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 I: Law Enforcement 

Author: Andrew R. Klein 

Document No.: 222319 

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 I: Law Enforcement 

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 I: Law Enforcement 

Andrew R. Klein 

Preface 

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

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

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

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

judges. 

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

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

unmarried, with or without children. 

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

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

several studies of women seeking hospital emergency room treatment for injuries 

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

medical community, these studies underscore victim characteristics found in criminal 

justice related research suggesting how representative the latter research is. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to state court data tapes of thousands of cases. 

While some research findings may be questionable because researchers employed less 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the research has not yet been replicated. 

 

Performance Measures 

“Performance Measures” include examples of specific programs or specific 

jurisdictions’ achievements or surveys of multiple departments. The performance 

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

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

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

jurisdictions. 

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

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

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

the United States Department of Justice. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

for Law Enforcement 

I. How widespread is the problem? 

How widespread is nonfatal domestic violence? 

What percent of police calls are for domestic violence? 

When does it occur? 

 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 is actually reported to law enforcement? 

 When do victims report? 

 Which victims are likely to report? 

Does the quality of the law enforcement response influence 

 reporting? 

Who else reports domestic violence? 

 Are there are other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

 What domestic violence is generally reported to law enforcement? 

III. Can arrest rates actually correspond to estimated actual rates for 

domestic violence and stalking found in victim surveys? 

Can stalking arrests correspond to actual stalking rates as reported by 

victims? 

Is arrest the best response? 

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

 enforcement arrives? 

Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

 

IV. Who are the Perpetrators? 

What is their gender? 

What age are they? 

Are they likely already known to law enforcement? 

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? 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 

Are victim characteristics and actions important factors in 

 assessing abuse likelihood? 

Victims and Substance Abuse 

Why do some victims behave as they do? 

Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

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 (within a year or so at 

least)? 

Is gender important? 

Is age important? 

Is prior arrest history important? 

Is substance abuse important?

Are victims accurate predictors of reabuse? 

Are there other common risk factors associated with reabuse? 

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

 Do the widely used risk instruments accurately predict reabuse? 

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

What about firearms and other weapons? 

What are other lethality risk markers? 

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

IX. Are specialized law enforcement domestic violence units effective in 

responding to domestic violence? 

Do they influence prosecution and convictions of abuse suspects? 

 Do they influence victim behavior? 

 Do they reduce reabuse? 

 Do they increase victim satisfaction?

 Should law enforcement agencies participate in coordinated 

 community responses? 

X. Police Domestic Violence Training 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research 

for Law Enforcement 

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, leaving their abuser, does not stop the 

abuse, law enforcement agencies must commit time, resources and attention to 

domestic violence as it does to confront any other major crime. For this reason, all 

 

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice, NCJ 215916. 

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

law enforcement agencies should have a domestic violence policy that includes, as a 

minimum, that written reports be completed on all domestic violence calls and if no 

arrest is made the circumstances fully explaining why. 

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

studies.

Performance Measure: 77% of police departments have written operational 

procedures for responding to emergency domestic violence calls, with larger 

departments most likely to have such written procedures. Most policies include 

requiring dispatcher to ask about weapons, check for protection orders, and advise 

caller to stay on the line until police arrive. 8

Research Basis: Representative sample of 368 drawn from 14,000 law enforcement 

agencies across nation.

 When does it occur? 

Most, 60%, offenses occur between 6 PM and 6 AM at the victim’s home (NCVS).9

Implications: While all potential responding law enforcement officers must be 

trained and prepared to deal with domestic violence, if the agency has only a limited 

number of victim advocates, related auxiliary personnel, or volunteers to assist on 

domestic violence calls, priority should be give to these time periods. 

Research Basis: National survey data from 1993 -2004.

 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%).10 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.11 

 

8

 Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S., Baxter, C. (2006). Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence 

Calls for Service, U.S. Department of Justice, 99-C-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215915. 9

 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)., 10 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., 11 McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Wilt, S. (1999). Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide. Homicide Studies 3

(4):300-316. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Implications: It is important for law enforcement officers to correctly identify 

stalking behavior in order to accurately analyze victim risk and utilize stalking laws 

appropriately. Even if not charged, stalking constitutes a red flag for potential 

lethality. 

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

in other stalking studies.

 How widespread are intimate sexual assaults? 

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

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

protective orders were raped, most (79%) repeatedly.12 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.13 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 abuses, including forced sex within the 

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

restraining order.14

Implications: Investigators should be alert to possible sexual as well as physical 

abuse in interviewing or investigating domestic assaults. Judgment must be used as 

to how best and when to approach potential victims of sexual assaults. 

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.15 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 

 

12 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. 

13 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. 14 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.\ 15 Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

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

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

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

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

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 the primary intimate victim, one co-worker of the 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.16

 

Implications: To reduce female homicides generally, law enforcement must give 

priority to the protection of female intimates. 

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.17 A study of dating violence similarly found 

substantial overlap between physical and sexual victimization.18

Implications: A full investigation may indicate additional, even more serious 

incidents of domestic violence than the one to which the law enforcement officers 

respond. 

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 is actually reported to law enforcement? 

 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, 

only 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 

 

16 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. 17 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. 18 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

between male and female victim reporting rates. The highest reporting is for black 

females (70.2%) and the lowest is black males (46.5%).19

 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.20

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.21 

 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).22 

 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).23

 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%.24

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

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

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

actual rates as determined by victim surveys, law enforcement officers should be 

responding annually to 8 to 9 incidents per 1,000 females and 2 to 3 per 1,000 males. 

Therefore, if reporting is significantly below at least that which victims actually 

report to law enforcement, greater community outreach and/or barriers to 

reporting must be addressed. Law enforcement officers must press the rest of the 

community to do its part. 

 

19 Catalano, S. (2007). 20Felson, R., Ackerman, J. & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-2002, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 210301. 21 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. 22 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. 

23 Klein (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. 24 Garner, Joel H., and Christopher D. Maxwell (2008). Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate 

Partner Violence. Shepherdstown, WV: Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. 49. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

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

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

density, ethnicity of population, and so on.

When do victims report? 

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

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

and/or apply for protective orders.25 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.26 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 before the call. 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.27

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

assaults.28 

Implications: In questioning victims, law enforcement officers should always inquire 

about prior unreported assaults for evidence of crimes that may be charged 

depending upon the jurisdiction’s statute of limitation and/or are necessary to 

develop an accurate offender history to determine offender risk and so advise the 

victim. Prior abuse history may be helpful in determining the primary or 

predominant aggressor. 

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

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

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

 

Which victims are likely to report? 

 Some victims are more likely to report their victimization and/or re-victimization 

than others. Research indicates that women with greater experience with the criminal 

justice system, especially those with protective orders, and/or who experienced more 

severe abuse histories, are more likely to call police.29 

 

25 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. 26 Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Reabuse.

Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 27 Buzawa, et. al. (1999). 

28 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. 29 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); Holt, V., Kernic, 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 The seriousness of injury may not increase victim reporting, however, either due 

to incapacity, the increased likelihood that a third party will call in these cases, or the fact 

that victims are less likely to have protective orders.30 Younger women, those in dating 

relationships, and those with little prior contact with the criminal justice system are less 

likely to call police.31 

Implication: No news may not be good news, but if a victim does report domestic 

violence, it probably indicates repeated prior abuse incidents. Law enforcement 

officers should encourage and be trained how to assist victims to secure protective 

orders if for no other reason than victims with orders are more likely to alert police 

of subsequent victimization compared to victims without orders. Existence of 

protective orders adds to the body of evidence for future prosecution. 

Research Basis: Both national surveys and multiple local studies conclude victim 

reporting is not uniform or consistent. While one might argue that the existence of orders 

generates violations by criminalizing otherwise legal behavior, both national and 

multiple local studies find higher reporting rates for victims with orders.

 

Does the quality of the law enforcement response influence 

reporting? 

