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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET)

Evaluations

Author(s): Roxann M. Ryan ; Peggy Petrzelka

Document No.: 203980

Date Received: January 2004

Award Number: 2000–WE–VX–K001

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.
Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) 

Eva1 u at i o n 

Final Report 

October 2003 

A project conducted by 

Roxann M. Ryan, Ph.D. 

Iowa Department of Justice 

Peggy Petrzeika, Ph.D. 

Utah State University 

for the 

National institute of Justice 

of the 

Office of Justice Programs 

US. Department of Justice 

FltW. REPORT" 

Appoved By: . ..I. 2 

This project was funded under Grant Number 200WE-VX-K-001 from the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Supported Under Award #a0 w E VX.DO I from the National 

Institute of Justice Programs. Points of view in this document are those 

of the authors and do not necessarily represents the official position of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. 
PREFACE 

The Protective Order Enforcement Team project was at once 

interesting and frustrating, disheartening and encouraging. The agencies 

involved in the POET project and the various Domestic Abuse Response 

Team projects had good intentions and devoted significant resources to 

their respective projects. The team members and agency directors 

engaged in healthy debates that led to a better understanding of the 

dynamics of domestic violence and the challenges of teamwork among 

diverse groups. Their work, their input, their criticisms and their 

admonitions were always appreciated. Their efforts and contributions 

provided valuable insight into domestic violence, criminal justice, and 

social change. 

Roxann M. Ryan 

October 2003 

A note on terminology 

Throughout this final report, the targets of domestic violence will be 

referred to as “victims,” because that is the terminology used in the Iowa 

Code. Many “victims” are in fact “survivors” of domestic violence in a very 

real sense, and in their own assessments of themselves. Much of the 

discussion in the evaluation, however, is based on legal definitions, and 

“victim” is the chosen designation in Iowa law. 

In addition, to the extent that gender is addressed, victims will be 

referred to as female and abusers will be referred to as male. This is not 

meant to imply that the roles cannot be reversed in some cases, nor is it 

meant to exclude same-sex domestic violence. The gender designation is 

used simply as a matter of convenience, and research on domestic 

violence suggests that most victims of domestic violence are women and 

most perpetrators are male. 
Table of Contents 

Abstract ........................................................... vii 

Executive Summary ................................................... ix 

Biographical Information .............................................. xv 

Contact Information .................................................. xvi 

Part I: Project Description ............................................ 1 

........................................... 1 

1.2 Challenges in Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases ...................... 4 

1.2.1 Leaving a Relationship/Stopping the Violence ..................... 8 

1.2.2 Reluctance to Arrest & Prosecute ............................. 13 

1.1 Background and Purpose ~ 

1.2.3 Depth of Understanding by Criminal Justice Officials .............. 15 

1.2.4 Evidence-based Prosecution ................................. 19 

1.2.5 Need for Community Response ............................... 20 

1.3 Development of Multidisciplinary Teams ............................... 20 

1.3.1 Developing Response Teams ................................ 20 

1.3.1 Coordinated Community Response ............................ 21 

1.3.2 Group Development ........................................ 23 

1.4 Use of Protective Orders ........................................... 23 

1.4.1 Procedures for Obtaining Protective Orders ..................... 24 

1.4.1 . 1 Specific Chapter 236 Provisions ....................... 26 

1.4.1 -2 Enforcement of Protective Orders ...................... 26 

1.4.2 Efficacy of Protective Order .................................. 27 

I 
1.5 Use of Risk Assessment in Domestic Violence .......................... 29 

1 5.1 Development of Risk Assessment Instruments ................... 30 

1.5.2 Identifying Risk Factors ..................................... 31 

1.5.3 Victim Impact ............................................. 33 

1.5.4 Multidisciplinary Approach ................................... 34 

1.5.5 Limits of Risk Assessment ................................... 35 

1.5.6 Need for More Information to Make Assessments Work ............ 35 

1 5.7 Victim-Centered Focus ..................................... 36 

1.6 Summary and Objectives ........................................... 38 

1.7 Significance of the Study ........................................... 40 

Part 2: Scope & Methodology ......................................... 41 

2.1 Overview of Methodology .......................................... 41 

2.1.1 Original Design ........................................... 41 

2.2PreliminaryPhase ................................................ 42 

2.2.1 Threat Assessment Instrument ............................... 43 

2.2.2 Quality of Life Instrument .................................... 43 

2.3 Breakdown of the Original Design .................................... 44 

2.3.1 Personnel Changes ........................................ 44 

2.3.2 Systemic Flaws ........................................... 45 

2.3.3 Fundamental Mistrust ...................................... 45 

2.3.4 Failure to Produce Data ..................................... 46 

2.4 Revisions in Evaluation Plan ........................................ 47 

2.5 Evaluations Methods .............................................. 49 

ii 
2.6 Data Analysis Procedures .......................................... 50 

2.6.1 Research Subjects ......................................... 51 

2.6.2 Research Design and Methodology ............................ 51 

Part 3: Detailed Findings ............................................ 53 

3.1 Progress of POET Project .......................................... 53 

3.1.1 Personnel ................................................ 53 

3.1.2 Evaluation Component ...................................... 55 

3.1.3 Policy Development ........................................ 56 

3.1.4 Threat Assessment ........................................ 56 

3.1.5Goals ................................................... 58 

3.1.6Successes ............................................... 58 

3.1.7 Flaws in Design and Implementation ........................... 59 

3.2 Process Evaluation ............................................... 60 

3.2.1 Leadership and Team Building ............................... 61 

3.2.2 Personnel ................................................ 62 

3.2.3Training ................................................. 63 

3.2.4 Resource Allocation ........................................ 65 

3.2.5 Threat Assessment ........................................ 65 

3.2.6 Tracking Offenders ........................................ 69 

3.2.7 Collaborative Efforts ........................................ 69 

3.2.8 Victim Services ........................................... 70 

3.2.9 Serving the Needs of Victims ................................. 70 

3.2.1 0 Accountability of Offenders ................................. 70 

iii 
3.2.1 1 Quality of Life Instrument ................................... 71 

3.3 Flaws in Implementation .......................................... 74 

3.4 The Importance of Trust ........................................... 74 

3.5Revised Design .................................................. 75 

3.5.1 Developing Multidisciplinary Teams ............................ 75 

3.5.2 Identifying Membership on the Team ........................... 76 

3.5.3 Developing the Team ....................................... 77 

3.5.4 Setting Team Goals and Objectives ........................... 78 

3.6POETTeamwork ................................................. 80 

3.7 Domestic Violence Victims ......................................... 87 

3.7.1 KeyThemes .............................................. 88 

3.7.2 Protective Order .......................................... 92 

3.7.3 Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Calls .................. 94 

3.7.3.1 Varied Attitudes and Behavior Toward Respondents ........ 94 

3.7.3.2 “Their Hands are Tied” ............................... 97 

3.7.3.3 Impact of Tight-Knit Community ........................ 98 

3.7.3.4 Varied Provision of Information ......................... 99 

3.7.4 Judicial System .......................................... 102 

3.7.4.1 Treatment by the Prosecutor ......................... 102 

3.7.4.2 Minimizing Treatment by the Judge 8. Jury .............. 103 

3.7.4.3 Gaps in the System ................................ 104 

3.7.5Advocates .............................................. 106 

3.7.5.1 Providing a Positive and Supportive Attitude ............. 107 

iv 
3.7.5.2 Providing Information ............................... 107 

3.7.5.3 Providing a Source of Protection ...................... 108 

3.7.6Summary ............................................... 108 

3.7.7 Measures of Success ...................................... 112 

3.8 The Limits of Quantitative Analysis .................................. 112 

Part 4: Analysis and Discussion ..................................... 113 

4.1 How Multidisciplinary Teams Work .................................. 113 

4.2 Domestic Violence Is Different ..................................... 117 

4.3 Goal Setting 118 .................................................... 

4.4 Procedure and Policy Development 4 122 ................................. 

4.5 Prosecution Issues 124 

4.6 Using Risk Assessment Instruments ................................. 127 

4.6.1 Gathering Information ..................................... 128 

.............................................. 

4.6.2 Sharing Information With Others ............................. 129 

4.6.3 Victim Safety Issues ....................................... 129 

4.7 The Importance of Trust .......................................... 129 

4.8 Threat Assessment 131 .............................................. 

4.9Group Processes ................................................ 132 

4.9.1 Group Dynamics 132 

4.9.3 The Significance of Trust ................................... 138 

4.1 0 The Role of the Evaluator ........................................ 139 

Part 5: Conclusions and Implications of Findings ....................... 140 

5.1 The Limits of Multidisciplinary Teams ................................ 141 

......................................... 

V 
5.2 The Limits of Risk Assessment ..................................... 141 

5.3 Making Multidisciplinary Teams Work ................................ 142 

5.4Conclusion ..................................................... 144 

References ....................................................... 146 

AppendixA ....................................................... 156 

Appendix8 ....................................................... 174 

AppendixC ........................................................ 181 

AppendixD ....................................................... 187 

AppendixE ....................................................... 190 

AppendixF ........................................................ 200 

AppendixG ....................................................... 223 

AppendixH ....................................................... 231 

vi 
The Abstract 

Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) Evaluation 

Research Goals and Objectives: 

Statement of Purpose. The original design - an impact evaluation of a 

multidisciplinary team’s use of risk assessment instruments to allocate resources to 

high-risk domestic abusers - failed to yield usable data. The modified evaluation 

addresses shortcomings that led to failure and examines elements necessary for a 

multidisciplinary Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) to assess risk and 

allocate resources. 

Research Su biects. Primary subjects: (1 ) multidisciplinary team members 

(public officials and nongovernmental victim advocates); (2) domestic violence victims. 

Public officials share information about criminal justice processes, and anonymous 

information about illustrative cases. Victims described criminal justice system 

experiences. Formal and informal policies and procedures of POET are compared with 

Domestic Abuse Response Team (DART) jurisdictions. Researchers who interviewed 

public officials did not interview victims. 

Research Design & Methodology: 

Methods. Evaluation includes structured interviews of multidisciplinary team 

members (supplemented by periodic POET progress reports); and semi-structured 

interview of victims. 

Data Analvsis. Qualitative analysis of interviews identify factors leading to a 

successful multidisciplinary team, and prerequisites to use of risk assessment 

instrument in assessing potential lethality. 

Research Results and Conclusions: 

Results: The process evaluation identifies factors that led to failure to achieve 

original goal, i.e., to identify high-risk domestic violence relationships in order to allocate 

resources. The process evaluation shows: 

(1) Absent a coordinated response to domestic violence, with a focus on victim 

(2) Risk assessment instruments may be used to identify high risk cases, but 

safety, a criminal justice response is unlikely to provide an effective response. 

effective risk assessment depends on pertinent information about the abuser, the victim 

and the relationship. 

(a) Often, only the victim can provide the most pertinent information about 

vii 
risk assessment. 

because sharing information can lead to retaliation by the abuser or by criminal justice 

officials. 

(c) Trust builds over time, and depends on mutual reliance. 

(d) Effective multidisciplinary teams operate with high trust levels. 

(3) The degree of trust among the various team members depends on several 

Support for the program by the highest level administrators of the 

agency. 

Communication skills and overall understanding of the dynamics of 

domestic violence. 

(b) Victims must trust public officials before providing information, 

factors: 

o 

o 

o Small group dynamics. 

Conclusions: Domestic violence cases are different from other cases. 

Information-sharing is especially important, and depends on high trust levels. Risk 

assessment cannot be done effectively by a newly developed team with low levels of 

trust. 

viii 
Executive Summary 

Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) 

Evaluation 

The Protective Order Enforcement Team was set up with the goal that the team 

would use a formal risk assessment instrument in order to determine which cases could 

be characterized as high-risk, so that extra resources could be allocated to the high-risk 

cases. According to the grant specifications, the team would gather information about 

domestic violence cases and then focus additional resources on those cases that 

appeared to pose a greater risk of lethality. The team would gather information from 

victims that could be used in a formal risk assessment. The formal risk assessment 

instrument was designed by academic researchers, with input and buy-in by POET 

agency representatives. 

The implementation of the POET program did not live up to expectations. The 

multidisciplinary team did not work together well as team. The lack of cooperation 

could be attributed to several factors. The team had not been formed before the grant 

period. Agency heads did not clearly communicate expectations to the team members, 

and team members did not receive consistent support from their own agencies or from 

their own team members. Substantial turnover in staffing exacerbated the difficulties. 

None of the participating agencies had seriously invested in the success of 

multidisciplinary team, and the result was an ineffective team. Moreover, the POET 

members did not reach any consensus regarding the primacy of victim safety as the 

guiding principle of the team. 

It appears that the fundamental flaw in the POET program was a basic lack of 

trust. Victims generally are reluctant to share information with persons unless there is a 

ix 
high degree of trust that the information will be used as a resource for victims, rather 

than as a tool that can be misused to assist in the persistent manipulation by abusers. 

POET project members could not trust the other members to hold abusers accountable 

and to focus on victim safety issues. With trust levels so low, victims were reluctant to 

share information that was critically important to the use of the formal risk assessment 

instrument. The lack of trust manifested itself in several ways. Victims refused to fill 

out the risk assessment form. Victim advocates refused to share with police or 

prosecutors the important information that might help to assess risk. Team members 

did not work cooperatively to achieve victim safety. 

A comparison of the workings of the POET project with the workings of other 

Domestic Abuse Response Teams (DART’S) illustrates that a team must be wellestablished before taking on an additional focus, such as risk assessment. 

Examination of several multidisciplinary teams yielded several conclusions about the 

formation and operation of the team. 

First, a cohesive multidisciplinary team operates on the basis of shared values 

and strong communication. A comparison of the various teams indicates that the 

development of a team takes time and effort, and that a strong team does not simply 

“happen” overnight. Interviews with other DART projects suggest that a team will 

undergo some serious growing pains in its early development, and the team’s response 

to domestic violence may not be effective until the team has worked together for 

several years. Most DART projects experienced changes in personnel during their 

formative years, and as personnel changed, the team gained strength and the agencies 

represented on the team developed a deeper understanding of domestic violence. A 

more comprehensive community response to domestic violence developed over time, 

as the team matured. This maturation, however, was not guaranteed until the team 

X 
members -- and their supervisors -- coalesced around similar values. 

Second, as the multidisciplinary team develops, the values of the team may or 

may not be shared by others in the respective agencies. The team is likely to be more 

successful when the team members receive genuine support from their colleagues in 

their own agencies. 

Third, even a well-established multidisciplinary team is only a partial response to 

domestic violence. Mature teams emphasized the development of a wide array of 

community resources, so that victims can seek out those resources that are most 

valuable in order to respond to or stop the violence. 

Finally, risk assessment requires valid information about the abuser, and very 

often, the victim is the best source of information. In order for victims to feel 

comfortable in sharing information, there must be a high level of trust between the 

victim and team members, and that cannot happen without a high level of trust among 

the team members themselves. 

Thus, the likelihood of success of the POET project would be much greater if it 

were added to an established response team. 

Eva1 uation Design 

The original evaluation design - an impact evaluation of a multidisciplinary 

team’s use of risk assessment instruments to allocate resources to high-risk domestic 

abusers - failed to yield usable data in the POET project. A modified evaluation 

addresses shortcomings that led to failure and examines elements necessary for a 

multidisciplinary Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) to assess risk and 

allocate resources. 

The primary subjects of the evaluation include: (1) multidisciplinary team 

xi 
members (public officials and nongovernmental victim advocates) in the POET project 

and in other DART projects in the state; and (2) domestic violence victims from areas 

with and without response teams. Public officials agreed to share information about 

criminal justice processes, and anonymous information about illustrative cases. Victims 

described their criminal justice system experiences. 

Evaluation included structured interviews of multidisciplinary team members 

(supplemented by periodic POET progress reports); and semi-structured interviews of 

victims. Qualitative analysis of interviews identify factors leading to a successful 

multidisciplinary team. 

Research Results and Conclusions 

Impact evaluation was impossible because usable data were not generated. The 

process evaluation identifies factors that led to failure. The POET goal was to identify 

high-risk domestic violence relationships in order to allocate resources. The process 

evaluation shows: 

(I) Absent a coordinated response to domestic violence, with a focus on victim 

safety, a criminal justice response is unlikely to provide an effective response. 

(2) Risk assessment instruments may be used to identify high risk cases, but 

effective risk assessment depends on pertinent information about the abuser, the victim 

and the relationship. 

(a) Often, only the victim can provide the most pertinent information about 

risk assessment. 

(b) Victims must trust public officials before providing information, 

because sharing information can lead to retaliation by the abuser or by criminal justice 

off icia Is. 

xii 
(c) Trust builds over time, and depends on mutual reliance. 

(d) Effective multidisciplinary teams operate with high trust levels. 

(3) The degree of trust among the various team members depends on several 

factors: 

o Support for the program by the highest level administrators of the 

agency. 

Communication skills and overall understanding of the dynamics of 

domestic violence. 

o 

o Small group dynamics. 

Conclusion 

Domestic violence cases are different from other cases, because they involve 

complex personal relationships and they require a coordinated community response. 

Although it may be possible to assess the risk of lethality, such an assessment is wholly 

dependent upon the quality and quantity of pertinent information available to the person 

making the assessment. The sharing of information depends on high trust levels. Risk 

assessment can be done effectively only by a well-established team with high levels of 

trust and a deep understanding of domestic violence. 

Effective multidisciplinary teams do not spring up overnight. They are the result 

of continued commitment by the participating agencies, and they are likely to encounter 

many barriers in their developmental stages. Only when the team members and 

participating agencies have agreed on common goals and established good 

communication can the trust levels be sufficient for victims to feel comfortable in 

sharing information with the team members. 

xiii 
Multidisciplinary teams could benefit from consultation by experts in team 

development whose advice and expertise are unrelated to funding or evaluation of the 

team. The team members should not be discouraged by the difficulties encountered in 

development of the team. Formulation of an effective team takes time and effort. 

xiv 
Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) 

Evaluation 

Grant Number 200WE-VX-K-001 

Biographical Information 

Dr. Roxann M. Ryan currently serves as an assistant attorney general, assigned to the 

Criminal Appeals Division, and specializing in sexually violent predator litigation. She 

has been with the Iowa Attorney General’s office, in various capacities, since 1980. 

She previously served as Deputy for Criminal Justice for four years, and headed the 

Criminal Appeals Division for six years. She has also served as an adjunct faculty 

member in the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in 

the Sociology Department at Iowa State University, in the Law School at Drake 

University, and in the Criminal Justice Department at the Des Moines Area Community 

College. In 1998, she completed the final report for a grant from the National Institute 

of Justice, entitled “Prosecution Strategies in Domestic Violence,” and has made 

presentations at the American Society of Criminology conference and the Academy of 

Criminal Justice Sciences conference, and has trained practitioners in the criminal 

justice system on issues related to domestic violence. She served as an evaluator of a 

COPS grant in 1997-98. She is currently involved in several federally funded research 

projects involving violence against women and financial crimes. She received her Ph.D. 

in Criminal Justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 1998. Her doctoral 

dissertation examined prosecution themes and strategies, defense themes, and trial 

advocacy skills in domestic violence felony trials. She has provided training for 

prosecutors, police, judges, victim advocates, school administrators and others on a 

variety of topics. She received her J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 

1980 and her B.A. in Economics from Iowa State University in 1977. 

Dr. Peggy Petrzelka has worked for a number of years applying survey research to the 

study of social and environmental issues. Trained as a rural and environmental 

sociologist, her publications and presentations include research on social and 

environmental issues impacting rural communities in Morocco, the U.S. Midwest, and 

Utah. She is co-author of a forthcoming book chapter on natural amenity development 

and its impacts on rural communities. At Utah State University she has analyzed and 

presented survey research findings on the impacts on the community of Escalante with 

the National Monument designation, specifically detailing the linkages between local 

reactions to this federal designation and levels of community satisfaction. In her seven 

years working in outreach with Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, 

she conducted multi-disciplinary survey research in conjunction with the Departments of 

Agronomy, Entomology and Horticulture. She has worked with scientists from a wide 

range of disciplines, and has experience working with local citizens, elected officials, 

local government staff, and community planning specialists. 

xv 
Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) Evaluation 

Grant Number 200WE-VX-K-001 

Contact information 

Evaluator: 

Roxann M. Ryan 

Iowa Department of Justice 

Second Floor, Hoover Building 

1305 East Walnut 

Des Moines, IA 50319 

Telephone: (515) 281-5473 

Fax: (515) 281-4902 

E-mail: RRyan@ag.state.ia.us 

POET program contacts: 

Thomas J. Mullin 

Woodbury County Attorney 

Woodbury County Courthouse 

Sioux City, Iowa 51 101 

Telephone: (7 1 2) 279-651 6 

Fax: (712) 279-6457 

E-mail : t m u I I in @ s iou x-cit y . org 

Dave Amick 

Woodbury County Sheriff 

P.O. Box 3715, 407 7'h St. 

Sioux City, IA 51 102 

Telephone: (71 2) 279-601 0 

Fax: (712) 279-6522 

Margaret Sanders 

Director, CSADV 

P.O. Box 1565 

Sioux City, IA 51 102 

Telephone: (71 2) 277-01 31 

Fax: (71 2) 258-8790 

E-mail: mscsadv@aol.com 

xvi 
Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) 

Final Report 

I. Project Description 

1.1 Background and Purpose 

The Protective Order Enforcement Team concept is based on the assumption 

that a person against whom a protective order has been issued is more likely to be 

involved in escalated violence. (Logan, et. ai, 2002) In providing a coordinated 

community response, then, a focus on protective order enforcement should provide an 

enhanced response to victims who are most in danger. 

The team was set up with the goal that the multidisciplinary team would use a 

formal risk assessment instrument, developed by academic researchers, in order to 

determine which cases could be characterized as high-risk. Then, the team could 

. allocate additional resources to the cases deemed to be high-risk. According to the 

POET grant specifications, the team members themselves would gather information 

about the domestic violence cases assessed, and share that information with 

evaluators. Then, POET project members would document the additional resources 

allocated to the cases assessed as high-risk. The evaluators would use the data 

gathered by the POET project members to conduct the formal evaluation of the 

program. 

-1 - 
The implementation of the POET program did not live up to expectations. The 

multidisciplinary team did not work together well as team, which was a necessary 

prerequisite to effective risk assessment. The team failed to gather the necessary 

information to make risk assessments, and because the team could not systematically 

distinguish the high risk cases, additional resources were not provided to victims in a 

systematic way. The team’s lack of cooperation could be attributed to several factors. 

First, the team had not been formed before the grant was awarded, so team 

members had not worked together in a cooperative effort, nor had the agencies 

developed a working relationship. In fact, evaluators discovered at the end of the grant 

period that a previous attempt to establish a multidisciplinary team had failed. This 

information had not been shared with evaluators before the grant application process. 

Second, the directors of the various agencies did not clearly communicate 

expectations to the team members, and team members did not receive consistent 

support from their own agencies or from their own team members. 

Third, substantial turnover in staffing exacerbated the difficulties. The lack of 

continuity made it harder to reach consensus or to implement policies. Too much time 

was spent in training new team members and in re-hashing the same problems with 

new staffers. 

In short, none of the participating agencies had seriously invested in the success 

of the multidisciplinary team before the advent of the enhanced-response grant. Rather 

than motivating the team members to coalesce faster, the result was a lack of 

coordination and an ineffective team. 

Moreover, the POET members did not reach any consensus regarding the 

-2- 
primacy of victim safety as the guiding principle of the team. This was a key component 

in gathering information about risk assessment. 

It appears that the fundamental flaw in the POET program was a basic lack of 

trust. Victims generally are reluctant to share information with persons unless there is a 

high degree of trust that the information will be used as a resource for victims, rather 

than as a tool that can further assist the abuser in a persistent pattern of manipulation. 

POET project members could not trust the other members to hold abusers accountable 

and to focus on victim safety issues. With trust levels so low, victims were reluctant to 

share information that was critically important to the use of the formal risk assessment 

instrument. The lack of trust manifested itself in several ways. Victims refused to fill 

out the risk assessment form. Victim advocates were unable to share with police or 

prosecutors the important information that might help to assess risk. Much of the 

information was not easily accessible from other sources. Even if it were available, 

there was a risk that the information could be used to the victim’s disadvantage, either 

by the police or prosecutors in the jurisdiction, or by the abusers who might be able to 

gain access to the information. The team members’ inability to work cooperatively to 

achieve victim safety was a critical flaw. 

A comparison of the workings of the POET project with the workings of other 

Domestic Abuse Response Teams (DART’S) illustrates the need to develop a cohesive 

multidisciplinary team that operates on the basis of shared values and strong 

communication. A team that undertakes risk assessment as a means to provide 

enhanced response must be well coordinated and have a high degree of trust 

established, because information is the key to risk assessment and information is not 

-3- 
likely to be shared unless there is a high degree of trust. 

A comparison of the various teams indicates that the development of a team 

takes time and effort, and that a strong team does not simply “happen” overnight. 

Interviews with other DART projects suggests that a team will undergo some serious 

growing pains in its early development, and the team’s response to domestic violence 

may not be optimal until the team has worked together for several years. Most DART 

projects experienced changes in personnel during their formative years, and as 

personnel changed, the team gained strength and the agencies represented on the 

team developed a deeper understanding of domestic violence. A more comprehensive 

community response to domestic violence developed over time, as the team matured. 

Time alone, however, was not a guarantee of maturation. The mature teams 

were the groups that had developed shared values and continued to renew their 

commitment to those shared values. Even in jurisdictions with a well established 

multidisciplinary team, victim views of the criminal justice response were not positive. 

This evaluation will examine factors that can lead to a successful Domestic 

Abuse Response Team effort, which can form the basis for a more concerted effort to 

assess and respond to cases that pose a high risk of lethality. The evaluation report 

begins with a comprehensive background summary about domestic violence, so that 

the DART/POET members’ experiences can be put into context. Next, the report will 

summarize the research methods and data analysis used in the evaluation. Finally, the 

report will set forth the conclusions that can be drawn from the POET project. 

1.2 Challenges in Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases 

A response team that lacks cohesion cannot respond effectively to domestic 

-4- 
violence. This cohesion is difficult to establish, for several reasons. First, the team 

members must overcome well-established biases against domestic violence victims. 

Second, the hidden nature of domestic violence makes it ill-suited to a criminal justice 

response. Third, abusers are masters of manipulation and they can take advantage of 

any shortcomings in the criminal justice system. 

Historical Response. The first challenge that a multidisciplinary team must 

overcome is a deeply ingrained social response - or more correctly, non-response - to 

domestic violence. Official recognition of domestic violence has been quite recent, and 

empirical research has provided new insight and deeper understanding of a problem 

that has existed since the beginning of recorded time. History demonstrates a societal 

acquiescence in domestic violence, which became entrenched after thousands of 

years. The violence was ignored, minimized, accepted or simply shunted aside in favor 

of a variety of other social movements. Even if it was acknowledged to be 

reprehensible, it was not deemed worthy of official action to stop it. (Pleck, 1987) Only 

in the last two decades have a substantial number of empirical researchers focused 

their efforts on systematic examination of the phenomenon. 

Ill-suifed to Criminal Justice Sysfem. The second challenge for a 

multidisciplinary team is the hidden nature of domestic violence that makes it ill-suited 

to traditional criminal justice processes. The abuse occurs in private, where witnesses 

are few, and it often entails injuries that are not visible to others. In addition, the 

trauma of intimate violence often cannot be shared with others - either because of 

threats by the abuser if the violence is revealed, or because of traumatic bonding by the 

victim with the abuser, or because a victim may experience shame or embarrassment 

-5- 
about the abuse. (Dutton & Painter, 1981) The practical difficulties in proving the 

incidents beyond a reasonable doubt translate into a much more challenging 

investigation and prosecution effort. 

Manipulation by Abusers. The third challenge for a multidisciplinary team is 

that domestic abusers can manipulate the legal system to their advantage. Although it 

seems appropriate to have an “official” response to domestic violence, not every legal 

response advances the effort to reduce or eliminate the violence. A manipulative 

abuser can twist logic and make allegations that can require counter-intuitive strategies 

in response. The legal system certainly is subject to manipulation by abusers. Unless 

practitioners make a conscious effort to make the legal system a resource for victims, 

there is a risk that official intervention can do more harm than good. 

New Ideas and New Approaches. Given the limitations of the traditional 

criminal justice system, new ideas and new approaches may be necessary in order to 

respond to domestic violence more effectively. When a multidisciplinary team is 

formed, the participating agencies’ methods may need to go beyond traditional criminal 

justice methods in order to serve domestic violence victims in a meaningful way. 

Domestic violence cases may challenge the underlying assumptions of criminal 

prosecution. This adds a degree of difficulty to team-building efforts, because it 

requires a reorientation among team members and their agencies. 

Traditional criminal justice focuses on deterrence, retribution and restitution and 

are based on rational decision-making. The usual criminal justice methods often fail in 

domestic violence cases because the goals of domestic abusers and their victims may 

be very different from the goals of other criminals and victims. Some legal scholars 

-6- 
have suggested that therapeutic jurisprudence provides the most effective legal 

response to domestic violence. (Winick, 2000; LaFond & Portwood, 2000). The 

therapeutic jurisprudence framework holds that the law “can psychologically help or 

harm individuals and seeks to maximize the psychological benefit and minimize the 

psychological harm caused by legal rules, procedures and participants.” (LaFond & 

Portwood, 2000: 5) Therapeutic jurisprudence, however, is a relatively new concept and 

is not widely accepted or practiced among criminal justice practitioners. It does provide 

valuable insight into domestic abuse dynamics. 

An empirical focus on domestic violence in the past two decades has 

dramatically increased the depth and breadth of understanding about the dynamics of 

abuse, the effects on the targets of such violence, and the types of responses that 

appear to be effective in stopping or reducing the violence. Therapeutic jurisprudence 

offers a framework for understanding both victims and offenders better, and for 

challenging the underlying assumptions of the criminal justice system. Traditional 

stereotypes of domestic violence blame victims for provoking the violence or for failing 

to escape the violent relationship, or accept the abuser’s attempts to make the victim 

feel responsible for the violence or to manipulate the victim’s view of reality. (Stamp & 

Sabourin, 1995) Criminal justice officials who are not consciously aware of this “crazymaking” (Schechter, 1982) may unwittingly give greater power to the abuser. 

