloads.276 

 An evaluation of two model domestic violence courts found that victims in the 

court with significantly more probation revocations for non-compliance, 12% compared 

to only 1% in the other court, reported significantly less repeat reabuse than in a 

comparison court. Victims from the other model court reported no difference with 

victims in a comparison court. In the court with more revocations, victims reported lower 

frequency of physical assaults up to eleven months after the study incident. Noteworthy, 

the defendants in the high revocation court had a significantly higher number of prior 

arrest that those in the comparison court defendants, 8.3 compared to 3.7. Researchers 

posited that lower domestic violence arrests were obtained primarily through early 

 

273 Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect Completion or ReArrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes between Defendants Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in 

Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 274 Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic 

Violence Court, New York: Center for Court Innovation 275 See, VI. C. When will abusers reabuse? 276 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

detection and incarceration of probationers who either continued to reabuse or failed to 

comply with conditions.277

 The correlation between program non-compliance and reabuse is suggested by the 

Broward County probation study researchers who conclude that if abusers are not afraid 

of violating their court orders, they are not afraid of the consequences of committing new 

offenses either.278

Implications: Judges should react immediately to respond to non-compliant abusers 

in order to safeguard victims.

Research Basis: Multiple studies have found that doing nothing in regard to noncompliant court referred abusers results in significantly higher rates of reabuse. Two 

studies involving jurisdictions across four states suggest that vigorous enforcement of 

conditions is the key in deterring reabuse.

 What should the judge’s response be to abusers who reoffend 

while enrolled in a batterer program or after completion? 

Batterers who are rearrested while enrolled or afterwards are high-risk for still 

more abuse.279 For example, the multi-state batterer program study found that the 

majority of court referred batterers who reassaulted, did so more than once.280 Similarly, 

a Rhode Island probation study found that batterers who were arrested for domestic 

violence while their prior arrest was still pending or while they were still on probation for 

an earlier offense (domestic or non-domestic) had the highest reabuse rates of any 

abusers released on probation, averaging over 50%.281 

Implications: To protect victims, judges should incarcerate abusers who reabuse 

while enrolled in batterer programs or after they have completed the program. Reenrollment in programs endanger victims.

Research Basis: Repeatedly arrested abusers have been found to be chronic in their 

abusive behavior by batterer program studies as well as general studies on court 

identified batterers.

 What effect do batterer program referrals have on victims? 

Studies find that most victims are satisfied with their abuser’s referral to a batterer 

program. In the Bronx study, for example, 77% of victims were satisfied with case 

 

277 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

278 Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for Domestic Violence Offenders: The 

Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 199729. 

279 See, VI. How many abusers are going to do it again? 280 Gondolf, E. (1998). Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention System; A 30-Month Follow-Up of CourtMandated Batterers in Four Cities, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute 

(http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications/30MonthFollowup.shtm) 281 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

outcome if the abuser was sentenced to attend a program compared to only 55% where 

they were not referred to a program.282 A survey of victims of men attending batterer 

programs throughout Rhode Island found most of the female victims were enthusiastic 

about the batterer programs. Interestingly, the enthusiasm expressed included victims 

who were re-assaulted but who felt the program still made things better for them.283 

 

Implications: Either judges, batterer program, or other court personnel should 

warn victims that attendance at batterer programs does not assure abuse cessation 

during or after the program. 

Research Basis: Consistent findings of victim surveys in multiple settings across the 

country as well as a study with a control group of victims whose abusers were not sent to 

a program.

Bottom Line: On the whole, unless batterer intervention programs are 

closely monitored and program compliance is rigorously enforced, batterer 

intervention programs may be ineffective and give false hope to victims.

XIII. Civil Protective Orders and Criminal No Contact Orders 

Who obtains civil protective orders? 

The research suggests that abusers brought to court for civil protective orders 

differ little from their peers arrested by police for domestic abuse. Studies have found 

that each have equivalent criminal histories, ranging from 65% in a study of respondents 

in Denver, Delaware and the District of Columbia,284 to a little more than 70% in a Texas 

study285 and 80% in a Massachusetts study.286 Another Massachusetts study of protective 

order violators found 80% had a prior record, 69% for a non-domestic, but violent 

offense.287 

 One of the reasons for the substantial overlap between abusers brought to court 

for civil orders and those arrested for abuse by police is that many petitioners come to 

civil court as a result of police encouragement following an abuse incident involving 

police. In a multi-court study, 43% of victims who obtained civil protective orders said 

 

282 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial 

Monitoring: Results from a Randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation. 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 283 Klein, A. & Wilson, D. (2003). A Victim Survey on the Effects of a Court Mandated Batterer 

Intervention Program in Rhode Island. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

(http://www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/BI%20Program.pdf) 

284 Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National 

Institute of Justice. 

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

for Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 286 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 287 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

they either learned of the orders or were encouraged to apply for them from police 

responding to a domestic violence incident.288

Implications: Victims seeking civil remedies for abuse are at the same level of risk 

for reabuse as victims of abusers arrested for abusing them. 

Research Basis: Extensive research of civil petitioners conducted in disparate 

jurisdictions.

When and why do victims ask for orders? 

The research agrees that most victims do not request civil orders after the first 

abuse incident or assault. According to the NVAW survey, only 16.4% of rape victims, 

17.1% of assault victims and 36.6% of stalking victims petitioned for protective orders 

following an abuse incident.289 A survey of victims in battered women shelters found 

only 40% had obtained orders prior to entering the shelter.290 Finally, several studies 

based on samples of women who reported abuse to police found only 12 to 22% secured 

protective orders.291

 Often, victims petition courts for orders after failing to stem the abuse through 

other means. In a multi-court study involving both an inner city minority jurisdiction and 

a suburban non-minority city south of Boston, prior to petitioning court for an order, 

female victims had tried to protect themselves in a variety of other ways first. Perhaps 

most significantly, more than two-thirds, 68%, had left their abuser at least once and 15% 

had kicked their abuser out at least once before petitioning the courts for orders. In 

addition, three-quarters, 78%, had called police at least once before, 30% had obtained 

counseling, 25% had called a hotline or gone to a shelter.292 In a Colorado study, half of 

the petitioners had left their abusers at the time of the incident that provoked the 

protective order petition.293 Studies have found between 27 and 50% of victims are living 

with their abuser at the time of the incident that prompted the order request,294 while 

between 37 and 46% file for orders after they have left.295

 

288 Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern 

University Press. 

289 Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, Findings from 

the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181867. 

290 Pennel, S., Burke, C. & Mulmat, D. (2002). Violence Against Women in San Diego, Final Report to the National 

Institute of Justice. Washington, DC, NCJ# 191838 

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

Police-reported Violence. Journal of American Medical Association, 288 (5), 598-594; Weisz, A., Canales-Portalatin, 

D., & Nahan, N. (2001). An Evaluation Of Victim Advocacy Within A Team Approach. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0006, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 187107 292 Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern 

University Press. 

293 Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. 

Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243. 294 Gondolf 1994; Harrell (1993); Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The 

Benefits and Limitations for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX0035, National Institute of Justice; Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of 

Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press; Zoellner, 

295 Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Fredland, N., Schultz, P., & Willson, P., et al.(2001). Women in 

danger: Intimate partner violence experienced by women that qualify and do not qualify for a protective 

order. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,19, 637-647; Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Willson, 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.
59

 As a result, most victims who petition courts for protection orders have suffered 

several years of abuse with the same abuser before coming to court for the first time. In a 

multi-state and District of Columbia study, researchers found 10% sought protection 

orders after only a week of abuse, 15% experienced abuse for one to two years and nearly 

a quarter had endured abuse for more than five years.296 In a Colorado study, the average 

female petition suffered 12.74 abusive behaviors in the year prior to requesting their 

orders, from being sworn at to raped. A fifth reported their prior abuse included the more 

serious behaviors, including strangling, forced sex and beating. The duration ranged from 

once to 31 years with a median of 2.4 years.297

 The specific incident that promoted victims to petition for protective orders 

generally involves physical abuse. In the multi-state and District of Columbia study, more 

than a third had been threatened or injured with a weapon (36.8%), more than half 

(54.4%) had experienced severe physical abuse, 83.9% experienced mild physical abuse 

and almost all, 98.9%, had been intimidated through threats, stalking and harassment.298 

In Quincy, Massachusetts, similarly, 64.4% of the victims were physically assaulted, 

another third had been threatened with death or harm to them, their children or a 

relative.299 Similarly in a Colorado study, 56% of the female petitioners had sustained 

physical injuries during the incident that led to the order requests.300 In the two courts 

studied in Massachusetts, one located in a minority neighborhood of Boston and the other 

a south shore mid-sized city, 92% of the petitions filed by female victims described 

incidents that constituted criminal acts, 70% assault and batteries. Breaking down the 

affidavits further, the researcher found 48% described separation violence, 22% 

punishment, coercion, and retaliation concerning children, and 12% retaliation for calling 

police. Two-thirds of the female petitioners (65%) told the researcher that the abuser had 

threatened them with death, 35% had visited hospitals as a result of prior violence in past, 

30% suffered sexual abuse, and of those who were mothers, 51% reported threats to take 

children from them or report them as unfit to child protective services.301

 Watson, K., Fredland, N., Schultz, P.,Walsh, T., Hall, I. & Smith, S. (2001). Protection orders and assault 

charges: Do justice interventions reduce violence against women? American Journal of Family Law, 15(1), 

59-71; McFarlane (2004). 

296 Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National 

Institute of Justice. 

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

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

298 Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National 

Institute of Justice. 

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

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 300 Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E. 

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

243. 

301 Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: 

Northeastern University Press.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 On the other hand, the incident that prompts victims to seek orders may not be the 

most serious incident they experienced at the hand of their abusers. Research finds that 

the seriousness of incident itself is not predictive of future risk of reabuse.302

Implications: Although petitions focus on the most recent, discreet incident, the 

incident rarely fully reveals the nature of the abuse suffered by the petition and risk 

for future abuse. Post-separation abuse frequently involves stalking behavior, a risk 

factor for further abuse, even lethality. To obtain more information, judges need to 

further question victims and/or review respondents’ prior criminal and civil history. 

Research Implications: Extensive studies of petitioners in disparate jurisdictions as well 

as multiple abuser studies. 

How many abusers violate court protective orders? 

Research varies but violation rates have been found to range from 23% over two 

years,303 35% within six months,304 to 60% within twelve months,305 and in between at 

48.8% within two years.306 A Rhode Island study found consistent violation of criminal 

no contact orders imposed after domestic violence arrests resulting in subsequent 

concurrent sentences for both the initial domestic violence offense and the no contact 

violation. Further, the study also found that the majority (51%) of abusers sentenced 

concurrently for abuse-related offenses and no contact violations reabused. The rearrest 

rate for new abuse for abusers specifically convicted of civil protection orders violations 

was 44% and for criminal no contact orders it was 48%, higher than all other domestic 

violence offenses that ranged from 25 to 39%.307

 

302 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of 

Prosecuting Domestic Violence Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Klein, A. (1996). 

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

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

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

Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. 

Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.; Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the 

Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, 

Center for Court Innovation (NIJ); Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community 

Response to Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 303 Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors 

for Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 304 Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National 

Institute of Justice. 

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

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

243. 

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

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214 307 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 The rates are higher depending upon whether reabuse is measured by new 

domestic violence arrests or victim self-reports. In addition, order violation rates may not 

accurately reflect reabuse over a specific period of time because many victims do not 

retain or drop orders. Although “permanent orders” in Massachusetts are for one year, 

almost half subsequently returned to court to drop their orders before the year ended.308 A 

review of disparate jurisdiction revealed retention rates varied from a low of just 16% in 

Omaha, Nebraska in 2003309 to a high of 69% in the District of Columbia in 2000310 and 

80% in East Norfolk, Massachusetts in 1995.311

Implications: Like arrest of abusers, the issuance of protective orders, alone, do not 

assure victim safety. Judges should advise victims of order limitations 

Research basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions.

 

Do Protective Orders Work? 

The research has not been able to answer this definitively, mainly because it is 

ethically impermissible to randomly grant and/or deny orders in order to compare results. 

Further, these orders may “work” at different levels. 

 First, in terms of their effectiveness in deterring repeat abuse, before and after 

studies suggest orders may deter select abusers. In Travis County, Texas, for example, 

two years before and after order issuance, physical abuse dropped from 68% to 23% after 

the orders were obtained if victims maintained the order. If the abusers were also 

arrested at the time of the order issuance, the physical abuse dropped further; if they had 

children, it dropped less.312 These studies cannot reveal whether or not the abuse would 

have naturally declined overtime without the orders simply because, for example, the 

victims were more likely to have left abusers against whom they obtained the orders. 

 Several Seattle studies compared women who obtained orders to women who 

were abused as indicated by a police incident report but did not obtain orders. They 

found that women with “permanent” orders were less likely to be physically abused than 

women without them, but women who only had temporary orders that lasted two weeks 

were more likely to be psychologically abused than women who did not obtain any 

orders. However, the women who did not obtain orders appeared higher risk for abuse, 

being more alcohol and drug involved, more likely to have been assaulted and injured as 

a result of the study incident, and less likely to have been married to their abuser. Further, 

the study did not look at violations of the orders themselves that did not involve physical 

 

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

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214 

309 Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth/Thomson. 

310 Steketee, M., Levey, L. & Keilitz, S. (2000). Implementing an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: 

Systemic Change in the District of Columbia. Washington D.C.: National Center for State Courts & State 

Justice Institute. 

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

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214. 312 Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors 

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
62

assaults.313 The second Seattle study found that the orders were more effective nine 

months after they were obtained than during the first five month period, significantly 

reducing likelihood of contact, threats with weapons, injuries, and medical care.314 

 Finally, several other studies that compared women who maintained orders and 

those that dropped them, or did not return for “permanent” orders, found that order 

retention made no different in reabuse rates.315 A Rhode Island study involving criminal 

no contact orders, issued automatically upon a domestic violence arrest, similarly found 

that whether victims allowed the orders to be continued for the length of the criminal case 

and probationary sentences that followed (usually one year) or not, the reabuse rates did 

not vary.316

 At least one study suggests that the specific stipulations of the protective orders 

may make a difference. Specifically, victims are more likely to be reabused if their 

orders bar abusive contact but not all contact. Compared to women whose orders barred 

all contact, those that barred only abusive contact were significantly more likely to suffer 

psychological violence, physical violence, sexual insistence, and injuries within a year.317

 Nonetheless, the research consistently finds that victims largely express 

satisfaction with civil orders, even if they are violated by their abusers.318 For example, in 

the multiple-site study in Massachusetts, 86% of the women who obtained a “permanent” 

order said the order either stopped or reduced the abuse notwithstanding the fact that 59% 

called police to report an order violation. Upon further questioning, the women 

expressed the feeling that the order demonstrated to the abuser that the “law was on her 

side.”319 Victims who obtained orders in the multi-state study reported the orders 

improved their overall well being, especially if the abuser had a prior criminal history and 

were more likely to reabuse.320 It may be that while orders do not stop abuse, they reduce 

the severity of the reabuse. Or, although they don’t effect the reabuse, they make victims 

feel vindicated and empowered.