 Research indicates that the actions of law enforcement, such as follow-up home 

visits after incidents, can encourage victim reports of domestic violence.32 It appears that 

victim confidence in police response leads to more likely reports of new violence.33 This 

is reinforced by a specific study of a specialized police department domestic violence unit 

that documented that repeated victim contact by law enforcement officers assigned to a 

specialized domestic violence unit significantly increased the likelihood of victim reports 

of re-victimization.34

 On the other hand, research also shows that victims who reported prior 

victimization and thought the criminal justice response was insufficient or endangered 

 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; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, 

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

MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-

WG-BX-0011. 

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. 

31 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)., 32 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. 33 Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1997). A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of a Randomized Experiment, 

Criminology 35 (2), 307–333.; 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. 

34Jolin, 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

them are less likely to report subsequent victimizations.35 But even if the victim initially 

opposed her abuser’s initial arrest for domestic violence, she is generally just as likely to 

report re-victimizations as victims who did not oppose the initial arrest.36 

Implications: Law enforcement officers should not be deterred from arresting abuse 

suspects for fear of prejudicing future victim reporting of re-victimization. Law 

enforcement responses can increase victim reports of reabuse (even as they decrease 

the likelihood of reabuse). Therefore, increased reporting of victimization does not 

mean law enforcement efforts are failing to reduce actual domestic abuse and 

decreased reporting may not indicate successful law enforcement efforts. 

Research Basis: Increased reported findings based on three experimental studies, as 

well as multiple observational studies from disparate localities.

 

 Who else reports domestic violence? 

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

ranging from 5937 to 93%.38 The review of NCVS re-assaults between 1992 and 2002 

found 72% of the re-assaults were reported by the victim and 28% by third parties.39

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

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

their own and another 7.3% called at the direct behest of the victim.40 Third parties are 

more likely to call police if the incident involved major injuries and/or a weapon.41 Other 

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

and older) abused by other family members, usually sons, daughters or grandsons.42

Implications: 911 tapes of domestic violence calls should be routinely maintained 

and accessible as they may contain possible excited utterance evidence because a 

 

35 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. 

36 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; 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. 

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

Violence, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 38 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. 

39 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. 40 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.

41Buzawa, 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); Klein, A. 42 Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Older Women Abuse and 

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

National Institute of Justice, NCJ pending. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

majority of reported incidents are made by victims (some of whom may be reluctant 

to testify later). In addition, the identities and contact information for third party 

domestic violence callers should be elicited when possible as potential incident 

witnesses. Dispatchers should be trained toward these ends. 

Research Basis: Multiple national and local observational studies.

 

 Are there other major sources of domestic violence reporting? 

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

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

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

courts than to law enforcement.43 Research from both sides of the country, 

Massachusetts44 and the state of Washington,45 however, indicates that the abuse 

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

enforcement.

Implications: Civil protective order files offer law enforcement an essential tool in 

identifying domestic violence victims and perpetrators. 

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

data from multiple states.

 What domestic violence is generally reported to law enforcement? 

Notwithstanding varying numbers 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.46 Although 

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

Oregon, Nebraska and Washington found assaults formed from 59% to 81% of all 

prosecuted domestic violence cases.47

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 

 

43 Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 44 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. 45 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. 46 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 

47 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.
15

classified as felonies.48 However, most studies find much smaller percentages of felony 

assault charges, including 13.7% in Charlotte, N.C.49 to only 5.5% in Massachusetts50 as 

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

studies accord with the findings of the NCVS.51

 

Performance Measure: Reducing assault charges to non-assault charges allows 

convicted abusers to retain firearms otherwise barred by federal law, 18 

U.S.C.§922(g)(9) endangering victims and law enforcement officers that may be 

called upon to respond to reabuse. 

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

finding of national victim surveys, 1993 – 2004.

III. Can arrest rates actually correspond to estimated actual rates for 

domestic violence and stalking found in victim surveys? 

Domestic Violence arrest rates as a percentage of written incident reports vary 

greatly because incident report writing practices vary across jurisdictions. A better, more 

consistent measure is the arrest rate per capita over the course of a year. At least one 

study documents actual per capita arrests for domestic violence across an entire (albeit 

small) state actually exceeds the national estimates of domestic violence determined by 

the NCVS. A Rhode Island study found in 2004 that the actual per capita domestic 

violence arrests per 1,000 females was 10.5 (including both male and female suspects of 

female victims); and 2.9 for males (including both male and female suspects of male 

victims); higher than the national estimated rates of 8.6 and 2.5.52 Other disparate 

jurisdictions have similarly demonstrated high per capita arrest rates.53

Performance Measure: If broadly defined and if law enforcement agencies mandate 

and enforce arrest upon probable cause, over the course of a year, law enforcement 

can reach the same percent of victims who identify themselves as abused in national 

crime victim surveys. Departments should establish benchmarks based on the 

NCVS in order to assess their performance. 

 

48 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 49 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. 

50 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. 

51 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). 52 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.) The Rhode Island arrests 

may include multiple arrests of the same suspects involving incidents with the same victims within that year. It should 

also be noted that Rhode Island mandates arrest for “domestic violence” which is defined broadly to include any crime 

committed by current or former intimate partners, family or household members and dating partners although most 

Rhode Island domestic violence arrests are, in fact, for simple assault. 53 Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth ( Wichita, KS- 12.1/1,000 (2000); Chicago, IL- 6.9/1,000 (1997), Nevada-5.4/1,000 

(2001). 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

Research Basis: This performance measure is based on actual arrest figures from Rhode 

Island, a state with mandatory arrest for order violations and assaults with injuries 

where domestic violence includes any crime committed by family or household members, 

cohabitants, current or former intimates and dating partners. Jurisdictions will 

necessarily vary based on state laws as documented in Klein (2004), pages 90-91.

Can stalking arrests correspond to actual stalking rates as 

reported by victims? 

Stalking arrests are rare, no where near the number of estimated stalkers.54 A 

pioneering study determined that although 16.5% of all domestic violence incident 

reports filed in Colorado Springs, Colorado (sample of 1,731) constituted stalking, in all 

but one incident the suspect was charged with a lesser offense, generally harassment, 

violation of protective order, or other non-stalking domestic violence offense.55

Implications: If stalking arrests constitute a negligible proportion of all domestic 

violence arrests, departments should undertake a legal, policy and practice review 

to determine barriers to stalking statute enforcement. Law enforcement officers 

should receive training on stalking. 

Research Basis: National surveys supplemented by multiple domestic violence arrest 

studies from disparate jurisdictions across the country.

Is arrest the best response? 

A major re-examination of a series 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.56 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.57 

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

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

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

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

left it to the victim to make a “citizen arrest,” swearing out a complaint herself.58

 

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

Survey, Research in Brief, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012 National Institute of Justice. 

NCJ 169592. 

55 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 56 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. 57 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., 58 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.
17

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

that victims’ will secure protective orders.59

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

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

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

use police again for a similar incident.60 Similarly, the study of courts in California, 

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

abuser arrested.61 As important, police arrests over victims’ objections do not reduce 

likelihood of victims reporting new abuse to police.62 

 

Implications: Arrest should be the default position for law enforcement in all 

domestic violence incidents. 

Research Basis: Multiple studies in diverse jurisdictions; the police arrest studies were 

combined carefully and separated intimate partner from family abuse cases.

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

enforcement arrives? 

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

enforcement arrives. Where noted, absence rates range from 42% to 66%.63 Pursuing 

them, including the issuance of warrants, is associated with reduced re-victimization.64 

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 

 

59 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. 

60 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. 

61 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. 

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

Violence, Violence Against Women, 9,1318. 63 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.; 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; 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.

64 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.
18

criminal histories and to reabuse than those arrested at the scene.65 Similarly, another 

single study also finds higher reabuse if the victim is gone when officers arrive.66 

Implications: Law enforcement officers should make arresting abusers who flee the 

scene a priority. 

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.