Therapeutic jurisprudence also illustrates the importance of examining facts from 

the victim’s point of view: a victim may attribute the abuser’s violence to a variety of 

factors, including the abuser‘s attempts to control the victim, the abuser’s lack of 

control, the abuser’s personality or volatile temper, the use of alcohol, the abuser‘s 

-7- 
family background of violence, jealousy, or arguments over children, family or finances. 

Abusers, on the other hand, generally attribute the violence to some deficiency in the 

victim. This might include “chronic dissatisfaction with the spouse as a wife or a parent, 

retaliation for her verbal or physical abuse of him, and jealousy over past or current 

behaviors with regard to other men.” (Stamp & Sabourin, 1995) 

In a therapeutic jurisprudence approach, these factors can be taken into account 

in formulating a legal response that would .not occur in a traditional criminal justice 

response. Transforming a criminal justice response is difficult, however, and if a 

multidisciplinary team fails to understands these dynamics, the coordinated response 

cannot be a resource for victims who seek to stop the violence. 

1.2.1 Leaving a Relationship/Stopping the Violence 

The importance of “resources” for victims cannot be overstated. Leaving is a 

process, and the multidisciplinary team is likely to encounter the victim and offender on 

multiple occasions until the relationship ends, and the team members may well become 

involved if there is an escalation of violence at the time of separation. Thus, the team 

members must understand that leaving is a process, and the team policies must reflect 

the reality of the process of leaving in order for the team to accommodate the needs of 

the victim throughout the process. The effectiveness of the team necessarily depends 

on the non-legal-system resources available to the victims of violence, but it also 

depends on whether the team’s response is viewed positively by the victim each time 

that she encounters the criminal justice system. 

The importance of a “resource” approach to domestic violence has developed 

along with the research on domestic violence. Practitioners who are not familiar with 

-8- 
domestic violence research may inadvertently discourage victims from returning to the 

criminal justice system during their process of leaving. 

Lenore Walker (1988) suggested that women remain in a violent relationship 

because of “learned helplessness,” that is, women who are regularly beaten and who 

have a low self-concept have a feeling of helplessness that makes them feel incapable 

of leaving the relationship. She later modified her theory to describe a “battered woman 

syndrome,” a group of characteristics that may cause a woman to remain in an abusive 

relationship, or to kill the abuser. (Gelles, 1997) The battered woman syndrome is a 

form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), recognized in the American Psychiatric 

Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), which Gelles (1 997) 

describes as follows: 

Criteria of PTSD include (a) experiencing a stressor (such as battering) 

that can cause a traumatic response; (b) psychological symptoms lasting 

more than a month; (c) measurable cognitive and memory changes; (d) at 

least three measurable avoidance symptoms; and (e) at least two 

measurable arousal symptoms, such as hyper vigilance or an 

exaggerated startle response. 

Lenore Walker (1988) describes the syndrome: 

The clinical syndrome includes features of both anxiety and affective 

disorders, cognitive distortions including dissociation and memory loss, reexperiencing traumatic events from exposure to associated stimuli, 

disruption of interpersonal relationships, and psychophysiological 

disturbances. A hypersensitivity to potential violence occurs that creates 

an expectation of harm and a readiness to protect and defend oneself. If 

actual defense is seen as impossible, then the best coping skills are 

developed to keep the potential harm at a minimum level. For some, it is 

seen as an impossible task and a passive, helpless reaction is adopted. 

Such intense concentration on manipulating the environment to keep as 

safe as possible sets abused persons apart from others who believe their 

world is a relatively safe place. 

Other research has confirmed both physical and mental health problems that often 

-9- 
accompany domestic violence. (Coker et. al, 2002) 

The concept of learned helplessness has been criticized because it suggests 

victim-blaming, and does not capture the experience of many battered women, who 

seek help from the police, from family and friends, and from social service agencies. 

Gelles (1997) identified seven factors that may affect whether a woman can, as a 

practical matter, leave an abusive relationship: 

(a) the women have negative self-concepts; (b) they believe men will 

reform; (c) economic hardship; (d) they have children who need a father‘s 

economic support; (e) they doubt they can get along alone; (f) they 

believe divorcees are stigmatized; and (9) it is difficult for women with 

children to get work. 

Researchers have discovered conflicting results as to whether a woman is likely 

to leave an abusive relationship based on the seriousness of the violence. Several 

researchers have concluded that women who have fewer resources -- for example, 

more limited educational or occupational options -- are more likely to stay in the abusive 

relationship. (Gelles, 1997) Gondolf and Fisher (1 988) concluded that battered 

women are “active survivors” who seek help from a variety of community resources. 

Rather than being “helpless,” the victims are simply without adequate resources to be 

able to respond to the violence. 

This is consistent with the analysis by Mills (1 998), which concluded that singleresponse policies by criminal justice agencies do not fit the needs of all domestic 

violence victims. Mills asserted that the legal system could empower or disempower 

the victim, based on whether the legal response was consistent with the individual 

victim’s requirements and preferences. (Mills, 1998) 

Similarly, researchers have concluded that the process of leaving is enhanced 

-10- 
when victims have access to assistance from advocates who can connect victims with 

community resources. (Wathen & MacMillan, 2003; Bybee & Sullivan, 2002) This 

support enhances the victim’s quality of life. (Bybee & Sullivan, 2002) 

These concepts are important, because a criminal justice practitioner’s response 

to a domestic violence victim may be ineffective if the practitioner is unfamiliar with 

these concepts. Just as important, a non-system advocate must be familiar with these 

basic concepts in order to be a genuine resource to victims. The responses of criminal 

justice officials and advocacy service providers wilt be very different if their actions are 

based on the assumption that a victim is “helpless” rather than an assumption that the 

victim lacks resources. 

A multidisciplinary team also must recognize the process by which abused 

women recognize their abuse and take steps to end the violence. (Burke, et at., 2001) 

Researchers have found that a battered woman’s help-seeking strategy begins with 

tapping inner resources, moves to consultations with family and friends (informal social 

networks), and then to more formal help networks, such as police, health professionals 

or clergy. As the abuse becomes more severe, battered women are more likely to rely 

on formal help networks. Battered women who do not receive assistance from one 

formal source are likely to seek help from other sources. (McNutt, et. ai., 2002; Harris & 

Dewdney, 1994) Thus, an effective multidisciplinary team will take into account the 

victim’s progress in her process of leaving, and help to connect her to the resources 

that are available at the time that she needs those resources. . In a study in England, battered women reported they made, on an average, five 

unsuccessful attempts to seek assistance from individuals and agencies. Results from 

-1 1- 
American studies are consistent with these results. In one study, women who came to 

a shelter said they had made, on average, six different types of efforts to stop the 

abuse. Another study concluded that, on average, battered women received six to 

eight instances of help from informal networks, and eight to nineteen sources of help 

from formal help networks. (Harris & Dewdney, 1994) Generally, leaving is a multi-step 

process. (Barnett, 2000) 

The addition of advocacy resources, which include referrals to a variety of 

community resources and which continue for weeks after a victim leaves the shelter, 

increases the likelihood that the victim will escape the violent relationship. The end of 

violence, of course, is directly tied to the continued violence by the abuser, and making 

resources available to a victim cannot always deter a motivated offender. (Bybee & 

Sullivan, 2002) The addition of an advocate in a multidisciplinary team also can 

increase a victim’s satisfaction with the legal system. (Weisz, 1999) 

If the criminal justice focus on the victim is not directed toward providing 

resources, then the justice system becomes a hindrance rather than a resource. 

Unfortunately, criminal justice officials (and others) may hold an abuser responsible for 

causing the violence, but at the same time, hold the victim responsible for stopping the 

violence. (Stamp & Sabourin, 1995) This is particularly ironic, in light of the increased 

risk of violence at the time of separation. Domestic violence victims often are asked, 

“why don’t you just leave?” when statistics indicate that violence escalates at the time of 

separation. (Griffing et al., 2002; Logan, et. al, 2002) Even aside from an increased 

risk of violence, there are other factors that make it difficult for battered women to 

extract themselves from a violent relationship: economics, child care, religious beliefs, 

-1 2- 
and love or a sense of attachment to the abuser 

Multidisciplinary team policies must take into account the reality of the leaving 

process that is common to most domestic violence victims. The failure to account for 

these circumstances can make the criminal justice system a barrier rather than a 

resource. 

1.2.2 Reluctance to Arrest & Prosecute 

One of the most common challenges that a multidisciplinary team faces is the 

victim who is reluctant to proceed with prosecution. The team must address this 

problem and reach a consensus on how to proceed without a victim. Most teams are 

formed in order to improve the criminal justice response, that is, to promote arrest and 

prosecution. That prosecution effort is much easier when the victim assists the 

prosecution, but the victim may choose not to participate and the team’s goal may be at 

odds with the goals of the victim. 

Given the dynamics of domestic abuse, this reluctance to participate in the 

criminal justice process should not be surprising. In the criminal justice system, the 

focus is on a defendant’s rights, and victim rights are limited. This provides an 

advantage to abusers who choose to manipulate the criminal justice system in order to 

gain an advantage or wield further control over the victim. 

Moreover, the victim may be focused on other concerns in her life. In addition to 

the mechanics of escaping a violent relationship (food, clothing, shelter, child care, 

employment), the victim also may be recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Some research indicates that the psychological effects of abuse may be more severe 

than the physical effects of abuse. (Laffaye, Kennedy & Stein, 2003; Street & Arias, 

-1 3- 
2001) If the criminal justice response does not take into account the effects of this 

psychological abuse, it fails to serve as a resource. 

A criminal justice response is not always the primary response to violence. 

(Kau kinen, 2002) Domestic violence victims often express ambivalence about arresting 

the abuser and also express reluctance to proceed with prosecution. This ambivalence 

and reluctance may be attributed to several factors: the victim’s concerns about 

retaliation from the abuser; the victim’s concern that she (and her children) may be shut 

off from the household resources; the victim’s continued ties to the abuser; the victim’s 

distrust of criminal justice officials; or the victim’s need for support from the household’s 

social support network. These factors may or may not be shared with criminal justice 

officials, or with non-system advocates. 

The focus on the victim’s decision about leaving has implications for the progress 

of the case, because public attitudes about the seriousness of the battering may 

depend on perceptions about the victim’s situation. (Follingstad, et. al, 2001) Jurors are 

chosen from this public pool, and prosecutors’ decisions to prosecute often are affected 

by the perceived outcome of the case. (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2001; Schmidt & Steury, 

1989) 

A victim’s ambivalence or reluctance to proceed with a criminal justice response 

often has a direct impact on the progress of the case. We have long known that victim 

support for the charges brought plays a significant role in whether arrest is viewed 

positively. (Buzawa, et al., 1995) Police are much more likely to arrest if the female 

victim signs a written complaint, or if both parties are present when police arrive, and if 

the female victim alleges violence by the male abuser. (Berk & Loseke, 1980-81) 

-1 4- 
The nature of the criminal justice intervention also can have a significant impact 

on the victim’s response to the intervention. Generally, women who had some control 

within the criminal legal system had higher levels of satisfaction with the criminal justice 

response. Without strong community supports, women’s need to control criminal 

justice responses was even greater. Thus, by increasing community resources, it 

appears that victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system is likely to increase. 

(Fleury, 2002) A multidisciplinary team has the potential to improve the criminal justice 

response, if the team understands the dynamics of abuse and the process of leaving. 

1.2.3 Depth of Understanding by Criminal Justice Officials 

Empirical research on domestic violence certainly has deepened the 

understanding of the dynamics of abuse, the process of leaving a violent relationship, 

and the effectiveness of holding abusers accountable in the effort to stop the violence. 

The depth of understanding among criminal justice officials, however, varies widely. 

Official policies regarding domestic violence have changed dramatically over the last 

three decades, and particularly in the last decade, with the advent of more intense 

empirical study of domestic violence. Many criminal justice officials - and the public at 

large - have not mirrored the progress that has been achieved in the research arena. 

In this study, police and prosecutors were the primary focus. Judges’ 

participation was not included within the scope of the study. It is instructive to examine 

the evolution of police and prosecution responses, because remnants of these various 

responses may influence decision-making. Understanding the development of police 

and prosecution responses can help to identify the shortcomings of a team’s 

coordination efforts. 

-1 5- 
Police. Police were the focus of the early activities of the battered women’s 

movement. Historically, police were reluctant to become involved (that is, to make 

arrests) in domestic disturbances. Police manuals often recommended “calming” the 

parties or mediating the dispute. (Friedman, 1985) This was based on the perceived 

danger in getting involved in domestic disturbances. (Pleck, 1987) Likewise, 

prosecutors failed to recognize domestic assaults as crimes, and instead “sent women 

home with the advice that they should ‘kiss and make up.”’ (Gelles & Cornell, 1990) 

Dramatic changes occurred during the 1970’s and 198O’s, when the 

criminalization of domestic abuse was emphasized. Police developed mandatory arrest 

or pro-arrest policies, prosecutors pursued criminal charges more vigorously, judges 

sentenced offenders more severely, legislative changes included the authority to make 

warrantless arrests for misdemeanor assaults and an expansion of the “domestic 

relationship’’ definition, as well as protective orders as another form of legal recourse to 

assist victims and hold offenders accountable. (Durant, 2003; Davis, et al., 1997; 

Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996) 

A more recent issue, however, has been the increasing rates of arcest of women 

for domestic assaults. In one study, criminal justice officials expressed the belief that 

women’s violence was not increasing, despite the fact that the number and proportion 

of female arrestees increased. There are indications that the increases in arrests of 

women may be the result, at least in part, from a lack of sympathy for or a bias against 

battered women. (Miller, 2001) 

Prosecution. For many years, advocates for battered women were critical of 

-1 6- 
the inconsistent prosecutorial response to domestic violence. (Davis, et al., 1997) 

Prosecutors were roundly criticized for their failure to proceed with prosecution after 

arrest. On a more fundamental level, the failure to prosecute in domestic violence 

cases has been attributed to several factors: concern about evidentiary issues when a 

victim was reluctant to assist in a prosecution; a perception that reconciliation with the 

abuser was almost inevitable and necessarily fatal to the case; or acceptance of longstanding patriarchal views about marital privacy and domestic violence. (Davis, et al., 

1997) 

In understanding the prosecution response today, it is instructive to examine 

traditional prosecution responses to domestic violence, because remnants of those 

long-held beliefs may affect current decision-making. 

In a revealing “dialogue with a prosecutor” in 1984, the prosecutor said that, 

typically, no charges would be brought in a domestic assault unless the victim suffered 

serious injury, and that the proof of serious injury would depend, at least to some 

degree, on the quality of the police report on the incident. The prosecutor asserted that 

the government should not “be quick to intervene in family arguments” or assaults, 

because “tolerance may be in the public interest.” This is particularly true when victims 

typically ask that charges be dropped. The prosecutor questioned whether prosecution 

could ever have a deterrent effect: “we could use up resources until the end of time and 

not even lessen this problem.” (Ellis, 1984) 

In the case of an assault with a deadly weapon, the prosecutor said the first step 

would be to determine if “I believed her myself,” and the second consideration would be 

“her ability to convince a judge or jury that she was telling the truth” because likelihood 

-1 7- 
of conviction traditionally has been “the first tenet“ of a charging decision. (Ellis, 1984) 

The prosecutor expressed concern about the appearance presented by too many 

dismissals: 

What member of the defense bar, for example, is going to negotiate 

seriously with a D.A. who’s never won a case for a given offense? And 

which of my fellow D.A.’s isn’t going to get suspicious about the quality of 

my work if I keep filling up the dockets and then coming up with nothing 

but dismissals or acquittals? (Ellis, 1984) 

The prosecutor also expressed the view that “if victims would refuse to be 

assaulted, if they would simply get out of these relationships, then the problem would 

be solved.” (Ellis, 1984) 

Prosecutorial views expressed in 1984 may not reflect precisely the same 

attitudes today, but remnants of traditional views on domestic violence may influence 

actions and attitudes of criminal justice officials. If prosecutors are not aware of this 

history of prosecution response to domestic violence, they may unconsciously continue 

those prosecution traditions. The development of a multidisciplinary team may bring 

such traditional attitudes to the forefront, and question their validity 

Traditional prosecution responses may continue to influence decision making by 

prosecutors. Davis and Smith (1 995) concluded that prosecutors consulted with victims 

of domestic violence more often than in other cases, and that many dismissals were the 

result of victims’ expressed interests not to pursue prosecution. Several studies found 

that very few domestic assault cases were processed through the system. (Martin 

1994) Charging decisions have been found to be affected by the degree of injury to the 

victim (more severe injuries were more likely to result in charges); the instrument of the 

attack (use of weapons made charging more likely); and the defendant’s history of prior 

-18- 
abuse and appearance at a charging conference. Charges might be brought even 

when there was little corroborating evidence, and the defendant‘s prior record appeared 

to be a factor in making that decision. (Schmidt & Steuty, 1989) The victim’s desire to 

proceed with prosecution is an important factor. (Davis, et at., 1997) 

Battered women may rely on the availability of prosecution as an important 

power resource, but prosecution itself may not be as important as its availability. (Ford, 

1991) Prosecution will serve as a power resource, however, only if the victim has input 

on whether to proceed with prosecution. (Ford, 1993) Rigid adherence to no-drop 

prosecution policies may not only fail to serve the needs of battered women, it may 

discourage their continued reliance on the criminal justice system. (Davis, Lurigio & 

Skogan, 1997) Nonetheless, some jurisdictions rigidly follow no-drop policies in 

domestic assault cases, including issuing subpoenas for “uncooperative” victims, with 

the threat of arrest and contempt of court for failure to appear. (Davis & Smith, 1995) 

Ford (1993) points out that prosecutors often fail to ask victims what they expect 

from a prosecution. Some victims expect protection, but others expect repayment of 

damages or arrangements that will allow the victim to avoid further harm. (Ford, 1993) 

1.2.4 Evidence-based Prosecution 

The trend in prosecution has been toward evidence-based prosecution, that is, a 

prosecution that is not dependent upon a victim’s cooperation with the prosecution. 

This emphasis in prosecution recognizes that a victim may not cooperate with a 

prosecution for a variety of reasons - cooperation may place the victim in greater 

danger; the victim is not emotionally or financially ready to leave the violent relationship; 

the victim is focused on other matters and the effort in pursuing prosecution is not 

-1 9- 
deemed sufficiently important. 

Evidence-based prosecutions present difficulties for police and prosecutors, too. 

When domestic abuse is punished as a minor crime, police and prosecutors may feel 

constrained to expend limited resources for investigation and prosecution. The result is 

that evidence-based prosecution is more difficult in domestic violence cases in which 

the victim is reluctant to cooperate with the prosecution. 

1.2.5 Need for Community Response 

The bulk of the research on domestic violence concludes that the criminal justice 

system alone cannot solve the problem of domestic violence. The resources provided 

by the criminal justice system are limited. Without a strong community response, the 

victims of domestic violence will not be able to gather the resources necessary to 

escape the violent relationship. (Wolff, 2001) 

Within the criminal justice system, it is also important to coordinate resources. 

Batterers are adept at manipulating people and systems to gain or maintain control. 

Thus, unless criminal justice resources are coordinated, there is a very real danger that 

the criminal justice response will serve the needs of the abusers rather than the victims. 

(Winick, 2000) It is this need for a coordinated response that led to the development of 

multidisciplinary team responses to domestic violence. 

1.3 Development of Multidisciplinary Teams 

Multi-disciplinary teams in the domestic violence arena were begun in the 1980's 

in many jurisdictions, but there is only limited empirical research about multidisciplinary 

teams. Instead, research has focused on the overall community response. 

-20- 
1.3.1 Developing Response Teams 

The combination of government and non-government organizations to achieve 

justice within a community presents many challenges and involves a wide variety of 

variables. Roman et. al (2003) found that successful partnerships are based on several 

variables: 

(I) a community-wide understanding of the issue targeted, combined with a 

commitment to address the issue, with consensus regarding clear goals; 

(2) partnership structures that enhance clear communication among partners, 

along with shared decisionmaking; 

(3) partnership that grows out of careful planning that is based on an 

assessment of community needs and resources; 

(4) continued community support that is reinforced by publicity regarding success 

and support for the partnership; 

(5) strong horizontal integration (among community organizations) and vertical 

integration (between community organizations and traditional power holders). 

Successful multidisciplinary teams adopt shared goals, commit to adequate 

training, develop strong communication networks among team members, and work 

together to maximize community resources. (NCVC 2002) A successful program 

depends on a lead agency’s ability to bring diverse disciplines together, and also 

depends on the coordination of high quality training for all team members that is 

consistent with the team goals. (NCVC 2002) It further demands organizational support 

that is consistent with the team goals, so that team members can rely on colleagues to 

provide backup when necessary. (NCVC 2002) 

-21- 
1.3.1 Coordinated Community Response 

The battered women’s movement focused on criminal justice intervention in the 

1970’s and 1980’s, but in the 199O’s, the trend was toward a “coordinated community 

response” to domestic violence. The coordinated approach grew out of frustration with 

the failure of police actions to deter domestic violence, as well as the movement toward 

community policing. (Davis, et al., 1997) 

Coordinated approaches are designed to mobilize community resources, in order 

to increase public awareness of domestic violence, to promote coordination of 

resources, and to encourage prevention and treatment efforts. (Edwards, 1992) They 

might include health care professionals, police, prosecutors, victim advocates, and 

social service agencies. (Witwer & Crawford, 1995) Some research indicates that 

coordinated community responses may decrease recidivism. (Shepard, Falk & Elliott, 

2002) 

Researchers are discovering that many battered women seek help in a variety of 

ways before looking to the criminal justice system for help. For example, in one 

survey, about 80% of the respondents (battered women served by a shelter) said they 

favored mandatory reporting by health care professionals, although many of the 

respondents felt that mandatory reporting would not have helped them in their own 

situation. (Coulter & Chez, 1997) 

Evaluation of coordinated community response is necessarily limited, because 

each community develops a different type of response and offers different resources, 

and there are no control groups available. (Davis, et al., 1997) In one evaluation of a 

program in Minneapolis, Syers and Edelson (1 992) concluded that court-system 

-22- 
response may enhance the benefits of arrest, at least for first-time offenders. The 

deterrent effect of arrest may be greater for first-time offenders and for offenders who 

have higher education and income levels, and those effects can be enhanced through 

court processes. (Syers & Edelson, 1992) 

More recently, researchers have studied the difficulties in implementation of 

coordinated responses. (Shepard, Falk & Elliott, 2002) 

1.3.2 Group Development 

The response to domestic violence may well depend on the quality of the 

multidisciplinary group interactions. A group that can resolve conflict effectively is more 

likely to achieve the results the group seeks. (Allen, 2001; Jones & Bodtker, 1998; 

Bitter, 1977) Generally, a group that is formally organized, has a representative 

membership and has effective leadership is more likely to function effectively as a 

group. (Allen & Hagen, 2003) 

There is a strong desire for humans to team with others, but at the same time, 

there is a tendency for each team member to want the team to focus on that team 

member's needs. It is when the team goes beyond individual needs that realistic goals 

can be set and attained through cooperative work. (Robbins & Finley, 2000) 

1.4 Use of Protective Orders 

The growth in the use of protective orders has overwhelmed some courts. The 

Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act was the first reform to allow protective orders 

for domestic violence victims. (Davis, et al., 1997) In 1983, only 17 states had 

legislation authorizing the issuance of protective orders, but that number increased to 

-23- 
48 by 1990. (Dobash & Dobash, 1987) Today, every state has some type of protective 

order provision, and Congress has enacted a statute to ensure that each protective 

order can be given full faith and credit in other states. 18 U.S.C. § 2265. 

Availability and effectiveness are very different questions, however, and the 

indications are that protective orders provide, at best, only limited protection. Davis and 

colleagues (1 997) report: 

60% of the women interviewed twice in one year after receiving a 

protective order suffered abuse at least once. Over one in five reported 

threats to kill, 20% reported severe violence, and 43% reported property 

damage. Threats and violence did not subside over time: there were no 

significant differences in the percentage reporting subsequent violence in 

the first 3 months of the year compared to the final 9 months of the year. 

The history of abuse was the best predictor of the success of a protective order. (Davis 

& Smith, 1995) A study in California, involving domestic violence cases arising in 1989 

and 1992, found that women who were more financially dependent were less persistent 

in seeking a civil protective order, and women who were more severely abused also 

were less persistent in seeking a civil protective order. (Fernandez, et al., 1997) Arrest 

rates in response to protective order violations were very low in one study in Colorado 

in the early 1990's. (Davis & Smith, 1995) Nonetheless, a recent study by the National 

Center for State Courts found that 72% of the women who had obtained protective 

orders reported that their lives had improved, and in follow-up interviews, 65% reported 

no continuing problems. (Keilitz, et al., 1997) 

1.4.1 Procedures for Obtaining Protective Orders 

The Iowa law provides for civil protective orders, including pro se petitions for 

relief, as well as criminal no-contact orders (which are pretrial release conditions or 

-24- 
post-trial orders connected with the criminal case). The broad civil options for victims 

of domestic violence mean that victims who are reluctant to participate in prosecution 

may opt instead for a civil protective order remedy. Thus, it may be helpful to explore 

the civil options available, in order to understand what assistance can be provided 

through prosecution as part of a multidisciplinary team effort. 

A domestic abuse victim can seek relief from domestic abuse pursuant to 

chapter 236, by seeking: (1) an emergency order (good for 72 hours and available 

when the court is not open on an ex parte basis), pursuant to Iowa Code 5236.6 (2001); 

a temporary order (available in an ex parte proceeding and good for about 15 days), 

pursuant to Iowa Code $236.4 (2001); or a final (long-term) order (available after a 

hearing at which the defendant has an opportunity to defend, and good for up to one 

year and longer upon further proceedings to extend), pursuant to Iowa Code 9236.5 

(2001). 

There are form pleadings available for use by both pro se plaintiffs and lawyers 

representing plaintiffs. These include a petition and motions to dismiss, modify, and 

initiate contempt proceedings regarding protection orders. Any of the orders issued 

under chapter 236 may include provisions regarding child custody and visitation, 

maintenance and support, occupancy of the home, possession of property, counseling, 

and no-contact provisions, as well as any other provision which is necessary for the 

safety of the plaintiff. See Iowa Code § 236.5 (2001). 

Violation of the chapter 236 order can be contempt of court. Police can start 

these contempt proceedings by taking the alleged order violator into custody and before 

a magistrate. However, it is up to the pro se victim/plaintiff, or the attorney representing 

-25- 
the victim/plaintiff, to pursue the contempt action beyond this initial appearance. 

Violations may also be filed as a simple misdemeanor complaint, at the discretion of the 

police and county attorney. In this case the matter is prosecuted by the state. 

There are advantages in proceeding under chapter 236 for protection. Chapter 

236 orders can be obtained quickly and at low or no cost, even after regular court 

hours. Effective July 1, 2001, filing fees and court costs were waived for plaintiffs, and 

service of process by sheriffs and other public officials is required to be done without 

charge to the plaintiff. If the defendant is located out of state, law enforcement officials 

will usually cooperate in serving the defendant in that area. Police are required to take 

an alleged order violator into custody and violators are jailed for violation of the orders. 

There also are disadvantages in proceeding under chapter 236. Relief is 

temporary. Court orders cannot ensure safety, but do provide further sanctions if the 

domestic abuse continues. Modification or cancellation of the order is required if the 

parties wish to reunify. Violation of the order by either party can constitute contempt of 

court. The victim can be charged with aiding and abetting if it is proven that the victim 

has encouraged or otherwise assisted the abuser to violate the protection order. Only 

the sheriff, as opposed to a private process server, can perform service of the petition 

for domestic abuse and any orders and notices, upon the defendant. 

1.4.1 .I Specific Chapter 236 Provisions 

The specific provisions for protective order set out in Iowa law are included in 

Appendix B. 

I .4.1.2 Enforcement of Protective Orders 

-26- 
The procedures for enforcement of protective orders are particularly pertinent to 

the POET project, because the team was expected to provide enhanced resources 

focused on enforcement of the orders. The procedures for enforcement also are 

included in Appendix B. 

1.4.2 Efficacy of Protective Order 

Use of the civil domestic abuse protective order grew exponentially in Iowa when 

the pro se process was first enacted in 1985. Although the number of criminal nocontact orders has not been tracked as closely, anecdotal information suggests that the 

use of criminal orders also has grown dramatically. 

Protective orders do not necessarily reduce revictimization. (Mears et ai., 2001 ) 

The orders may, however, serve as another resource for victims who try to regain some 

control in their relationships, at least temporarily. It also can serve as a test of legal 

system. In one study, less than half of the women who initiated the protective order 

process actually obtained a final protective order. The researchers attributed the small 

number to the practical difficulties in obtaining the final order: the need to go to the 

court on two different occasions, often with lengthy waits that take time away from 

family or jobs. (Zoellner et al. 2000) Two primary factors affected the likelihood that a 

woman would obtain a final order: (1) her attachment to the batterer, and (2) her 

perception of the severity of the threat that the abuser posed. A woman who was more 

closely attached to her abuser was less likely to seek a final order. A woman who 

perceived that the abuser posed a serious threat was more likely to seek a final order. 

(Zoellner et ai. 2000) 

When victims are not given control over the imposition of a protective order, 

-27- 
there is a great risk that the protective order will not only fail to serve as a resource for 

the victim, but that it may serve to entrap the victim in another uncontrollable and 

unmanageable situation. (Tarr, 2003) 

One of the primary disadvantages of any type of protective order in Iowa is the 

possibility that the person seeking protection can be charged with aiding and abetting 

the violation of that order. The issue first arose in a case in which an attorney sought 

an order of protection against his girlfriend - after he had previously been charged with 

domestic abuse assault against her - and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the aiding 

and abetting principle applied to protective order violations, just as it did to any other 

criminal act. Hutcheson v. lowa Disfrict Court for Lee County, 480 N.W .2d 260, 263 

(Iowa 1992). 

The second case of aiding and abetting involved a domestic abuse victim who 

sought a protective order against her abuser and then invited him back to her home. 

Henley v. low District Courf of Emmet County, 533 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 1995). In 

that case, the county attorney sought to speed the victim’s process of leaving by forcing 

her to separate from her abuser. (Personal communication with prosecutor.) 

The practical effect of such a principle of law, of course, can be devastating. 