 While not studied directly, it appears to be significantly easier for law 

enforcement to monitor and enforce protective and no contact orders than abuse in 

general. This may explain why abusers are significantly more likely to be arrested for 

 

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

Subsequent Police-reported Violence. Journal of American Medical Association, 288 (5), 598-594. 314 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the Likelihood of 

Future Partner Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 315 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214; Harrell, A. & Smith, 

B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) 

Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243. 316 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

317 Logan, T., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. (2006). Protective Orders: Questions and 

Conundrums. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 7, 175-205. 318 Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-214 

319 Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: 

Northeastern University Press. 

320 Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National 

Institute of Justice. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

protective order violators than other common domestic violence offense. For example, 

the rearrest rate for abusers initially arrested for violation of protection or no contact 

orders was 45.6% over one year compared to 37.6% for domestic assaults, disorderly or 

vandalism.321 Of course, it may also be that abusers with orders are generally higher risk 

for reabuse than abusers without orders. 

Implications: Victims should be encouraged to take out orders and retain them, but 

also advised that the orders do not deter all abusers and may be more effective when 

accompanied by criminal prosecution of the abuser. 

Research Basis: Numerous studies indicating consistent victim satisfaction with orders, 

complemented by studies that consistently find orders do not appear to significantly 

increase risk of reabuse and may deter some abusers.

Does Judicial Demeanor Make a Difference? 

Although few studies have looked at judicial conduct specifically, a multi-site 

study in Massachusetts found judges issuing orders fell into three categories: 1) those 

with “good natured demeanors,” who were supportive and informative with victims and 

firm with abusers; 2) those with “bureaucratic demeanors,” who were firm and formal 

with all parties; and 3) those with “condescending, harsh and demeaning demeanors,” but 

who were often good natured with abusers. The research found that victims felt more 

empowered, listened to, and were more likely to retain orders issued by the former than 

the two other groups of judges. They were also more likely to cooperate with prosecutors 

on concurrent criminal charges against their abusers. Most of the judges were found to be 

in the first group.322

 Another study compared two Massachusetts courts within ten miles of each other. 

One court was characterized as “user friendly” for victims, complete with a special office 

for victims to complete forms as well as special court sessions so petitioners did not have 

to wait to see judges. The other was more bureaucratic, with no special offices or sessions 

for victims. Victims in the first court had an 80% retention rate (i.e. returned to obtain 

“permanent orders” after the temporary orders expired) while those in the latter had a 

20% return rate.323 Similarly and perhaps for the same reason, specialized domestic 

violence courts have also been found to increase victim order retention rates. A study of 

the District of Columbia Domestic Violence Court found it increased retention from 40% 

to 55% after imposition of the specialized domestic violence sessions.324 

 In a related study of upstate New York courts, a multi-jurisdictional study found 

that the demeanor of the judge also reverberated across the criminal justice system. It 

found, for example that while a “rights-oriented” judge held police and prosecutors to 

 

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

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

322 Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston, MA: 

Northeastern University Press. 

323 Hardeman, J. (1995). Implementation of the Abuse Prevention Act (209A). Waltham, MA: Heller 

School, Brandeis University. 

324 Steketee, M., Levey, L. & Keiolitz, S. (2000). Implementing an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: 

Systemic Change in the District of Columbia. Washington D.C.: National Center for State Courts & State 

Justice Institute. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
64

high evidentiary standard (which they often met), a judge who strongly believed that 

domestic violence cases did not belong in court stifled and discouraged both domestic 

violence arrests in the community and prosecutions in court.325

Implications: Judges should strive to create user friendly, safe court environments 

for petitioners, be sympathetic to parties before them, but firm with respondents 

once abuse has been determined validating victim concerns and clearly condemning 

respondent’s abusive behavior. 

Research basis: Limited studies confined to three different court jurisdictions in 

Massachusetts.

XIV. Do Specialized Domestic Violence Courts Work? 

 Although relatively new, there is some research that specialized domestic 

violence courts are associated with decreased reoffending and reabuse. The reduction 

may be due to the reform of the court or corresponding specialization of domestic 

violence prosecution and/or probation supervision, or all three. In any case, a study of 

Milwaukee’s federally funded domestic violence court, for example, found arrests halved 

for domestic violence defendant’s sentenced to probation compared to those sentenced to 

probation before court reform. The rearrest rate dropped from 8% to 4.2%. The average 

number of new arrests also dropped significantly. Researchers posit that one of the prime 

explanations for the drop was a corresponding rise in the use of incarceration. As a result 

of tight judicial monitoring and enforcement of release conditions, the post-reform 

probationers spent 13,902 days confined compared to the 1,059 days pre-reform 

probationers spent jailed. In other words, those sentenced by the special domestic 

violence court had less time on the streets to reabuse and reoffend.326

 Studies also found reduced reabuse rates at one other federally-funded domestic 

violence court in Dorchester, Massachusetts over eleven months, but not in a third model 

domestic violence court examined in Michigan. In all three sites, researchers found the 

courts were most effective with 18-29 year old defendants, offenders with seven or more 

prior arrests, whose victims had moderate to high support, did not have children with 

their abusers, and whose relationship with them was less than three years. While reabuse 

declined in two of the courts, overall new arrests were not statistically different although 

they were in the expected direction, 22% for the domestic violence courts and 28% for 

the comparison, non-domestic violence courts. 327

 

325 Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A Multi-side 

comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

326 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

327 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. (http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.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.
65

 Three other studies of specialized domestic violence courts have found small but 

significant reductions in reoffending,328 including a study of the San Diego Superior 

Court where rearrests dropped over one year from 21 to 14%.329 An evaluation of the 

Cook County’s four domestic violence courts, on the other hand, found no differences in 

rearrest rates over six months.330 

 Apart from reabuse rates, domestic violence courts are associated with increased 

convictions and decreased dismissals.331 In Cook County, for example, the four 

misdemeanor domestic violence courts significantly increased the likelihood of victim 

appearance over general courts, 73% compared to 40%. This, in turn, correlated with 

increased conviction rates of 73% compared to 22.9% for that obtained in comparison 

general courts.332 

 Although domestic violence victims generally rate their court experiences highly, 

they rate domestic violence courts even more highly.333 One study found if victims knew 

that there was a domestic violence court, most, three-quarters, would be more likely to 

report future violence.334 One of the reasons for victim preference for domestic violence 

courts may be court linkage with increase victim service and advocacy referral 

documented in several of the studies.335 It may be for these reasons, that the District of 

Columbia Domestic Violence Court was associated with an increased rate of civil 

protective order retention from 40% to 55%.336 Domestic violence courts are also 

associated with more efficient processing of cases. The study of Manhattan’s domestic 

 

328 Goldkamp, J. D Weiland, M Collins, M White (1996) Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic 

Violence and Its Treatment: Dade County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment, Final Report, NCJ 

163408; Gover, A., MacDonald, J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from 

an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 109-129. 