Performance Measure: 68% of police departments have specific policy covering 

procedures for responding law enforcement officers when the perpetrator is gone on 

arrival according to a national survey.67 In a study of the south shore communities 

of Massachusetts, researchers documented that police arrested 100% of abusers 

present at the scene as well as arrested or issued warrants for a majority (54%) who 

left the scene, for a total arrest and/or warrant rate of 75%.68 Similarly, a statewide 

New York study found half of domestic violence suspects fled the scene but local 

police ultimately arrested 60%.69

Research Basis: State law varies regarding power of police to arrest after the incident. 

Time limits are not restricted in Massachusetts or New York where these results were 

documented.

 Who is the Primary/Predominant Aggressor? 

A substantial percent of victims of domestic violence hit their perpetrators back.70

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.71A substantial number of victims will not self-disclose 

their victimization.72 Consequently, determination of primary or predominant aggressor 

may not be self-evident. 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 

 

65 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. 

66 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 67 Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S., Baxter, C. (2006). Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence 

Calls for Service, U.S. Department of Justice, 99-C-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215915 68 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. 

69 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. 70 Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. 71 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. 

72 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

arrests where law enforcement could not determine a primary or predominant 

aggressor.73 

 Studies suggest 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 from departments across the country found officers were substantially more likely 

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

27.3% of male same sex cases were dual arrests compared to only 0.8% with male 

offenders and female victims and 3% with female offenders and male victims.74

 Research on the impact of primary aggressor policies either mandated by state 

statute or by individual law enforcement agencies reveal that such policies significantly 

reduce the percentage of dual arrests from an average of nine to two percent of domestic 

violence arrests.75

Implications: If dual arrests exceed that found on average across the country, law 

enforcement departments should develop and implement specific primary aggressor 

policies and protocols. 

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

assault and intimidation cases in the 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 some sociological research,76 based on self-reporting 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.77 

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

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

orders in Massachusetts have been male78 as were those arrested for domestic violence 

 

73 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. 

74 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). 

75 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. 

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

NY: Doubleday. 

77 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. 78 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.
20

in California79 and Charlotte, North Carolina (up to 97.4% for the most serious cases).80

In Rhode Island 92% of those placed on probation for domestic violence were male.81 A 

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

defendants to be male.82 The overwhelming percentage of their victims were women, 

84% in both Charlotte, North Carolina83 and Berkeley, California.84 The 2000 NIBRS 

multi-state study found 81% of the suspects were male and their victims female.85

 Jurisdictions with higher numbers of female suspects and male victims usually 

include higher number of non-intimate family violence cases.86 

Implications: If the ratio of male to female suspects and victims differs substantially 

from those found above, departments should be alert to potential gender bias in 

their response to domestic violence. On-going training and supervision can address 

over representation of female to male arrests. 

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

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

studies focusing on family conflict, youthful aggression and the like outside 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 81.87 A large west coast study of 

 

79 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 80 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. 

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

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

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

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

of Justice, 2004-WG-BX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215916. 82 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 

83 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. 

84 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 85 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. 

86 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; Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide 

Profile of Older Women Abuse and the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2006-WG-BX-0009, National Institute of Justice. 87 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 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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.88

Are they likely already known to law enforcement? 

Most studies agree that the majority of 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. A study of intimate partner arrests in Connecticut, Idaho and Virginia 

of more than a thousand cases, for example, found that almost seventy percent (69.2%) 

had a prior record, 41.8% for a violent crime.89 

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, Oregon90 to 

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

violence defendants arraigned in a Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court.91 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), including four for 

property offenses, three for offenses against persons, three for major motor vehicle, two 

for alcohol/drug offenses, one for public order violations, and 0.14 for sex offenses.92 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.93

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, 

 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 

88 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. 

89 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.

90 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. 

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

Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

92 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. 

93 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.
22

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

incident reports.94 

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 Texas95 to 80% in 

Massachusetts.96

Implications: Given the large overlap between domestic violence and general 

criminality, law enforcement should carefully check domestic violence suspects’ 

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

status, and other concurrent criminal justice involvement, including suspect 

involvement as a confidential informant for on-going investigations. In regard to the 

latter, in the event the informant is involved in a domestic violence incident, he 

should be precluded from working with the department without the authorization of 

department supervisors. 

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 between alcohol and 

substance abuse and domestic violence for abusers. This is not to say that substance 

abuse causes domestic violence. The Memphis night arrest study found 92 percent of 

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

families as daily substance abusers for the prior month.97 Other studies also find 

substantial but less substance use. For example, a California arrest study found alcohol 

and or drugs were involved in 38% of the domestic violence incident arrests.98 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.99 Two surveys, one of state correctional facilities in 1991 

and the other of jails in 1995, found more than half of those jailed or imprisoned for 

domestic violence admitted drinking and/or using drugs at the time of the incident.100 A 

large Seattle arrest and protective order study found alcohol/drug use was reported in 

 

94 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. 

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

Journal of Family Violence, 14 (2), 205-226. 96 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. 97 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. 98 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 99 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. 

100 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. 

Washignton D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 167237. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

almost a quarter of the incidents.101 It was higher in North Carolina, where 45% of 

suspects were identified as being intoxicated.102 Self reports from batterers in Chicago 

revealed that 15 to 19 % admitted to having a drug problem and 26 to 31% scored more 

than one on the CAGE test indicating alcohol abuse.103 Among defendants prosecuted in 

Chicago’s domestic violence misdemeanor court, 60.7% were found to “ever had an 

alcohol or drug problem.”104

 Interviews with more than 400 North Carolina female victims who called police 

for misdemeanor domestic assaults found abuser drunkenness was the most consistent 

predictor of a call to police. According to the victims, almost a quarter (23.0%) of the 

abusers “very often” or “almost always” got drunk when they drank, more than half 

(55%) were binge drinkers, a little over a quarter used cocaine at least once a month, and 

more than a third (39.0%) smoked marijuana. Further, almost 2/3rds were drinking at the 

incident, having consumed an average of almost seven drinks resulting in more than half 

(58%) being drunk.105

 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.106

Implications: Law enforcement officers should note use of alcohol or drugs in 

domestic violence incident reports, not to mitigate abusive behavior but to indicate 

heightened abuser risk for continued abuse. 

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.107

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

“pitbulls” and silent “cobras”108 to “dysphoric/borderline” and “generally avoidance and 

 

101Holt, 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. 102 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. 

103 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. 104 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.

105 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. 106 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. 107 Gondolf, E. & White, R. (2001). Batterer Program Participants Who Repeatedly Reassault: Psychopathic 

Tendencies and Other Disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 361-380. 108 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.
24

anti-social,”109 attempts to utilize these classifications to predict risk of reabuse have 

proven unhelpful.110 However, researchers agree that batterers differ markedly.111 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.”112 Other research suggests that batterers can be classified as low, moderate and 

high and that, contrary to common beliefs, batterers remain within these categories.113

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.114

Implications: Abuser demeanor at the scene, especially compared to overwrought, 

traumatized victims, can be misleading. 

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.115 The Rhode Island probation study, for example, found that 

in a one year period, more than a quarter (28%) of those probationers who were rearrested for a new crime of domestic violence abused a different partner or family 

member.116 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.117 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.118

 

109 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally Violent: Scientific and 

Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 110 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. 111 Saunders, D.G.(1994). A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis, American 

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

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

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

Consulting and Clinical Pyschology, 69, 567-572. 112 Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When Men Batter Women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 113 Cavanaugh, M. & Gelles, R. (2005). The Utility of Male Domestic Violence Typologies, Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 20 (2), 155-166. 114 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. 115 Cochran, D., Adams, S., & O’Brien, P. (June/July 1998). From Chaos to Clarity in Understanding Domestic 

Violence, Domestic Violence Report 3, (5). 116 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. 

117 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. 118 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.
25

 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.119

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

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

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

brought to police attention is likely to reflect chronic, patterned, not isolated 

behavior that is victim-specific. 

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 important 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.120 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.

121

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

those who remain with them.122 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. Only one study123 comparing women with orders and those without, found the 

former, with permanent but not temporary orders, were less likely to have new policereported 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, which all may result in reabuse. Law enforcement 

 

119 Adams, S. (1999). Serial Batterers. Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation; Klein, A., Wilson, D., 

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

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

Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011. 

120 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. 