Violence often escalates at the time of separation, which may cause victims to return to 

the relationship in order to de-escalate the violence. In addition, leaving a violent 

relationship is a process, and victims often return to the violent relationship several 

times before they gather enough resources to be able to leave. Criminal charges 

against the victim may not speed the process of leaving, and in fact may impede it. 

The aiding-and-abetting option is particularly troublesome when the protective 

-28- 
order is a criminal no-contact order. The victim has no control over the imposition or 

removal of a criminal no-contact order. Rather, the prosecutor makes the decision 

about such no-contact orders. Victims may be caught between Scylla and Charybdis: 

they face increased risk of violence at the time of separation if they refuse to reconcile, 

or a very real risk of criminal sanctions if they do reconcile. 

The aiding-and-abetting issue has created tension between victim advocates and 

prosecutors in Iowa. Prosecutors who receive federal funding can endanger their 

funding if the VAWA prosecutor is assigned to prosecute victims. Some county 

attorneys have responded by disallowing the VAWA prosecutor from prosecuting 

victims, but assigning the prosecution to another attorney in the county attorney’s office. 

The effect is the same, from the victim’s viewpoint. 

The policy of prosecuting aiding and abetting violations diminishes the victim’s 

trust in the prosecution. As the POET project demonstrated, the victim’s trust in the 

prosecution is the key to providing meaningful risk assessment. The significance of the 

aiding and abetting prosecution will be discussed below. 

I .5 Use of Risk Assessment in Domestic Violence 

Many people have sought to use risk assessment instruments in an effort to sort 

out the most lethal domestic violence cases from the less lethal cases, in order to better 

allocate limited resources. As discussed below, the classification of cases according to 

lethality is not a well-developed science, and depends a great deal on the value of the 

information available. 

In the POET project, researchers provided a risk assessment instrument to 

practitioners. The instrument was based on empirical information available at the time 

-29- 
that the grant was written. Research since that time has helped to refine knowledge 

about potential risks - and the distinctions between risk of violence and risk of lethality. 

1.5.1 Development of Risk Assessment Instruments 

Discretionary decision making is inherent in the criminal justice system. As a 

practical matter, police cannot arrest every offender, prosecutors cannot prosecute 

every case, judges cannot incarcerate every convicted defendant, and corrections 

institutions cannot incapacitate every offender. Nor would criminal justice officials 

choose to pursue every avenue available against every offender. "Justice," as it is 

generally perceived by criminal justice officials and by the public at large, should be 

individualized, yet consistent with certain overriding principles. 

In making decisions aboyt who will be brought into the criminal justice system 

and how they will be treated, criminal justice officials often base their decisions on 

predictions of possible outcomes. They may show greater leniency for an offender who 

shows promise for rehabilitation, or they may "throw the book at" offenders who are 

perceived to be more dangerous. Because of these discretionary decisions that 

implicitly predict future behavior, many researchers, policy makers and criminal justice 

officials have attempted to study predictions of criminality. The result has been a large 

body of research on predictions, risk assessments and risk assessment instruments to 

be used in the criminal justice system. 

"Predictions" of criminality have been in and out of vogue over the years. The 

Gluecks' early study of delinquency suggested that certain factors could be used to 

predict delinquency and deviance. (Farrington, 1989) Early research was optimistic 

that predictions of criminality could be made with some certainty. (Glaser, 1962) Then, 

-30- 
the methodology of the Gluecks’ study was criticized and the conclusions were 

seriously questioned. (Farrington, 1989) 

In the 1970s, predictions of dangerousness gained importance in the criminal 

justice field (when indeterminate sentencing meant that predictions about parole 

success were emphasized) and in the mental health field (when civil commitments were 

based on likelihood of dangerousness). But the support for predictions waned as more 

empirical research indicated that mental health professionals might be wrong more 

often than they were right in their estimations of dangerousness. (Monahan, 1989; 

Pfohl, 1978) 

Criminal justice officials who must make decisions need good information in 

order to make well informed decisions. Those decisions often are individually based, 

but also can affect significant parts of the criminal justice system. “Changes in penal 

policy should not be made in the absence of predictions about their likely effects.” 

(Farrington & Tarling, 1985) Despite these limitations, a recent study suggests that the 

use of risk assessments may provide an effective way to allocate resources to the 

higher-risk offenders. (Shepard, Falk & Elliott, 2002) 

1.5.2 identifying Risk Factors 

Two primary instruments have been used in assessing risk. The Spousal 

Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide, and the Danger Assessment Scale. 

(Goodman et al. 2000) Often, however, a victim’s own assessment of risk may be the 

best. (Weisz et ai. 2000) 

Winick has noted a “paradigm shift” in risk assessment that views risk as an 

assessment tool and a management tool. (Winick 2000) Risk management has 

-31- 
become a dynamic process that changes as facts unfold or change. (Winick, 2000) 

A number of factors regularly appear in cases in which the level of violence has 

escalated to levels that are life-threatening. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Frequency of physical assaults. (Thompson et al. 2003 ; Browne 1987) 

Frequency of sexual assaults. (Campbell et al., 2003; Browne 1987) 

Frequency of intoxication and drug use. (Thompson et at., 2003; Farr, 

2002; Sharps, 2001; Cheong et al., 2001; Browne 1987) 

Suicide, either abuser or victim (Browne 1987) 

Death threats. (Brewster, 2000; Browne 1987) 

Threats of injury. (Thompson et al. 2003; Brewster, 2000) 

Intimidation or emotional abuse. (Thompson et al. 2003; Brewster, 2000) 

Threats to harm the children if the victim leaves. (McFarlane et at., 

2002a) 

Perpetrator's stepchild in the home. (Campbell et al., 2003) 

Access to weapons or previous threat with weapon. (Campbell et al., 

2003; Farr, 2002; Campbe11,1986) 

Pregnancy (Campbell et al., 2003; McFarlane et al., 2002b) 

Total control or repeated surveillance of the victim. (Dye & Davis, 2003; 

McFarlane et at., 2002; Campbell 1986) 

Low income. (Campbell 1986). 

The need for threat management has only recently been recognized. 

Traditionally, law enforcement officers gather and secure evidence of crimes that 

already been committed, and seek to identify the perpetrator. Threats present a very 

different problem. The alleged perpetrator often is identified, or identifiable. But simply 

identifying the perpetrator does not solve the problem. The threats against the victim 

may be elusive and the perpetrator may be cunning in making those threats. A different 

law enforcement approach is required to "manage" threats. (Fein, et al., 1995) 

Little empirical research is currently available, and hands-on experience is 

relatively limited. Anecdotal information suggests that threats may be direct, verbal 

threats, or they may be subtle, implied threats. Often the threats are directed not only 

at the target, but also at family, friends or co-workers of the target. Generally, the result 

-32- 
is that the target lives in fear that the threats could be carried out at any time. 

Sometimes, unfortunately, the threats of injury or death are actually fulfilled. Protective 

orders are one way of responding to these threats. (NCJA, 1993) 

In managing threats, police should try to assess the dangerousness of the 

perpetrator and also assess possible solutions for intervention, under either criminal or 

civil law. Police also can enlist the victim's assistance in managing the threat by 

providing practical suggestions to enhance security or to notify police when violence 

appears imminent. 

The POET grant was intended to provide more empirical information about threat 

assessment and threat management, but that part of the program was not 

implemented. The hypothesis to be tested was whether a multidisciplinary team 

approach would enhance both assessment and management efforts, because 

multidisciplinary teams hold the greatest potential for gathering information and taking 

action. That hypothesis remains to be tested. 

Instead, what was gleaned from the POET project was an appreciation for the 

difficulty in establishing a functional multidisciplinary team that could optimize 

resources. 

1.5.3 Victim Impact 

The impact of abuse on victims varies widely. The effects of intimate partner 

violence on symptoms of post-traumatic disorder are well-established. (Bennice, et ai., 

2003) Some research indicates that the effect of stress from domestic abuse are 

greater than the effects of stress from poverty. (Sutherland, Bybee & Sullivan, 2002) 

Other researchers found that effects of post-traumatic stress disorder are greater for 

-33- 
low-income women. (Vogel & Marshall, 2001 ) Other research documents relationships 

between psychological abuse and illegal drug use, physical limitations and cognitive 

impairments. (Straight, Harper & Arias, 2003) Similar findings occurred in a study of 

physical and mental health effects on stalking victims. (Davis, Coker & Sanderson, 

2002) Physical abuse rarely occurs without psychological abuse. (Henning & Klesges, 

2003) Some research indicates that only a small percentage of battered women seek 

formal counseling services. (Henning & Klesges, 2002) 

It is important to understand the effects of trauma on victims, because it may 

affect a victim’s decision making and behavior, which can in turn have an effect on 

police or prosecutorial discretion. One of the advantages of a functional 

multidisciplinary team is that a nonsystem advocate can explain typical trauma-induced 

reactions to criminal justice system officials. This can help to make the legal system a 

resource rather than a barrier for battered women. 

1.5.4 Multidisciplinary Approach 

A national resource group recommends the use of a multidisciplinary approach 

both in detecting and in managing threats. (NCJA, 1993) The national resource group 

suggests that in developing a multidisciplinary approach, four areas be considered: 

(1) Structuring a multidisciplinary approach. Often the perpetrator 

encounters a variety of law enforcement agencies, mental health professionals, or 

community assistance organizations. Each agency gathers information from the 

perpetrator, but the agencies do not necessarily share information with each other. 

Information sharing can help to identify those behaviors that pose the greatest risk to 

-34- 
public safety. Some structure for connecting these agencies should be implemented, 

so that the same result will obtain regardless of who is first contacted. 

(2) Identifying information needs. Training for a variety of disciplines will help 

to identify the types of information that will be most helpful in identifying risks and 

effective risk management techniques. Field officers may be able to use this risk 

assessment in better responding to the concerns of the victims being targeted. 

(3) Developing inter-disciplinary communication. Obviously, information is 

valuable only if it is shared. Structures that promote inter-disciplinary communication 

will most effectively manage risks. 

(4) Informing victims. The people who are targeted may benefit from knowing 

more information about threat management or about the perpetrator. Systems should 

be established to share information appropriately with victims, including general crimeprevention training. 

1.5.5 Limits of risk assessment 

Recent research suggests that risk assessments, or lethality assessments, have 

serious limitations. Much of the research is retrospective, and it may be difficult to sort 

out the significant differences between lethal cases and non-lethal cases. That is, 

many of the factors common to lethal cases also may be present in non-lethal cases. 

The research does not necessarily provide sufficient information about the presence or 

absence of the factors in question in a sufficient sample of non-lethal cases. (Block, 

1992) Nonetheless, more recent research provides more reliable empirical information 

about risk assessment. (Campbell et al., 2003) 

-35- 
1.5.6 Need for More Information to Make Assessments Work 

Even if risk assessments can be used to predict risk of lethality, the value of the 

assessments depends on the quality and quantity of the information available. 

(Campbell et al., 2003) Domestic violence victims are uniquely able to provide a large 

part of the information necessary to perform a risk assessment. But many victims are 

reluctant to provide information because of their fear of retaliation by the abuser, or 

because of their sense of loyalty (whether the result of traumatic bonding or for other 

reasons), or because of their extreme isolation from others. 

Thus, a victim’s willingness and ability to provide information may determine 

whether risk assessments can be used at all. When the victim has a high level of trust 

in the team members, more information may be shared and there can be a greater 

likelihood of providing a realistic risk assessment. A victim who feels that members of a 

multidisciplinary team will use information against the victim - or who fears that her 

assistance to the prosecution may be used by an abuser as a reason to punish the 

victim for her perceived “betrayal” of him - is far less likely to share information. 

1.5.7 Victim-Centered Focus 

“Coercion is an intrinsic aspect of prosecution.” (Ford, 2003) But a coercive 

prosecution policy may have a lower success rate in terms of completed prosecutions. 

Traditional prosecutorial interest focuses on minimizing caseloads and maximizing 

convictions. (Ford, 2003) Forcing victims to “cooperate” with a prosecution does not 

necessarily further these goals. Victims may well opt out of the criminal justice system 

altogether if they find the prosecutor to be as coercive as the abuser. Victims seek out 

-36- 
a variety of resources in their attempts to leave a violent relationship or minimize 

violence. A criminal justice response is only one potential resource, and victims who 

are dissatisfied may well seek out other potential resources that they find more 

valuable. 

American Bar Association standards for prosecution encourage prosecutors to 

provide victims with the opportunity to consult with prosecutors about charges and 

throughout the trial process. (Han, 2003). Pragmatic concerns also support such 

cooperative efforts: “Reluctance to report violent crime demonstrates a serious loss of 

public faith in the justice system.” (Han, 2003) Sometimes the coercive power of the 

prosecution drives victims to align themselves with offenders rather than prosecutors. 

(Berliner, 2003) 

Winick has used therapeutic jurisprudence principles to address ways to “turn 

victims into survivors” in domestic abuse cases. (Winick, 2000) In his view, “[wle must 

be sure not to re-victimize the victim through court procedures that are distressing and 

further disempowering.” (Winick, 2000) In addition, criminal justice personnel should 

recognize the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and develop methods that are 

helpful rather than harmful to traumatized victims and their children. (Winick, 2000) 

There is a danger that prosecutors will engage in the same power and control 

differential that the victim experienced with the abuser, which can have anti-therapeutic 

effects on the already-traumatized victim. (Hartley, 2003) Using therapeutic 

jurisprudence principles, Hartley suggests that prosecutors should include victims in 

“cooperative decision making, empowering victims through the prosecution process, or 

being personally accountable to the victim/client,” in pretrial, trial and post-trial matters. 

-37- 
(Hartley, 2003) 

A victim-centered approach, however, may fly in the face of existing traditions 

within the legal system and within the community. (Van Hightower & Gorton, 2002) It 

also may fly in the face of traditions within the legal profession that serve to distance 

lawyers from clients, and that emphasize that victims are not clients but merely 

witnesses. (Hartley, 2003) Hartley points out: 

Two strategies seen as central to empowering interventions 

generally include creating relationships based on trust, mutual respect, 

and shared power and recognizing individuals’ abilities to know what they 

need and to choose adequate solutions for themselves. . . . Other 

empowering beliefs used in practice with battered women involve helping 

the victim feel like a survivor, rather than a victim; demonstrating that she 

is not alone, that there are support systems available; and communicating 

that she is not responsible for her batterer’s violence against her. 

A victim’s reluctance has a significant impact on the prosecutor’s decision to 

prosecute. (Hirschel & Hutchison 2001). Thus, a criminal justice response that is not 

victim-centered may be a self-fulfilling prophecy for prosecutors. Victims who are not 

treated with respect or are otherwise reluctant to prosecute are unlikely to have their 

trust of the prosecutor improved unless the prosecution’s effort is victim-focused. 

Empirical research suggests that a coordinated community response is most 

likely to reduce repeated violence, and to have a positive impact on victims’ recovery. 

Each victim needs a different combination of resources. The primary advantage of a 

well-coordinated community response is that the particular needs of each victim are 

more likely to be met. Victims of violence need resources from a variety of sources, 

including the criminal justice system, and those resources can be maximized when the 

focus is on the particular needs of each victim. 

-38- 
1.6 Summary and Objectives 

The theory behind the protective order process is that it is another means to hold 

the abuser accountable for his behavior. It provides official support for the victim, in the 

sense that the legal system (and therefore the criminal justice system) will provide 

support in sending the message that abuse will not be tolerated. Protective orders can 

serve as another resource for victims who are trying to escape a violent relationship or 

to stop the violence from occurring in an existing relationship. 

The practical reality, however, is that the protective orders may or may not serve 

as a resource for victims. Only if the protective order is routinely and effectively 

enforced can it serve as a resource for victims. If the protective order enforcement is 

lacking, then the order is rendered meaningless. 

Moreover, Iowa has legal precedent that permits the prosecution of the protected 

party who aids or abets a violation of a protective order. Thus, victims who seek 

protective orders may find that the order not only does not serve as a resource, but that 

it may in fact work to the detriment of the victim when the prosecutor brings charges 

against the victim for inviting contact with the abuser. From the victim’s perspective, the 

criminal prosecution becomes a sword rather than a shield. 

The POET project design was ambitious, and set out a number of specific 

objectives: 

1. Training for advocates, law enforcement officers, prosecutors in threat 

assessment and threat management techniques. 

2. Identify, evaluate and classify defendants into risk categories. 

3. Identify reasons why victims select not to follow through with permanent orders. 

-39- 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

IO. 

11. 

12. 

Dissemination of information to all Woodbury County criminal justice agencies 

and victim advocates. 

Tracking of defendants and cases by POET project officers. 

Cooperation with other special units in cases that involve the same defendant. 

Increasing the availability of team members to better serve the needs of victims. 

Transportation of offenders arrested by other jurisdictions on warrants for 

violations of protective orders and all other domestic abuse related charges. 

Strict enforcement of all court ordered provisions governing defendant’s behavior 

and strict consideration of all additional charging possibilities. 

Training for victims on safety issues when dealing with stalkers in domestic 

violence relations. 

Strict prosecution of defendants who violate protective orders, no-contact orders, 

or who commit other domestic abuse related crimes. This will include federal 

domestic violence felonies and will be accomplished by obtaining crossdesignation with the United States Attorney’s Office. 

The application of full faith and credit provisions stemming from violence against 

women to all foreign protective orders. 

These lofty goals were designed to make the legal system a genuine resource 

for victims. Because of the difficulties in implementing the team approach to domestic 

violence, these objectives were not met in the POET project. Instead, the evaluation 

examines some of the factors that affect the success of a multidisciplinary team. 

1.7 Significance of the Study 

The POET project has significance beyond the jurisdiction in which it was 

implemented. Most states have some form of protective order process, even though 

they are not all the same as the Iowa process. The conclusions to be drawn from this 

study can be beneficial to other states, because this study suggests that the mere 

presence of a protective order procedure is not, in itself, sufficient to address the 

-40- 
problem of domestic violence. Moreover, the study shows that the efficacy of risk 

assessment instruments may vary according to the coordination level within the criminal 

justice agencies in a jurisdiction. In addition, the study demonstrates the need for a 

multidisciplinary team to work in a positive and coordinated fashion in order to be able 

to respond effectively to domestic violence in the community. 

2. Scope & Methodology 

2.1 Overview of Methodology 

The original design of the project is very different from the final design because 

of the failure to implement POET objectives. The original design - an impact evaluation 

of a multidisciplinary team’s use of risk assessment instruments to allocate resources to 

high-risk domestic abusers -failed to yield usable data. The modified evaluation 

addresses shortcomings that led to the failure and examines elements necessary for a 

multidisciplinary Protective Order Enforcement Team (POET) to assess risk and 

allocate resources. 

2.1 .I Original Design 

The project originally was designed to evaluate the impact of the Protective 

\ 

Order Enforcement Team (POET) project, which was supposed to add personnel and 

change criminal justice processes in Woodbury, County, Iowa, so that police could take 

a proactive role in enforcing the provisions of protective orders issued in domestic 

violence cases. 

The evaluation project was tied directly to the underlying grant program. The 

grant writer, a Ph.D./practitioner, envisioned an opportunity to provide enhanced 

-41- 
support to victims by gathering detailed information that could be disseminated to 

several police agencies whose shared goal would be better protection of victims most in 

need. In order to use resources mqst effectively, the administrator of the underlying 

grant also would serve as a co-principal of the evaluation grant, in order to coordinate 

data collection by employees funded through the underlying grant, which then could be 

analyzed as part of the evaluation grant. 

In its original design, the agencies receiving the POET grant would assign law 

enforcement officers whose job would involve a careful assessment of risk in cases 

involving protective orders, and who could provide or coordinate additional police 

resources to “stalk the stalker” and hold high-risk offenders accountable for their actions 

and provide a greater sense of safety to victims. 

Thus, the first step in the process was to develop a research-based threat 

assessment instrument to assess risk, and to develop a quality-of-life instrument that 

could measure victim impact of the program. Then, the grant-recipient agencies would 

assess risk and deploy resources based on that assessment. The victim advocacy 

agency would administer the victim quality-of-life instruments periodically to determine 

victim impact. 

As discussed below, the preliminary steps in developing measurement 

instruments were accomplished, but implementation of those instruments was sporadic 

and therefore did not produce usable data. 

When it became obvious that the original design would not yield usable data, the 

evaluation team sought and obtained permission to change the evaluation to a process 

evaluation rather than an impact evaluation. 

-42- 
2.2 Preliminary Phase 

Preliminarily, the researchers developed a “threat assessment” instrument and a 

“quality of life” instrument. The threat assessment instrument would direct resources to 

the highest-risk cases. The quality of life instrument would measure impact on victims 

at 3-month intervals. 

2.2.1 Threat Assessment Instrument 

The threat assessment instrument was based on empirical research that would 

direct the police to provide additional protection to the cases that were deemed to be 

high risk. There was no comprehensive study of risk assessment in existence at the 

time. Thus, the instrument was based on a compilation of empirical research that 

identified factors associated with increased risk of violence. (Thompson et al. 2003; 

Dye & Davis, 2003; Farr, 2002; Cheong et al., 2001; Brewster, 2000; Browne 1987) 

. 

The threat assessment instrument would be administered by deputies assigned 

to the POET project, because it was viewed as an investigative tool and served as the 

basis for deploying police resources. 

2.2.2 Quality of Life Instrument 

Researchers also developed a “quality of life” instrument to measure whether the 

increased attention to the high risk cases would affect the victims’ quality of life at 3- 

month intervals for a year. 

The quality of life instrument was developed by researchers during the first 

quarter of the grant, and was reviewed by the POET project members. The instrument 

itself was adapted from an instrument that used by Bybee and Sullivan (2002). This 

-43- 
instrument was chosen because Bybee and Sullivan examined the effect of advocacy 

intervention on women’s ability to access community resources, which affected the 

women’s perceptions of their quality of life. The POET grant was designed to provide 

direct advocacy intervention by a non-system advocate, to improve the official 

resources available to the victim, and to enhance community response by coordinating 

community resources. Thus, the Bybee and Sullivan instrument appeared to be the 

most appropriate method of measuring effects on the victim’s quality of life. 

The instrument was designed to be administered by victim advocates who 

worked with the victims. The victim advocates would maintain relationships with victims 

for a 12-month period, and administer the quality of life instrument at 3 months, 6 

months and 12 months. 

2.3 Breakdown in the Original Design 

The original design broke down very quickly. The researchers developed the 

threat assessment instrument and quality of life instrument, but the practitioners 

expressed great reluctance in implementing the original design of the underlying POET 

‘ grant, for three reasons. 

2.3.1 Personnel Changes 

First, serious personnel issues interfered with implementation. The first 

prosecutor who was hired had no previous prosecution experience and did not 

subscribe to the victim-centered prosecution tenets underlying the project. This created 

mistrust and conflict among the team members and resulted in a reluctance or inability 

to provide data for evaluation. The team never recovered from the initial mistrust and 

-44- 
conflict. As discussed below, other personnel changes exacerbated the problems. 

This dramatic personnel turnover was a common occurrence among the other 

multidisciplinary teams studied. 

2.3.2 Systemic Flaws 

Second, systemic flaws were recognized and could not be overcome. In Iowa, 

liberal criminal discovery rules meant that information provided to the police may have 

to be shared with the defense. The most valuable information needed to assess risk 

was information that only the victim could provide, and victims were understandably 

reluctant to reveal information that could be discovered by an abuser who might 

retaliate against a victim for making such revelations. 

2.3.3 Fundamental Mistrust 

The final reason for the breakdown of the original design was a fundamental 

mistrust among the POET project members and agencies. 

The initial prosecutor did not ascribe to victim-centered prosecution principles, 

which created a fundamental mistrust by victim advocates. One anecdote, which 

became the defining incident that created a fundamental mistrust among POET 

members, involved a case in which the prosecutor called a victim about a case, and 

heard a man’s voice in the background. She assumed that the man was the defendant 

- against whom a no-contact order had been issued - and she sent police to the 

victim’s home in order to arrest her (the victim) for aiding and abetting a violation of the 

criminal no-contact order. When the police arrived, they discovered that the victim’s job 

involved babysitting several children in her home, and that the man’s voice was actually 

-45- 
a father who was there to drop off one of the children for babysitting. The presence of 

the police at the babysitter’s home caused both the parents and the children to become 

afraid for the safety of the children. Not surprisingly, it also caused the victim to 

question the motives of the prosecutor and police in terms of providing protective 

services to her. 

This incident served as the clarion call for mistrust of the prosecutor. The 

mistrust was compounded when the POET prosecutor sought and received support for 

her actions from her supervisor, who took the position that the county attorney’s office 

would prosecute aiding-and-abetting violations of protective orders against victims. 

Although the POET prosecutor would not handle those cases, another prosecutor in the 

office would handle them. This policy would not violate the explicit terms of the POET 

grant. It did, however, create a rift between the prosecution office and the victim 

advocacy agency that was never fully resolved. It also resulted in tension between the 

grant program administrators, the evaluators, and the prosecutor‘s office. 

An advocate who does not trust the prosecutor or the police to consider the best 

interests of the victim, may reasonably feel a duty to warn the victim of the potential risk 

that information could be used against her by her abuser or by the criminal justice 

officials. Thus, the practical result of this fundamental mistrust was that victims were 

reluctant to participate in completing the threat assessment instrument. In addition, 

there were very few cases in which the victims filled out the quality-of-life instrument. 

2.3.4 Failure to Produce Data 

The result of these three serious difficulties was that less than 100 threat 

assessments were completed, making meaningful statistical analysis impossible. In 

-46- 
addition, it meant that the sample of victims who provided information fell into two 

groups: those who were in the latest stages of leaving a relationship (i.e., likely to be at 

high risk, based on the separation-violence concept) or those who provided very little 

information about risk factors (i.e., apparently low risk cases). Without a full range of 

cases, statistical analysis of the threat assessment instruments was invalid and 

therefore was not conducted. 

Only 68 respondents completed the individual assessment at least once, and 

only 18 individuals completed it 2 or more times. Because the purpose of this 

assessment was to evaluate the respondents’ “quality of life” in a pre-test/post-test vein, 

there was no reason to analyze the results from all 68 initial evaluations. The low 

number of respondents diminishes the value of statistical comparisons. 

2.4 Revisions in Evaluation Plan 

After the defining incident that brought the issues of trust to the forefront, the 

program coordinator made efforts to address the problem and discussed with the team 

members and their agency supervisors the wisdom of proceeding with the project. 

Agency supervisors expressed a commitment to continuing with the project and 

resolved to work out their differences. 

Evaluators had already begun conducting interviews with other Domestic Abuse 

Response Teams and found that it was common for teams to encounter initial disputes 

(often creating a climate of mistrust) and that the teams were able to work through 

those differences in order to work together as a team - often, after changes in 

personnel. Therefore, the decision was made to proceed with the project, with a 

renewed effort to reach consensus. 

-47- 
In attempting to reach consensus, the team members began some team-building 

exercises and within several months, the agency supervisors and team members met 

together to reiterate goals and coordinate agency efforts. Although the team appeared 

to be behind schedule, the members still hoped to be able to meet the goals of the 

project. 

By the midpoint of the program, however, the team had not yet coalesced to the 

point that they were working well together as a team. The evaluators met with team 

members to emphasize the need to meet the team goals. Evaluators also suggested to 

the federal grant managers that an impact evaluation may not be possible, but that a 

process evaluation could be valuable. 

During the last eight months of the underlying grant program, the victim advocate 

also resigned and was replaced by a new victim advocate. Although some victims 

completed the instruments, the responses were too sparse to warrant any statistically 

valid conclusions. 

Although the original design focused on an impact evaluation of the 

implementation of a specialized domestic abuse response, the team was unable to 

accomplish the original goals. Instead, researchers learned that multidisciplinary 

response teams encounter similar difficulties in development, and that the team is illequipped to provide a specialized response until team members have coalesced as a 

team. Moreover, the project illustrated that successful threat assessment is improved 

when more information is available; that the most valuable information comes from 

victims; and that victims will provide information to police and prosecutors only when 

there is a high level of trust. Police and prosecutors may develop that trust level with 

-48- 
victims (and advocates), but legal constraints may limit confidentiality of information and 

thereby limit trust levels. 

2.5 Evaluation Methods 

The POET project was designed to provide targeted enhancement of resources 

to the highest-risk domestic violence cases. It failed, in large part, because the 

underlying assumptions were invalid, and because the multidisciplinary team was too 

new and inexperienced to take on a more sophisticated effort in targeting resources. 

The evaluation will focus on the systemic problems, as well as the practical limitations, 

involved in setting up a multidisciplinary team and in developing specialized efforts by 

the team. 

The process evaluation method used is based on the concept of “organizational 

diagnosis,” that is “the process of using conceptual models and methods from the 

behavioral sciences to assess an organization’s current state and find ways to solve 

specific problems or increase its effectiveness.” (Harrison, 1994) 

The “open system model” of diagnosis includes examination of the resources of 

the team; the goals and strategies of the team; the technology, structure and culture of 

the team; the behavior and processes used; and the final output of the team. (Harrison, 

1994) 

Qualitative process evaluation methods are particularly appropriate in 

“understanding the internal dynamics of program operations.’’ The focus is on the 

process, not the outcome. “The evaluator tries to unravel what is actually happening in 

a program in a search for major patterns and important nuances that give the program 

its character.” It focuses on a variety of perspectives in an attempt to understand the 

-49- 
process of the program. (Patton, 1987) 

There are advantages to using qualitative research methods, which allows an 

open inquiry into social interaction. (Glesne, 1999) Qualitative research also may help 

to put facts into perspective: 

Qualitative research properly seeks answers to questions by 

examining various social settings and the individuals who inhabit these 

settings. Qualitative researchers, then, are most interested in how 

humans arrange themselves and their settings and how inhabitants in 

these settings make sense of their surroundings through symbols, rituals, 

social structures, social roles and so forth. 

. . . Qualitative procedures provide a means of accessing 

unquantifiable facts about the actual people researchers observe and talk 

to or people represented by their personal traces. . . . As a result, 

qualitative techniques allow the researchers to share in the 

understandings and perceptions of others and to explore how people 

structure and give meaning to their daily lives. Researchers using 

qualitative techniques examine how people learn about and make sense 

of themselves and others. (Berg, 1995) 

Interview questions are different from the research questions. The interview may 

be designed to elicit information about a variety of matters, and can be classified 

according to the types of questions asked: “experience/behavior questions, 

opinionhalues questions, feeling questions, knowledge questions, sensory questions.” 