329 San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence 

Courts, Report submitted to the State Justice Institute. San Diego, CA; San Diego Superior Court. 330 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

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

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

331 Davis, Smith, & Rabbitt, 2001: Harrell 2006: Henning and Klesges, 1999, Newmark, L., Rempel, M., 

Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on Implementation and 

Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

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

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

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

333 Eckberg & Podkopacz 2002; Gover, MacDonald & Alpert, 2004; Hotaling, G., Buzawa, E.(2003) 

Victim Satisfaction with Criminal Justice Case Processing in a Model Court Setting. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0019, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 195668. 334 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop 

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

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

335 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. (http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html); 

Henning & Klesges, 1999, Newmark Rempel, Diffili, & Kane, 2001);. 

336 Steketee, M., Levey, L. & Keiolitz, S. (2000). Implementing an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: 

Systemic Change in the District of Columbia. Washington D.C.: National Center for State Courts & State 

Justice Institute. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
66

violence misdemeanor court found, for example, faster case processing, as well as 

improved identification of domestic violence cases.337 

 The research also finds that domestic violence courts increase offender 

compliance with court-ordered conditions as well as the penalties for non-compliance.338

The study of Manhattan’s domestic violence misdemeanor court documented, for 

example, enhanced monitoring of offenders post-conviction.339 Defendants in 

Milwaukee were required to attend post disposition court reviews 60 to 90 days after 

disposition. In 2002, the court conducted 1,347 such reviews. Revocations increased 

dramatically.340

Implications: Specialized Domestic Violence Courts are associated with beneficial 

reforms in several areas, including victim safety and satisfaction, offender 

accountability, and more efficient case flow processing. 

Research Basis: The research is based mainly on disparate process evaluations of 

specialized domestic violence courts. It does not suggest that judges sitting in regular 

trial courts who adopt similar practices cannot achieve the same results on a case by 

case basis.

What makes specialized domestic violence courts different? 

A 2004 study found 160 jurisdictions across the country with specialized 

domestic violence courts. The majority of these courts had the following traits in 

common: 1) effective management of domestic violence cases, coordinating all of the 

cases involving the relevant parties, and integrating requisite information for the court; 2) 

specialized intake and courts staffing for domestic violence cases; 3) improved victim 

access, expedited hearings, and assistance for victims by court staff, often assisted by 

related specialized, vertical domestic violence prosecution units; 4) court processed to 

ensure victims safety, from court metal detectors, separate waiting rooms to specialized 

orders and victim referrals; 5) increased court monitoring and enforcement of batterer 

compliance with court orders, often exercised by related specialized probation 

supervision units; 6) consideration of children involved in domestic violence; and 7) 

enhanced domestic violence training for judges.341

 Pretrial Monitoring of Defendants 

 

337 Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence cases. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. 338 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.); Newmark, L., Rempel, M., 

Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on Implementation and 

Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

339 Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence cases. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. 340 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

341 Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: A National 

Survey, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0002, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 199724. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

In the specialized domestic violence courts in San Diego, California and Everett, 

Washington providing for $10,000 bail, $1,000 cash, for each misdemeanor domestic 

violence charge in the former and $10,000 without cash alternative in the latter, increases 

in defendants held pretrial increased pleas at arraignment. In San Diego, for example, 

46% of defendants were found to plead at arraignment.342 After establishment of a 

specialized domestic violence court in Milwaukee, 20% plead guilty before assigned a 

trial date.343 Increased restrictions on defendant-victim contact has also been found to 

increase likelihood of conviction.344 

 Decreasing defendant defaults may also be associated with reduced reabuse. A 

study of Cook County’s four misdemeanor domestic violence courts found, for example, 

that no show defendants had a significantly greater number of new arrests than those 

what showed in court, .778 compared to .456.345 This is consistent with research that 

similarly found that defendants that flee the abuse incident before police arrive are twice 

as likely to reabuse than those that remain on the scene of the incident.346

 As a result of enhanced pretrial processing, while the conviction rate in the 

Brooklyn (Kings County) felony domestic violence court remained the same after 

establishment of the specialized court, convictions by guilty pleas increased and trials 

decreased.347 

Implications: Judicial attention to address the risk posed by alleged abusers will 

result in quicker case resolution and decrease reabuse by defendants who fail to 

show for trial. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies from multiple jurisdictions.

 

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

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

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

343 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html);Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. 

(2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report.

Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-K005, Urban Institute 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

344 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386 (http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html); 

Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

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

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

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

346 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a ProActive Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

347 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
68

 Enhanced Court Dispositions 

 Court dispositions in specialized domestic violence courts tend to be more 

substantial than elsewhere and more rigorously enforced. In Everett, Washington and 

Klamath Falls, Oregon, defendants were more likely to be ordered to attend batterer 

programs and drug counseling, and be ordered to abstain from drugs and submit to 

testing. Further the batterer programs increased in length and cost. In these and other sites 

with specialized court programs, defendants were more likely to be ordered to have no 

contact with their victims.348 In terms of enforcement, in Milwaukee, for example, the 

study revealed that after implementation of the specialized domestic violence court, there 

was a dramatic increase in probation revocations, 27% compared to 2% before. Most, 

70%, were for technical violations such as failure to attend batterer programs.349 

 In Massachusetts and Cook County, Illinois, specialized domestic violence courts 

reduced deferred prosecutions and increased the percent of defendants committed. In the 

latter, for example, court conviction rates rose from 50% to 71.4%; the likelihood of jail 

increased significantly from 6.7% to 31.3%.350

Implications: Judges sitting in specialized domestic violence courts appear more 

likely to impose more intrusive sanctions against convicted abusers. 

Research Basis: Disparate studies demonstrate a correlation, although specialized 

domestic violence courts may offer judges enhanced dispositional options, including 

specialized probationary supervision programs for abusers. They may also include 

judges who are better informed about domestic violence.

 Do enhanced domestic violence dispositions require enhanced 

post-disposition court time and resources? 

Studies have found that enhanced sentencing of abusers involving probation with 

relevant conditions, including batterer programs, abstinence and/or no contact orders, 

requires enhanced monitoring because many abuser probationers typically fail to comply. 

Studies have documented that noncompliance rates prompting formal revocations ranged 

from 12% in the Dorchester, Massachusetts to 27% in Milwaukee misdemeanor domestic 

violence courts.351 In Cook County’s four misdemeanor domestic violence courts the 

revocation rate was 27.5%.352 Higher rates were found in a series of other studies of 

domestic violence supervision programs across Illinois, including 38.5% in Sangamond 

 

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

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

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

349 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of Milwaukee’s Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WTVX-K005, Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.