121 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.. 122 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. 

123 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.
26

officers should assist victims in safeguarding themselves and their children while 

recognizing their limitations in controlling their abusers. 

Research Basis: Multiple protective order studies in different jurisdictions over different 

time periods. 

Performance Measures: A little over a quarter of both small and large law 

enforcement agencies require officers to review safety plans with victims and almost 

three-quarters arrange transport of victims to shelters or medical facilities where 

needed. 

 Victim and Substance Abuse 

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

victimization.124 In the most dramatic findings, victims or (their families) reported in the 

Memphis night arrest study that 42% of victims were drinking or drugging the day of 

their assault.125 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.126Among 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.127 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.128 

 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.129 

 Victim substance abuse has been identified as a consequence of the ongoing 

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

abuse trauma.130

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

continued abuse requiring greater law enforcement scrutiny or surveillance. 

 

124 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. 125 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. 126 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. 

127 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. 

128 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. 129 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. 130 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.
27

Information given to victims should include substance abuse treatment referral 

information. 

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? 

 A significant portion of victims of intimate partner violence and sexual assault 

suffer from trauma.131 Studies have found up to 88% of battered women in shelters suffer 

from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).132 Other studies have found up to 72% 

suffer depression133 and 75% anxiety.134A meta-analysis across multiple samples of 

battered women found a weighted mean prevalence of 48% for depression and 64% for 

PTSD.135 

 Even victims who do not suffer PTSD have been found to be severely adversely 

affected by their abuse.136 Victims brought to emergency rooms of hospitals, for 

example, have been found to be more socially isolated, have lower self-esteem, and fewer 

social and financial resources than other women treated for injuries in the same hospital 

emergency rooms that were not injured by their partners.137 

 Research also suggests that some victims of intimate partner abuse have 

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

children.138 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.139 In short, some of the adult victims who suffer the 

greatest abuse may be the least able to protect themselves. 

Implications: Law enforcement officers may find the most severely traumatized 

victims to behave the least like law enforcement officers would expect them to. They 

may be among the least able to “cooperate” with law enforcement. 

 

131 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. 132 Arias, I. & Pape, K. (Spring, 1999). Psychological Abuse: Implications for Adjustment and Commitment to Leave 

Violent Partner, Violence and Victims 14 (1): 55-67. 133 Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic Abused Women.

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 134 Gleason, W. (1993). Mental Disorders in Battered Women: An Empirical Study. Violence and Victims, 8 (1), 53-68. 135 Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: A Meta-analysis. Journal of 

Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 136 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. 137 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. 

138 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., 139 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.
28

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

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

abused victims such as those in shelters.

 Do male victims differ from female domestic violence victims? 

Research on domestic violence victims brought to the attention of law 

enforcement and the courts find male victims differ substantially from female victims.140

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%.141

 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.142 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.143

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

partners.144

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. Police should acknowledge this fact and encourage suspects who are more 

typically victims to report future victimization notwithstanding their current 

suspect status. 

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 

 

140 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. 141 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. 

142 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. 143 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). 

144 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.
29

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

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

regarding the prior status of male homicide victims as abusers.

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

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

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

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

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.145 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.146 Five studies published between 1985 

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

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

60%.147 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

threatened..148 Similarly, in a Bronx domestic court study, while only 14 to 15% percent 

 

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

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

Association. Final report on grant 2002-WG-BX0011 to the National Institute of Justice. 146 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, 121-130 147 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. 148 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 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

of defendants convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or violations were rearrested 

after one year, victims reported reabuse of 48%.149

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.150 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.151 

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

comes to the attention of law enforcement has a high likelihood of continuing to 

abuse the same or a different victim both in the short term and over the subsequent 

decade. 

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 arrest152 and 44% within two 

years in the latter.153 Most of the new arrests, based on the face of the complaints, were 

 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. 

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

Violence Against Women, 14(2). 150 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career 

Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14(2); Wilson. D. & Klein, A. (2006). A Longitudinal Study of a 

Cohort of Batterers Arraigned in a Massachusetts District Court 1995-2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2004-WB-GX-0011 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215346. 151 Huntley, S. & Kilzer, L. (February 9, 2005). Battered Justice Series. Rocky Mountain News. 152 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. 

153 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.
31

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

offenses. 

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

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

including 15% who were not also arrested for new domestic violence.154 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.155

It is not surprising that research from the National Youth Survey found that most 

men (76%) who engage in domestic violence report also engaging in one or more deviant 

acts concurrently, including illegal behavior such as stealing or illicit drug use.156 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.157

Implications: Aggressively pursuing abusers not only may protect victims and their 

children, but also reduce non-domestic offenses often committed by abusers. 

Research Basis: While multiple disparate studies document that abusers identified by the 

criminal justice system are likely to have nondomestic criminal histories, at least one 

study of non-arrested young married or cohabiting men also finds domestic violence and 

other deviant behavior were associated both concurrently and prospectively.

 

When will abusers reabuse? 

Studies agree that for those abusers who re-offend, a majority do so relatively 

quickly. In states where no-contact orders are automatically imposed after an arrest for 

domestic violence, re-arrests 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 re-arrested for new abuse were arrested while their initial 

abuse cases were still pending in court.158 The latter included a 16% arrest rate for 

violation of no contact orders and 14% for a new felony offense.159 Similarly, a little 

more than one-third of the domestic violence probationers in Rhode Island who were 

 

154 Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: Career Criminals. Journal of 

Violence Against Women, 14(2). 155 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. 156 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. 

157 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. 

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

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

181427; 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 

159 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.
32

rearrested for domestic violence were re-arrested within two months of being placed 

under probation supervision. More than half (60%) were arrested within six months.160 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.161 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.162

Implications: Arrest is only the first step in stopping abuse. Once arrested, counter 

measures must be immediately begun if the suspect is released pending trial. 

Focusing on those already arrested for domestic violence provides law enforcement 

with the means to target a high risk population of abusers disproportionately likely 

to commit new abuse-related and other offenses. 

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? 

 When officers respond to a domestic violence call, they typically do not have a lot 

of information about the parties involved, their psychological profiles, family and child 

development histories, and the like. Fortunately, the research consistently finds that the 

basic information usually available to officers provides as accurate a prediction of abuser 

risk to the victim as more extensive and time consuming investigations involving more 

sources, including clinical assessments.163 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.164 

 Is gender important? 

 

160 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-BX0011 to the National Institute of Justice. 161 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. 

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

York: Center for Court Innovation.

163 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. 

164 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.
33

 Of course, the most powerful predictor of risk is gender. All of the research 

concurs that males are more likely to reabuse than females.165 

 Is age important?

 Younger defendants are more likely to reabuse and recidivate than older 

defendants.166 This has been found true in studies of arrested abusers, batterers in 

treatment programs, as well as court restrained abusers.167 

 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.168 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.169 

 The length of prior record is predictive of reabuse as well as general 

recidivism.170 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 

 

165 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 166 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427; Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode Island’s Specialized 

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

and Parole Association. Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). 

Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: 

Center for Court Innovation.

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

York: Center for Court Innovation; Ventura, L. & Davis, G. (October 2004). Domestic Violence: Court Case 

Conviction and Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center; Wordes, M. (2000). 

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

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0098, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 182781 167Klein, 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. 168 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. 169 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. 

170 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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%.171 In the Rhode Island abuser 

probation study, abusers with one prior arrest for any crime were almost twice as likely to 

reabuse within the year compared to those with no prior arrest, 40% compared to 22.6%. 

And if they had more than one, reabuse increased to 73.3%.172

 Of course, prior civil or criminal prior records specifically for abuse also increase 

the likelihood for reabuse.173

 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.174 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.175

 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.176

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 may be as accurate a predictor for subsequent 

domestic violence as a prior record for domestic violence. Law enforcement officers 

should attempt to track down suspect gone at the scene and/or aggressively serve 

warrants to protect victims for higher risk 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 

 

171 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. 172 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-BX0011 to the National Institute of Justice. 173 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. 

174 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 175 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. 