(Glesne, 1999) 

2.6 Data Analysis Procedures 

The process of the evaluation is based on two primary tracks of data. The first 

track is a review of the reports, memoranda and informal communications with the 

POET project members and the project coordinator. The second track of data is based 

on a series of semi-structured interviews of multidisciplinary team members from six 

different jurisdictions, and domestic violence victims from six jurisdictions. The victim 

-50- 
interviews included one jurisdiction that was not included in the study of 

multidisciplinary teams, and victims from one of the team jurisdictions were not 

interviewed. The jurisdictions were chosen based on the varied members of the teams, 

the length of time the teams had been operating, and the geographic diversity of the 

teams. This made it more likely that the sample of teams would reflect a broader 

variety of experiences, and increase the likelihood that universal conclusions might be 

drawn from the diverse experiences of the various teams. (Marshall & Rossman, 1995) 

2.6.1 Research Subjects 

The primary research subjects include: (1 ) multidisciplinary team members 

(public officials and nongovernmental victim advocates); and (2) female domestic 

violence victims. 

2.6.2 Research Design and Methodology 

Methods. The evaluation includes semi-structured interviews of multidisciplinary 

team members (supplemented by periodic POET progress reports and informal 

communications with the members); and semi-structured interviews of victims. 

Interviews of domestic violence victims were conducted to gain information on 

victims’ experiences and interactions with (1 ) law enforcement officials who responded 

to the domestic violence call, (2) the judicial system and (3) the victim advocacy system. 

The interviews that were conducted focused solely on women and their experiences. 

This is not to diminish nor negate the domestic violence that men experience, but 

women are the vast majority of domestic violence victims and therefore were the focus 

of this study. 

-51 - 
Data Analvsis. Qualitative analysis of interviews helps to identify factors leading 

to a successful multidisciplinary team. 

Victim Interviews. In the interviews of victims, purposive sampling (Le., selection 

of a specific sample based on the purpose of the study (Babbie 2001)) was used in 

selection of the respondents, in-depth interviews of domestic violence victims 

comprised the majority of the data. The interview outline is included in Appendix D. 

Names of the victims were obtained through cooperation with local domestic violence 

programs. 

A series of semi-structured, open-ended questions were used in the interviews 

with respondents asked to discuss and evaluate their experiences with law enforcement 

officials, those involved in the judicial system and victim advocates. An inductive 

methodological approach was used where, rather than starting with set hypotheses and 

categorical schemes, themes emerged during the research. Interviewing continued 

until, as suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967), no new patterns surfaced. 

A total of 29 domestic violence victims were interviewed. Eleven individuals were 

interviewed separately. Eighteen individuals were interviewed in groups. Seven 

counties out of 99 were represented for the study. in four counties, group interviews 

were conducted, with groups of three, seven, six, and two. In these counties, 

advocates were also present at the interviews. Each jurisdiction had a multidisciplinary 

team (either DART or POET). 

Interviews, averaging 1-2 hours in length, were conducted in 2001. All interviews 

were scheduled and taped and subsequently transcribed verbatim. 

Team Interviews. Semi-structured interviews of multidisciplinary teams also 

-52- 
were conducted in 2000 and 2001. Selection was based on geographic diversity, team 

member disciplines represented, size of the community and resources available, and 

length of time the team had been working together. 

The team members were interviewed individually, using a semi-structured 

interview format set out in Appendix D. Then the various team members were 

interviewed as a group, based on a different semi-structured interview, also included in 

Appendix 0. The length of the interviews varied from 30 minutes to two hours each. All 

interviews were conducted in person and were tape-recorded. Equipment failure meant 

that not all interviews could be transcribed verbatim, so the remaining interviews were 

based on contemporaneous note-taking. 

Not all team members on all teams made themselves available for interviews. In 

two counties, repeated attempts were made to interview all participants, but some 

members either refused to be interviewed, or canceled when the interviewer arrived. 

The failure to cooperate with interviews may be an indication of dysfunction on the 

team. 

Part 3 

Detailed Findings 

3.1 Progress of POET Project 

The progress of the POET project was monitored during the 18 months that the 

grant received funding. The project members began with high expectations, but 

suffered from dramatic personnel changes, and had serious difficulty in establishing a 

coherent team with consonant goals. 

-53- 
3.1 .I Personnel 

A full-time POET prosecutor was hired in February 2000. Because she had no 

prior prosecution experience, her initial caseload included all domestic abuse assault 

related crimes, so that she could obtain prosecution experience. Initially, her caseload 

exceeded 300 cases - a workload that would challenge even the most experienced 

prosecutor and was overwhelming to a new prosecutor. Her caseload was reduced 

when the rest of the POET group was assembled and another prosecutor was hired to 

work on domestic violence prosecutions, but her ability to limit her time only to POET 

cases was impaired by the overwhelming volume of domestic violence cases. 

The first prosecutor resigned within eight months, and a second prosecutor 

began work shortly thereafter. Again, the second prosecutor had no previous 

prosecution experience. The caseload remained high, which added to the degree of 

difficulty in prosecuting domestic violence cases. 

Two deputy sheriffs (both certified peace officers) were designated as temporary 

members of the team in May 2000. These two deputies served as DARE (Drug Abuse 

Resistance Education) officers during the school year and became available during the 

summer months to devote their time to POET activities instead of to supplemental 

patrol duties. They were replaced by two other full-time deputies in September 2000 

(also certified peace officers), and those two deputies were replaced in December 2000 

by two other deputies who also were certified peace officers. Several of the six 

deputies received specialized training in domestic violence issues, either before or 

during the grant period. 

A full-time victim advocate was hired in May 2000. That advocate had limited 

-54- 
domestic violence experience when the project began. She remained on the project 

until about six months before its conclusion, and was replaced by an advocate who had 

several years of experience in advocacy. 

The POET project members began the project with the intent to develop good 

working relationships, but the efforts were hampered by the many personnel changes. 

In addition, the POET members received conflicting direction as to their policies, 

procedures and goals. Team members often disagreed about the goals of the project 

and the methods for attaining the perceived goals, and their supervisors did not always 

provide consistent direction to the team. Frequent personal clashes also marred the 

team effort. 

3.1.2 Evaluation Component 

The team members’ interactions were further hampered by the evaluation 

process. Team members and administrators were concerned that their efforts were 

being viewed (and portrayed) negatively, which exacerbated the existing problem in 

developing high levels of trust. Evaluators had difficulty in setting up interviews of team 

members and administrators, and those who did participate were guarded in their 

responses. The evaluators obtained much of the information about implementation 

through informal contacts with the team members and the project coordinator, and by 

joining the team for regularly scheduled meetings. 

Evaluators talked with the project coordinator at least weekly about the progress 

of the case, made contacts with the various team members or their supervisors 

monthly, and met with team members periodically throughout the grant process. In 

addition, the project coordinator’s reports and memoranda were provided to evaluators. 

-55- 
When POET project members were reluctant to cooperate with evaluators in 

documenting progress, evaluators worked with court officials in order to obtain official 

statistics regarding domestic abuse assa'ult charges and outcomes in the POET county 

and in other comparison counties with Domestic Abuse Response Teams. The official 

statistics, however, provided access only to domestic abuse assault charges and not to 

more serious felony offenses. In addition, the data did not include demographic 

information about offenders. Official statistics therefore were of limited value. 

3.1.2 Policy Development 

The POET project was designed as a victim-centered team that would provide a 

variety of supports to victims of violence, with special attention to those victims who 

were assessed as being at higher risk for severe or lethal violence. Not all of the team 

members, however, were victim-centered in their approach. The first prosecutor 

developed policies that were punitive toward reluctant victims. 

In addition, two of the interim deputies were not sensitive to victim needs nor to 

the interests of team members. That led to their departure, and caused the 

replacement officers to be somewhat reticent about the work assignment. 

Moreover, the various agencies were unable to agree on common goals or on 

effective procedures to accomplish goals. Team members sometimes received 

conflicting advice from superiors, and when the agency directors met, they could not 

agree on team goals. 

3.1.4 Threat Assessment 

The focus of the POET project was the threat assessment instrument. Because 

-56- 
of the existing policies that served to punish reluctant victims for their refusal or failure 

to cooperate, the levels of trust between victims (and victim advocates) and criminal 

justice officials declined dramatically. Victims feared that information they provided 

might be used against them - either in a charge of aiding and abetting a protective 

order violation, or in a child abuse investigation for failure to protect their children from 

violence - and victims therefore chose not to provide information by way of a threat 

assessment. 

Victim advocates, who are statutorily and ethically duty-bound to provide support 

to the victims, were placed in an untenable position on the team, when victims were 

reluctant to assist the prosecution. As members of the team, advocates faced the 

Hobson’s choice of remaining true to the wishes of the clienthictim, or remaining loyal 

to the team. Their statutory and ethical duty was to the client/victim, so victim 

advocates sometimes were viewed as being “bad” team players. 

Often, the most valuable information regarding risk comes from the victim, who 

knows the abuser better and is in the habit of trying to anticipate the abuser‘s actions. 

(Weiss et al., 2003; Campbell et al., 2003) Thus, when victims refused to assist in the 

threat assessments, the value of those assessments declined dramatically. In fact, in 

the vast majority of cases, the victims refused to provide risk assessments to criminal 

justice officials, and no serious attempts were made to obtain the information through 

other channels. 

The difficulties were magnified by the lack of experience of so many of the team 

members. For example, the first victim advocate reported that she did not support the 

use of the threat assessment instrument, because it simply made the victims feel more 

-57- 
frightened about their situation. Such safety concerns are valid, but a more 

experienced advocate would be better equipped to talk with victims about them. 

Whether a victim is frightened has no impact on the actual danger she faces. More 

experienced advocates are better equipped to talk with victims about realistic safety 

concerns and help them to strategize effective ways to address the risk, regardless of 

whether a response team is functioning well as a team. 

3.1.5 Goals 

Another challenge that the POET members faced was the lack of cohesive goals 

and objectives, and the varying interpretations of the roles of the agencies represented 

on the team. Although the various agency directors appeared to agree in principle 

about the basic goals of the project, team member reported that the daily directives and 

answers to questions about policy conflicted. POET members were uncertain about 

their actions and did not know what was expected of them, or whether their activities 

were supported by their superiors. These types of conflicts are common when groups 

are in their beginning stages, according to DART members whose teams had been 

operating for several years. 

3.1.6 Successes 

Despite the shortcomings of the grant, there were some successes in the 

program. Because of the focus of the project, the sheriffs office was able to serve 

protective orders in a very timely fashion in virtually every case. Instead of service 

within a matter of weeks, the service was effected within a matter of hours. Team 

members discovered that abusers who found out about protective orders often 

-58- 
absented themselves or made it more difficult to receive service. By serving the orders 

within a matter of hours, the deputies found that the abusers had not found out about 

the protective orders and were more easily located and served. Although victims might 

choose to drop or modify a protective order later, the legal system served the victims’ 

needs more effectively and eliminated one of the abusers’ common methods of 

manipulation by providing prompt service of process. 

In addition, the POET members were able to open lines of communication that 

had previously been closed. For example, the sheriffs office and the police department 

shared more information in order to provide a more coordinated response to domestic 

violence. In addition, connections between the victim advocates in the domestic 

violence program and the prosecutor’s office and law enforcement agency improved 

communications and helped to identify areas of common concern and areas of 

disagreement. Ironically, some of the cohesiveness of the team members and agency 

supervisors could be attributed to the hostility toward the evaluators and program 

administrators. 

It was unclear how many of these improvements would survive after the 

completion of the grant. Other DART programs reported that the interagency 

relationships ebbed and flowed, depending on the personnel assigned to domestic 

violence cases. 

3.1.7 Flaws in Design & Implementation 

The primary flaw in the POET project was that the project goals were best suited 

to an existing team with a history of working closely together, and a high level of trust 

already established. No such team existed in the POET jurisdiction. To ask a newly 

-59- 
formed group to accomplish goals that were better suited to a well-established team - 

which would be asked to take on challenging new responsibilities - meant that success 

for the POET project was unlikely. 

To add a degree of difficulty to the development of the team, the project was 

conceptualized by “outsiders” - not members of the agencies involved, but rather by a 

primary funding agency of two of the members. The idea was offered to the locality, but 

was not initiated by local community members. The group had not solidified its support 

for the idea or its commitment to the underlying goals. 

Like many of the DART projects, the POET project suffered the type of growing 

pains common to a newly formed group. This meant that the POET team was illprepared to take on more complex tasks when the team members had not yet even 

established themselves as a team. In hindsight, the chances of success for the team 

were dim. The POET experience did, however, highlight some of the difficulties that 

every DART project faced. 

3.2 Process Evaluation 

The process evaluation identifies factors that led to failure. The POET goal was 

to identify high-risk domestic violence relationships in order to allocate resources. The 

process evaluation shows: 

(1 ) Absent a coordinated response to domestic violence, with a focus on victim 

(2) Risk assessment instruments may be used to identify high risk cases, but 

safety, a criminal justice response is unlikely to provide an effective response. 

effective risk assessment depends on pertinent information about the abuser, the victim 

and the relationship. 

(a) Often, only the victim can provide the most pertinent information about 

risk assessment. 

(b) Victims must trust public officials before providing information, 

because sharing information can lead to retaliation by the abuser or by criminal justice 

-60- 
officials. 

(c) Trust builds over time, and depends on mutual reliance. 

(d) Effective multidisciplinary teams operate with high trust levels. 

(3) The degree of trust among the various team members depends on several 

Support for the program by the highest level administrators of the 

agency . 

Communication skills and overall understanding of the dynamics of 

domestic violence. 

factors: 

o 

o 

0 Small group dynamics. 

3.2.1 Leadership and Team-Building 

The prerequisite to team-building is a commitment by the lead agency to the 

project and to the process of building the team. (Roman, 2003) For example, in a 

project to focus on stalking, the Philadelphia Police Department took the lead. (NCVC, 

2002) The department had experience in community policing, was committed to 

building a team response, and recognized the imperative to reach out to other 

organizations and ensure their “buy-in” to the program. (NCVC, 2002) 

In the POET project, no agency took the lead. In fact, the program was 

envisioned by a state-government official and the site of the program was chosen by a 

grant funding official who felt that the community needed a multidisciplinary team. The 

failure to obtain or instill a motivated local leader made it far more difficult for the team 

to succeed in its efforts. 

Moreover, the administrators of the various POET organizations did not institute 

organization-wide policies that supported the POET goals, nor did the administrators 

meet to discuss the shared goals. The early meetings were focused on policies 

regarding reimbursement procedures, administrative matters, and communication 

modes among the organizations. In a meeting midway through the project, 

-61 - 
administrators and team members were called together to discuss the difficulties in 

implementation, and administrators seemed surprised to discover the goals of the 

project, even though they had approved those goals early in the planning process, and 

the goals had been distributed at previous meetings. Although the administrators 

expressed support for the goals, they did not commit any additional resources to the 

project. Given the budget constraints, additional local resources were required in order 

to make the project a success. This failure to commit to the underlying goals highlights 

a fundamental flaw in the implementation of the grant project. 

3.2.2 Personnel 

The lack of initial planning was exacerbated by the relative lack of experience of 

several team members, and the failure to provide unified training for the team 

members. The two prosecutors had no previous experience in prosecution. The initial 

victim advocate had only limited experience as an advocate. The law enforcement 

officers had a lot of experience in law enforcement, but did not have specialized training 

in domestic violence. 

To compound the problem, turnover of personnel was 100% for the underlying 

grant and also was substantial for the evatuation grant. This meant that new team 

members - who were not experienced - had to learn how to do the job, in addition to 

learning how to accomplish more sophisticated responses to domestic violence. 

As discussed below, substantial turnover is typical of multidisciplinary teams in 

their developmental phases. The substantial changes in personnel, however, made it 

difficult to create high levels of trust or to reach consensus about team goals - 

prerequisites to administering the threat assessment instruments and the quality of life 

-62- 
instruments, as well as to consistent record-keeping. The structure of the evaluation 

depended almost entirely upon data collection by the multidisciplinary team, which 

meant that a team that did not function well was ineffective in collecting data. Efforts to 

improve the team’s data collection, or to seek alternative ways to obtain data, proved 

fruitless. 

3.2.3 Training 

The staff turnover also exacerbated training options. Different team members 

came to the team at different times, and there were no centralized training 

opportunities. In addition, the first prosecutor specifically declined several opportunities 

for free training. She was given the opportunity for individualized training from 

experienced prosecutors, but she declined the offers. She reported that her crushing 

caseload left her no time for training. Specialized training sessions for the team - at no 

charge -were offered at various times throughout the grant, but team members and 

their respective organizations declined offers for multidisciplinary training. 

The POET program was designed to provide specialized training for team 

members on threat assessment and threat management issues, as well as victimcentered prosecution. Qualified trainers on threat assessment and threat management 

are rare, unless a team can afford to bring in national experts for special training. 

Budget constraints limited the type and amount of training ava.ilable. The POET grant 

provisions included payment for less-expensive training at a national conference held 

annually. When the national conference was held, however, the law enforcement 

officers assigned to the team were about to be reassigned, and the prosecutor had 

encountered so many difficulties that the project administrator determined that it would 

-63- 
be inappropriate to send the prosecutor to the national training program when it was 

unclear whether she would remain with the team. The team’s budget did not provide 

for more-expensive consultants to do local training, and the participating organizations 

could not provide alternative funding. 

In addition, the team members spent training time on more basic issues, 

because many of the team members had limited experience in domestic violence and 

needed basic training. The law enforcement officers attended specialized domestic 

violence training sessions. The second prosecutor attended training sessions within the 

first month of his employment. The victim advocate attended basic training before the 

grant project began, and attended periodic trainings throughout her tenure with the 

team, but none of these trainings were devoted to threat assessment or threat 

management. 

The team members had difficulty in responding to domestic violence cases as 

team, and the friction that developed (between team members, grant administrators 

and evaluators) early in the grant process meant that team members were resistant to 

team training. Without a basic understanding of domestic violence, the team members 

were not prepared for training on more complex tasks that went beyond basic 

responses. The victim advocate went with two newly assigned law enforcement officers 

to a team training program without the prosecutor. The officers, however, were not 

receptive to the training program, which created personal friction between the advocate 

and the officers, and the value of that team training was diminished. 

Free training from state officials was rejected. This rejection was based, at least 

in part, on philosophical differences on policy issues. It also appeared to be a function 

-64- 
of the demands of the grant -which required a sophisticated response to domestic 

violence -that contrasted with the lack of previous practical experience of the team 

members. In addition, a substantial caseload created scheduling difficulties. 

3.2.4 Resource Allocation 

Victims of domestic violence received basic services during the POET project 

implementation, but they did not receive the enhanced service that was contemplated. 

As with any domestic abuse response team, POET members certainly had access to 

criminal history and protective order history for each offender who was arrested or 

prosecuted, and gross assessments of threat could be made based on prior criminal 

history or the seriousness of the latest offense. Iowa has computerized criminal history 

records and protective order registry records that are easily accessible to police and 

prosecutors and are regularly accessed. Police and prosecutors routinely examined 

criminal history and protective order history in exercising discretion in decision making. 

They did not, however, systematically document their considerations. Their only 

documentation was based on anecdotal information and the completion of several 

dozen threat assessment instruments. 

Additional resources were devoted to some cases when victims expressed 

concern for their safety. This was not done, however, in a systematic way. Additional 

patrols, additional contacts with victims or offenders, or special considerations in pretrial 

release were provided on a case-by-case basis. POET members generally 

documented their own efforts, but they did not document efforts by other officers or 

other police agencies. The additional services were neither provided nor documented 

in any systematic way. 

-65- 
3.2.5 Threat Assessment 

The use of the threat assessment instrument was extremely limited, so that a 

complete impact evaluation could not be conducted. The victim advocate was 

extremely reluctant to use the threat assessment instrument, citing victim safety 

concerns. Some victims reported a reluctance to participate in the criminal justice 

system because they were not ready to separate from their abusers and were unwilling 

to share the information sought in the threat assessment instrument. Some victims 

expressed concern for their own safety in revealing information about themselves, their 

abusers and their relationships. The protocol for administering the threat assessment 

instrument called for the victim advocate to be present; the advocate was not always 

readily available when the victim had contact with the police, and the advocate had 

difficulty in reaching the victims by telephone or by mail. 

The advocate expressed concern about using the threat assessment because it 

served to frighten the victim by pointing out the lethality factors in an very organized 

way. The advocate could not assure the victim that police would provide additional 

surveillance or other assistance to the victim. Although the advocate assisted the victim 

in safety planning, she did not view the threat assessment tool as a means to enhance 

safety planning, and this was a serious impediment to the success of the project in its 

original design. 

Based on the information that was gathered, the following descriptive information 

can be provided. 

Profile of Complainant. As of October 1 , 2001, 64 threat assessment inventories 

had been completed and analyzed for the Protective Order Enforcement Team. Ninety- 

-66- 
three percent of the victims were white and 97 percent claimed non-Hispanic origins. 

Participants averaged 32 years of age, ranging in age from 16 to 50. 

In more than a third of the cases (36%), the person being filed against was the 

spouse of the victim ; in another 33 percent it was an ex-boyfriend. Nearly half (48%) of 

the participants reported having children (under the age of 18) with the person identified 

on the complaint. In only 1 case was the offender currently sharing a residence with the 

victim. 

Profile of Offenders. Nearly 9 of every 10 offenders were reported drinkers of 

alcohol varying from 1 or 2 days a week (44%) to 6 or 7 days a week (46%). Drug use 

was indicated by a third (32%), and more than a quarter (28%) had been diagnosed 

with some type of mental health problem. According to the victims, 8 percent of the 

offenders regularly have firearms with them and 26 percent carry knives or other types 

of weapons with them; 25 percent have had experience in the Armed Forces, and 16 

percent have had self-defense training. 

Profile of Relationship. Nearly eighty percent of the victims indicated having 

dated the offender (78%), more than 2/3 (70%) had lived with the offender, and 44 

percent had been or were married to the person being filed against. 

Exhibit 1 illustrates the percentages of victims having experienced various acts of 

violence during their relationship with the offender. While all of the victims had 

experienced at least one of the 22 identified violent acts, more than half (58%) had 

experienced 10 or more such acts in their relationships. 

After indicating the actual experiences in their relationships, victims were then 

asked to rate the severity of abuse in that relationship. Using a scale from 1 (very low 

-67- 
severity) to 10 (very severe), nearly 9 of every 10 respondents (88%) rated the severity 

“5” or higher, more than 40 percent (44%) rated the severity “9” or “IO”. 

Seven of every 10 complainants reported that the police had been notified about 

the violence in their relationships prior to the most recent incident. Indeed, 40 percent 

had requested a no-contact order against this offender but in fewer than half of those 

cases (45%) did the no-order contact have any effect. 

Exhibit 1. Violent Acts Experienced in Relationship (n = 64) 

Pushed, grabbed, orshovedyou 1-1 88% 

Exhibited unfounded jealousy11 84% 

Stalked or closely monitored your daily activities - 78% 

Tned to limit your contact w/fnends or family 1-1 76% 

Damaged or destroyed yourpemnal items 1- 69% 

Threatened to kill himself 1-1 65% 

Threatened to kill you 1 59% 

Kicked, bit or hit you with his fist 1- 58% 

Thmwn anything at you 1-1 64% 

Prevented you from calling the police 1-1 59% 

SlaPPedYOu 1-1 53% 

Hit or tried to hit you with something - 47% 

Forced you to have sex Wru, him - 40% 

Strangled you - 42% 

Beatyou - 39% 

Attempted to kill you - 34% 

Threatened you with a knife or gun m 33% 

Attempted to kill himself - 27% 

Threatened to ham your pet- 20% 

Harmed any of your pets = 18% 

used a knife or gun on you 10% 

Forced you to have sex with someone else I 2% 

-68- 
One of the goals of the POET project was to improve and increase informationsharing among police agencies and among team member agencies. 

Team members described increased contacts between the county sheriffs office 

and the municipal police department, but these contacts were informal and sporadic 

and were not documented. 

3.2.6 Tracking Offenders 

Team members did not develop methods for tracking offenders. Officers did 

devote extra resources to some cases, but the additional resources were not based on 

any empirical assessment of risk. Instead, police officers provided enhanced response 

when victims requested assistance and the officers had the staff time available to assist 

with extra patrols or other surveillance activity. 

3.2.7 Collaborative Efforts 

One team goal was to improve collaborative efforts with other agencies and 

other jurisdictions. One of the more notable successes of the POET program was the 

information-sharing between the sheriffs office and the municipal police department. 

The team did not document any case involving special units in the sheriffs office 

or in the municipal police department, although there were discussions of the special 

transportation team in the sheriffs office collaborating with the team efforts. 

The prosecutor was going to be cross-designated with the United States 

Attorney’s office in order to be able to handle interstate domestic violence incidents. 

This did not happen. 

The team members reported anecdotally that there were a handful of cases 

-69- 
involving interstate domestic violence and protection orders, but no system was 

established to monitor or respond to interstate cases. 

3.2.8 Victim Services 

The grant called for training victims on threat assessment and securgy issues by 

way of interviews. Although police met with victims in order to complete threat 

assessments in a limited number of cases, no specific training was documented. 

3.2.9 Serving the Needs of Victims 

Interviews with victims in the POET county were consistent with interviews with 

victims in other DART counties. Victims generally did not feel that their concerns were 

being heard, or that their concerns triggered action. 

Team members did not systematically document their contacts with victims. 

Police officers kept weekly records regarding their activities, but did not provide details 

regarding their actions with victims. The victim advocate did not provide documentation 

regarding meetings with victims. The advocate expressed her concern about sharing 

confidential information about victims, even with researchers. 

3.2.10 Accountability of Offenders 

This objective was to be measured based on the violations investigated, 

charged, and prosecuted (and outcomes), and on BEP interviews. No BEP interviews 

were conducted. Although official statistics are available regarding domestic abuse 

assault (see Appendix G), the statistical information gathered through official court 

records provides only limited information about cases. The team members did not 

systematically gather information in their own records. 

-70- 
3.2.1 1 Quality of Life Assessments 

The quality of life instrument was developed by researchers during the first 

quarter of the grant, and was reviewed by the POET project members. The instrument 

itself was adapted from an instrument that used by Bybee and Sullivan (2002). This 

instrument was chosen because Bybee and Sullivan examined the effect of advocacy 

intervention on women’s ability to access community resources, which affected the 

women’s perceptions of their quality of life. The POET grant was designed to provide 

direct advocacy intervention by a non-system advocate, to improve the official 

resources available to the victim, and to enhance community response by coordinating 

community resources. Thus, the Bybee and Sullivan instrument appeared to be the 

most appropriate method of measuring effects on the victim’s quality of life. 

Based on input from the POET members, the POET instrument modified the 

Bybee and Sullivan instrument, in order to simplify the format so that it would fit on two 

pages and could be administered in a short period of time. 

The individual assessment of quality of life consisted of 2 sections for a total of 

25 statements. Respondents were asked in Section I to indicate how they felt about 

various aspects of themselves and their lives. Responses were based on a scale from 

“1” (extremely dissatisfied) to “5” (extremely satisfied). In Section II respondents were 

asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement, using a 4 point scale (“I” = 

strongly disagree, “4” = strongly agree) to 16 statements. 

Only 68 respondents completed the individual assessment at least once, and 

only 18 individuals completed it 2 or more times. Because the purpose of this 

assessment was to evaluate the respondents’ “quality of life” in a pre-testlpost-test vein, 

-71- 
there was no reason to analyze the results from all 68 initial evaluations. Instead, 

Exhibit 2 presents a comparison of the means of the preliminary assessment versus the 

3-month follow-up assessment from the 18 respondents that completed the instrument 

more than once. 

The low number of respondents diminishes the value of any statistical 

comparison of the means although in all but 3 instances in Section I (statements e, f, 

and i ), in which respondents said they were more satisfied with their Iifelliving 

conditions during the follow-up evaluation than during the initial assessment. In Section 

II, although respondents indicated greater levels of agreement to the majority of the 

statements, in many cases that did not equate with improvement - rather the opposite. 

For example, the one statement for which there was less agreement during the followup than during the preliminary assessment reads, “ I have friends I can turn to when I 

need help.” These findings would suggest that the complexity and severity of these 

respondents’ situation during the preliminary assessment may have been such that 3 

months is too short a time to observe or realize any improvements. The quality and 

value of these research findings would have been greatly enhanced by follow-up 

assessments after the 3-month period. The victim advocate, however, said that she 

was unable to locate victims. 

Caution is necessary in the interpretation of these results given the small number 

of respondents. The ideal analysis of this project would include an exploration of the 

relationship between the threat assessments and the trends in the individual 

assessments (longitudinally) of the complainants. Unfortunately, due to the small 

number (14) of such completed sets, a more thorough analysis of trends is neither 

-72- 
feasible nor meaningful. 

Exhibit 2. Means from preliminary and 3-month follow-up assessments (n = 18) 

Prelim. 3-month Chanqe 

SECTION I. (5 point scale) 

In general over this past month, how have you felt about.. . 

a. Your life as a whole? . 3.28 3.71 + 

b. Yourself? 3.44 3.50 + 

c. Your personal safety? 2.61 3.50 + 

d. The amount of fun and enjoyment you have? 3.28 3.61 + 

e. The responsibilities you have for members of your 3.81 3.29 - 

fa mil y? 

f. What you are accomplishing in your life? 3.59 3.56 - 

g. Your independence or freedom? 3.39 3.83 + 

h. Your emotional and psychological well-being? 3.29 3.56 + 

i. The way you spend your spare time? 3.62 3.56 - 

SECTION II. (4 point scale) 

a. I feel safe in my home 2.31 

b. I am happy about my family life 2.76 

c. I am able to concentrate on the things I need to 3.00 

d. I have friends I can turn to when I need help 3.59 

e. I sometimes wonder if I am “going crazy” 2.12 

f. I sleep well 2.17 

g. My family provides transportation and childcare when I 3.00 

need it 

h. I believe that I can meet my children’s emotional needs 3.19 

i. I sometimes feel like I have no control over my life 2.18 

j. My partner thinks of me as an equal 1.50 

k. My life would seem empty without my partner 1.46 

I. I do not feel confidence in myself 2.00 

m. I am worried I will become so angry that I won’t be able 1.88 

to control what I do 

n. I have a difficult time expressing my feelings 2.06 

2.1 1 

p. I don’t get out very much 2.25 

0. I have a hard time getting things done 

2.83 

3.38 

3.00 

3.39 

2.53 

2.93 

3.18 

3.40 

2.69 

2.75 

2.63 

2.71 

2.61 

2.61 

2.65 

2.61 

+ 

+ 

nc 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Frequency distributions appear in Appendix B. 