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

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

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

351 Harrell, A., Catro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 1999-WTVX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. (http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html). 352 Hartley, C. & Frohmann, L. (2003).Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An

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

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

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
69

(Springfield) County, 33% in Peoria, and 22.8% in Tazewell County and over 50% in 

Quincy, Massachusetts.353 In Brooklyn’s felony domestic violence court, the rate was 

33%.354

 Revocation rates may also reflect probation resources and polices as much as 

probationer conduct. For example, an evaluation of Rhode Island’s specialized domestic 

violence probation supervision unit found the unit’s revocation rate was 44% while the 

rate for comparable abuser probationers supervised in larger mixed caseloads was only 

24.7%. Almost all of the violations were for noncompliance with the state’s mandated 

batterer program.355 

Implications: Enhanced dispositions increase technical violations which require 

additional judicial time if defendants are to be held accountable. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in disparate jurisdictions.

Does the type of post-dispositional monitoring matter? 

Studies are mixed concerning the impact of post-disposition judicial monitoring 

that probably should not be surprising as the quality of judicial monitoring is undoubtedly 

mixed as well. For example, a quasi-experiment involving the Bronx domestic violence 

court found judicial monitoring did not reduce recidivism, although it had a modest, but 

transitory one year reduction in domestic violence arrests. However, the same study 

found the quality of the monitoring program to be problematic.356 A study of the San 

Diego Court attributed judicial monitoring to a decrease in rearrests from 21 to 14% over 

one year.357 Similarly, other studies suggest that longer period of court control are 

associated with reduced reabuse,358 including pretrial with an increased number of court 

appearances pending trial.359

 Studies have also found that probation supervision increases batterer program 

completion. A multi-year study across Massachusetts found batterer program completion 

 

353 Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation Evaluation of the 

Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign County. Springfield, IL: University of 

Illinois at Springfield; Hayler, B. & Addison-Lamb, M. (November 2000). A Process and Implementation 

Evaluation of the Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Projects in Illinois’s Peoria, Sangamon, and 

Tazewell Counties. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield; Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). 

Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 

136-157.

354 Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001). Specialized Felony Domestic Violence Court: 

Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861. 355 Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

& American Probation and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

356 Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?

Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207. 357 San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence 

Courts, Report submitted to the State Justice Institute. San Diego, CA; San Diego Superior Court. 358 Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A Randomized 

Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of 

Justice (NCJ 180772). 

359 Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence cases. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

rates was 62% for those supervised and only 30% for those who cases were 

unsupervised.360

Implications: Post-dispositional patterns of compliance and judicial enforcement 

should be reviewed periodically in order to assure that the crucial role of judges 

post-disposition is being fulfilled. 

Research Basis: Several studies in disparate jurisdictions are suggestive, but given the 

variety in court contexts, no specific model post-dispositional monitoring program has 

emerged (or is likely to emerge) as better than any other.

Does probation supervision of abusers reduce likelihood of reabuse? 

 There have been few studies of probation supervision of abusers. A quasiexperimental study across the state of Rhode Island found that those abusers supervised 

in a specialized domestic violence probation program, featuring victim contact, slightly 

more intensive supervision of abusers (twice a month), intensive monitoring of mandated 

batterer programs, and volunteer probation officers, were significantly less likely to 

commit new offenses and abuse within one year, but only for those probationers who had 

not already been on probation before.361 

 While specialized domestic violence courts often involve specialized probation 

supervision programs, probation’s contribution to these courts’ successes (and failures) 

have not been isolated. 

Implications: Specialized supervision of abusers may help reduce reabuse. 

Research Basis: Tentative findings based on only one state study.

 

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

Corrective Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 

361 Klein, A. & Crowe, A. (2008). Findings from and Outcome Examination of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

Domestic Violence Probation Supervision Program, Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 226-246;Klein, A., 

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

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

and Parole Association. Final Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

References 

A Review of Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs, (1998) Austin, J. and 

Dankwort, J., (http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_standards.pdf)

Adams, D. (2007). Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 

Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of 

Probation. 

Albucher R. & Liberzon, I. (2002), Psychopharmacological Treatment in PTSD: A 

Critical Review. Journal of Psychiatric Research 36(6):355-367. 

Aldarondo, E. (2002). Evaluating the Efficacy of Interventions with Men Who Batter. In 

E. Aldarondo & F. Mederos (Eds.) Programs for Men Who Batter. Kingston, NJ: Civic 

Research Institute, 3-12. 

Arias, I. & Pape, K. (Spring, 1999). Psychological Abuse: Implications for Adjustment 

and Commitment to Leave Violent Partner, Violence and Victims 14 (1): 55-67. 

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

of Domestic Partner Violence, Violence Against Women, 9,1318. 

Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2003). Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Metaanalytic Review of Domestic Violence Outcome Research. Journal of Family Psychology, 

13, 46-59. 

Babcock, J., Green, C. & Robie, C. (2004). Does Batterer Treatment Work? A Metaanalytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-

1053. 

Babcock, J. & Steiner, R. (1999). The Relationship Between Treatment, Incarceration, 

and Recidivism of battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated Community 

response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 46-59. 

Bass, A., Nealon, P., & Armstrong, C. (September 25, 1994). The War on Domestic 

Abuse. Boston Globe, quote in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to 

Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Belknap, J., Graham, D., Hartman, J., Lippen, V., Allen, G., & Sutherland, J. (2000). 

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Urban Area: The 

Role of Victim/Witness Reluctance and Other Variables, Executive Summary. 

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

Justice, NCJ 184112. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
72

Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest 

in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 

Benson, M. & Fox, G. (2004). Concentrated Disadvantage, Economic Distress, and 

Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199709. 

Benson, M., Wooldredge, J., Thistlewaite, A., & Fox, G. (July 2004). The Correlation 

Between Race and Domestic Violence is Confounded in Community Context, Social 

Problems, 51 (3), 326-342. 

Bersani, C. & Chen, H. (1988). Sociological Perspectives in Family Violence, 57-84, in 

V. Van Hasselt, R. Morrison, A. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds). Handbook on Family 

Violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press 

(http://books.google.com/books?id=4QHe98S7HpQC&pg=PR3&dq=bersani+chen&sig=

1Ff41NA31TLYVzY04xT6qcT9Z-4#PPP1,M1). 

Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to 

Murders. News and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response 

to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women 

in Chicago. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732 

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

Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, 

Research Review. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 000172. 

Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst 

Domestic Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice 

Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook (1998). Violence by Intimates: An Analysis of Data 

on Crimes by Current and Former Spouses, Boyfriends and Girlfriends. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-167237. 

Buzawa, E. & Buzawa, C. (Eds.) (1992). Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response. Auburn, CT: Greenwood Press. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence 

in a Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

Campbell, J., O’Sullivan, C., Roehl, J., & Webster, D. (2005). Intimate Partner Violence 

Risk Assessment Validation Study, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 209732. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

Glass, N., McFarlane, C., J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S., Manganello, X, Xu, 

X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V.. & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk Factors for Femicide in 

Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study, American Journal 

of Public Health, 93 (7), 1089-1097. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors 

for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal,250, 14-19. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 196547. 

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

Risk Factors for Reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 

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

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). 

Chen, R. (August 1995), Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Bureau of 

Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, NCJ 149076. 

Chen, H., Bersani, S., Myers, S., & Denton, T. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Court-Sponsored Abuser Treatment Programs. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 137-160. 

Cissner, A. & Puffett, N. (2006). Do Batterer Program Length or Approach Affect 

Completion or Re-Arrest Rates? A Comparison of Outcomes Between Defendants 

Sentenced to Two Batterer Programs in Brooklyn. New York, NY: Center for Court 

Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in 

Understanding Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5). 