176 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-BX0011 to the 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.
35

are low in that specific jurisdiction and vice versa. While only the limited studies cited 

speak to reabuse correlated to abuser flight, they are consistent with more plentiful arrest 

studies that find support the efficacy of arresting abuse suspects.

 Is substance abuse important? 

Acute and chronic alcohol and drug use are well established risk factors.177 This 

also applies to domestic violence. Prior arrests for drug and alcohol also correlate with 

higher rates of reabuse.178 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.179 

 Defendant alcohol and substance abuse, similarly, are predictive of reabuse and 

recidivism.180 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.181 Batterers who complete 

batterer intervention are three times more likely to reabuse if they are intoxicated at any 

three month interval.182 

 Multiple,183 but not all studies, 184 have found that abuser and/or victim abusing 

drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident to be a consistent risk marker for continued 

abuse. 

 

177 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. 178 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. 179 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. 180 Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence in a Pro-Active Court 

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

181427; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) 

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

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

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

Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Wordes, M. (2000). Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model for Police Intervention 

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

Justice. NCJ 182781 

181 Heckert, D. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 182 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. 183 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. 183 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. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

Implications: 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. 

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 significantly improve the accuracy of 

prediction over other risk factors, 185 increasing sensitivity from 55 to 70% (Sensitivity is 

the proportion of true positives that are correctly identified by the test).186 However, the 

same 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 obtained by using 

risk markers, including women’s perceptions. 187 The researchers concern over victim 

under assessment 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.188

 Victim perception of risk also affects their reaction to criminal justice 

intervention. Arrest research finds that victims who were not re-victimized over two 

years were twice as likely to have opposed arrest compared to those who were 

revictimized. Those who thought police and court intervention did not go far enough 

were also accurate. Those who said police actions were too weak were three times more 

likely to experience revictimization and those that said courts failed them were seven 

times more likely to experience revictimization.189 

 184 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. 

185 DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. 186 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. 187 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. 188 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. 

189 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.
37

Implications: Asking victims if they fear reassault and/or severe reassaults provides 

one of the best ways to predict reabuse and/or potential lethality and requires the 

least resources and time commitment, but cannot be relied upon alone. Although 

unlikely to exaggerate their risk, women often underestimate it. 

Research Basis: The national homicide study involving hundreds of victims of attempted 

homicides as well as the general reabuse studies confirms these findings.

 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,190 abusers who are unemployed,191

economically disadvantaged and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods,192 live in a 

household with firearms,193 and if the abuser is not the father of children in the 

household.194

Implications: Law enforcement officers recording the status of the above variables 

in their initial reports will prove valuable data for the determination of risk in 

future bail hearings, charging decisions, and sentencing reports. 

Research Basis: These specific risk factors generally have been found in multiple studies 

as cited but may vary in relevance and power across jurisdictions.

 What factors are not associated with reabuse? 

 

190 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. 

191 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.

192 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. 193 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. 194 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.
38

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.195 Abuser personality types have not been found to be associated with 

increased risk of reabuse.196 Actuarial data offer improvement over clinical data.197

Victim characteristics, including relationship with abuser, marital status and whether the 

parties are living together or separated, have not been found to predict reabuse.198 At 

least one study has found that victim cooperation does not predict recidivism.199

Implications: Criteria for charging should not be confused with criteria for 

determining future risk. 

Research Basis: Wide agreement among multiple studies across the nation involving 

different abuser populations.

Do the widely used risk instruments accurately predict reabuse? 

 All of the common risk instruments in use are insufficient. The best instruments 

have found to falsely predict 40 to 43% abusers in both directions.200 For example, a 

study of a risk instrument used by police in Berkeley found those classified at highest risk 

for re-offending did have the highest rate of reoffending but also had 43% false positives, 

over prediction. Those gauged as the lowest risk had 2% false negatives.201 

Implications: Given high base rates of re-abusing, the default presumption should 

be that the defendant will likely re-offend until proven otherwise. Risk instruments 

do not significantly improve upon victim perception and basic actuarial data. 

 

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

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

181427; Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443; Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained

Batterers. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192-

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

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

and Parole Association, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 2002-WG-BX-0011; Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. 

(2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New 

York, Center for Court Innovation (NIJ); Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to 

Domestic Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project-Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179974. 196 Heckert, D.. & Gondolf, E. (2005). Do Multiple Outcomes and Conditional Factors Improve Prediction of Batterer 

Reassault? Violence and Victims, 20 (1), 3-24. 197 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. 198Buzawa, 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. 

199 Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial 

Monitoring: Results from a Randomized Trial. New York, Center for Court Innovation, Final Report to NIJ on Grant 

2001-WT-BX-0506.

200 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. 

201 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.
39

Research Basis: Not only is there wide agreement among multiple studies, but the same 

instrument may have different results in different jurisdictions.

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

 Prediction of lethality is much more difficult than predicting reabuse and 

recidivism because, fortunately, it is much rarer. Also, the risk of lethality may increase 

due to situational circumstances, as opposed to static abuser characteristics. Nonetheless, 

researchers have found some key factors that increase the likelihood of homicide and/or 

significant injuries. 

 What about firearms and other weapons? 

 According to a CDC study, more female intimate partners are killed by firearms 

than all other means combined.202 Firearms in the household increase the odds of lethal 

as opposed to nonlethal violence 6.1 to 1. Women who were previously threatened or 

assaulted with a firearm or other weapon are 20 times more likely to be murdered by their 

abuser than other women.203 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.204

 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.205

Implications: One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal violence is to disarm 

abusers and keep them disarmed. Departments should implement a program to 

identify firearms in abusers’ possession and remove them as soon as legally 

permissible and make sure the abuser remains disarmed. If police agencies are 

involved in firearm licensing, they should aggressively screen for domestic violence, 

even if not found initially in inquiries to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS). 

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.206

 

202 Paulkossi, L. (October 2001). Surveillance for Homicide among Intimate Partners-United States, 1991-1998,

Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries, 5, 1-16. 203 Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., 

Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of 

Justice Journal 250, 14-19. NCJ 196547; Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, 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. 204Block, 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). 205 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt 

University Press. 

206 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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).207

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.208 A Chicago study similarly found death 

was more likely if the partner threatened or used a knife or gun; strangled his partner or 

grabbed around her neck, and both were drunk.209

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.210

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.211

What are risk markers for severe injury? 

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 

 

207 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. 208 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. 209 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 210 Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt 

University Press. 

211 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

of the assault, and 14.8% admitted to drug use at the time.212 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.213

Implications: Prior threats to kill, prior strangulation, 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 exactly, 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. Are specialized law enforcement domestic violence units effective in 

responding to domestic violence? 

Performance Measure: Eleven percent (11%) of departments have a specialized 

domestic violence unit according to a national survey of a representative sample of 

14,000 law enforcement agencies. Most work within investigative units. They are 

most common in larger departments. The majority of departments (56%) with 100 

or more officers have specialized domestic violence units. While only 4% of 

departments maintain domestic violence information on their websites, threequarters of those departments with websites also had specialized domestic violence 

units.214

Research Basis: Representative sample drawn from 14,000 law enforcement agencies 

across nation.

Do they influence prosecution and convictions of abuse suspects?

Specialized domestic violence units, emphasizing repeat victim contact and evidence 

gathering, have been shown to significantly increase the likelihood of prosecution, 

conviction and sentencing.215 Specialized domestic violence units are generally 

associated with more extensive inquiries made by department call takers, including 

asking if there are weapons involved, advising callers to stay on the line until police 

arrive, ask if children are present, whether suspect uses drugs/alcohol, presence of 

restraining orders or whether the suspect is on probation or parole.216 They also have 

been showed to be more likely to amass evidence to turn over to prosecutors. The 

 

212 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. 

213 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. 214 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. 215 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. 

216 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.
42

specialized unit in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), North Carolina collected evidence in 

61.8% of its cases compared to only 12.5% collected by patrol officers. In addition, while 

30% of victims handled by regular patrols declined to prosecute, only 8% of victims 

declined who were handled by the specialized unit. 217

 Do they influence victim behavior?