-73- 
3.3 Flaws in implementation 

The POET project was initiated in a jurisdiction that did not have an existing 

Domestic Abuse Response Team. As a result, there was dramatic staff turnover 

throughout the duration of the grant period. In addition, the various agencies had 

different methods for tracking cases that were inconsistent with each other and the 

team members could not agree on a coordinated record-keeping system. It was not 

possible to cross-check the competing methods in order to track cases. In addition, the 

various agencies would not share their information with each other except upon specific 

request. 

When it became obvious that the team was not functioning well as a team, the 

grant administrators began efforts to have the team engage in some team-building 

efforts, based on empirical research and based on interviews of team members from 

comparison counties. The efforts came too late to make it possible to achieve the goals 

of the grant. 

3.4 The Importance of Trust 

The lack of continuity in the POET project resulted in a fundamental lack of trust 

among the team members, which resulted in a lack of trust by domestic violence 

victims. This meant that the risk assessment instrument simply was not used. Victims 

who did not trust the team members were unwilling to provide information necessary to 

assess risk. The low trust levels also discouraged efforts to gather the information from 

other sources. Moreover, team members were so focused on basic team-building 

-74- 
issues that they could not devote time or resources to the higher-level challenges of risk 

Team # 

1 

assessment. 

3.5 Revised Design 

The evaluation therefore became a process evaluation rather than an impact 

evaluation. It is based on structured interviews of multidisciplinary team members 

(supplemented by periodic POET progress reports); and semi-structured interviews of 

victims. Qualitative analysis of interviews identify factors leading to a successful 

multidisciplinary team. 

3.5.1 Developing Multidisciplinary Teams 

The evaluation process included interviews with existing DART projects as well 

as the POET project. The goal was to identify common problems and explore various 

solutions to the problems that the multidisciplinary teams faced. 

The multidisciplinary teams that were studied were comprised of persons from 

several agencies, including a variety of government agencies as well as nongovernmental advocacy agencies, as noted in Exhibit 3. 

Prosecutor Police Advocate Victim - BEP 

(non-CJ- witness Coordinator 

system) Coordinator 

1 full-time 1 follow-up 1 full-time none 

Exhibit 3 

2 

3 

1 full-time overtime 1 full-time I full-time 

1 full-time overtime 1 full-time 1 full-time 

4 1 full-time 

I I I I 

1 follow-up 1 full-time none 1 part-time 

-7 5- 
5 1 full-time 1 follow-up 1 full-time 

6 1 full-time 2 follow-up 1 full-time 

-76- 

none 

none 
Most team members had previous work experience before joining the 

multidisciplinary team, although many team members had experience that did not relate 

directly to their work on the multidisciplinary team. Police officers generally had most or 

all of their experience with police agencies. All of the DART prosecutors had previous 

prosecution experience, though most them had only a few years of experience. 

Advocates had the most varied previous work experience. 

3.5.3 Developing the Team 

Multidisciplinary teams are designed to provide specialized responses to 

domestic violence, with a unique perspective on criminal justice responses. 

Established DART projects described the early difficulties in developing the 

multidisciplinary team. Each team described an evolution of the team that included 

significant turnover in membership on the team. A common pattern was for one person 

to reject the team goals or to agitate for change, then leave the job, and be replaced by 

someone who accomplished changes that the predecessors had attempted. 

Most of the teams described the impetus for the team as a coordinated request 

for funding. Some teams described previous discussions about the possibility for a 

multidisciplinary team, separate from a funding impetus. Other teams came together 

only when potential funding sources became available. Regardless of the impetus, 

each team suffered growing pains in terms of personnel changes and disagreements 

about or refinement of team goals. 

The POET project was instigated by a state funder who sought to entice the 

jurisdiction to develop a multidisciplinary team, because previous local efforts at 

collaboration had failed. (Personal communication with Project Director.) The 

-77- 
agencies involved acceded to the request, but did not the develop the project on their 

own. This meant that the preliminary matters that formed a common bond for most 

multidisciplinary teams were absent in the POET jurisdiction. 

The challenges faced by the POET project illustrate the practical problems in 

getting a team started. In the POET project, the hiring of personnel was staggered, and 

the members did not act as a team. In addition, the personnel had limited experience in 

domestic violence. Thus, from the outset, team members faced the challenge of 

learning about domestic violence, learning about the criminal justice system, and 

learning group dynamics in a multidisciplinary setting. The members failed to receive 

clear guidance from their employers as to their priorities and as to their duties on the 

team. In fact, the POET members received direction from their employers that 

sometimes was at odds with the goals of the program. 

All of the multidisciplinary teams faced these challenges at some point, but as 

they were developing as a team, they were not required to focus on the more complex 

task of assessing risk and focusing resources on high-risk cases. Thus, the hurdles for 

the POET project were greater than the hurdles that the DART projects faced, and all of 

the DART projects suffered similar organizational challenges that the POET project also 

faced. 

3.5.4 Setting Team Goals and Objectives 

DART members described the processes they used in setting their respective 

team goals and objectives. Although most teams included some form of written goals 

and objectives in their grant applications, they did not have a ready list of written goals 

and objectives when they were interviewed. There were no mission statements. Their 

-78- 
methods of measuring success differed dramatically, and were primarily driven by grant 

reporting requirements. Some teams focused on objective, statistical information - 

official statistics on arrests, convictions, etc. Other teams focused on more qualitative 

measures of victim satisfaction and victim safety, although none of the teams had a 

systematic way to measure victim satisfaction or victim safety. 

Most team members expressed the same or similar broad goals for their 

respective teams. Most teams were victim-centered and had as their overarching goal 

a reduction in violence, even if those goals were not specifically stated in their grant 

applications. No team was ever formally organized as a separate entity. Instead, each 

team consisted of a group of people from different agencies who sought to coordinate 

their efforts toward the common goal of providing a more effective criminal justice 

response to domestic violence. 

Significantly, most teams felt that they operated with support from their 

respective agency leaders and that there was general agreement among the various 

disciplines that the team members were seeking similar goals and objectives. 

The POET project, however, illustrated the challenges in developing common 

goals and objectives, and the imperative need for support from the respective agency 

leaders. The POET goals and objectives were developed by the grant directors and 

were approved by the agency heads. The POET project faltered in its early stages, with 

almost complete turnover in staffing, so continuity was lacking and objectives became a 

moving target. 

In addition, midway through the project, the agency leaders met with team 

members and evaluators to memorialize agreed-upon goals. After lengthy group 

-79- 
discussions, one agency leader happened upon the stated objectives of the POET 

project, expressed surprise and delight at the statement of the objectives, and 

suggested that the stated objectives should serve as the project goals. Others 

disagreed with the stated objectives and argued that the group should develop its own 

goals and not be bound by the objectives set out in the POET grant. The objectives 

had been previously approved by all participating agency heads when the grant 

application was filed, and the written goals and objectives had been shared with POET 

members and agency heads on repeated occasions. 

Thus, it was surprising that the agency heads felt that they should debate the 

goals and objectives of the grant. It is not surprising that POET members felt 

bewildered about whether their activities would be supported by the supervisors in their 

respective agencies when the agency leaders did not agree on objectives. 

DART projects described similar frustrations in their early efforts at a 

multidisciplinary response. The development of common goals occurred over time, 

generally after lengthy discussions and based on experiences (often negative 

experiences) that helped to shape the team's approach to domestic violence. The 

teams reported that it took years to develop a consensus on the goals and operation of 

the team. Some teams were still struggling with the notion of consensus at the time of 

the evaluation. 

3.6 POET Teamwork 

The development of the POET project, and the DART members' recollections of 

their efforts, serve to illustrate some of the serious difficulties in developing a team. 

-80- 
Mismatched needs. Hidden agendas were common in the development of the 

teams. For example, the teams that were not victim-focused appeared to disparage the 

“bad” victims, that is, the victims whose choices were inconsistent, inconsonant, or 

simply inconvenient with respect to the goals of the team member. Some team 

members had previous experiences with domestic violence in their own lives or in the 

lives of their loved ones, and used the team as their opportunity to champion the ideas 

that the team member developed as a result of that personal experience. In some 

cases, the member used the DART experience as an opportunity to process the 

emotional turmoil. This need to process one’s own experience through the group effort 

may serve as an example of mismatched efforts, because the DART methodology is 

not designed to provide a source of individual counseling of team members. 

On the other hand, teams met with considerable success when the members 

focused on commonalities rather than on other, hidden agenda. For example, one 

DART member, a domestic violence advocate, noted that communications with the 

police department improved dramatically when she had regular contact with the police 

officers and they realized that she “was not going to humiliate them” because of the 

work that they had done. Instead, they talked about the various interests of the 

domestic violence agency and the police department and tried to work cooperatively to 

provide what the victim needed and what the police needed. (Team 4) 

Confused goals, cluttered objectives. No team described specific goals, and 

some team members were unsure of the goals stated in their grant application. 

-81- 
The types of goals varied greatly, and often were unstated. Some team 

members viewed the multidisciplinary team as a means to streamline case processing. 

Some team members viewed the team as an opportunity to educate the other 

disciplines involved in the team. Some team members viewed the team as a means to 

avoid critical public or media scrutiny of the domestic violence issue in the community. 

One of the more established teams exhibited their ability to work together by 

using similar language in separate interviews, when describing domestic violence in 

their community, victim issues, system responses, and case outcomes. (Team 2) 

As noted above, the POET project administrators failed to agree on goals, and 

the failure to agree on goals was a significant factor in the group’s failure to accomplish 

the objectives of the POET grant. It was, unfortunately, entirely consistent with the 

experience of other multidisciplinary teams that had struggled in their early 

development phases. The presence of evaluators, who were perceived to be “looking 

over the shoulders” of the POET members and agency administrators, seemed to 

exacerbate rather than alleviate the difficulties. 

Unresolved roles. In most of the established multidisciplinary teams, members 

felt more comfortable about their roles. In the teams that did not function as well, or the 

newer teams, the members were less certain of their roles. Team 1 was a prime 

example. The team members described a rocky history of the team, with limited 

support from the leaders of the various agencies and a long history of acceptance of 

domestic violence as a community norm. An experienced DART prosecutor joined the 

team and articulated specific, achievable goals for the team. The other team members 

provided outward support for the prosecutor‘s efforts. The language that the officer and 

-82- 
the victim advocate used, however, indicated that their support was more tentative than 

the outward support they showed. This was most likely due to the members’ 

apprehension about whether the elected prosecutor could be trusted to let the DART 

prosecutor do the job, because the elected prosecutor had not established a strong 

reputation for taking domestic violence cases seriously. In fact, some months after the 

interviews of that team were completed, the elected county attorney terminated the 

experienced DART prosecutor’s employment. 

Bad decision making. The teams that were functioning effectively as a team 

were able to focus on what types of issues were significant and how the team could 

respond to those problems. When team members were not functioning well as a team, 

however, the communication was either tense or non-existent and some of the most 

difficult cases were likely to be forgotten or mishandled, and meaningful referrals to 

other community resources were not as likely to occur. 

Uncertain boundaries. When team members did not feel comfortable about 

their boundaries, their decisions tended to be more tentative, their discussions with and 

around other team members was more tentative, and the synergy of teamwork escaped 

the grasp of the team members. When the team members were more certain of their 

goals and how to achieve those goals, the team members were able to explore more 

options, make referrals to more resources, and provide better emotional support to 

victims and to team members. 

Bad policies, stupid procedures. The classic example of a bad policy was the 

prosecutorial policy of prosecuting a protected party for aiding and abetting a violation 

-83- 
of her own protective order. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, arresting and charging 

a victim (who presumably will be asked at some point to testify as a victim in a domestic 

assault criminal prosecution) is illogical and unlikely to result in success in either the 

protective order case or the domestic abuse case. From a domestic violence 

perspective, the policy is dangerous, because it removes the criminal justice system as 

a resource available to victims. From a team vantage point, the policy is destructive 

because it lessens or destroys a victim’s trust in the domestic violence prosecutor and 

thereby limits that domestic abuse prosecutor’s likelihood of success and drives a 

wedge between the advocate and the prosecutor. 

Personality conflicts. The members of the DART projects generally indicated 

that they noted marked improvements in their communications over time and that they 

got along well while working as a team. Most team members described regular 

contacts among group members as relaxed and informal. 

On one team, the victim advocate reported that the relationships sometimes 

were strained because of disagreements. (Team 1) This was a team that was relatively 

new and was undergoing dramatic changes at the time of the interview. The various 

DART projects reported that the initial efforts were strained, and that the 

communications became easier, more enjoyable and more productive as the team 

continued to work together for several years. The quality of the communication often 

improved as the quantity of communication increased, but only so long as the 

communications were not primarily negative. Several DART projects noted that they 

had a rocky beginning when the various team members were highly critical of the work 

that other team members (or their respective agencies) were doing. As the team grew, 

-84- 
however, and each agency better understood the workings of the other agencies, the 

communications improved and the DART members felt that the quality of their work 

also improved. 

Bad leadership. Leadership deficiencies came in several categories. The team 

prosecutor who failed to carry through on cases by taking them to trial necessarily 

limited the impact of the DART project. The elected prosecutor who overruled the team 

prosecutor's charging or plea bargaining decisions undermined the effectiveness of the 

group. The agency leaders who could not agree on policies or on overarching goals 

forced the team members to act more tentatively, or to dig in their heels on disputed 

issues. 

Bleary vision. Agency leaders who thought that simply forming a team would 

reduce or eliminate domestic abuse cases certainly were foisting a bill of goods on the 

team. The mere existence of a team provides absolutely no assurance that domestic 

abuse cases will be dealt with more appropriately. In fact, a wrong-headed DART 

project is far more dangerous than a less formal combination of forces to address 

domestic abuse. 

Anti-team culture. The POET project is the classic example of an organization 

that was not really committed to the idea of teams. The agency leaders did not agree 

on the overall goals of the team, the personnel assigned to the team were 

inexperienced in domestic violence and did not receive training on teamwork, and the 

various agencies were unwilling to yield to new ideas or to modify existing policies to 

accommodate the needs of the team. 

-85- 
Insufficient feedback and information. Many of the teams were uncertain 

about the types of data that were maintained, who maintained the information, or 

whether it was checked for accuracy. Most team members failed to articulate any 

mechanism to measure the success of the team. Only the most established teams that 

had the clear support of their respective superiors exhibited any certainty about the type 

of work they were expected to do and the likely rewards of doing that work. 

Ill-conceived reward systems. A focus on official statistics likely means that 

people are being rewarded for the wrong things. Arrests do not necessarily stop 

violence, and convictions do not guarantee victim safety. This is particularly true when, 

as most teams acknowledged, the going rate involved at most a few days in jail. 

Instead, teams must develop more appropriate qualitative evaluations of their 

work. Although many team members recognized the qualitative factors that would 

reflect their work, they did not articulate any systematic way to assess the quality of 

their work. 

Lack of team trust. Again, the POET project is the classic example of a lack of 

team trust. When asked to perform the high-level task of risk assessment, the team 

members discovered that victims would not cooperate. This was most likely the result 

of the victims’ mistrust of the team. 

Another example came from a very experienced victim advocate whose answers 

were tentative and vague, and who did not actively participate in the team interview. 

(Team 1) This advocate had seen previous prosecutors and police officers who were 

not making the criminal justice system a resource for victims, and it was plain that the 

-86- 
advocate was skeptical that a new prosecutor could transform the traditional culture of 

the community or change the views of the elected prosecutor. 

The third example came from the team in which the elected prosecutor had 

intervened in several cases and “dealt away” some of the domestic cases that the team 

prosecutor was supposed to handle. Team members expressed some loyalty to the 

team prosecutor, but they did not have confidence that the team prosecutor would have 

the final word in negotiating cases. (Team 4) 

Unwillingness to change. Two team prosecutors acknowledged the dispute 

about charging victims with aiding and abetting protective order violations, and 

adamantly refused to change the policy. (Team 5, Team 6) They refused to accept 

any arguments to the contrary. One prosecutor simply stated the office policy and did 

not present arguments. The other prosecutor argued that he was ethically bound to 

bring a charge if the facts were presented to support the charge, and he did not feel 

that he had discretion to ignore an offense that came to his attention. He summarily 

dismissed arguments that the policy would discourage victims from relying on the legal 

system . 

3.7 Domestic Violence Victims 

Many of the DART projects described their efforts to seek victim input regarding 

their operation as a team. Often the qualitative input was neither systematically 

gathered nor empirically quantified. It was primarily anecdotal. 

In this evaluation, qualitative information from victims from a variety of 

jurisdictions was elicited through interviews. The 29 victims were interviewed about 

-87- 
their experiences in six jurisdictions that had multidisciplinary response teams. Eleven 

victims were interviewed individually and the remainder of the victims were interviewed 

in small groups. The focus of these interviews included not only victim interaction with 

the criminal justice system, but also the role the criminal justice system played in the 

victims’ lives. 

It must be noted that the selection of victims was not random. Victims were 

selected by contacting victim advocates, who put the researchers in touch with victims 

who were willing to talk. There is no assurance that the victims had any contact with 

multidisciplinary team members. Nor is there any assurance that the victims’ accounts 

are representative of all victims’ experiences with the criminal justice system. There 

are, however, remarkably similar themes in all of the accounts provided by this array of 

victims. 

3.7.1 Key Themes 

Key themes for this report were identified according to a number of criteria, 

including relevance to the questions, number of interviews in which the theme was 

mentioned (dominant themes presented here occurred in approximately 75% or more of 

the interviews conducted), and relative importance of the categories within interviews 

(indicated by the number of times a topic was mentioned by the respondent within the 

interview and the amount of text taken up to address the issue). Once key themes 

were identified, linkages between the various themes were examined. For each theme, 

several main quotes that are best representative of the majority of quotes were 

selected. The data reported here are representative of the diversity of perspectives 

expressed by the victims. 

-88- 
Several domestic violence situations that respondents have experienced are 

presented below, to provide the reader an understanding of the various forms of 

domestic violence the victims have experienced, as well as to provide a contextual 

background for the study’s findings. Throughout the discussion, use of the term “he” 

refers to the abuser, unless noted otherwise. 

Example #I 

Last year, about 4:OO in the morning, he came into my house and I woke 

up to him beside ... l fell asleep on the couch after I went out and he was 

there and, you know, he’s like, ‘well, you know, you want me’ and I’m like 

‘get out of my house’ and he starting choking me and then just 

disappeared. Well, he stole the phones. He took the cell phone and 

called his phone to make it look like I wanted him to come over. So, we 

went to court for that and that was pending. Exactly about a month later, 

that Tuesday after Mother’s Day we had a situation. 

I have a nine-year-old. I took him to school and came back and went to 

pick up the phone and the phone wasn’t working, but the phone hadn’t 

worked a couple of days before. So, I just chalked it up to the phone 

doesn’t work and at that time he came out from around the corner and 

came around behind me and he’s like, ‘lock the door’, and he had put a 

knife to my neck and I’m just like, ‘what are you doing’ and he’s like, ‘I’ll kill 

you’. 

He walked me into my boy’s bedroom, which is the farthest away from the 

door and he told me to get undressed and I wouldn’t get undressed 

and.. . , So he put the knife to my neck again and told me to and I still 

stood there so he .... I just had thrown shorts and a T-shirt on to run [my 

son] to school and so he pulled those off and told me to take off my shirt 

and I just stood there and so he did it and then told me to get down on my 

stomach on the floor and then he started to rape me and then I kept 

hearing .... I heard like these clicking sounds and I know he had like a 

butterfly knife or whatever so I assumed that he must have put that away 

or clicked it shut or I don’t know and he grabbed me by the arm and he 

flipped me over and he had a camera and he was clicking.. . He was 

taking pictures with an instant camera and I don’t know how long that 

lasted and then when he was all done he started hitting me in the back of 

my neck, the back of my head and I was screaming and I was trying to get 

away from him and the boy’s laundry basket was right there so he was 

-89- 
shoving socks in my mouth and I don’t know how but somehow I 

managed to get up and I ran to the front door and I unlocked it and I ran 

out to my car and got in the car and just sat there .... I had nothing on. I 

live next to a school and there were a couple of boys that were kind of 

stragglers to school and I just said ‘I need you. I need help. Will you go 

get the principal and tell him to call the police.. .?’ 

I saw somebody walk around the playground so I started to honk the horn 

so that they would come over and I said ‘this is my house right here. 

Would you go on in and get me a shirt’ and the kid gave me his shirt and 

they called the police and the police came and once they came I went 

back in the house with them. He had left the knife on the living room floor 

and he was gone and so, they took the clothes and everything. Then I 

went to the hospital and then I went to the police station and they told me 

that ‘this didn’t happen to me. That there’s no way he could have done 

this.’ What he had done is he went to work and he punched in and he 

made sure to talk to people and then snuck out. 

My mouth was swollen and I had bruises and I said ‘well how did you think 

that this happened’ and [policeman] said ‘well maybe you did it to yourself‘ 

and I’m like, ‘why would I do that to myself‘ and they said ‘well if you 

wanted to get him in trouble, you’d do that,’ and they were like ‘give me 

something to go on’ and I said ‘he had this camera. He was taking 

pictures’ and they said, ‘well, we found a wrapper in his car of an instant 

camera’ and I said ‘well, that should tell you right there’ and [policeman] 

said ‘maybe you were in his car.’ I told them about the knife and I told 

them the times and they were still like, ‘no, you know, there’s no way he 

could have been there. There’s no way’ and that went on forever. Well, 

finally, then they had said to him ‘we are going to take your underwear’ 

and I guess at that point he figured he had to fess up to something. 

He keeps doing these things to me, but it’s always my job to have to prove 

it. When I was in talking to the officer he’s like, ‘I don’t doubt that it maybe 

happened, I just doubt it happened today.’ He’s like, ‘sometime things 

happen to women and they decide later on they should do something 

about it, to call the police’ and I said, ‘let him go then, but, this is the last 

time you’ll ever see me cause he had a knife and was prepared to kill me. 

Who’s to say he’s not going to.’ (Respondent 4) 

Example #2 

My husband.. .he’s a sick person, he’s a very sick person. Whenever I 

would try to talk about our problems he would just explode. In April of 

2001, he um raped me ... he ripped my shirt off he broke my necklace he 

left hand prints on my neck and um they were so dark that I mean it 

-90- 
almost looked like a hickey type mark it wasn’t blue it was red ... my 

children were watching four of my younger ones. My daughter as soon as 

it was safe she ran across the street to two ladies (the neighbors) and the 

police came. My husband had um sped off at that point when he saw the 

police coming. He had a big truck with a PA system; he got in his truck 

and started calling me not so nice names over the PA right before the 

police got there. I threw a rock and so the police caught me on that and 

they look at me and I’ve got this broken necklace and I’m managing to get 

my shirt half way together and they see the marks on my neck. And one 

of the officers says ‘what’s that on your neck?’ I proceeded to try telling 

him, I was pretty hysterical and he said ‘at least you had fun last night.’ 

(Respondent 3) 

Example #3 

I got married in ’95. I left him in ’97, but I’ve left him probably ten times 

before that and he always talked me into coming back. Finally, I was like 

what am I doing here, you know? 4 be with somebody that‘s crappy to me, 

so I left. He would come here and he threatened to beat up anybody that 

I was with or dated. He’d wait outside my house. He’d follow me. He’d 

check my caller ID. He’d drive by people’s houses that I was at. There 

was a couple of occasions where somebody would come to pick me up to 

go to dinner or something and he would be there waiting. If I’d come 

home, he was there waiting. I called the police. They’d say, ‘oh, it‘s a 

public street. He can be in the street.’ They always had a reason why it 

was okay for him to do what he was doing, so he knew he could push it 

always to the extent of harassing me without getting into any trouble. 

(Respondent 4) 

Example #4 

I think right at first they [the police] didn’t take me seriously. Um, the first 

few times you know when I would call and have a few bruises but there 

wasn’t any blood so they didn’t really take me as serious and they did 

towards the end. When he had kidnapped me with a gun and took me 

way out in the middle of nowhere and if his aunt had not come to’where 

we were at ... l don’t know I don’t think I would be here. And that’s when 

they took me seriously. 

The courthouse helped me to do a restraining order, helped me to press 

the charges for the kidnapping. I feel like they were finally listening. 

Sometimes when you have an advocate there you are treated very 

different. (Respondent 7) 

Example #5 

-91- 
The police officer was good, I mean he helped me calm down for a while 

that night so it was a good experience. Um, he made me feel comfortable 

enough to um that night at the hospital a lot of the bruises didn’t show and 

um so he suggested that I could go back and have them photographed 

later and so I did that. Um, the only thing that I didn’t or wasn’t really clear 

about like um I was told that I would be informed when [the abuser] got 

out of a jail and nobody called to let me know. I found out from people 

around town when he got out and then um then um he um oh what was I 

going to say ... he violated the no contact order and I guess I just assumed 

since he had to post bail to get out that if he did something else he would 

go back to jail and wouldn’t get out, but he was out right away afterwards. 

(Group 1) 

These victims’ brief stories provide a context for what will be discussed in-depth 

in the following pages. What these experiences reveal is the severity of the domestic 

violence situation, the feeling of vulnerability, and the very real sense that the criminal 

justice system cannot be relied upon to provide meaningful protection. These five 

experiences are representative of all 29 victims. For approximately every four negative 

interactions victims have had with law enforcement officials and the judicial system, 

there was one positive interaction. In the following pages, the primary themes that 

emerged from the interviews are identified. These are presented most often in the 

respondents’ own words. These themes include experiences with the protective orders, 

law enforcement’s response to domestic violence calls, the response by the judicial 

system and the non-system community-based advocacy. For each primary theme, sub 

themes are also discussed. 

3.7.2 Protective Order 

Respondents were first asked about their experiences with protective/restraining 

orders. The primary issues respondents identified with these orders include: 

a Uselessness of the order. 

Lack of enforcement of order by police. 

-92- 
The uselessness of obtaining a protectivehestrictive orders was noted by all of 

those interviewed, except for one individual. 

The problem that I had with the protection order is that it didn’t protect my 

family. It did not protect my mother it did not protect my sisters. Let‘s say 

my sister’s at the mall he catches up to her and chasing her across town 

and he’s telling me ‘if you don’t come and talk to me I’m going to do 

something to her.’ Or ‘I’m going to go to your mom’s house and burn it 

down.’ ’(Respondent 6) 

The uselessness of the order was often associated to respondent’s belief that 

law enforcement officials were not doing enough to enforce the order, as seen in these 

comments: 

If [protective orders] are violated the [police] don’t help us unless they 

[perpetrator] leave something physically. (Groups 2’3’4) 

Why extend a no contact order when law enforcement don’t do crap about 

it anyway? (Group 3) 

I don’t feel that they even took me seriously until I went to the chief of 

police and said ‘I hope you guys know, if you find me dead you will be 

sued’ because they weren’t doing anything about these restraining orders. 

(Respondent 2) 

When I finally did get an order I was suppose to call the police 

department, 91 1 or whatever. I was suppose to call every single time he 

was violating it, basically banging on my door or getting rocks thrown at 

my window or something you know. If I saw him walking around the 

house or driving around like not normal driving around then I call the 

dispatch officer and he kept saying ‘yes we know you just called us a few 

nights ago’. They said that they would send somebody around and I 

would sit at my window for hours and never saw anybody. And then when 

I would call up and I would say ‘I just wanted you to know that urn he’s 

around again that he’s driving around again.’ Well ‘you know that he can 

drive and he has every right to be there.’ I said ‘yeah but he was parked 

out there for like 20 minutes and I never saw an officer.’ Now two years 

later I have a stalking order, but look at all the hell I had to go though to 

get it. I think that I should have gotten a little more care and sympathy. 

(Group 1) 

-93- 
He went to the house and broke in through my living room window and 

had a knife and went up to me and my daughter and that’s when my 

neighbors called the police. I already had what was called a restraining 

order and a protective order and a no contact order - all three of those in 

effect ... I would still go down to the police department with my caller ID 

and say ‘he’s calling me’ and they weren’t doing anything about it. There 

were probably 14 restraining order violations. (Respondent 2) 

Interviewer: Prior to getting divorced, did you have a protective order in 

place? 

Respondent: Yes. 

Interviewer: Did he ever violate it then? 

Respondent: Yes, yeah he tried to run me over. It was a piece of paper 

and it didn’t mean anything ... and he’d break it and [the police] knew it and 

it was like they didn’t care. (Respondent 5) 

Lack of enforcement of the protective order by law enforcement officials is most 

often interpreted by the respondents as the officials not caring about their situation, as 

indicated in the above comments. Respondents were also asked specifically about law 

enforcement response when called to domestic violence situations. 

3.7.3 Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence Calls 

Several themes emerged from respondents’ experiences with law enforcement 

officials who were called to the respondents’ situation. These include: 

Varied attitudes and behavior taken towards respondents 

Law Enforcement officials “hands are tied” 

Impact of tight-knit community 

Varied provision of information 

3.7.3.1 Varied attitudes and behavior taken towards respondents 

-94- 
Both positive and negative attitudes have been portrayed by law enforcement 

officials. Those reactions that were positive included the officers staying with the 

respondent, getting them to a shelter, and in general, taking care of them. 

One officer stayed right beside me. He stayed right beside me he didn’t 

leave me he didn’t let me how do you say I didn’t leave out of his sight. I 

was really thankful for that because I was shaken up. (Respondent 1 1 ) 

They were good to me. The first thing that they asked me was ‘how many 

grilled sandwiches would you want’ and I’m going ‘wow I can get 

something to eat I’m starving’ because all night I laid in this motel room 

without walking out any of the doors to get a pop. I had nothing to drink 

for a long period of time and you know I mean they were being nice to me 

as much as they could. (Respondent 6) 

I had two officers in the motel room just start packing stuff going ‘you’re 

going to a shelter.’ And they let me drive my mother‘s car and I don’t 

even have a license. 1 think at that time they were doing pretty much their 

instinct and the “best bet for you is to go to shelter.’’ They said that they 

don’t really care what you decide after that cause it’s your choice but for 

now this is where we are taking you. (Respondent 6) 

The special investigators who had the training they were excellent. That’s 

got to be hard on a cop when they see all these people beat up. (Group 

3) 

One advocate interviewed had positive remarks about law enforcement: 

The positive things that I have to say about our officers is that the ones 

that we work with that are on the training list, they really truly believe the 

victims, that’s good. I know that there are some of them that come in and 

volunteer their time to try to help out more um and I really think that 

overall we have a very good emergency response team. We have a very 

good working relationship with the officers. We will talk with one another. 