Collins, James and Spencer, Donna (1999). Linkage of Domestic Violence and Substance 

Abuse Services, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX0009, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 194123. 

Dalton, B. (2001). Batterer Characteristics and Treatment Completion, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence,16, (12), 1223-1238. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop Out Among Men Who Batter: A 

Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and Victims, 

15, 137-160. 

Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic 

Violence Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443. 

Davis, R., Smith, B., & Rabbit, C. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence 

cases: A Field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22: 62. 

Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2002). Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A 

Reanalysis of Data From Three Field Tests. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 200608. 

Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1997). A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of 

a Randomized Experiment, Criminology 35 (2), 307–333. 

Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? 

A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772). 

Dawson, M. & Dinovtizer, R. (2001),Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic 

violence in a specialized court, Justice Quarterly,18, (3) 593 – 622. 

DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. 

DeHart, D., Kennerly, R., Burke, L. & Follingstad, D. (1999). Predictors of Attrition in a 

treatment Program for Battering Men. Journal of Family Violence 14, 19. 

DeMaris, A. (1989). Attrition in Batterers’ Counseling: The Role of Social and 

Demographic Factors. Social Review 63, 142-154. 

Deschner, J.P., McNeil, J.S., & Moore, M.G. (1986). A treatment model for batterers.

Social Casework, 67, 55-60. 

Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for 

Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322. 

Dugan, L., Nagin, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Effects of State and Local Domestic 

Violence Policy on Intimate Partner Homicide. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 97-WT-VX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199711. 

Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions 

for Men Who Assault Their Wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68, 

468-476. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Dunford, F. (1990). System Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic. 

Assault: A Pilot Study. Justice Quarterly, 7, 631-653. 

Eckhardt, C. (2003). Stages and Processes of Change and Associated Treatment 

Outcomes in Partner Assaultive Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 205022). 

Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who Batter: Four Years of Outcome 

Data from the Domestic Abuse Project. Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12. 

Fagan, J., Friedman, E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). The National Family Violence 

Program: Final Evaluation Report, San Francisco, CA: URSA Institute. 

Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: Evaluation of the 

Mandatory Arrest Provisions, Final Report, (2001) Albany, NY: Division of Criminal 

Justice Services and Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. 

Feazell, C., Mayers, R. & Deschner, J. (1984). Services for Men Who Batter: 

Implications for Programs and Policies. Family Relations, 33, 217-223 

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

Investigation, in L. Feder (Ed.) Women and Domestic Violence: An Interdisciplinary 

Approach, New York, NY: Hawthorn Press, 49-69. 

Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2004).Testing a Court-Mandated Treatment Program for 

Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199729. 

Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A Test of the Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for 

Domestic Violence Offenders: The Broward Experiment. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 96-WT-NX-0008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 184752. 

Feder, L. & Wilson, D. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer 

Intervention Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ Behaviors? Journal of Experimental 

Criminology, 1, 239-262. 

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

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

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 

Finn, M. (2003) Effects of Victims’ Experiences with Prosecutors on Victim 

Empowerment and Re-Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence, Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0008, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 202983. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Finn, M., Blackwell, B., Stalans, L., Studdard, S. & Dugan, L. (2004). Dual Arrest 

Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: The Influence of Departmental Policies, Crime & 

Delinquency, 50, 565. 

Ford, D. & Regoli, J. (1992). The Prevention Impacts of Policies for Preventing Wife 

Batterers, in E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa, Eds, Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response, Westport, CN: Auburn Press. 

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

Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 

Gamache, D., Edleson, J., & Schock, M. (1988). Coordinated Police, Judicial and Social 

Services Responses to Woman Battering: A Multi-baseline Evaluation Across Three 

Communities. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick & M. Straus (Eds.) Coping 

with Family Violence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Garner, J. (2005). What Does “the Prosecution” of Domestic Violence Mean?

Criminology & Public Policy, 4 (3), 567-573. 

Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates 

for Intimate Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 

49. 

Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. 

Giacomazzi, A. & Smithey, M. (2004). Collaborative Effort Toward Resolving Family 

Violence Against Women. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WE-VX0131, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199716. 

Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Fredland, N., Schultz, P., & Willson, P., et al.(2001). 

Women in danger: Intimate partner violence experienced by women that qualify and do 

not qualify for a protective order. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,19, 637-647. 

Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Willson, P., Watson, K., Fredland, N., Schultz, 

P.,Walsh, T., Hall, I., Smith, S. (2001). Protection orders and assault charges: Do justice 

interventions reduce violence against women? American Journal of Family Law, 15(1), 

59-71. 

Gleason, W. (1993). Mental Disorders in Battered Women: An Empirical Study. Violence 

and Victims, 8 (1), 53-68. 

Goldkamp, J. (1996). The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and its 

Treatment: Dade County’s Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Philadelphia, PA: 

Criminal Justice Research Institute. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: a 

Meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 

Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men Who Batter: Problems and Prospects.

Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2), 177-191. 

Gondolf, E. (1984). How Some Men Stop Battering: An Evaluation of a Group 

Counseling Program (Paper, Second National Conference on Family Violence, Durham, 

NH), cited in Gondolf, E. & Russell, D. (1986). The Case Against Anger Control 

Treatment Programs for Batterers, Response 9 (3), 2-5. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program 

Compliance: An Evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence 

Abuse Counseling Center, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training Institute. 

Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: 

Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Program. 

Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence 

and Victims, 16, 693-704. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention System; A 30-Month 

Follow-Up of Court-Mandated Batterers in Four Cities, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute 

(http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications/30MonthFollowup.shtm). 

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-

128. 

Gondolf, E. & Williams, O. (2005). Culturally Focused Batterer Counseling for African 

American Men. Washington D.C.; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0003, 

National Institute of Justice (NCJ 210828). 

Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who Repeatedly 

Reassault: Psychopathic Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 16, 361-380. 

Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment 

on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield County Experience. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior 30 (1), 118-134. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Gover, A., MacDonald, J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: 

Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public 

Policy, 3, 109-129. 

Grau, J., Fagan, J. & Wexler, S. (1985). Restraining Orders for Battered Women: Issues 

of Access and efficacy. In C. Schweber & C. Feinman (Eds.) Criminal Justice Politics and 

Women: The Aftermath of Legally Mandated Change. New York, NY: Hawthorn Press. 

Greenfield, L., Rand, M., Craven, D., Klaus, P., Perkins, C., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., 

Maston, G., & Fox, J. (March 1998). Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes 

by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, NCJ 167237. 

Greenfield, L., & Zawitz, M. (November 1995). Weapons Offenses and Offenders.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 155284. 

Grisso, J., Schwarz, D., Hirschinger, N., Sammel, M., Brensinger, C., Santanna, J., Lowe, 

R., Anderson, E., Shaw, L., Bethel, C., & Teeple, L. (1999). Violent Injuries among 

Women in an Urban Area. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 25, 1899-1930. 

Gross, M., Cramer, E., Forte, J., Gordon, J., Kunkel, T., & Moriarty, L. (2000). The 

impact of sentencing options on recidivism among domestic violence offenders: A case 

study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 301-312. 

Grusznski, R. & Carrillo, T. (1988). Who Completes Batterer’s Treatment Groups? An 

Empirical Investigation. Journal of Family Violence 3, 151. 