 Specialized police response is more likely to see victims leave their abusers 

sooner, within four compared to 14 months for victims not receiving specialized police 

response. Specialized police response also results in higher victim reporting of reabuse 

(but not more reabuse). Finally, victims of specialized police response are more likely to 

secure protective orders against their abusers.218 One of the most important specialized 

police services that influence victim behavior is serving protective orders and assisting in 

safety planning. By contrast, victim services alone has not been found to be associated 

with victims leaving abusers, although this may also be due to the quality of the victim 

services provided in these studies.219 

 Do they reduce reabuse?

 An early study of a specialized detective unit in Dade County found it did not 

effect reabuse rates.220 However, the Unit focused on referring parties to counseling. 

Subsequently, specialized units have been found more effective. Victims self-report 

significantly less reabuse (but are more likely to report the reabuse they do suffer).221 

Another study found specialized responses reduce “personal harm,” but not non-personal 

harm such as property damage. The positive effect may be tied to safety planning offered 

victims.222 By contrast, research finds that victim services alone are not associated with 

increased victim safety.223 Research in New York City among victims in public housing 

 

217 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. 

218 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. 

219 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; 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. 

220 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.

221 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. 

222 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. 

223 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; 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

suggest that specific crime prevention training as opposed to general victim counseling 

may be more associated with reduced subsequent victimization.224

 In North Carolina, 29% of the abusers handled by the specialized domestic 

violence unit had at least one subsequent domestic violence offense during a two year 

follow up period compared to 37% of those handled solely by patrol units. This reduced 

rate was obtained despite the fact that the specialized unit handled the more serious cases 

and offenders with more prior offenses. The odds ratio for domestic violence unit 

suspects re-offending was nearly half of that for the non-unit suspects. Unit suspects who 

reabused also reabused less often, averaging .46 new assaults compared to .62. The 

difference is statistically significant but because fewer unit abusers reabused, the actual 

difference in the number of new incidents for just those abusers who reabused was less, 

1.59 compared to 1.67, not reaching statistical significance.225

Do they increase victim satisfaction?

 Victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system is not associated with whether 

the victim received advocacy per se, but with concrete law enforcement activities such as 

issuance of a warrant against absent abusers or assistance in obtaining protective 

orders.226 Similarly, the NVAWS found that stalking victims whose stalkers were 

arrested were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the police response than those 

where no arrest was made, 76% were satisfied compared to 42%.227 

 Research that victim dissatisfaction may focus on four major themes: 1) adverse 

personal outcomes (victim arrested, child protection agency called); 2) the police “made 

assumptions or did not listen”; 3) the police took sides (against her); and 4) nothing 

happened (absence of a strong court sanction).228 

Implications: The single, most appreciated service officers can deliver to the greatest 

number of victims is arresting their abusers. Specialized domestic violence law 

enforcement units that focus on arrests can enhance the likelihood of successful 

prosecution, and increase victim satisfaction and safety. 

Research Implications: While specific studies of specialized domestic violence law 

enforcement units are few, the activities conducted by these units have been more widely 

studied and supported by much research.

 Should law enforcement agencies participate in coordinated 

community responses? 

 

224 Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2002). Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A Reanalysis of Data From 

Three Field Tests. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0007 National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

200608. 

225 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. 

226 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. 227 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 D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012 National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

NCJ 172837. 

228 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

 A number of jurisdictions have endeavored to create what have been called 

“coordinated community responses,” composed of multiple criminal justice and social 

service agencies to respond to domestic violence. This approach may exert a positive 

impact on both case processing and reabuse according to initial research.229 For example, 

both arrest and successful prosecutions increased in several Minnesota jurisdictions with 

the creation of coordinated community responses involving law enforcement.230 Other 

studies have found similar promising results,231 although more is required than 

participation in multidisciplinary task forces for communities to create effective 

coordinated responses.232 Personnel of relatively autonomous organizations, both public 

and private, cannot be presumed to have the organizational capacity and/or willingness 

among personnel to truly collaborate. 233

Performance Measure: Sixty-five percent of departments have established a 

partnership with a community-based victim advocacy group according to a national 

survey of a sample of 14,000 departments.234

Research Basis: Representative sample drawn from 14,000 law enforcement agencies 

across the nation.

X. Police Domestic Violence Training 

 Several studies suggest that general domestic violence 101 training for law 

enforcement officers does not necessarily change attitudes towards domestic violence or, 

more important, behavior in terms of arrest and responding to domestic violence 

incidents. While knowledge of a department’s policy regarding domestic violence arrest 

preference increases likelihood of arresting alleged domestic violence suspects, the 

amount of domestic violence training received does not.235 Research suggests that 

domestic violence arrest decisions, for example, are influenced more by an officer’s 

assessment of legal variables involved than his or her attitudes.236 At least one study 

suggests that failure of police managers to hold police officers accountable for failure to 

 

229 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. 230 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. 231 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. 232 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. 

233 Giacomazzi, A. & Smithey, M. (2004). Collaborative Effort Toward Resolving Family Violence Against Women. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WE-VX-0131, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199716. 234 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. 235 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; 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; 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. 236 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

arrest in contravention of statutory requirement, not lack of training, is responsible for 

poor performance.237

Implications: Clear policy pronouncement from top administration may be more 

likely to change officer response to domestic violence than general domestic violence 

training aimed at education and attitude change. 

Research Basis: There is limited research in this area.

Performance Measures: A national survey of a sample of law enforcement 

departments across the nation reveals that three-quarters have written domestic 

violence policies in place. Most have been in place for six years or longer. A majority 

of departments (88%) require officers to complete incident reports for all domestic 

violence calls they are dispatched to, regardless of outcome. Almost two-thirds 

(63%) require officers to fill out a supplemental form for domestic violence and 

most require written justification when no arrest is made (68%) or when there is a 

dual arrest (86%).238

Research Basis: Representative sample drawn from 14,000 law enforcement agencies 

across nation.

 

237Rigakos, G. (1997). Situational Determinants of Police Responses to Civil and Criminal Injunctions for Battered 

Women, Violence Against Women, 3, 204. 238 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.
46

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.
47

Bennett, L., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program Completion and Re-arrest 

in a Batterer Intervention System. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 (42), 42-54. 

Benson, M. & Fox, G. (2004). Concentrated Disadvantage, Economic Distress, and 

Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199709. 

Benson, M., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A., & Fox, G. (July 2004). The Correlation 

Between Race and Domestic Violence is Confounded in Community Context, Social 

Problems, 51 (3), 326-342. 

Bersani, C. & Chen, H. (1988). Sociological Perspectives in Family Violence, 57-84, in 

V. Van Hasselt, R. Morrison, A. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds). Handbook on Family 

Violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press 

(http://books.google.com/books?id=4QHe98S7HpQC&pg=PR3&dq=bersani+chen&sig=

1Ff41NA31TLYVzY04xT6qcT9Z-4#PPP1,M1). 

Bible, A. & Weigl, A. (May 18-20, 2003). Cries of Abuse Unheeded, Assaults Rise to 

Murders. News and Observer, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response 

to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Block, C. (2004). Risk Factors for Death or Life-Threatening Injury for Abused Women 

in Chicago. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 96-IJ-CX-0020, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 199732 

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

Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Brookoff, D. (October 1997). Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, 

Research Review. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 000172. 

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. 

Brundrett, R., Roberts, R. & Leblanc, C. (May 20, 2001). S.C. Dismisses 54% of Worst 

Domestic Violence Cases, The State, quoted in Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice 

Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook (1998). Violence by Intimates: An Analysis of Data 

on Crimes by Current and Former Spouses, Boyfriends and Girlfriends. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-167237. 

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

Buzawa, E. & Buzawa, C. (Eds.) (1992). Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response. Auburn, CT: Greenwood Press. 

Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., Klein, A. & Byrnes, J. (1999). Response to Domestic Violence 

in a Pro-Active Court Setting, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0027, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181427. 