Talking to one of the shift commanders urn they said that what‘s been 

nice is our program has really grown over the last 2 % years. I’ve been 

with the program just a little over two years. They feel that if there are 

problems or if things aren’t working right they are getting frustrated.. .they 

feel comfortable talking with us about it. Which I like to hear that cause I 

do go to them when I am frustrated and I want to let them know that I’m 

not telling them how to do their job, I’m just telling you this is what we got 

going so what are you going to do. We all have to be able to talk about 

-95- 
what works well and what doesn’t and not all the officers have gotten 

there yet. (Group 4) 

In one specific situation, the response by law enforcement officials was deemed 

“very good” by the respondent in part because the law enforcement officials both knew 

the offender from the past and because they wanted the suspect for production of 

methamphetamine. 

The last boyfriend that I had was really really abusive and he was 

psychotic. The police knew him really really well. Um, I talked to several 

of them on different occasions when they would come to my house after 

he would hit on me. They had called over the radio and said that they was 

patrolling my area in case he was listening to my scanner because he was 

really heavy into Meth too so they listen to scanners a lot. So they would 

say that they was patrolling my area so I would feel safer and um they 

also told me that if I called and needed them there they would be there 

within a matter of minutes. They was really helpful. (Respondent 8) 

A theme of a demeaning attitude and approach by the law enforcement officials 

also came through in the interviews, including comments and behavior towards the 

victim that diminished the action the perpetrator took against her 

Well I have a very interesting experience with the [town] police, my 

husband had actually called the police. Two officers showed up at first 

and they just kind of kept us in separate rooms until the other one showed 

up. I guess he was the DART officer that they had been waiting for. I just 

kind of felt that they were not sympathetic at all, they had made it out to 

be my fault that you know I should bow down and kiss my husbands 

bu tt.... ‘I’m home all day I should keep the house spotless and have his 

supper cooked at night’ and I just wasn’t real happy. They kept asking me 

if I wanted him arrested, they kept saying ‘do you want us to take him do 

you want us to arrest him’ and I kept saying ‘yes.’ I was told that they 

weren’t supposed to do that, that they were supposed to automatically do 

that. I mean they kind of humiliated me. (Group 2) 

One was basically going on and on about how making it out to be my fault 

and saying that his wife stays home all day with his kid and men 

sometimes forget how hard it is to take care of kids and when they come 

home from work they just want to sit down and relax and not have to clean 

the house and help with the kids and blah blah blah. It just kind of made 

-96- 
me feel a little uncomfortable with him saying this. I’m not really happy 

with [town] police at all. (Group 2) 

When the dispatch officers will say to someone ’do you know how many 

times you’ve called?’ That’s so out of line. (Group 1) 

In one particular situation of mine I was just so distraught and devastated 

and totally blown away that it had even happened to begin with. When 

law enforcement came they were minimizing what I was telling them I 

think because they thought I was just so emotional that maybe I was 

blowing things out of proportion. They had to take me by ambulance to 

the hospital before they had totally checked me out. The nurse’s first 

evaluation was that I was just emotionally distraught and didn’t appear to 

have anything wrong. Then they found two skull fractures, my right 

eardrum was ruptured, my jaw was fractured and dislocated. (Group 3) 

I guess I was expecting more that they would acknowledge me, 

acknowledge what I was telling them acknowledging um what I went 

through you know instead of just sitting here and ‘yeah ok.’ There has to 

be a bruise and they have to see it otherwise nothing happens. I even 

have a catheter that was permanently put into my back to my kidney. He 

[abuser] had even ripped that out and they were still like ‘oh well you 

know.’ (Group 3) 

I remember living three and a half blocks from the police station and it 

would take them twenty minutes to get to my house. Um, I just expected 

them to come in a timely manner or show up in a timely manner and 

maybe let him know ‘this was not ok’ and I didn’t feel like they did that. 

(Respondent 7) 

Thus, it was com’mon for the victims of violence to view the law enforcement 

response as uncaring and minimizing. 

3.7.3.2 “Their hands are tied” 

Several of the respondents noted that while they were not pleased with the law 

enforcement officials response, they also felt that the officials could only do so much - 

that “their hands were tied”. Some respondents were more sympathetic with the 

situation they felt law enforcement officials were in, as seen in these comments: 

-97- 
.... as for being very supportive the police officers aren’t, but I think that 

their hands are tied somewhat. 

He kept breaking in and cleaning the house out. There was nothing they 

[police] could do I understand that, but I mean what’s the point of putting a 

restraining order on if you can’t keep them out ... l don’t know. 

(Respondent 2) 

Other respondents, while acknowledging the difficult situation law enforcement officials 

may be in, were less sympathetic; 

You know when I’d call the police and hear, ‘Well, as long as he didn’t 

touch you there’s nothing that we can do about it.’ So, I’m just supposed 

to wait until he beats the living crap out of me and then you’ll come and 

maybe you’ll do something? I just think that they don’t take that stuff 

seriously, you know.. . 

[Perpetrator] was violent to me and you know I think of all the women out 

there that got it even worse ... the police their hands are tied I know that 

but I don’t know what they expect. To me they just want to sit back and 

wait and wait for this horrible horrible thing to happen before they put a 

move on it. (Respondent 4) 

3.7.3.3 Impact of tight-knit community 

An additional theme which arose from the discussion regarding law enforcement 

response was the detrimental impacts of living in a tight-knit community, especially 

when the law enforcement officials knew the perpetrator, often resulting in diminishing 

what occurred. 

My husband was being abusive and stuff and so I called the cops. The 

cops come out and they said ‘well we know [abuser] and he does have a 

temper and we are going to go talk to him and he’ll calm down.’ (Group 1) 

All the cops, some them are his mom and dad’s friends and they know 

[abuser] and they know his family. His mom’s watched their kids so you 

know ‘this kid can’t be doing this you know he’s such a nice guy.’ You 

know ‘why are you saying this about him when we know it‘s not true.’ 

(Group 1) 

-98- 
The one thing that did kind of upset me is that the [officer] that is involved 

in the [multidisciplinary team] had admitted that he was good friends with 

[abuser] and that he had grown up with him his whole life. Um, I didn’t 

need to hear that, even if it is true don’t tell me that shit because then it’s 

almost like you don’t understand that that’s not the [abuser] that I know. 

He actually made a comment something like ‘I can’t believe that he would 

knowing [abuser] and growing up and not seeing that side of him.’ 

(Respondent 2) 

I’m from [town] and I didn’t have to deal with the cops personally but the 

majority of them are very much pricks. I think a lot of it is to do with this 

so-called say kind of tight-knit Catholic Community. It‘s like you get into 

those little towns and this stuff cannot happen to us and our little perfect 

towns. (Group 4) 

There would be days when I would wake up and think ‘man I’m a tough 

woman I can do this and I could do that.’ The next day I would wake up 

I’d think ‘ok granddad is well known in town and they are going to still look 

at me like I’m a piece of trash.’ (Respondent 7) 

3.7.3.4 Varied Provision of Information 

Law enforcement officials are required to distribute certain pieces of information 

when called to a domestic violence situation. Iowa Code section 236.12( 1 )(c) provides: 

Providing an abused person with immediate and adequate notice of 

the person’s rights. The notice shall consist of handing the person a copy 

of the following statement written in English and Spanish, asking the 

person to read the card and whether the person understands the rights: 

(1) Keeping your attacker away from you, your home and your 

place of work. 

(2) The right to stay at your home without interference from your 

attacker . 

(3) Getting custody of children and obtaining support for yourself 

and your minor children if your attacker is legally required to provide such 

support. 

(4) Professional counseling for you, the children who are members 

of the household, and the defendant. 

“You have the right to ask the court for the following help on a 

temporary basis: 

You have the right to seek help from the court to seek a protective 

order with or without the assistance of legal representation. You have the 

right to seek help from the courts without the payment of court costs if you 

do not have sufficient funds to pay the costs. 

-99- 
You have the right to file criminal charges for threats, assaults, or 

other related crimes. 

You have the right to seek restitution against your attacker for harm 

to yourself or your property. 

If you are in need of medical treatment, you have the right to 

request that the officer present assist you in obtaining transportation to the 

nearest hospital or otherwise assist you. 

If you believe that police protection is needed for your physical 

safety, you have the right to request that the officer present remain at the 

scene until you and other affected parties can leave or until safety is 

otherwise ensured." 

shelters, support groups, or crisis lines operating in the area. 

The notice shall also contain the telephone numbers of safe 

Respondents were asked about the provision of information to them. Two of the 

29 respondents noted law enforcement officials were helpful with providing of complete 

information: 

There was four officers that were here at my home. I let two of them 

come inside, one stayed with me the whole entire time he was um very 

informative very informative with me and um I really appreciated that. He 

told me to call Catholic Chanties he even told me what was going to 

happen. He told me tomorrow he [perpetrator] will see the judge and he 

said that depending on whatever the judge decides [perpetrator] may be 

released. He said that in the event that [perpetrator] is released or not 

[perpetrator] will have a no contact order and if he is to come here you call 

us back again immediately. (Respondent 11) 

I was five months pregnant and he had gone out drinking. He pretty much 

tortured me for like five hours I went to run to the phone and he jerked it 

out of the wall and he choked me and I actually passed out at one point. 

Evidently he went to use the restroom and I ran out of the house and I 

was holding on to the stop sign because I knew that there was people that 

could hear what was going on and I knew that if I stayed outside long 

enough that somebody would have called the police. It was a woman 

police officer so I was even happier then because my clothes were half 

ripped off so I was embarrassed and he tried taking off and she caught 

him. She asked me if I wanted to press charges and at that time I couldn't 

even breathe. I said 'yes I want to press charges' well she said 'whether 

you want to press charges or not I'm going to press charges because I sat 

there and watched as he tried to pull you off the stop sign when I pulled 

up.' [She gave me] a card on Council on sexual assault and domestic 

-1 00- 
violence and then the case number. On the case number it had the 

officer‘s name. (Respondent 2) 

Although some law enforcement officials did provide information, the majority of 

respondents noted either they did not receive any information or received only partial 

information, as seen in the following comments: 

DHS is the one that told me about [the shelter], not the police. (Group 1) 

They weren’t informative, they didn’t tell me what was going to go on or 

anything you know nothing about ‘he was going to see the judge in the 

morning and he’ll have a no contact order. In the meantime get with 

Catholic Charities or any other resources that you have get in contact with 

them and they will help you get a protective order,’ none of that was said 

to me. I must have been a dime a dozen that night or something, but it 

just made me feel it made me feel um really insecure about our um police 

department. (Respondent I I) 

From the get go I was completely having questions.. .the officers weren’t 

informative at all. The officer made me feel inferior when he came to the 

door. He kept saying ‘you need to calm down you need to calm down you 

are getting way out of hand’ and I’m like ‘do you want to know what just 

happened.’ I’m trying to explain and um several times this happened no 

one ever told me anything about a no contact order or anything I didn’t 

know how to get one. (Group I) 

You find out more from a neighbor than you do from the police officers. I 

had signed several of those things from the [town] Police Department to 

hear what was going on and I never heard a thing. I live in [town] now and 

they come over and ask how things are going. [Town] did nothing where 

as [town] got right on it, told me what was going on and had me press 

charges. (Group 1) 

For those law enforcement officials who do provide information, the information is often 

partial, or is confusing for the respondent, as reflected in these comments: 

They referred me to [the nearest domestic abuse program], that was one 

thing that they did that was good. (Respondent 9) 

I would get cards from several officers. I have so many cards from 

different officers but they all work different shifts and I could never talk to 

-101- 
the officer that knows my case so then I would have to explain it all over. 

They may not know about it at all and it’s so frustrating. (Group 1) 

The officer handed me his card and it had the case number right on top of 

the card. And he handed me an envelope with domestic abuse 

information in it, but didn’t say anything about it he just handed it to me 

and said ‘here this is for you.’ (Group 3) 

Interviewer: Did the officers give you a case number or their names or a 

card with their name on it in case you had any questions you could follow 

Respondent: No, that needs to be there too. They did tell me to call to 

find out if the police report was available and if I could go down and get 

one, but by then [advocate] had already done that for me. (Group 2) 

u p? 

Some respondents commented specifically on those law enforcement officials 

involved with the POET program. 

I think it seemed pretty helpful. That was the first time I guess anyone 

offered to actually drive-by or to make sure I was okay or to do whatever. 

(Respondent 4) 

I think they do random drive by’s and they do checks. They actually came 

to my house a couple of times and knocked on my door and they would 

say ‘hey I was just in the area just seeing how you’re doing.’ (Respondent 

2) 

3.7.4 Judicial System 

Respondents also were asked about their experiences with the judicial system. 

Several problems with the judicial system were identified by the respondents. These 

include treatment by the county attorney, judge, and jury; gaps in the system, minimal 

charges applied to the offense committed, and lack of opportunity to express their 

voice. 

3.7.4.1 Treatment by Prosecutor 

I would be trying to tell her something about what he had done and she 

was so much on his side. It’s like I was fighting against her too. I couldn’t 

-1 02- 
go to another one because she was the only one I got. It took me four 

months to get her and if I would have tried to get another one I probably 

wouldn’t have had one. (Group 3) 

She kind of down played the whole situation. She said ‘well your injuries 

weren’t that bad ...’ (Group 2) 

She really didn’t explain anything except to discuss the no contact order. 

She asked me what I wanted to do and I told her what I wanted to do and 

that was basically it. She didn’t even tell me anything about the case at all 

about what’s going on. (Group 2) 

3.7.4.2 Minimizing Treatment by Judge and Jury 

It sucked, it’s like no one believed me. Usually when you go to a jury they 

are not going to believe the victim you know cause you stayed [in the 

situation] so long. I was so controlled that I didn’t know what controlling 

wasn’t, you know. (Respondent 5) 

When I went to get my first restraining order the judge he was so mean. I 

had him a couple times through the custody battle. He was asking 

questions such as, ‘in what way do you think you should be treated 

better? Why do you think that we should believe you?’ (Group 3) 

I remember the one and only time that 1 ever called um law enforcement 

when I was married. My ex had bashed my head into the corner of the 

door and there was no way I could get him off me. I happened to 

remember that I had fingernails and that was the only thing that I could 

use. So I reached up and just clawed and yeah I had skin underneath my 

fingernails.. .I drew blood. So the police went ahead and wrote up an 

assault charge against him, but then after everything was rolling he 

[perpetrator] went in to talk to the judge and then counter filed against me 

because I clawed him. Judge threw them both out, nothing happened I 

didn’t even get to talk to a judge. I never even talked to an attorney. 

(Group 3) 

They issued a warrant for his arrest for walking through the restraining * 

order. A couple months later he spent um one night in jail for it and 

everything else was dropped it never went to court or anything. Um, when 

we went to court for the divorce um the judge threw out all of the abuse 

and everything urn he took away my restraining order he said I didn’t need 

it. He actually had enough gall after my husband or ex-husband admitted 

to abusing me and my son he had enough gall for reprimanding me for 

calling my urn daughter a brat. It was difficult to sit there. So I don’t have 

much faith in the court system. (Group 1 ) 

-103- 
3.7.4.3 Gaps in the System 

The felony courts never got the paper work, it was the misdemeanor 

courts that had it. So when I’m there the day after this incident happened 

he’s in jail I’m sitting there in court, I’ve got the County Attorney with me 

and no attorney shows up for his side of it. We’re sitting there for like 

twenty minutes and somebody comes down and says that this paperwork 

never got to the felony department we have released him on a signature 

bond. I’m like ‘no freaking way are you kidding me there had to have 

been some sort of mix up’ and they tried to explain it to me saying ‘I’m 

sorry it’s just paper work error.’ So then they immediately took him over to 

the Sheriffs Department and that‘s where they had the POET program 

and the Sheriffs Department said what they were going to do is put 

surveillance on your house. I said ‘well he’s going to come there 

immediately right after I can tell you that right now’ and they said ‘well 

we’re not going to be able to do it until later and he’ll be released in about 

15 minutes.’ And I’m like ‘I’m telling you right now that this is what he 

does every time’ and they said ‘well it was unconstitutional to have a 

police officer follow him from jail to my house.’ He came right over to my 

house immediately after jail and I just called the police and they came 

over. They had seen him and chased him down the street and lost him so 

there I was again ... sitting. So I started doing all sorts of stuff like putting 

traps under my windows. (Respondent 2) 

When he got released they never contacted me. I contacted them. A 

friend of mine who happens to work with his mom came up to and says ‘I 

have something to tell you, he got out tonight’ and I said ‘no it’s going to 

be after Christmas’ because that’s what I had in my head that I would 

have the hotiday by myself. [The advocate] didn’t know so she called the 

prison and they said he would be out and they still haven’t called me. 

(Group 3) 

The county attorney said that there wasn’t enough evidence there to do 

anything. And I had two witnesses that saw him try to run me over with 

the truck. I got him on tape admitting that he was going to kill me and the 

children and then he was going to chop us up. (Respondent 5) 

One of the officers was really helpful, he’s like ‘every time he does 

something, leave a paper trail. Call the police. That way you’ll have proof 

that he did those things.’ When it comes down to it, the paper trail doesn’t 

do anything. They said it’s hearsay. So, what was the point of calling the 

police every time? If he’s just going to get away and it’s hearsay, you 

know, it didn’t do me any good to do what they said. I just felt like they tell 

you one thing but they do another. It’s just frustrating. (Respondent 4) 

-1 04- 
It seemed like it took forever for anything to get done. It took almost a 

week to get the papers to the county attorneys office, with the advocates 

calling following up with the officers and them saying ‘oh yeah we’re 

getting to’ it. It was very frustrating because it gave [the county attorney] 

the message that the assault wasn’t bad enough because I wasn’t 

bleeding or I wasn’t shot or stabbed. (Group 4) 

Minimal Charges. A large gap respondents identified in the system is the minimal 

charges for the crime committed. 

1 think the charges need to be more serious. They need to fit what he’s 

done. I mean, if somebody’s threatening to kill you, there’s a knife to your 

neck and they’ve sexually assaulted you, what more do you want and they 

said if he would slit my throat and I was in intensive care barely hanging 

on to life, he probably still wouldn’t have got first degree. What 

else.. .what do they need? For you to be dead, you know.. . (Respondent 

4) 

I don’t think the system is harsh enough on them he spent four days in jail 

for attacking me. Four days and fines and he’s got money so he just paid 

it and he got off in four days and did a week of community service. No 

classes no nothing. Four days and a week of community service is not 

okay. I remember driving by in my truck one day I saw him out by the 

garbage can talking to the maintenance man smoking a cigarette. I’m 

thinking ‘hello he’s suppose to be in there paying his price ... l had a 

bruised neck and he’s out there smoking with the maintenance man. He 

got a week and that‘s not okay. I just keep thinking that if he broke my rib 

he would just get a week. (Group 1) 

I think a lot more of the charges need to be a little bit more severe the first 

time. I don’t think that there should be a little slap on the hand. 

(Respondent 1 ) 

Mine’s got um two serious assault charges against him and he did five 

days in jail um total. (Group 3) 

The first charge he went up against was child endangerment and he had 

smacked our six-month-old baby so hard that she had a hand mark on the 

whole side of her face. He did two months in jail um with the kidnapping it 

was a couple months, the sexual assault with my daughter was four 

months. I’m thinking ‘here he’s doing all this and he’s in and out of jail all 

the time and they aren’t doing anything.’ And I knew he’d be out in a 

couple months and I was going to have to face it and I wanted to be 

strong enough to stand up to him. So I feel like the justice system is so 

-1 05- 
inconsistent. I guess I don’t have a whole lot of faith in it. I think they 

should make it to where the punishment fits the crime. (Respondent 7) 

I would like to see the word ‘simple’ and ‘assault’ not ever be associated 

with one another because there is nothing simple about an assault. The 

guys know that they can’t kick the crap out of a dog, but they can kick the 

crap out of someone that they love and nothing really happens. (Group 4) 

Animals have more protection rights than human beings do. I’m sorry, but 

that is just ridiculous it pisses me off totally. (Group 3) 

Wanting a voice. Several respondents stressed their desire for an opportunity to 

express their voice in the judicial process, to be heard, yet were not allowed to do so 

I did not once step into that courtroom and speak my mind not once. I 

don’t think that’s right I think that regardless if they plea bargain or not. I 

didn’t get to say a word. (Group 3) 

I got screwed cause my case wasn’t high profile enough, that‘s what the 

county attorney told the prosecutor. My case isn’t high profile enough and 

within four days he was sentenced and let go before they called me. I 

said ‘it’s done?’ I didn’t get to speak my mind again so when they told me 

mine wasn’t high profile enough of a case how is mine different from 

anybody else’s? He sits in jail and threatens you guys now threatens me 

and he just walked ... no probation no nothing he’s out on the street. Ten 

days later he calls me on the phone-ten days it lasted. (Group 3) 

3.7.5 Advocates 

Finally, respondents were asked about their experiences and interactions with 

the victim advocacy system. There was unanimous support for the advocates by the 

respondents. It must be noted, however, that all of the respondents had worked with 

non-system advocates and that the advocates arranged for interviews with the 

respondents. Several themes came out of the discussion regarding the advocates, 

including; 

e Providing a positive and supportive attitude 

e Providing information 

-1 06- 
0 Providing a source of protection 

3.7.5.1 Providing a Positive and Supportive Attitude 

When I went to the court house [an advocate] came by he didn’t even 

know me from anybody and he came by and seen what I looked like and 

asked if I needed help. He had another client with him and he went and 

talked to her then came right back to me. (Respondent 8) 

She was just like an angel she is just an angel and sometimes I could 

even see her glowing on me. She’s my strength.. .The people here, they 

have moved mountains just to get me here. (Respondent 3) 

[Advocate] has been the most wonderful good soul. If I hadn’t had these 

people I wouldn’t have made it. These guys have stood by me more than 

compared to anyone else. These guys have been everything to me. I 

wouldn’t have no Christmas if it wasn’t for these guys. So they have been 

wonderful just wonderful. (Respondent 5) 

My first advocate was a man. I remember walking into the courthouse 

and um of course I was bruised and crying and I remember him coming 

up to me and asking me ‘are you going to be ok?’ He was just so sincere 

you know it was like I knew I could trust this person you know even though 

this person was a man you know there was just something about him and 

I knew that I could trust him. (Respondent 7) 

I have to really commend [advocate] and [advocate] and the shelter and 

all of them I mean it’s just great what they all do. I think that they make 

everybody feel at home and that you’re not alone. (Group 4) 

As soon as I contacted them they are right there at my side. They are 

awesome.. . (Group 3) 

He was better than anybody else that I dealt with. I mean he was the only 

one that um on the day of the court hearing um he came and came up to 

me and asked me how I was doing. (Respondent 7) 

3.7.5.2 Providing Information 

[Advocate] was very informative, she knows her job. When I had to write 

out the protective order we went though it step by step. She really took 

the time to help me write everything down. (Respondent 11) 

-1 07- 
She’s been there every time I’ve needed her. She’s been really, really 

great and if I didn’t understand something, she was right there explaining 

it and she told me all the options that I had and I think that it’s been a 

better experience cause I wouldn’t know some of the things . . . 

(Respondent 4) 

They just explained to me you know that it‘s not my fault and kind of put 

their arm around me and took care of me when I really needed it. They 

told me what I could do and what I couldn’t do and you know what would 

happen. As a matter of fact they are the ones that called over there to the 

Sheriffs and told them that I wanted to be notified when he got out of jail 

or when the court date was. (Respondent 8) 

He had all kinds of stuff, all kinds of pamphlets. Um, phone numbers you 

know anything that I needed he had it there and he knew it. (Respondent 

7) 

3.7.5.3 Providing a Source of protection 

As noted by Respondent 6 in her situation presented at the beginning, and in 

several of the interviews, respondents felt safer, both literally (from their abuser) and 

figuratively (from the abuser, law enforcement officials and the judicial system), when 

an advocate was present. 

At first I thought it was because they had to keep face in front of this 

person. But I didn’t care; I didn’t care what the reason was you know they 

were taking me seriously. (Respondent 7) 

The advocates I would really put on a ten because first of all they are not 

recognizable. He [abuser] has to think ‘is this an off duty cop, who is this 

person she’s with?’ He’s intimidated right away he’s not going to try to 

come at me. I don’t know if this covers everybody, but for me it just gives 

me somebody to talk to while I am going through whatever stressful 

situation at that time. I’m doing the right thing I feel safer, with the 

advocate like ten times safer. (Respondent 6) 

3.7.6 Summary 

The following interview, which contains questions asked of each of the victims, is 

indicative of the majority of the 29 responses gained from this study. 

\ -1 08- 
Interviewer: How would you rank law enforcement with providing you 

with a sense of security? 

Respondent: Not helpful 

Q. Treating you with respect? 

A. 

Q. Ok, how about after? 

A. Yeah, I would say. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. Nope. 

Q. 

A. Somewhat, yeah. 

Q. 

sense of security? 

A. Somewhat. 

Q. Treating you with respect? 

A. Somewhat. 

Q. Explaining the process? 

A. Somewhat. 

Q. 

A. No. 

Q. 

A. Somewhat. 

Q. 

safety? 

Before I had my ass kicked? Before I had my ass kicked, not at all. 

Explaining the process that you would be going through. 

The law enforcement, no no. 

Providing you with updated information throughout the process? 

Providing information on shelter services? 

Ok, now with the prosecutor’s office. Um, providing you with a 

Providing you with updated information? 

Providing you with information on shelter services? 

And now with the courts, did the court provide you with a sense of 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

No. 

Treating you with respect? 

No. 

Explaining the process? 

No. 

Providing updated information? 

No. 

And then providing information on shelter services? 

No. 

Now the victim advocates. Providing you with a sense of safety? 

Oh he was just awesome. Yeah, definitely very helpful. 

Treating you with respect? 

Yes, very. 

Explaining the process? 

Very helpful. 

Providing you updated information? 

Yeah, I would say very much so. 

-1 09- 
Q. 

A. Yes. 

And then providing information on shelter services? 

The last question this respondent was asked was if she had “ever hesitated to call law 

enforcement.” Her response: 

Respondent : 

and I thought ‘I’m not calling because they are going to come here and 

ask him what happened and it‘s not going to make a difference.’ 

(Respondent 7) 

Oh yeah. I remember one evening he broke my nose 

Unfortunately, this comment and opinion, that a difference cannot and will not be 

made anywhere along the process, is reflected all too often in the interviews conducted. 

The impacts of ill treatment or perceived ill treatment by both the law enforcement 

officials and the court system can in turn result in the abuser feeling what they are 

doing is justified, as seen in this respondents’ quote: 

What makes it worse is when they don’t do anything to [perpetrator] and 

then when they see you being treated that way by police and judges then 

that just confirms that they can keep doing what they do. If you get 

treated that way by someone higher than you then they [perpetrator] feel 

they can get away with it. (Group 3) 

While many feel beaten down by the system, in at least one instance, the 

domestic violence victim has not only taken on their perpetrator but also the system: 

I think the laziness of our police force and our justice system made me 

know that I didn’t want to live like this forever and I was going to show 

them. I think that’s what kept me going a lot times. I’m going to prove to 

you that you did nothing, you’d come to my house and see the broken 

bones and you would see the blood and you would see this and you’d do 

nothing. (Respondent 7) 

One respondent felt 

that if they [police] were educated in domestic violence that I think that 

would make a big difference in the way that they treated the women. 

(Respondent 7) 

-1 10- 
However, law enforcement officials in Iowa are trained in domestic violence, 

received through Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, and regular training on domestic 

violence is required. Iowa Code § 236.17 (2003); Iowa Admin. Code § 501-3.5 (80B). 

While there are no easy answers, bringing the victims’ experiences expressed 

here to attention is the first step in identifying problems within a system that is clearly 

flawed. These problems need to be addressed, for in the words of one victim: 

I know it’s frustrating for the police and I’m sure it will take many years to 

pass probably before they realize that domestic violence is a serious thing 

that’s happening to the world. I imagine that what makes it really 

frustrating for many police officers is because we as the abused turn 

around many times and return to the situation. So they take that stance 

of, and I don’t like to but I have to use this saying the ‘good old boys 

stance’ of ‘well if they’re not going to be mad how can they expect me to 

be mad for them.’ 1 understand that to a point, but there are a lot of 

people dying across the county in the name of good old boys who need to 

be forgiving. Everybody should wake up and it isn’t only the abusers but 

the people that are abused and realize that ‘hey crap runs down hill if we 

don’t change things your kids will fall into the same situations.’ (Group 1) 

Given that all of these victims were from jurisdictions that have a multidisciplinary 

team in existence, it is clear that having a team does not solve the problem of domestic 

violence. Even in those jurisdictions in which a mature and functional team was 

operating, there were victims who are dissatisfied with the response. As noted, the 

selection of victims was neither random nor scientific, and these comments may not 

reflect the universal experience of victims in these jurisdictions. The explication of 

these comments is not provided as an indictment of the criminal justice system, but as 

an illustration that the teams may benefit from more systematic feedback from victims 

of domestic violence. The vast majority of comments by the victims in this study were 

negative toward the criminal justice system. A multidisciplinary team may benefit from 

-1 11- 
hearing such comments in determining what actions must be taken to better serve their 

community. 

3.7.7 Measures of Success 

What is clear from the responses of victims in this study and in other studies is 

that victims look to the criminal justice system as a resource, and if it is not viewed as a 

resource, victims will search out other, more effective resources to maintain their safety. 

Thus, statistics regarding arrest and conviction are less important than whether victims 

feel that they are being heard and whether they feel safer as a result of the criminal 

ju st ice in te wen t io n . 

Many of the DART projects reflected a similar sentiment. They maintained a 

variety of statistics, but as they discussed their work during the interviews, the team’s 

goals were victim-centered and emphasized their focus on holding offenders 

accountable while also maximizing the resources available to victims. The teams may 

benefit from systematic feedback from victims, to test whether their goals are being 

met. 