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

Study. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 121-130. 

Hanson, R. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000). A Multi-Site Study of Treatment for Abusive 

Men, Report No. 2000-05. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General Canada. 

Hanson, R.K. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (2000b). Predicting Recidivism among Male 

Batterers, Report No. 2000-06. Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General 

Canada. 

Hardeman, J. (1995). Implementation of the Abuse Prevention Act (209A). Waltham, 

MA: Heller School, Brandeis University. 

Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of a Court-Ordered Treatment For Domestic Violence 

Offenders. Washington , D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Harrell, A., Castro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation 

of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Department of Justice 1999-WT-VX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html). 

Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of 

Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington 

D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-K005, Urban Institute 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence 

Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work?

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243. 

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

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

Hayler, B. & Addison-Lamb, M. (November 2000). A Process and Implementation 

Evaluation of the Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Projects in Illinois’s Peoria, 

Sangamon, and Tazewell Counties. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation 

Evaluation of the Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign 

County. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (June 2000). Assessing Assault Self-reports by Batterer 

Program Participants and Their Partners. Journal of Family Violence 15 (2), 181-197. 

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2004). Battered Women’s Perceptions of Risk Versus Risk 

Factors and Instruments in Predicting Repeat Reassault, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 19 (7), 778-800. 

Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors 

Improve Prediction of Batterer Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 

Hendricks, J. (Ed.) (1991). Crises Intervention in Criminal Justice and Social Services. 

Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. 

Henning, K. & Klesges, L. (1999). Evaluation of the Shelby County Domestic Violence 

Court, Final Report, Shelby County, TN. 

Hilton, N., Harris, G., Rice, M., Lang, C., Cormier, C., & Lines, K. (2004). A Brief 

Actuarial Assessment for the Prediction of Wife Assault Recidivism: The Ontario 

Domestic Assault Risk Assessment, Psychological Assessment 16 (3), 267-275. 

Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining 

the Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 218355. 

Hirschel, J. & Dawson, D. (2003). Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for 

Law Enforcement Officials, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VXK001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 198372. 

Hirschel, J. & Hutchison, I. (2001). The Relative Effects of Offense, Offender, and Victim 

Variables on the Decision to Prosecute Domestic Violence Cases, Violence Against 

Women, 7(1), 46-59. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the 

Likelihood of Future Partner Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Lumley, T., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2002). Civil Protection Orders 

and Risk of Subsequent Police-reported Violence. Journal of American Medical 

Association, 288 (5), 598-594. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally 

Violent: Scientific and Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A. and Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typology of Male Batterers: Three 

Subtypes and the Differences among Them, Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 476-497. 

Hotaling, G. & Buzawa, E. (2003) Victim Satisfaction with Criminal Justice Case 

Processing in a Model Court Setting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0019, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 195668. 

Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain 

News. 

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

Police for Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-IJ-CX0047, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179277. 

Isaac, N. & Enos, P. (2000). Medical Records and Legal Evidence of Domestic Violence. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0008, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 184528.

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

and Schuster. 

Johannson, M. & Tutty, L. (1998). An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for 

Wife Abuse, Family Relations, 47 (1), 27-35. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: 

A National Survey, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0002, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199724. 

Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits 

and Limitations for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National Institute of Justice. 

Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa 

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

192-214. 

Klein, A. (2005). Rhode Island Domestic Violence Shelter and Advocacy 

Services. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

(www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/Final%20ShelterEval%209-20-05.pdf.) 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Klein, A. & Crowe, A. (2008). Findings from and Outcome Examination of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Supervision Program, Violence 

Against Women, 14 (2), 226-246. 

Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Abuse of Older Women 

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

WG-BX-0009, National Institute of Justice (NCJ pending). 

Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 136-157. 

Klein, A. & Wilson, D. (April 2003). A Victim Survey on the Effects of a CourtMandated Batterer Intervention Program in Rhode Island. Waltham, MA: BOTEC 

Analysis Corporation (www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/BI%20Program.pdf). 

Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association. Final 

Report on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011.. 

Kramer, R. (1989). Alcohol and Victimization Factors in the Histories of Abused women 

Who Come to Court: A Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI 

Dissertation Services. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Kyriacou, D., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J., Muelleman, R., 

Barton, E., & Kraus, J. (1999). Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic 

Violence. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, (25), 1892-1898. 

Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer 

Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center 

for Court Innovation (NIJ) (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Labriola, M., Rempel, M., O’Sullivan, C., & Frank, P. (2007). Court Responses to 

Batterer Program Noncompliance, A National Perspective. New York, NY: Center for 

Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Lane, E., Greenspan, R. & Weisburd, D. (2004). The Second Responders Program: A 

Coordinated Police and Social Service Response to Domestic Violence. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

199717. 

Lindquist, C., Telch, C. & Taylor, J. (1985). Evaluation of a Conjugal Violence 

Treatment Program: A Pilot Study. Behavioral Counseling and Community 

Interventions, 3, 76-90. 

Lockyer, B. (2005). Domestic Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and 

Batterer Accountability, Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force 

on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Sacramento, CA: Office of 

the Attorney General (www.safestate.org/domesticviolence). 

Logan, T., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. (2006). Protective Orders: Questions 

and Conundrums. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 7, 175-205. 

Lyon, E. (2002). Special Session Domestic Violence Courts: Enhanced Advocacy and 

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

WE-VX-0031, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 197860. 

Lyons, E. (2005).Impact Evaluation of Special Sessions Domestic Violence: Enhanced 

Advocacy and Interventions. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WEVX-0014, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210362. 

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

Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 

Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of 

Low-Income Native American Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Maxwell, C., Garner, J. and Fagan, J. (June, 2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate 

Partner Violence: New Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program, National 

Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 188199. 

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

Femicide. Homicide Studies 3 (4), 300-316. 

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

Frequency, Consequences and Treatments. Washington D. NCJ 155284 C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 11678. 

Miller, N. (2002). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A National Review for 

Policymakers and Practitioners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WTVX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 197066. 

Miller, N. (2005). What Does Research and Evaluation Say About Domestic Violence 

Laws? A Compendium of Justice System Laws and Related Research Assessments. 

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice 

(http://www.ilj.org/publications/dv/DomesticViolenceLegislationEvaluation.pdf). 

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

Domestic Violence, Violence Against Women, 12 (1), 89-115. 

Murphy, C., Musser, P., & Maton, K. (1998). Coordinated Community Intervention for 

Domestic Abusers: Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism. Journal of 

Family Violence, 13, (3), 263-284. 

New York Division of Criminal Justice Services (2001), Final Report: Evaluation of the 

Implementation of Mandatory Arrest Law. Albany, NY: NY Division of Criminal Justice 

Services. 

Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, & Kane, K. (2001, 2005). Specialized Felony 

Domestic Violence Court: Lessons on Implementation and Impacts from the Kings 

County Experience. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0005, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 191861 & NCJ 199723. 

Niemi-Kiesilainen, J. (2001). The Deterrent Effect of Arrest in Domestic Violence: 

Differentiating Between Victim and Perpetrator Response, Hasting Law Journal, 12

(283). 

Norwood, W., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R. & Swank, P. (2004). Domestic Violence and 

Deviant Behavior, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-005 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199713. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

O’Farrell, T. (2003). Partner Violence before and after Individually Based Alcoholism 

Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 71, 

92-102. 