Campbell, J., O’Sullivan, C., Roehl, J., & Webster, D. (2005). Intimate Partner Violence 

Risk Assessment Validation Study, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 209732. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, Block, R., Campbell, D., Curry, M., Gary, F., 

McFarlane, J. Sachs, C., Sharps, P. Urich, Y. & Wilt, S. (2003). Assessing Risk Factors 

for Intimate Partner Homicide, National Institute of Justice Journal,250, 14-19. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 196547. 

Campbell, J., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, 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. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Dalton, B. (2001). Batterer Characteristics and Treatment Completion, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence,16, (12), 1223-1238. 

Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of Drop Out Among Men Who Batter: A 

Review of Studies with Implications fro Research and Practice. Violence and Victims, 

15, 137-160. 

Davis, R., Smith, B. & Nickles, L. (1998). The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic 

Violence Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44 (3), 434-443. 

Davis, R., Smith, B., & Rabbit, C. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence 

cases: A Field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22: 62. 

Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2002). Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A 

Reanalysis of Data From Three Field Tests. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 

2000-WT-VX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 200608. 

Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1997). A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of 

a Randomized Experiment, Criminology 35 (2), 307–333. 

Davis, R., Taylor, B. & Maxwell, C. (2000). Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? 

A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

94-IJ-CX-004, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 180772). 

Dawson, M. & Dinovtizer, R. (2001),Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic 

violence in a specialized court, Justice Quarterly,18, (3) 593 – 622. 

DeBecker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. 

DeHart, D., Kennerly, R., Burke, L. & Follingstad, D. (1999). Predictors of Attrition in a 

treatment Program for Battering Men. Journal of Family Violence 14, 19. 

DeMaris, A. (1989). Attrition in Batterers’ Counseling: The Role of Social and 

Demographic Factors. Social Review 63, 142-154. 

Deschner, J.P., McNeil, J.S., & Moore, M.G. (1986). A treatment model for batterers.

Social Casework, 67, 55-60. 

Dobash, R., Dobash, R.E., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R. (1996). Reeducation Programs for 

Violent Men: An Evaluation. Research Findings, 46, 309-322. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Dunford, F. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions 

for Men Who Assault Their Wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68, 

468-476. 

Dunford, F. (1990). System Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic. 

Assault: A Pilot Study. Justice Quarterly, 7, 631-653. 

Eckhardt, C. (2003). Stages and Processes of Change and Associated Treatment 

Outcomes in Partner Assaultive Men, Final Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0012, National Institute of Justice (NCJ 205022). 

Edleson, J. & Grusznski, R. (1988). Treating Men Who Batter: Four Years of Outcome 

Data from the Domestic Abuse Project. Journal of Social Service Research, 12, 3-12. 

Fagan, J., Friedman, E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). The National Family Violence 

Program: Final Evaluation Report, San Francisco, CA: URSA Institute. 

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 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Report.Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-0008, National 

Institute of Justice, NCJ 202983. 

Finn, M., Blackwell, B., Stalans, L., Studdard, S. & Dugan, L. (2004). Dual Arrest 

Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: The Influence of Departmental Policies, Crime & 

Delinquency, 50, 565. 

Ford, D. & Regoli, J. (1992). The Prevention Impacts of Policies for Preventing Wife 

Batterers, in E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa, Eds, Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal 

Justice Response, Westport, CN: Auburn Press. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Goldkamp, J. (1996). The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and its 

Treatment: Dade County’s Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Philadelphia, PA: 

Criminal Justice Research Institute. 

Golding J. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: a 

Meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence 14(2):99-132. 

Gondolf, E. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating Programs for Men Who Batter: Problems and Prospects.

Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2), 177-191. 

Gondolf, E. (1984). How Some Men Stop Battering: An Evaluation of a Group 

Counseling Program (Paper, Second National Conference on Family Violence, Durham, 

NH), cited in Gondolf, E. & Russell, D. (1986). The Case Against Anger Control 

Treatment Programs for Batterers, Response 9 (3), 2-5. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program 

Compliance: An Evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence 

Abuse Counseling Center, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training Institute. 

Gondolf, E. (December 1997). Patterns of Re-assault in Batterer Programs. Indiana, PA: 

Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Program. 

Gondolf, E. (2001). The Program Effects of Batterer Programs in Three Cities. Violence 

and Victims, 16, 693-704. 

Gondolf, E. (1998). Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention System; A 30-Month 

Follow-Up of Court-Mandated Batterers in Four Cities, Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic 

Addiction Training Institute 

(http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications/30MonthFollowup.shtm). 

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

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (1), 111-

128. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Gordon, J. & Moriarty, L. (2003). The Effects of Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment 

on Domestic Violence Recidivism: The Chesterfield County Experience. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior 30 (1), 118-134. 

Gover, A., MacDonald, J., & & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: 

Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public 

Policy, 3, 109-129. 

Grau, J., Fagan, J. & Wexler, S. (1985). Restraining Orders for Battered Women: Issues 

of Access and efficacy. In C. Schweber & C. Feinman (Eds.) Criminal Justice Politics and 

Women: The Aftermath of Legally Mandated Change. New York, NY: Hawthorn Press. 

Greenfield, L., Rand, M., Craven, D., Klaus, P., Perkins, C., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., 

Maston, G., & Fox, J. (March 1998). Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes 

by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Washignton 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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of a Court-Ordered Treatment For Domestic Violence 

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

Harrell, A., Castro, J., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final Report on the Evaluation 

of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration: Executive Summary. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice 1999-WT-VX-K005, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 219386. 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411498.html). 

Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C. & Castro, J. (2006). The Evaluation of 

Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight Demonstration, Final Research Report. Washington 

D.C.: U.S Department of Justice, 99-WT-VX-K005, Urban Institute 

(http://www.urban.org/publications/411315.html.) 

Harrell, A. & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of Restraining Orders on Domestic Violence 

Victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work?

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 214-243. 

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

Evaluation of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2000-WT-VX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 202944. 

Hayler, B. & Addison-Lamb, M. (November 2000). A Process and Implementation 

Evaluation of the Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Projects in Illinois’s Peoria, 

Sangamon, and Tazewell Counties. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Hayler, B., Ford, N., & Addison-Lamb, M. (December 1999). An Implementation 

Evaluation of the Enhanced Domestic Violence Probation Program in Champaign 

County. Springfield, IL: University of Illinois at Springfield. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Hilton, N., Harris, G., Rice, M., Lang, C., Cormier, C., & Lines, K. (2004). A Brief 

Actuarial Assessment for the Prediction of Wife Assault Recidivism: The Ontario 

Domestic Assault Risk Assessment, Psychological Assessment 16 (3), 267-275. 

Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiana, D. & Ruelan, M. (2007). Explaining 

the Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-WT-BX-0501, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 218355. 

Hirschel, J. & Dawson, D. (2003). Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for 

Law Enforcement Officials, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VXK001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 198372. 

Hirschel, J. & Hutchison, I. (2001). The Relative Effects of Offense, Offender, and Victim 

Variables on the Decision to Prosecute Domestic Violence Cases, Violence Against 

Women, 7(1), 46-59. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do Protection Orders Affect the 

Likelihood of Future Partner Violence and Injury? American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 24 (1), 16-21. 

Holt, V., Kernic, M., Lumley, T., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2002). Civil Protection Orders 

and Risk of Subsequent Police-reported Violence. Journal of American Medical 

Association, 288 (5), 598-594. 

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of Men Who are Maritally 

Violent: Scientific and Clinical Implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18. 

Holtzworth-Monroe, A. and Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typology of Male Batterers: Three 

Subtypes and the Differences among Them, Psychological Bulletin, 116 (3), 476-497. 

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.

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

and Schuster. 

Johannson, M. & Tutty, L. (1998). An Evaluation of After-Treatment Couples' Groups for 

Wife Abuse, Family Relations, 47 (1), 27-35. 

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

Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment, Final Report, Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0054, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 179968. 

Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: 

A National Survey, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0002, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199724. 

Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P. & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil Protective Orders: The Benefits 

and Limitations for Victim of Domestic Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0035, National Institute of Justice.. 