3.8 The Limits of Quantitative Analysis 

As part of the revised design, official statistics regarding domestic abuse 

assaults were collected from several jurisdictions with multidisciplinary teams. The 

qualitative process analysis demonstrated, however, that comparisons of these 

quantitative statistics would not necessarily result in accurate conclusions. 

The increase or decrease in domestic abuse assaults could reflect changes in 

the incidence of domestic violence, or it may reflect changes in policy. An increase in 

-1 12- 
domestic abuse arrests might result from increased incidence, or it might result from 

better training of police, or it might result from a policy of arresting victims in addition to 

or in lieu of arresting the offenders. Changes in convictions and sentencing might 

reflect the same variables. 

Because of the limited value of these official statistics, no quantitative analysis 

was conducted. Appendix G includes official statistics from the POET jurisdiction and 

another jurisdiction as examples of the types of official statistics that are maintained. 

4. Analysis and Discussion 

4.1 How Multidisciplinary Teams Work 

This study confirms that effective multidisciplinary teams do not simply spring up 

overnight, with the various disciplines working together effortlessly in tandem. Other 

researchers have found inconsistent implementation of new interventions. (Shepard et 

al., 2002) The development of the team is a process that occurs over several years. It 

requires support from supervisors in the participating agencies, as well as appropriate 

personnel selections, because team members must be able to work well together in 

order for the team to operate effectively. As teams developed, their common goals and 

objectives were refined. Much of the communication was indirect, and the goal-setting 

was ad hoc. 

One DART member who attended a multidisciplinary training workshop reported 

that the workshop was especially helpful to the DART project because law enforcement 

officers, prosecutors and victim advocates attended the training. The workshops 

provided opportunities for the three groups to meet together for portions of the training, 

-1 13- 
and then the various groups were divided according to discipline, and specialized 

training was provided to each discipline. The result was that members of each 

discipline learned the same general language and shared the same knowledge base, 

and each discipline had particularized training for that discipline. The team members 

left the training with a common language and with specialized skills. This provided 

team members with a model for training in their local jurisdiction, and a framework for 

continued discussions about team goals and team operations. (Team 2) 

The POET project members did not attend this multidisciplinary training, and 

POET members were resistant to training. The team members changed frequently, 

and they felt overwhelmed by the press of everyday work. 

Combining Diverse Groups. The POET and DART experiences highlighted the 

difficulty in combining forces when diverse agencies are involved in a team effort. In 

describing the history of the DART projects, all of the participants recounted serious 

difficulties in working together as a team as the project began. In most DART projects, 

there was a substantial turnover in personnel in each of the various disciplines. In only 

one instance did a DART member who initiated the project remain with the project for 

more than a year or two. Many teams described how one participant served as the 

agitator within the group in order to change some aspect of the criminal justice 

response, and when the agitator moved on to a different job, the change was actually 

accomplished. 

For example, in one DART project, a former prosecutor on the team wrote 

memos and made phone calls to police officers who provided what she deemed to be 

an inadequate investigation. Her criticism sparked an effort to develop better 

-1 14- 
investigative techniques. Police department officials met regularly to discuss 

techniques for conducting better investigations and ultimately developed an extensive 

police report form designed to guide all police officers conducting domestic abuse 

investigations. This project was conducted internally, without participation by the 

agitatorlprosecutor who later left her job. Her successor reported that the police were 

providing better quality reports and that it was unusual for him to be critical of the police 

response. The police officers involved in the team expressed pride in their policies and 

training, and emphasized that the training occurred department-wide. (Team 2) 

Support from Top Adminisfrafors. The POET project also illustrated the 

importance of having meaningful support from the top down. Some DART projects 

were developed as a result of the heads of several agencies working together to seek 

grant funding for a team effort. The agency heads made it clear that this was a priority 

for the agency, and the personnel who served on the team felt that it was a reward to 

be placed on the team. This is consistent with documentation of the development of a 

successful team developed in Philadelphia, in which police administrators took the lead 

and provided training and coordination support. (NCVC 2002) In other projects, 

however, the agency heads either took no part in (or no interest in) the project, or 

affirmatively interfered with the goals of the team, and the teams expressed greater 

frustration with the working of the team. (Team 3, Team 4) 

The POET project was not instigated by local agency officials. Rather, the 

project was developed by a state-level official and offered to the local community 

There was no sense of commitment to the project, and the project was not designed to 

meet the particular needs of the community. The agency heads did not actively 

-1 15- 
participate in the development of the project, nor did they meet at the outset to discuss 

goals, nor did they meet regularly as a team to discuss the goals and objectives. When 

they did come to a meeting specifically to address goals and objectives, there was 

disagreement among the agency heads. The team members - also in attendance at 

that meeting with their supervisors - did not have clear guidance from superiors about 

what was expected of them or how they would be rewarded for their participation. 

lntegrating Goals throughout Organizations. Finally, the DART and POET 

experiences illustrated the need to integrate goals and values within and throughout 

each organization. In one jurisdiction, the police took an active role in developing good 

investigative techniques, and training on the issues occurred often and was 

department-wide. (Team 2) They used a model investigative form as the starting point 

for their planning, and expanded and modified it to suit the needs of the particular 

department. The planning and implementation of the investigative protocol involved 

officers at all levels of the agency and was visibly supported by top administrators in the 

department. 

In two other jurisdictions, the officer assigned to the DART project found that it 

was difficult to find other officers in the department who would take the cases seriously. 

(Team 1, Team 4) Top level administrators did not provide visible support for the 

program, and street level officers did not take particular interest in domestic violence 

cases. 

Conflict within a group or between groups may be restrained when the group 

ascribes to “superordinate” goals that require cooperation in order to achieve key 

rewards. To the extent that conflict exists within the group, the conflict often is 

-1 16- 
connected with a sense of unfairness as to the contributions to the group. (Baron, et 

al., 1992). Thus, the development of a protocol - and its implementation - are likely to 

be most successful when all agencies participate, and when top administrators lend 

their imprimatur to the project in a way that is communicated to employees on the team 

and throughout each agency. Some teams seemed overwhelmed at the prospect of 

adopting a protocol from whole cloth, and expressed the view that they would 

appreciate a model protocol that would set out the parameters of the discussion and 

provide alternative means to address common issues. As a result, evaluators 

developed a model protocol, which the statewide funding agency could offer as a 

resource to DART programs. It appears in Appendix G. 

4.2 Domestic Violence Is Different 

One of the initial challenges for any multidisciplinary team is to define “success” 

for the team. Each discipline may have different goals and different ways to measure 

success within the discipline. Each discipline has practical constraints and political 

(partisan or nonpartisan) considerations. When the various agencies are combined into 

one team, it is important for the team members to recognize that their agency’s goal 

may be very different from other agency goals. The team itself must agree on common 

goals, and it may take time for the team members to recognize, appreciate and 

harmonize the varying goals and the different constraints. 

The importance and value of domestic violence work varies across jurisdictions. 

Some communities take domestic violence seriously and provide an array of resources 

for domestic violence victims. 

understanding of the problem 

Other communities, however, have very little 

and do not make it a priority. The teams must determine 

-1 17- 
not only the level of understanding within the community, but the importance of 

changing that level of understanding or raising the level of importance of the issue. 

4.3 Goal Setting 

Because the various disciplines have different goals and different constraints, 

several variables must be taken into account when setting goals for the team: 

(I) Top-down buy-in. 

When the team’s efforts are at odds with an agency head’s priorities, that team 

member’s participation may be compromised. Three examples illustrate this principle. 

First, one team hinted that the elected prosecutor was not supportive of the effort and 

on occasion would intervene in cases in order to take a plea that the team prosecutor 

did not intend to offer. (Team 4) This intervention stifled the efforts of the team, broke 

the trust that team members otherwise felt, and compromised the effectiveness of the 

team. 

Second, two teams reported that the head of the police agency allowed the 

assigned police officer great latitude in the team effort, but did nothing to encourage 

training of other officers on the force. The single officer on the team could not provide 

adequate investigative resources for all domestic violence cases, so the team was 

faced with inadequate investigations, which hampered the work of the team. (Team 1, 

Team 4) 

The third example illustrates the value of top-down support. The head of the 

police agency was very supportive of the team, and encouraged officers within the 

agency to develop training programs and reporting forms that met the needs of the 

police department and enhanced the work of the team. (Team 2) The message sent to 

-1 18- 
the officers in the department was that domestic violence in the community was a 

significant issue and that professional officers conduct a thorough and respectful 

investigation in every instance. This team also enjoyed similar support from the top 

administrators in the other agencies, who provided the necessary support for their 

employees on the team. 

(2) Agreement on values. 

The more established teams had worked through a number of disagreements 

about how the team would operate and about what was particularly important to the 

team members. The team members used similar terminology and expressed similar 

views on what was important and how success of the team should be measured. 

One team member of a well-established team described that team’s limited 

disagreements and attributed it to the overall recognition that each member of the team 

plays a different role, and those roles do not always coincide. This meant that 

disagreements would not be taken personally, and each team member could - and 

should - look at the problem from a different point of view. The team did not consider 

disagreements to be fatal to the success of the team. The disagreements did not 

involve fundamental problems with the official response to the incident. (Team 2) 

In contrast, the POET project illustrated how disagreements about fundamental 

values could damage the effectiveness of the team. Prosecution policies that were at 

odds with victim trust and victim safety caused a serious rift that was never resolved. 

The team that had the most cordial and cooperative relationships was victimcentered and community-focused. The prosecutor and police officers focused on 

victim services and community resources, as well as on meeting the challenges of 

-1 19- 
investigation and prosecution. That same team described how a prior prosecutor had 

pushed the police investigators to do better work by sending memoranda to the police 

supervisors, which created conflict at the time, but also spurred the police to work 

harder at providing better quality investigations. (Team 2) 

Even with agreement on the core values of the team, personality conflicts 

sometimes got in the way of the operation of the team sometimes. One team member 

on a team that was struggling said that conflicts were addressed by avoidance -the 

team just stopped meeting. (Team 1) 

Several teams described their fellow team members as “easy going” or 

“reasonable” or “diplomatic.” (Team 2, Team 4, Team 5) These teams also exhibited a 

higher comfort level in discussing disagreements directly. 

(3) Clearly stated goals. 

Teams with clearly stated goals had better working relationships among team 

members, so long as the goals were universally held by team members. The teams 

that focused on win-loss records or calls for service were less likely to have universally 

held goals, because the victim advocate on the team disagreed with police or 

prosecution policies more often. (Teams 4, 5) 

One team that disagreed about the issue of charging victims with aiding and 

abetting a protective order violation acknowledged at the outset that this was their 

policy and that it was not open for discussion. That team also emphasized the success 

rates in terms of percentages of cases taken to trial and resulting in conviction. At the 

same time, the team members focused on community resources and victim needs. 

(Team 5) 

-1 20- 
(4) Unstated assumptions. 

Team members alluded to conflicts within the team that reflected unstated 

assumptions about victims or about the criminal justice system. These assumptions 

often were reflected in the team members’ descriptions of “typical” domestic violence 

cases or “typical” protective order cases. No team had empirical research regarding 

domestic abuse, but in response to direct questions, each team member described 

what was typically encountered. Some team members qualified their answers, but 

others were quite comfortable in making generalizations. Some team members noted 

that domestic violence happens everywhere, across socioeconomic and raciallethnic 

lines, but others described particular groups of persons who were encountered 

regularly, or misdemeanor assaults. 

. 

The team members described few higher-level socioeconomic-level offenders or 

victims. Their focus was often on “blue collar” or unemployed offenders. The team 

members’ descriptions were not as severe as the descriptions of abuse that the victim 

interviews portrayed. This discrepancy may be the result of sampling differences, or it 

may be an indication of continued minimization of domestic abuse, or it may reflect a 

lack of trust by victims in sharing information with criminal justice officials. 

Although unstated by the team members interviewed, a theme that emerged 

from all of the interviews was that the prosecutor was the key member of the team. It is 

easier to “work around” problems with law enforcement or victim advocacy than it is to 

“work around” a prosecutor. It is the prosecutor who has ultimate discretion in bringing 

charges, making plea bargains, and directing the work of the team. Even when the 

prosecutor is not the most influential member of the team, it is the prosecutor who has 

-121- 
primary authority and it is the prosecutor who can make or break a case that is brought 

into the legal system. Without the cooperation of the prosecutor, the legal system 

cannot serve as a resource for a victim. Thus, the prosecutor may well hold the key to 

the success or failure of the team. 

Moreover, prosecution policies can have a dramatic impact on the operation of 

the team. Two teams had policies in which other prosecutors in their office prosecuted 

victims for aiding and abetting protective order violations. The elected prosecutors in 

both jurisdictions supported such a policy. One elected prosecutor said that he felt 

obligated to bring such charges because of his interpretation of statutory and case law. 

(Team 6) The other elected prosecutor said that it was necessary to bring such 

charges in order to maintain credibility with the judges in that jurisdiction, because 

victims should feel just as obligated to follow the court orders as the abusers. (Team 5) 

Both elected prosecutors said that such prosecutions were rare, but that they felt it was 

necessary to permit such an option. 

Other teams rejected a policy of charging protected parties with violating the 

protective orders they had obtained. They felt that, although it may be legally 

permissible, it sent a dangerous message and foreclosed the criminal justice system as 

a resource to victims. (Teams I, 2,4) 

4.4 Procedure and Policy Development 

Multidisciplinary teams had different experiences in the development of 

procedures and policies in responding to domestic violence. Several factors emerged 

indicating how an effective response could be'crafted. 

-1 22- 
First, the goals of the team should be communicated. Written goals, developed 

with input from all participating agencies and including the leaders of each agency, 

should be adopted and reviewed periodically. The goals should be communicated to 

persons throughout each participating agency. When domestic violence is treated as a 

significant priority, the team members feel that they are supported, their stress levels 

are reduced, and victims are more likely to view the criminal justice system as a 

valuable resource. 

Second, the goals of the team should be illustrated in daily activities. Team 

members should not be novices, but should have some experience within the agency or 

with other agencies, and should have a good working knowledge of their particular 

discipline, as well as a well developed understanding of domestic violence dynamics. 

Moreover, supportive agencies did not simply rely on team members, but expanded the 

support throughout the agency. Because of the complexity of the issues involved in 

domestic violence, it is difficult for just a few people to respond to the many cases that 

arise. At the same time, when the support network is expanded to others throughout 

the agency, it is important for all responders to understand the goals of the team and to 

respond appropriately. 

Third, regular training was provided to and by the multidisciplinary teams. Most 

teams reported that they had received high quality training, but that they needed more 

training and that others in their respective agencies also needed more training. When 

team members are appointed to a team that is designed to provide specialized work, 

more than basic training is not merely warranted, but required, in order for the teams to 

function properly. If others in the agency are asked for additional support, they must 

-1 23- 
have adequate training in order to be able to respond. In addition, training itself sends 

a strong message to everyone in the agency that the issue of domestic violence is 

significant. 

Fourth, the teams themselves would benefit from team-building consultation and 

assistance. Multidisciplinary teams face many challenges. Agency directors can 

provide support for the multidisciplinary teams through their own actions, but they also 

can benefit from having a consultant who specializes in team-building to work with 

agency leaders and with team members to ensure that the team is functioning most 

effectively. 

Finally, support for the team in terms of equipment and staffing is essential. 

Several team members who were interviewed addressed the potential for burnout for 

the various team members. One way to avoid burnout is to ensure that the team 

members receive emotional support for the work that they do, but there also must be 

some assurance that the team members are not stretched too thin, or that they are not 

required to expend energy chasing after equipment and supplies that allow them to do 

their jobs better. 

4.5 Prosecution Issues 

Interviews with the DART prosecutors suggest that domestic violence 

prosecutors face two significant challenges. First, prosecutors must learn how to use 

their authority wisely. Prosecutors wield a great deal of power within the criminal justice 

system. In fact, prosecutors probably have more power than the other members of the 

courtroom work group. By determining initial charges and by developing policies 

-1 24- 
regarding guilty pleas, the prosecutor often has the greatest input into the “going rate” 

for domestic violence cases in the jurisdiction. 

Experienced DART prosecutors have developed a “philosophy” on domestic 

violence prosecution to guide their decision making. That philosophy differs from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, one experienced DART prosecutor reported 

that his primary goal is to maximize official control over the abuser‘s actions. He does 

not focus on time spent in jail, but rather on maintaining some type of official control 

over the abuser for a long period of time. Thus, with a first-offense domestic abuse 

assault, the prosecutor &ill seek a relatively lengthy jail sentence with nearly all of the 

sentence suspended, and a long term of probation. If the abuser assaults the victim 

again, the prosecutor responds by charging an enhanced crime, seeking a longer 

sentence, again with most of it suspended, and a long probation period. If the abuser 

assaults the victim a third time, the prosecutor charges a felony offense and can 

negotiate a plea to a felony, or can accept a plea to a misdemeanor and then ask that 

the defendant serve all of the accrued jail time from the previously suspended 

sentences. The result of this prosecution strategy is that the abuser has negotiated not 

only a long term of probation, but also a long term of incarceration, which discourages 

further offending and, if the abuse continues, the long incarceration allows the victim a 

greater opportunity to leave the relationship safely. 

The second great challenge for domestic violence prosecutors is the frustration 

with “uncooperative” victims. In most criminal prosecutions, victims are pleased when 

the prosecutor pursues criminal charges vigorously. Many domestic violence victims, 

however, take a different view. Many domestic abuse victims are reluctant to cooperate 

-1 25- 
with the prosecution. They may fear the personal ramifications if the abuser feels that 

the victim is responsible for his fate. The victim may feel that it is necessary to have the 

abuser available to provide financial support to the family and therefore the victim is not 

willing to assist in the criminal prosecution. Or the victim may simply hope that the 

violence will stop and the relationship will continue, and the victim may feel that the 

criminal prosecution does not allow the couple to move on with their relationship. 

Inexperienced prosecutors often have not developed an approach to prosecution 

generally, and often are frustrated by the victims’ failure to appreciate the prosecutor’s 

efforts at vigorous prosecution. Some inexperienced prosecutors will respond to victim 

reluctance by “forcing” victims to cooperate - and failing to anticipate that such strongarm prosecution tactics may drive victims even further from the criminal justice system, 

thereby further endangering victim safety because the victim will not call for help. 

Several themes emerged in the interviews with prosecutors with more 

experience: (1) they did not perceive the victim’s reluctance to cooperate as a personal 

affront to the prosecutor; (2) they viewed prosecution as a consideration in the victim’s 

life, but not the paramount consideration; (3) they did not view resolution of the case as 

a resolution of the violence and were more likely to view leaving as a process; and (4) 

they focused on long-term and more widespread efforts to hold the abuser accountable. 

The first prosecutor in the POET project, who had previous legal experience but 

no experience as a prosecutor, did not participate in training on domestic violence, and 

expressed frustration with victims because of their reluctance to participate in criminal 

prosecutions and because they did not leave the relationship on the timeline that the 

prosecutor set but for them. The second prosecutor, who had even less experience as 

-1 26- 
a lawyer and no experience as a prosecutor, took a very different approach. He 

attended training early in his tenure, focused more on cooperative relationships with all 

of the other team members, and made an effort to balance competing concerns. This 

approach reduced the tension among POET members. Nonetheless, the team was so 

young and the second prosecutor's tenure was so short that the team was never able to 

accomplish the goal of enhanced services. 

4.6 Using Risk Assessment Instruments 

Most multidisciplinary teams used some type of risk assessment. There remains 

some dispute about whether risk assessment instruments are valuable or useful, and 

how those risk assessment tools are formulated. 

It is unlikely that any risk assessment tool could be developed that would predict 

the behavior of a particular offender. There are, however, some benefits to the use of 

risk assessment tools. Perhaps the greatest value is to emphasize the potential 

lethality of many of the domestic violence cases that occur - not only to the 

multidisciplinary team members and others in their respective agencies, but also to the 

targets of the violence. 

Risk assessment is one part of safety planning, but it cannot provide protection 

to victims, nor can it substitute for a coordinated response to domestic violence, which 

is most likely to effectively reduce or eliminate violence. 

Good risk assessment instruments can be used to identify high risk cases. But 

effective risk assessment depends on pertinent information about the abuser, the victim 

and their relationship. Often, only the victim can provide the most pertinent information. 

In order to obtain information from victims, the victims must trust the public officials who 

-1 27- 
will receive the information, because sharing information can lead to retaliation by the 

abuser or by the criminal justice officials who can use the information to prosecute the 

victim or to devalue her case. Trust in public officials builds over time, and depends on 

mutual reliance. 

Effective multidisciplinary teams operate with high trust levels. The degree of 

trust in any multidisciplinary team depends on several factors: (a) support for the 

program by the highest level administrators of each participating agency; (b) 

communication skills and overall understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence 

by multidisciplinary team members and others in the agency who help to respond, and 

(c) the small group dynamics in the multidisciplinary team that create a sense of trust. 

Thus, risk assessment instruments can be a part of an effective multidisciplinary 

response. But reliance on them should be both realistic and limited. 

4.6.1 Gathering Information 

A risk assessment is only as effective as the value of the information that forms 

the basis for the assessment. Victims generally are the best source of information, 

because they have the most information. This is particularly true in situations in which 

the victim has been isolated from others or when most of her actions are strictly 

controlled by the abuser - the very cases in which risk is often assessed to be the 

highest. 

Information can be gathered from other sources, but it is not as likely to be as 

complete as when it is provided by the victim. As discussed below, this is most likely to 

happen when the victim has a high level of trust that the criminal justice officials will 

share her primary concern for safety. 

-1 28- 
4.6.2 Sharing Information with Others 

A response to a high risk depends on the right people knowing that it is a high 

risk situation, and very often, that information must be shared with others who can play 

a role in managing the risk. Multidisciplinary team members do not have the time to 

provide full risk management activities, and the team can operate most effectively if 

there is support throughout the various agencies so that the necessary resources can 

be devoted to risk management. 

4.6.3 Victim Safety Issues 

Victims may or may not be good at assessing their own risk. The victims usually 

are the ones with the most access to information that is relevant to risk assessment, but 

they may not be the best qualified to determine whether the risk is high. (Campbell et 

al., 2003) The pattern of abuse may make it difficult for victims to distinguish the 

higher-risk factors; they may suffer from post-traumatic stress or traumatic bonding that 

skews their view of risk; or they may have a love or a sense of loyalty to the abuser that 

makes it difficult for them to see the genuine risk that they face. 

Telling victims about their risk may be helpful or harmful. If genuine, material 

support can be provided, then sharing information about risk may reduce stress. If no 

support is provided, however, a better understanding of the risk may only increase 

stress without providing any avenues for relief. 

4.7 The Importance of Trust 

Because sharing information can be dangerous to a victim, the importance of 

trust cannot be overestimated. Domestic violence victims generally are isolated from 

-1 29- 
support systems. As they seek out resources in their efforts to leave, they often test the 

validity of those resources, and discover which resources they can count on to be there 

when they make the next attempt to leave the violent relationship. When they discover 

that a resource cannot be relied upon, they seek out other, more reliable resources. 

The initial POET prosecutor did not ascribe to victim-centered prosecution 

principles, which created a fundamental mistrust by victim advocates. The mistrust in 

the team prosecutor was compounded when the POET prosecutor sought and received 

support for her actions from her supervisor, who took the position that the county 

attorney’s office would prosecute aiding-and-abetting violations of protective orders 

against victims. State law permits the prosecution of aiding-and-abetting protective 

order violations, but the county attorney rarely, if ever, pursued such prosecutions. 

Even a slight risk of arrest and prosecution, however, can generate a fundamental 

mistrust of the prosecution by victims, who conclude that the legal system is not an 

effective resource for them. A mistrust of the legal system hampers the success of a 

domestic abuse response team and presents a substantial challenge to the success of 

the POET program. 

The practical result of this fundamental mistrust was that the victim advocate on 

the POET project did not fully encourage victim participation or cooperation with the 

grant requirements, because in her job as an advocate, she had to consider the best 

interests of the victim. When the advocate did not trust the prosecutor or the police to 

consider the best interests of the victim, she felt that she must warn the victim of the 

potential risk that information could be used against her by her abuser or by the criminal 

justice officials. 

-1 30- 
The original design of the program had dramatically underestimated the 

importance of trust. The depth of understanding of domestic violence has grown 

substantially in the past decade, as a result of far more systematic research on 

domestic violence issues. The process of changing centuries-old societal perceptions 

of domestic violence can be daunting, and requires the ability to parse the assumptions 

underlying those perceptions, as well as the time required to absorb new ideas. 

4.8 Threat Assessment 

The use of the threat assessment instrument was curtailed when the victim 

advocate expressed great reluctance in using the threat assessment instrument, citing 

victim safety concerns. Some victims reported a reluctance to participate in the criminal 

justice system because they were not ready to separate from their abusers and were 

unwilling to share the information sought in the threat assessment instrument. Some 

victims expressed concern for their own safety in revealing information about 

themselves, their abusers and their relationships. The protocol for administering the 

threat assessment instrument called for the victim advocate to be present; the advocate 

was not always readily available when the victim had contact with the police, and the 

advocate had difficulty in reaching the victims by telephone or by mail. 

The advocate expressed concern about using the threat assessment because it 

frightened the victim by pointing out the lethality factors in an very organized way, and 

the advocate could not assure the victim that police would provide additional 

surveillance or other assistance to the victim. Although the advocate assisted the victim 

in safety planning, she did not view the threat assessment tool as a means to enhance 

safety planning. 

-131- 
The first POET advocate was inexperienced, and had not developed the skills to 

discuss lethality with victims. Those lethality factors were not reduced when the victim 

was not aware of the danger, so sharing information with the victim did not increase the 

danger. It certainly did increase the victim’s perception of danger, but the 

inexperienced advocate was not prepared to respond to the increased concern. She 

preferred instead to avoid discussing lethality. 

4.9 Group Processes 

The POET project struggled with 100% turnover of personnel during the 18- 

month grant period. Personnel changes are not unusual for a response team. In fact, 

the experience of established response teams demonstrated that personnel turnover is 

the norm, and that it is substantial, especially in the early stages of the team. 

Organizational theory supports this conclusion. When people are brought 

together to form a group, they must conform their behavior to an unspecified group 

norm, and they must learn to adapt their personal styles to those of the other group 

members. When one agency joins another agency, there is a tendency to resist 

change in attitude and policy that has been established in each agency, and it takes 

time for the team to begin to develop its own group norms. 

4.9.1 Group Dynamics 

Researchers have studied group processes for decades, and have identified 

some of the key elements that affect the functioning of a team. For example, social 

facilitation theory holds that simply having people watch a person perform tends to 

increase that person’s performance. But social impairment theory holds that a person’s 

-1 32- 
performance may be impaired by having an audience. (Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992) 

Zajonc theorized that this apparent dichotomy could be explained by the concept of 

“drive,” that is, a person has a heightened sense of alertness, excitement and 

motivation when there is an audience. With this heightened drive, when asked to 

perform tasks that are well-learned (and therefore easy), a person will perform 

particularly well when there is an audience. When asked to perform tasks that are not 

learned as well, however, the person may perform more poorly when there is an 

audience. (Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992). 

Thus, it is not surprising that the teams with longer tenure often demonstrated 

more cohesive teamwork. As the team matured - and as team members matured -the 

comfort level in accomplishing tasks increased, and as their jobs became more welllearned, the various team members were driven to perform better when other team 

members were paying attention to their work. 

Other research suggests that “groups were generally more effective than 

individuals, while individuals were usually more eficienf than groups.” There may be 

“coordination losses” when the members of a group do not organize their efforts 

optimally, and there may be “motivation losses” when group members are not optimally 

motivated. There may also, however, be “motivation gains” in a group that works 

optimally. (Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992). 

This, too, was borne out in the interviews with DART projects. Groups that had 

worked through their differences generally used the same language in describing their 

team efforts, had similar perceptions of the challenges that victims faced, and described 

ways that the team members worked together and shared information and ideas in 

-1 33- 
trying to respond to domestic violence cases. 

The ability of a group to problem-solve depends on several factors. Having a 

member of the group who is able to solve the problem does not guarantee success in 

problem-solving : 

[Glroup members who can solve the problem, but who have low status in 

the group may be less willing or able to present their solution. 

Furthermore, that solution may be under-valued by the rest of the group 

because of their low status. . . . 

confidence in their solution. The less confidence you have in your 

solution (even if it might be a correct solution), the less likely you are to 

propose, let alone defend, that solution in the group. . . . 

Another factor which seems likely to affect solvers’ behavior is their 

*** 

[Glroups sometimes fall short of their potential because the most 

capable member in the group is not always the most confident, talkative or 

high status member. (Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992). 

As a group develops, it is more likely that group members will conform to group 

norms. The leader in the group is more likely to articulate a position that is later 

adopted by others in the group (“groupthink), and the members of the group become 

more set on that norm as they adopt the norm (“group polarization”), particularly if the 

norm is value-based rather than information-based. Interestingly, though, a minority 

position may have a greater influence on individuals if the minority position is reinforced 

privately or individually, rather than in the presence of a large group. That minority 

influence is greater when more than one person expresses agreement with the belief. 

(Baron, Kerr & Miller, 1992). Several experienced DART advocates described how they 

worked with prosecutors and police officers - outside of the DART meetings - to 

change their views on domestic violence policies and procedures, and their handling of 

individual cases. 

-1 34- 
Setting goals requires leadership and vision. The leader must have credibility 

with all team members, and the vision must be stated clearly, set out a significant goal, 

and engage the team members. (Robbins & Finley, 2000) 

A proper goal hones in on . . . the natural disposition of people to 

work together on teams. It begins with the vision of a the leader that a 

task is desirable and performable, in human terms. The leader may be a 

member of the team or a core of members within the team, or may even 

function primarily outside the team. But he or she (or they) must have 

credibility within the team. 

aspiration. Concrete means real, visionable, something that, when you 

hear it, you can almost taste it. 