Office of the Commissioner of Probation (November 1992). Over 8,500 Domestic 

Restraining Orders Filed since September in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of 

the New Mexico Female Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team, Albuquerque, 

NM: Center for Injury Prevention Research and Education, University of New Mexico 

School of Medicine. 

Olson, D. & Stalans, L. (2001). Violent Offenders on Probation: Profile, Sentence, and 

Outcome Differences among Domestic Violence and Other Violent Probationers.

Violence Against Women, 7, (10) 1164-1185. 

Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic 

Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project, Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 179974. 

Ostrom, B. & Kauder, N. (1999). Examining the Work of State Courts, 1998: A National 

Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 

State Courts. 

Pate, A., Hamilton, E., & Annan, S. (1992). Metro-Dade Spouse Abuse Replication 

Project Technical Report. Washington D.C.: Police Foundation. 

Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D. & Bentley, H. (2007). Comparison 

of the Police Response to Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence, 

Violence Against Women 13 (4), 374-394. 

Paulkossi, L. (October 2001). Surveillance for Homicide among Intimate Partners-United 

States, 1991-1998, Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries, 5, 1-16. 

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

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

of Justice, 1998-WR-VX-K001, Office of Victims on Violence Against Women). 

Pennel, S., Burke, C. & Mulmat, D. (2002). Violence Against Women in San Diego, 

Final Report to the National Institute of Justice on Grant 97-IJ-CX-0007. Washington, 

DC, NCJ# 191838 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence 

cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Pirog-Good, J. & Stets, J. (1986). Programs for Abusers: Who Drops Out and What Can 

be Done? Response 9 (2), 17-19. 

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. 

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 

Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at 

the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court 

Innovation. 

Raiford, L. (2002). Report, New York City, NY: New York City Police Department, 

Domestic Violence Unit. 

Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. (2008). Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic 

Violence Recidivism? Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207. 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html) 

Rennison, C. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(www2.state.id.us/crimevictim/research/statistics/RFPstats.doc)

Rigakos, G. (1997). Situational Determinants of Police Responses to Civil and Criminal 

Injunctions for Battered Women, Violence Against Women, 3, 204. 

Roehl, J. (2000). Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems, Final Report.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0097, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 182435. 

Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate partner violence: The current use of risk 

assessments in sentencing offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 

Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). ). Intimate Partner 

Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study-Practitioner Summary 

and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing Risk from Violent Intimate 

Partners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 209731. 

Rothman, E., Hemenway, D., Miller, M. & Azrel, D. (Winter, 2004). Batterers’ Use of 

Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners, Journal of the American Medical Women’s 

Association 60 (1), 62-67. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Salomon, A., Bassuk, E., Browne, A., Bassuk, S., Dawson, R. & Huntington, N. (2004). 

Secondary Data Analysis on the Etiology, Course, and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence Against Extremely Poor Women. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

98-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199714. 

San Diego Superior Court (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic 

Violence Courts, Report submitted to State Justice Institute. 

Saunders, D. & Parker, J. (1989). Legal Sanctions and Treatment Follow-Through 

Among Men Who Batter. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 25, 21. 

Smith, A. (2001). Domestic violence laws: The voices of battered women. Violence and 

Victims, 16 (1). 

Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L. & Davies, H. (2001). An Evaluation of Efforts to 

Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report, Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0029, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

187772. 

Smithey, M., Green, S. & Giacomazzi, A. (2002). Collaborative Effort and the 

Effectiveness of Law Enforcement Training Toward Resolving Domestic Violence,

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WE-VX-0131, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 191840. 

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New 

York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 

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

Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review, Seattle, WA: Washington 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

Steketee, M., Levey, L. & Keilitz, S. (2000). Implementing an Integrated Domestic 

Violence Court: Systemic Change in the District of Columbia. Washington D.C.: 

National Center for State Courts & State Justice Institute. 

Stith, S., Rosen, K., & McCollum, E. (2003). Effectiveness of Couples Treatment for 

Spouse Abuse, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29 (3), 407-426. 

Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in 

American Family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 

Stuart, G. (2005). Improving Violence Intervention Outcomes Integrating Alcohol 

Treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (4), 388-393. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Syers & Edleson (1992). Syers, M. & Edleson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of 

coordinated criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 7, 490-502. 

Task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. (2005). Domestic 

Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability. Sacramento, 

CA: Office of the Attorney General.

Taylor, B., Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2001). The Effects of a Group Batterer Treatment 

Program: A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn, Justice Quarterly 18 (1), 171-201. 

Thistlewaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998).. Severity of Dispositions and 

Domestic Violence Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181867. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (November, 1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences 

of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women 

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

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCJ 

172837. 

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

Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, Washington DC: US Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 169592. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2001). Stalking: Its Role in Serious Domestic Violence 

Cases, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0002, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 187346. 

Tolman, R. & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated Community Interventions for Domestic 

Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Women Abuse 

Perpetrators, Crime & Delinquency, 41 (4), 481-495). 

Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and 

Hispanic Abused Women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 

Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S. & Baxter, C. (2006). Law Enforcement Response to 

Domestic Violence Calls for Service, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 99-

C-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215915. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Ursel, J. & Brickey, S. (1996). The potential of legal reform reconsidered: An 

examination of Manitoba’s zero-tolerance policy on family violence. In T. O’ReilluFleming (Ed.). Post-Critical Criminology, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall, 6-77. 

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

Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

Vigdor, E.& Mercy, J. (2006). Do laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic 

Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide? Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 313-

346. 

Websdale, N., Sheeran, M., & Johnson, B. (1998). Reviewing Domestic Violence 

Fatalities: Summarizing National Developments, Violence Against Women Online 

Resources (www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/fatality/fatality.html). 

Weiss, H., Lawrence, B., & Miller, T. (2004). Pregnancy-Associated Assault 

Hospitalizations: Prevalence and Risk of Hospitalized Assaults Against Women During 

Pregnancy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998-WT-VX-0V16, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 199706. 

Weisz, A., Canales-Portalatin, D., & Nahan, N. (2001). An Evaluation Of Victim 

Advocacy Within A Team Approach. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-

WT-VX-0006, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 187107 

Wekerle, C. & Wall, A. (2002). The violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and 

clinical issues in substance abuse and relationship violence. New York, NY: BrunnerRoutledge. 

White, J. & Smith, P. (2004). A Longitudinal Perspective on Physical and Sexual 

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ199708. 

Williams, K. & Houghton, A. (2004). Assessing the Risk of Domestic Violence 

Offending: A Validation Study. Law and Human Behavior, 437-455. 

Wilson. D. & Klein, A. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Batterers Arraigned 

in a Massachusetts District Court 1995-2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2004-WB-GX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215346. 

Winn, R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A Comparison of Men and Women Who Kill,

Violence and Victims, 5 (4), 236. 

Wooldredge, J. (2007). Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault 

and the odds of new assault charges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 379-389. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
89

Wooldredge, J. & Thistlethwaite, A. (2005). Court Dispositions and Rearrest for Intimate 

Assault, Crime & Delinquency, 51 (76). 

Worden, A. (2001). Models of Community Coordination in Partner Violence Cases: A 

Multi-side comparative analysis, final report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-WT-NX-0006, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 187351. 

Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police 

Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 

96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.