Klein, A. (1996). Reabuse in a Population of Court Restrained Batterers. In E. Buzawa 

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

192-214 

Klein, A. (2005). Rhode Island Domestic Violence Shelter and Advocacy 

Services. Waltham, MA: BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

(www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/Final%20ShelterEval%209-20-05.pdf.) 

Klein, A. (2004). The Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Belmont, CA: 

Thomson/Wadsworth. 

Klein, A. & Crowe, A. (2008). Findings from and Outcome Examination of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Supervision Program, Violence 

Against Women, 14 (2), 226-246. 

Klein, A. & Tobin, T. (2008). Longitudinal Study of Arrested Batterers, 1995-2005: 

Career Criminals. Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 136-157. 

Klein, A., Tobin, T., Salomon, A. & Dubois, J. (2008). A Statewide Profile of Older 

Women Abuse and the Criminal Justice Response. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2006-WG-BX-0009, National Institute of Justice, NCJ pending. 

Klein, A. & Wilson, D. (April 2003). A Victim Survey on the Effects of a CourtMandated Batterer Intervention Program in Rhode Island. Waltham, MA: BOTEC 

Analysis Corporation (www.rijustice.state.ri.us/sac/Reports/BI%20Program.pdf). 

Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). An Evaluation of Rhode 

Island’s Specialized Supervision of Domestic Violence Probationers. Waltham, MA: 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

BOTEC Analysis Corporation & American Probation and Parole Association, NIIJ 

pending. 

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

Who Come to Court: A Retrospective Case-Control Study, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI 

Dissertation Services. 

Kyriacou, D., Anglin, D., Taliaferro, E., Stone, S., Tubb, T., Linden, J., Muelleman, R., 

Barton, E., & Kraus, J. (1999). Risk Factors for Injury to Women from Domestic 

Violence. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, (25), 1892-1898. 

Labriola, M. Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005).Testing the Effectiveness of Batterer 

Programs and Judicial Monitoring: Results from a randomized Trial. New York, Center 

for Court Innovation (NIJ) (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Labriola, M., Rempel, M., O’Sullivan, C., & Frank, P. (2007). Court Responses to 

Batterer Program Noncompliance, A National Perspective. New York, NY: Center for 

Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html). 

Lane, E., Greenspan, R. & Weisburd, D. (2004). The Second Responders Program: A 

Coordinated Police and Social Service Response to Domestic Violence. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-0001, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

199717. 

Lindquist, C., Telch, C. & Taylor, J. (1985). Evaluation of a Conjugal Violence 

Treatment Program: A Pilot Study. Behavioral Counseling and Community 

Interventions, 3, 76-90. 

Lockyer, B. (2005). Domestic Violence: Keeping the Promise, Victim Safety and 

Batterer Accountability, Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force 

on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Sacramento, CA: Office of 

the Attorney General (www.safestate.org/domesticviolence). 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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

Factors and Consequences. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-IJ-CX0011, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 208346. 

Malcoe, L. & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate Partner Violence and Injury in the Lives of 

Low-Income Native American Women, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199703. 

Maxwell, C., Garner, J. and Fagan, J. (June, 2001). The Effects of Arrest on Intimate 

Partner Violence: New Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program, National 

Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 188199. 

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

Femicide. Homicide Studies 3 (4), 300-316. 

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

Frequency, Consequences and Treatments. Washington D. NCJ 155284 C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2002-WG-BX-0003, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 11678. 

Miller, N. (2002). Stalking Laws and Implementation Practices: A National Review for 

Policymakers and Practitioners. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WTVX-0007, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 197066. 

Miller, N. (2005). What Does Research and Evaluation Say About Domestic Violence 

Laws? A Compendium of Justice System Laws and Related Research Assessments. 

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice 

(http://www.ilj.org/publications/dv/DomesticViolenceLegislationEvaluation.pdf). 

Murphy, C., Musser, P., & Maton, K. (1998). Coordinated Community Intervention for 

Domestic Abusers: Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism. Journal of 

Family Violence, 13, (3), 263-284. 

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). 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Norwood, W., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R. & Swank, P. (2004). Domestic Violence and 

Deviant Behavior, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 98-WT-VX-005 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199713. 

O’Farrell, T. (2003). Partner Violence before and after Individually Based Alcoholism 

Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 71, 

92-102. 

Office of the Commissioner of Probation (November 1992). Over 8,500 Domestic 

Restraining Orders Filed since September in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Office of the 

Commissioner of Probation. 

Olson, L., Crandall, C., & Broudy, D. (1998). Getting Away with Murder, A Report of 

the New Mexico Female Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Team, Albuquerque, 

NM: Center for Injury Prevention Research and Education, University of New Mexico 

School of Medicine. 

Olson, D. & Stalans, L. (2001). Violent Offenders on Probation: Profile, Sentence, and 

Outcome Differences among Domestic Violence and Other Violent Probationers.

Violence Against Women, 7, (10) 1164-1185. 

Orchowsky, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic 

Violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project, Final Report. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-WT-NX-0004, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 179974. 

Ostrom, B. & Kauder, N. (1999). Examining the Work of State Courts, 1998: A National 

Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for 

State Courts. 

Pate, A., Hamilton, E., & Annan, S. (1992). Metro-Dade Spouse Abuse Replication 

Project Technical Report. Washington D.C.: Police Foundation. 

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). 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

Peterson, R. & Dixon, J. (2005), Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence 

cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Pirog-Good, J. & Stets, J. (1986). Programs for Abusers: Who Drops Out and What Can 

be Done? Response 9, 17-19. 

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. 

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 

Puffett, N. & Gavin, C. (April 2004). Predictors of Program Outcome & Recidivism at 

the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court, New York, NY: Center for Court 

Innovation. 

Raiford, L. (2002). Report, New York City, NY: New York City Police Department, 

Domestic Violence Unit. 

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

Violence Recidivism? Violence Against Women, 14 (2), 185-207. 

(http://www.courtinnovation.org/publicationsall.html) 

Rennison, C. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(www2.state.id.us/crimevictim/research/statistics/RFPstats.doc)

Rigakos, G. (1997). Situational Determinants of Police Responses to Civil and Criminal 

Injunctions for Battered Women, Violence Against Women, 3, 204. 

Roehl, J. (2000). Police Use of Domestic Violence Information Systems, Final Report.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 95-IJ-CX-0097, National Institute of 

Justice, NCJ 182435. 

Roehl, J. & Guertin, K. (2000). Intimate partner violence: The current use of risk 

assessments in sentencing offenders', The Justice System Journal, 21, (2), 171-198. 

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.
61

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.
62

Syers & Edleson (1992). Syers, M. & Edleson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of 

coordinated criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 7, 490-502. 

Taylor, B., Davis, R., & Maxwell, C. (2001). The Effects of a Group Batterer Treatment 

Program: A Randomized Experiment in Brooklyn, Justice Quarterly 18 (1), 171-201. 

Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. & Gibbs, D. (1998).. Severity of Dispositions and 

Domestic Violence Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44 (3), 388-399. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181867. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (November, 1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences 

of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women 

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

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCJ 

172837. 

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

Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, Washington DC: US Department of 

Justice, 93-IJ-CX-0012, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 169592. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2001). Stalking: Its Role in Serious Domestic Violence 

Cases, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 97-WT-VX-0002, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 187346. 

Tolman, R. & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated Community Interventions for Domestic 

Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Women Abuse 

Perpetrators, Crime & Delinquency, 41 (4), 481-495). 

Torres, S., & Han, H. (2000). Psychological Distress in Non-Hispanic White and 

Hispanic Abused Women. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 14, 19-29. 

Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S. & Baxter, C. (2006). Law Enforcement Response to 

Domestic Violence Calls for Service, Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 99-

C-008, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 215915. 

Ursel, J. & Brickey, S. (1996). The potential of legal reform reconsidered: An 

examination of Manitoba’s zero-tolerance policy on family violence. In T. O’ReilluFleming (Ed.). Post-Critical Criminology, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall, 6-77. 

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

Recidivism in Toledo. Toledo, OH: University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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. 

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. 

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

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view 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

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.