The vision is translated by credible leadership into a concrete 

*** 

If the goal is clear enough and engages people’s hearts as well as 

their minds, the goal itself assumes much of the burden of leadership. It’s 

so good it lives on its own. (Robbins & Finley, 2000) 

A goal should set out a task (what the team will do), provide a promised limit of 

what the team will do, establish a promised level of performance, set out a deadline for 

perFormance, and define the customer who will receive the result of the work. In order 

to achieve the goal, the .team’s objectives must fit in with larger goals of their own 

separate organizations. (Robbins & Finley, 2000) 

Teams also must decide, before decisions are made, what decision-making 

method will be used. This can reduce or eliminate a lot of hard feelings by members of 

the group. The teams also must be empowered to make decisions. Team members 

should understand when they make decisions, and be supported by their managers in 

the decisions that they make. (Robbins & Finley, 2000) 

Teams will function more effectively if they understand the varying roles of the 

team members. This means that all members of the team must know the task that they 

are expected to complete, without unnecessary restrictions placed on them, and with 

-1 35- 
assurance that even the menial or unpleasant tasks will be completed. (Robbins & 

Finley, 2000) 

DART projects reflected these principles as well. The prosecutors were viewed 

as the leaders of each team, because the prosecutor was the person who made 

charging decisions and moved the case through the criminal justice system. As the 

members described the workings of their particular team, however, it was apparent that 

each team had one member that was most influential, regardless of that team 

member’s position of power on the team. In only one of the groups was the prosecutor 

the most influential member of the team. In one group, the victim-witness coordinator 

had the most influence; in another, the victim advocate had the greatest influence; and 

the police officer member had the greatest influence in a third group. The other group 

was not sufficiently functional to provide opportunities to interview all members of the 

team. Based on the information that was provided, however, it appeared that the police 

officer members were more influential than the other members of the team. 

In addition, being part of a group may help to reduce stress, at least if the group 

provides calm companionship. Social support generally is helpful in many situations to 

reduce stress. It is particularly helpful in situations in which a person is fearful. Stress 

is increased, however, when the social support is critical, thoughtless or otherwise 

unhelpful or when all members of the social network are victims of stress. (Baron, Kerr 

& Miller, 1992). 

In the interviews with DART members, the group interactions were strong 

indicators of the level of support that the members felt. For example, in one team 

interview, the various members finished sentences for other team members or 

-1 36- 
expanded upon an idea, and all members of the team provided input in answering the 

questions. (Team 2) In contrast, in another team interview, the victim advocate 

offered little information and all team members looked to the prosecutor to answer 

questions, and there was a clear sense of tension or unease during the interview. 

(Team 1) 

Conflict within a group or between groups may be restrained when the group 

ascribes to “superordinate” goals that require cooperation in order to achieve key 

rewards. To the extent that conflict exists within the group, the conflict often is 

connected with a sense of unfairness as to the contributions to the group. (Baron, Kerr 

& Miller, 1992). 

Again, the DART interviews supported this principle. The team that appeared to 

work best together used similar language, had common understandings about the 

workings of the legal system and the level of the caseload, and talked about the 

important contributions of other team members. (Team 2) In contrast, another team 

had a high level of discomfort because of a lack of trust with the prosecutor‘s office. 

Although the team members got along well with the prosecutor assigned to the team, 

two members on the team alluded to the fact that the elected prosecutor sometimes 

intervened in domestic cases in order to accept plea bargains that the DART prosecutor 

would not have approved. (Team 4) This caused serious concerns for team members, 

but they did not ascribe the problem to the prosecutor assigned to the team. Instead, 

they recognized the dilemma that the team prosecutor faced, and worked to find ways 

to avoid the problem (by honing investigative skills and encouraging public support for 

the team efforts). 

-1 37- 
Perhaps the most important finding was the inability to get two of the teams to 

meet together to talk. In one of the teams, the prosecutor had a reputation for failing or 

refusing to take a case to trial. This meant that the defense bar could take advantage 

of the prosecutor‘s failures, and receive significant concessions by demanding a trial. 

(Team 3) Another team described a similar dilemma with a prior DART prosecutor. 

The new prosecutor acknowledged the previous “going rate” in the criminal justice 

community, and outlined plans to change that “going rate” to a standard that the team 

felt was more appropriate. Significantly, however, the victim advocate remained 

tentative in the support for the incoming prosecutor. This is not surprising, given the 

long tradition in the prosecutor’s office to diminish the importance of domestic violence 

cases. (Team I) 

4.9.3 The Significance of Trust 

The value of trust cannot be underestimated. Logic suggests that victims of 

domestic violence will not share information with criminal justice officials unless they 

sense that the criminal justice officials share the victim’s primary concern for safety. 

Domestic violence victims are in the habit of intuiting safety issues, anticipating 

potential harm, and reading subtle cues - those are survival skills that victims must 

develop in order to survive a persistent pattern of abuse at home. This means that 

victims are likely to recognize whether team members are genuinely concerned for the 

victim’s safety, or whether their primary focus is on case processing. Thus, information 

from victims most likely will be forthcoming when victims believe that the 

multidisciplinary team members have the victim’s interests at heart. 

Advocates, whose primary duties are to victims, also will be sensitive to whether 

-1 38- 
the multidisciplinary team will keep the victim’s safety issues paramount. The 

advocates can encourage victims to trust CJ officials, or encourage victims to rely on 

other resources in managing the risks the victims face. The advocates are key 

members of the multidisciplinary teams, and teams are more likely to function 

effectively when advocates are treated with respect within the team, even though they 

are not part of the CJ system. 

Effective threat management requires the cooperation of many people, but trust 

levels must be high in order to share information with a broader range of people. 

Victims take a risk themselves when they share information with the multidisciplinary 

team, and that risk is compounded when the information is shared with others outside 

of the team. Victims must know who will receive information and whether the receivers 

will have the victim’s safety at heart, in order for them to feel comfortable in sharing 

information at all. 

4.10 The Role of the Evaluator 

Multidisciplinary domestic abuse response teams face myriad challenges, and 

often encounter debate and disagreement, within and outside of the team. Evaluating 

the work of a multidisciplinary team carries its own issues of trust. (Allen & Hagen, 

2003) Team members who are concerned that their teams will be evaluated poorly 

may not be as forthcoming with information. They may feel defensive or may appear 

evasive when weaknesses in the team are questioned. They may question the 

qualifications of the evaluator to assess the work of the team. Not surprisingly, team 

members and agency heads may wish to present themselves in the best light, 

particularly if a negative evaluation can affect funding or create issues for publicly 

-1 39- 
elected officials. 

In any event, the teams can benefit from an outside evaluation that is designed 

to strengthen the team. Just as victims need assurance that their personal safety is the 

paramount concern of the multidisciplinary team, the team members themselves need 

assurance that the evaluator's goal is betterment of the team. 

In this study, the evaluation was originally designed to assess the value of a 

multidisciplinary team focused on risk assessment, but it became an examination of the 

workings of the teams themselves. Not all team members made themselves available 

for interviews, and some team members were evasive in their responses to the 

structured interview questions. It appears that this was due, in large part, to concerns 

about the effects of a negative evaluation. 

The various failures to cooperate with the evaluation interview strongly suggests 

that evaluation assistance that is geared toward team improvement rather than toward 

an impact evaluation would be highly beneficial. Multidisciplinary teams are asked to 

perform.difficult tasks with limited resources, often in a community environment that 

denigrates the importance of domestic violence work. Basic principles of teamwork 

indicate that expert consultation with teams - focused on improving teamwork -would 

help the team members to function more effectively as a team, and reduce their levels 

of stress. This component of an evaluation often is missing, and could enhance the 

operation of the team. 

5. Conclusions and Implications of Findings 

The limitations of empirical research on multidisciplinary teams is an indication of 

-1 40- 
the need for further research. This study sets out some of the factors that could be 

evaluated, and suggests some additional resources that may be helpful making 

multidisciplinary teams work better together. 

5.1 The Limits of Multidisciplinary Teams 

Although the combined resources of several agencies can be more effective 

than the work of each agency individually, forming a multidisciplinary team is not 

automatically the answer to domestic violence. How the team is formed and how it is 

maintained makes a difference as to its success. The agency values affect success, as 

well. 

Multidisciplinary teams can be effective in what they do, but their goals really do 

matter. The multidisciplinary team can be effective in stopping violence, or it can more 

effectively punish “uncooperative” or reluctant victims. Having a multidisciplinary team 

increases the potential to help or to harm victims. A team that is misdirected can 

magnify problems for domestic violence victims. It illustrates the wisdom of the old saw: 

“I’ve got good news and bad news; the bad news is that we’re lost; the good news is 

that we’re making great time.” 

The development of a multidisciplinary team takes time and effort, and it takes 

several years for the team to coalesce in order to respond to basic domestic violence 

issues. A team is not equipped to handle special tasks until it has been well 

established, the team members are working well together as a team, and the goals of 

any new assignments are clearly stated. 

5.2 The Limits of Risk Assessment 

-141- 
Research on risk assessment is relatively new, and much of the current research 

is focused on retrospective study of domestic violence cases. There may be some 

benefit to conducting a longitudinal study - such as the one originally planned for this 

evaluation - in order to explore the factors that might be measured. 

In conducting a longitudinal study, however, it is important to account for the 

potential risk to victims. A risk assessment is valuable only so long as there is 

adequate information about the potential risk. Victims may be endangering themselves 

further by sharing information with criminal justice officials who are best equipped to 

address threat management options. If the criminal justice officials are not victimfocused, the information provided by the victim may be used against her, either by 

criminal justice officials or by offenders who can obtain access to the information. 

In the end, the optimum response may be the criminal justice officials’ reliance 

on a victim advocate’s overall assessment of risk. That is, when an advocate reports 

that a victim is in danger, criminal justice officials should pay attention and use the 

power of the legal system as a resource for a victim in need. When a team operates 

with a high level of trust, reliance on a victim advocate’s assessment may be sufficient. 

Even if there is a high trust level and victims feel comfortable in sharing 

information, it is important to remember that risk assessment is not static. The 

assessment must be ongoing, because facts change and the risk assessment changes 

over time. 

5.3 Making Multidisciplinary Teams Work 

Forming a multidisciplinary team is challenging. If agency heads and the day-today members of the team are aware of common interactional issues that teams 

-1 42- 
encounter - and ways to respond effectively to those interactional issues - the 

development of the team can be enhanced. Even in the best circumstances, however, 

the team does not coalesce automatically, nor does it remain static over time. 

Understanding the growing pains inherent in team building may reduce conflict and 

shortcut deficiencies. Continued efforts to improve the team will help it to grow and 

change as the agency values and community values change. 

Domestic violence cases are different from other criminal cases, and often very 

stressful for those who are called upon to respond to the violence. Domestic violence 

involves persistent patterns of abuse, with constant concerns for personal safety, and 

with an impact on every aspect of the victim's life. Much of domestic violence is 

counter-intuitive. Love and violence may co-exist and victims often feel ambivalent 

about leaving a violent relationship. The batterer's thought processes and behavior 

patterns often are difficult to comprehend, even when the patterns are identified as 

abusive patterns. The effects of trauma on victims may make their responses appear 

illogical or unwise. Traumatic bonding may make it more difficult for victims to leave the 

abusive relationship. Team members who face this reality on a daily basis may face 

high levels of stress and may risk burn-out if that stress is not addressed. A team that 

functions effectively as a team can provide not only the resources that a victim needs, 

but also the support for team members that is critically important in reducing secondary 

traumatization effects. 

For the team members called upon to respond to domestic violence cases, 

information-sharing is especially important, and depends on high trust levels. Risk 

I 

assessment can be done effectively only by a well-established team with high levels of 

-1 43- 
trust and a deep understanding of the dynamics of abuse and effects of trauma on the 

victim. 

To the extent that victims seek out resources in their efforts to stop the violence 

or leave the relationship, a criminal justice response is a good start but not the sole 

answer for victims. Even a well-established and functional multidisciplinary team within 

the criminal justice system cannot provide all of the resources that every victim needs. 

It may, however, serve as a supportive gateway to other community resources. Or it 

can place barriers in the path toward safety. 

The multidisciplinary team will have a significant impact on victims - either 

positive or negative. That is why it is particularly important for multidisciplinary team 

members and their supervisors to set their goals with care and to follow through with 

support for victim safety. It is important for the participating agencies to communicate 

those goals to others within the respective agencies, and to encourage the 

development of more community resources, in order to offer the greatest array of 

resources for each victim. 

The multidisciplinary team has the potential to be an important resource, but it 

cannot in itself reduce the incidence or prevalence of domestic violence. 

5.4 Conclusion 

The POET project did not live up to the high expectations of the program plan. 

The fundamental flaw was the failure to reach consensus regarding the underlying 

purposes of the team. Although team members were interested in seeing incidents of 

domestic abuse decline, the team never reached a consensus about the assumptions 

underlying the criminal justice response. The team agreed on the ends, but not the 

-1 44- 
means to achieve the ends. 

Those underlying deficiencies were reflected in the team members’ inability to 

work together as a team -which was manifested by perceived personality differences 

and explicit or de facto failures to cooperate. In addition, the deficiencies in the failure 

to agree on an overall goal were exacerbated by substantial personnel changes. 

The end result was a fundamental lack of trust among team members. The 

divisions that erupted early in the grant were never fully repaired, and the participating 

agencies were unwilling or unable to provide additional resources to bolster the work of 

the POET project. 

In addition, as was typical of many teams in the early stages of development, 

POET project members had not come to appreciate that a victim’s rejection of the 

criminal justice response is not a personal slight. More experienced DART members 

expressed views that demonstrated their understanding that victims reach out for 

whatever resources are available, but only so long as those resources are valuable to 

the victim at the time they are available. The criminal justice response is not always 

valuable to a victim, and its value may vary from time to time. A victim’s reluctance or 

refusal to work with criminal justice officials is neither a reflection on the officials nor on 

the case. It is a reflection on the sad reality of the dynamics of domestic abuse. The 

abuser will manipulaje those persons and those agencies who can be manipulated, and 

the victim is left to fend off whatever action the abuser takes, in whatever way is 

possible. Sometimes the victim’s actions are consistent with criminal justice goals, and 

sometimes they are not. Criminal justice officials must decide how to respond in a way 

that does not harm victims and that achieves the goals of the criminal justice system. 

-145- 
Identifying high-risk cases and dedicating additional criminal justice resources to 

those cases may be a lofty goal. It is not a goal that is likely to be achieved by a new 

multidisciplinary team, because it requires a high level of trust and cooperation among 

team members. 

In addition, the value of a threat assessment depends in large part on the 

amount of information that is available to assess risk. The victim often is the richest 

source of information, but if the victim shares information with police or prosecution 

officials, that information may have to be disclosed to the defendanvabuser. This may 

subject a victim to further risk of harm in retaliation for her disclosure, and may make a 

victim reluctant to return to the criminal justice system as a resource. It may be more 

effective to allow victims to share information with victim advocates, who can maintain 

the confidentiality of the information and assist the victim in safety planning. In turn, 

victim advocates who are part of a well-established group with a high level of trust may 

be able to alert police and prosecutors to cases that pose a particularly high risk, 

without revealing the details underlying the assessment. 

References 

Nicole E. Allen. 2001. An overview of domestic violence coordinating councils, 

committees and task forces in the state of Michigan. Urbana, Illinois: University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Nicole E. Allen & Leslie A. Hagen. 2003. A Practical Guide to Evaluating Domestic 

Violence Coordinating Councils. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on 

Domestic Violence. 

Earl Babbie. 2001. The Basics of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson 

Learning . 

Ola W. Barnett. 2000. Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part I. Trauma, Violence 

and Abuse, 1 (4), 343-372. 

-146- 
Robert S. Baron, Norbert L. Kerr & Norman Miller. 1992. Group Process, Group 

Decision, Group Action. Birmingham, England: Open University Press. 

Jennifer A. Bennice, Patricia A. Resick, Mindy Mechanic ti Millie Astin. 2003. “The 

Relative Effects of Intimate Partner Physical and Sexual Violence on Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder Symptomology.” Violence & Victims, 18, 87-94 (2003) 

Bruce L. Berg. 1995. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 2nd Ed. 

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Sarah Fenstermaker Berk & Donileen R. Loseke. 1980-81. “Handling” Family 

Violence: Situational Determinants of Police Arrest in Domestic Disturbances. Law and 

Society Review, 1531 7-346. 

Lucy Berliner. 2003. Making Domestic Violence Victims Testify. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 666-668. 

G.B. Bitter, 1977. From Conflict to Coalition: Disability Groups, Parents, Professionals. 

Volta Review, 79(5), 31 7-326. 

Block, Carolyn Rebbeca. 1992. The Murders that Can Be Prevented. The Compiler, 

Spring 1992, 8-10. 

Mary P. Brewster. 2000. “Stalking by Former Intimates: Verbal Threats and Other 

Predictors of Physical Violence.” Violence & Victims, 15, 41-54. 

Angela Browne. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: Free Press. 

Jessia G. Burke, Andrea Carlson Gielen, Karen A. McDonnell, Patricia O’Campo & 

Suzanne Maman. 2001. The Process of Ending Abuse in Intimate Relationships. 

Violence Against Women, 7(1), 1144-1 163. 

Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa. 1996. Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Eve Buzawa, Thomas L. Austin & Carl G. Buzawa . 1995. Responding to Crimes of 

Violence Against Women: Gender Differences Versus Organizational Imperatives. 

Crime and Delinquency, 41 :443-466. 

Deborah I. Bybee & Cris M. Sullivan. 2002. The Process Through Which an Advocacy 

Intervention Resulted in Positive Change for Battered Women Over Time. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 103-1 32. 

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Daniel Webster, Jane Koziol-McLain, Carolyn Block, Doris 

Campbell, Mary Ann Curry, Faye Gary, Nancy Glass, Judith McFarlane, Carolyn Sachs, 

-147- 
Phyllis Sharps, Yvonne Ulrich, Susan A. Wilt, Jennifer Manganello, Xiao Xu, Janet 

Schollenberger, Victoria Frye, & Kathryn Laughon. 2003. Risk Factors for Femicide in 

Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study. American Journal 

of Public Health 93, 1089-1097 

Jacqueline Campbell. 1992. The Danger Assessment Instrument: Risk Factors of 

Homicide of and by Battered Women. Questions and Answers in Lethal and NonLethal Violence: Proceedings of the First Annual Workshop of the Homicide Research 

Working Group 

Jacqueline Campbell. 1986. Assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. 

Advances in Nursing Science, 8(4), 36-51. 

Jeewon Cheong, Jule A. Patock-Peckham & Craig T. Nagoshi. 2001. Effects of 

Alcoholic Beverage, Instigation, and Inhibition on Expectancies of Aggressive Behavior. 

Violence & Victims, 16, 173-184. 

Ann L. Coker, Keith E. Davis, lleana Arias, Sujata Desai, Maureen Sanderson, Heather 

M. Brant, and Paige H. Smith. 2002. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 

260-269. 

Martha L. Coulter & Ronald A. Chez. 1997. “Domestic Violence Victims Support 

Mandatory Reporting: For Others.” Journal of Family Violence, 12349-356. 

Keith E. Davis, Ann L. Coker & Maureen Sanderson. 2002. “Physical and Mental 

Health Effects of Being Stalked for Men and Women.” Violence & Victims, 17,429-443 

(2002). 

Robert C. Davis, Arthur J. Lurigio & Wesley G. Skogan . 1997. Victims of Crime. 2d 

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Robert C. Davis & Barbara Smith. 1995. Domestic Violence Reforms: Empty Promises 

or Fulfilled Expectations? Crime and Delinquency, 41 541 -552. 

R. Emerson Dobash & Russell P. Dobash. 1987. Violence Towards Wives. In J. 

Orford (Ed.). Coping with Disorders in the Family. Surrey: Guilford Press. 

Catherine Popham Durant. 2003. When to Arrest: What Influences Police 

Determination to Arrest When There is a Report of Domestic Violence? Southern 

California Review of Law & Women’s Studies, 12, 301-335. 

Dutton, Donald G., & Painter, Susan L. 1981. Traumatic bonding: The development of 

emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse. 

Victimology: An International Journal, 1, 139-1 55. 

-148- 
Melanie Livet Dye & Keith E. Davis. 2003. “Stalking and Psychological Abuse: 

Common Factors and Relationship-Specific Characteristics.” Violence & Victims, 18, 

163-1 80. 

Leonard P. Edwards. 1992. “Reducing Family Violence: The Role of the Family 

Violence Council.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal. Reno, Nevada: National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

Jane W. Ellis. 1984. “Prosecutorial Discretion to Charge in Cases of Spousal Assault: 

A Dialogue.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 7556-1 02. 

Kathryn Ann Farr. 2002. “Battered Women Who Were ‘Being Killed and Survived It’: 

Straight Talk from Survivors.” Violence & Victims, 17,267-281. 

Farrington, David P. 1989. Long-Term Prediction of Offending and Other Life 

Outcomes. In Hermann Wegener, Friedrich Losel, and Jochen Haisch, Criminal 

Behavior and the Justice System: Psychological Perspectives. New York: SpringVerlag. 

Farrington, David P. and Roger Tarling. 1985. Prediction in Criminology. Albany, New 

York: State University of New York Press. 

Robert Fein, Bryan Vossekuil & Gwen Holden. 1995. Threat Assessment: An 

Approach to Targeted Violence. Washington, D.C.: NIJ. 

Marilyn Fernandez, Kichi lwamoto & Bernadette Muscat. 1997. Dependency and 

Severity of Abuse: Impact on Women’s Persistence in Utilizing the Court System as 

Protection Against Domestic Violence. Women and Criminal Justice, 9(1):38-63. 

Ruth E. Fleury. 2002. Missing Voices. Violence Against Women, 8(2), 181 -205. 

Diane R. Follingstad, Margaret M. Runge, April Ace, Robert Buzan & Cindy Helff. 2001. 

Justifiability, Sympathy Level, and InternaVExternal Locus of the Reasons Battered 

Women Remain in Abusive Relationships. Violence & Victims, 16, 621 -644. 

David Ford. 2003. Coercing Victim Participation in Domestic Violence Prosecutions. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 669-684. 

David Ford. 1993. Wife Battery and Criminal Justice: A Study of Victim DecisionMaking. Family Relations, 32:463-475. 

David Ford. 1991. Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource: A Note on Empowering 

Women in Violent Conjugal Relationships. Law and Society Review, 2531 3-34. 

Lawrence M. Friedman. 1985. A History of American Law. 2d ed. New York: Simon 

-1 49- 
and Schuster. 

Richard Gelles. 1997. Intimate Violence in Families. 3d Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Richard Gelles & Claire Pedrick Cornell . 1990. Intimate Violence in Families. 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Glaser, Daniel. 1962. Prediction Tables as Accounting Devices for Judges and Parole 

Boards. Crime and Delinquency, 8,239-258. 

Glaser, Barney G. and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: 

Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: de Gruyters. 

Corrine Glesne. 1999. Becoming Qualitative Researchers. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: 

Longman. 

Edward Gondolf & Ellen Fisher, The Survivor Theory: Battered Women as Survivors: 

An Alternative to Treating Learned Helplessness 1 1-1 8, 20-24 (Lexington Books, 1988) 

Jessica R. Goodkind, Tameka L. Gillum, Deborah I. Bybee & Cris M. Sullivan. The 

Impact of Family and Friends' Reactions on the Well-Being of Women with Abusive 

Partners. Violence Against Women, 9(3), 347-373 (2003). 

Lisa A. Goodman, Mary Ann Dutton & Lauren Bennett. 2000. Predicting Repeat Abuse 

Among Arrested Batterers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15( I), 63-74. 

Sascha Griffing, Deborah Fish Ragin, Robert E. Sage, Lorraine Madry, Lewis E. 

Bingham & Beny J. Primm. 2002. Domestic Violence Survivors' Self-Identified 

Reasons for Returning to Abusive Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

17(3), 306-31 9. 

Eric L. Han. 2003. Mandatory Arrest and No-Drop Policies: Victim Empowerment in 

Domestic Violence Cases. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 23, 159-1 91. 

Roma M. Harris & Patricia Dewdney . 1994. Barriers to Information: How Formal Help 

Systems Fail Battered Women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 

Michael I. Harrison. 1994. Diagnosing Organizations. 2"d Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Carolyn Copps Hartley. 2003. A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to the Trial 

Process in Domestic Violence Felony Trials. Violence Against Women, 9(4), 41 0-437. 

Kris Henning & Lisa M. Klesges. 2002. "Utilization of Counseling and Supportive 

-1 50- 
Services by Female Victims of Domestic Abuse.“ Violence & Victims, 17, 623-636. 

Kris Henning & Lisa M. Klesges. 2003. “Prevalence and Characteristics of 

Psychological Abuse Reported by Court-Involved Battered Women.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 18, 857-871. 

David Hirschel & Ira W. Hutchison. 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. 

David Hirschel, Ira W. Hutchison, Ill, and Charles W. Dean. 1992. The Failure of 

Arrest to Deter Spouse Assault. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29:7- 

33. 

David Hirschel, Ira W. Hutchison, Charles W. Dean and Anne-Marie Mills. 1992. 

Review Essay on the Law Enforcement Response to Spouse Abuse: Past, Present, 

and Future. Justice Quarterly, 9:247-283. 

T.S. Jones,& Bodtker. 1998. A Dialectical Analysis of A Social Justice Process: 

International Collaboration in South Africa. Journal of Applied Communication 

Research, 26, 357-373. 

Catherine Kaukinen. 2002. The Help-Seeking Decisions of Violent Crime Victims. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 432-456. 

Susan L. Keilitz, Courtenay Davis, Hillery S. Efkeman, Carol Flango and Paula L. 

Hannaford. 1997. Civil Protection Orders: Views on Effectiveness. In National Institute 

of Justice Journal, September 1997. 

Charlene Laffaye, Colleen Kennedy & Murray B. Stein. 2003. “Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder and Health-Related Quality of Life in Female Victims of Intimate Partner 

Violence. Violence & Victims, 18, 227-238. 

John Q. LaFond & Sharon G. Portwood. 2000. Preventing Intimate Violence: Have 

Law and Public Policy Failed? University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review, 69, 3- 

13. 

T.K. Logan, Amy Nigoff, Robert Walker & Carol Jordon. 2002. “Stalker Profiles With 

and Without Protective Orders: Reoffending or Criminal Justice Processing?” Violence 

&Victims, 17, 541-553. 

Catherine Marshall & Gretchen B. Rossman. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. 

2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Margaret E. Martin. 1994. Mandatory Arrest for Domestic Violence: The Courts’ 

-1 51- 
Response. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 19:212-227. 

Judith McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Kathy Watson. 2002a. 

stalking and femicide: urgent implications for women’s safety. Behavioral Sciences & 

the Law, 20, 51-68. 

Intimate partner 

Judith McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Phyllis Sharps, Kathy Watson. 2002b. 

Abuse during pregnancy and femicide: urgent implications for women’s health. 

Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100, 27-36. 

Louise-Anne McNutt, Bonnie E. Carlson, Isabel M. Rose & David A. Robinson. 2002. 

Partner Violence Intervention in the Busy Primary Care Environment. American Journal 

of Preventive Medicine, 22, 84-91. 

Daniel P. Mears, Matthew J. Carlson, George W. Holden & Susan D. Harris. Reducing 

Domestic Violence Revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16( 12), 1260- 

1283 (2001). 

Susan L. Miller. 2001. The Paradox of Women Arrested for Domestic Violence. 

Violence Against Women, 7(12), 1339-1 376. 

Linda G. Mills. 1999. “Killing Her Softly: Intimate Abuse and the Violence of State 

Intervention, Harvard Law Review, 1 13, 550-61 3. 

Linda G. Mills. 1998. “Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for Domestic 

Violence: A Critical Literature Review and the Case for More Research to Test Victim 

Empowerment Approaches.” Criminal Justice & Behavior, 25, 306-31 9. 

John Monahan. 1981. Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical 

Techniques. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. 

National Center for Victims of Crime. 2002. Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol. 

Washington, D.C.: COPS. 

National Criminal Justice Association. 1993. Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking 

Code for States. Washington, D.C.: NIJ. 

Michael Quinn Patton. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage. 

Steven Pfohl. 1 978. Predicting Dangerousness: The Social Construction of Psychiatric 

-1 52- 
Reality. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. 

Elizabeth Pleck. 1987. Domestic Tyranny: The Making of Social Policy Against Family 

Violence From Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Harvey Robbins & Michael Finley. 2000. Why Teams Don’t Work. San Francisco, CA: 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 

Caterina G. Roman, Gretchen E. Moore, Susan Jenkins & Kevonne M. Small. 2003. 

Understanding Community Justice Partnerships: Assessing the Capacity to Partner. 

NIJ DOC. NO. 196552, OJP-99-C-010. 

Susan Schechter. 1982. Women and Male Violence. Boston, MA: South End Press. 

Janelle Schmidt & Ellen Hochstedler Steury. 1989. “Prosecutorial Discretion in Filing 

Charges in Domestic Violence Cases.” Criminology, 27:487-509. 

Peter Schmidt & Anne Dryden Witte. 1988. Predicting Recidivism Using Survival 

Modes. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Phyllis W. Sharps, Jacquelyn Campbell, Doris Campbell, Fay Gary, Daniel Webster. 

2001. The role of alcohol use in intimate partner femicide. American Journal on 

Addictions, IO, 122-1 35. 

Melanie F. Shepard, Dennis R. Falk & Barbara A. Elliott. Enhancing Coordinated 

Community Responses to Reduce Recidivism in Cases of Domestic Violence. Journal 

of Interpersonal Violence, 17(5), 551 -569 (2002). 

Glen H. Stamp & Teresa Chandler Sabourin. 1995. Accounting for Violence: An 

Analysis of Male Spousal Abuse Narratives. Journal of Applied Communication 

Research, 23:284-307. 

Erin S. Straight, Felicity W. K. Harper & lleana Arias. 2003. “The Impact of Partner 

Psychological Abuse on Health Behaviors and Health Status in College Women.” 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1035-1054. 

Amy E. Street & lleana Arias. 2001. “Psych,ological Abuse and Posttraumatic Stress 

Disorder in Battered Women: Examining the Roles of Shame and Guilt.” Violence & 

Victims, 16, 65-78. 

Cheryl A. Sutherland, Deborah I. Bybee & Cris M. Sullivan. 2002. “Beyond Bruises 

-1 53- 
and Broken Bones: The Joint Effects of Stress and Injuries on Battered Women’s 

Health.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 609-636. 

Syers, Maryann and Jeffrey L. Edleson. 1992. “The Combined Effects of Coordinated 

Criminal Justice Intervention in Woman Abuse.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

7:490-502. 

Nina W. Tarr. 2003. Civil Orders for Protection: Freedom or Entrapment? Washington 

U. Journal of Law & Policy, 11, 157-193. 

Martie P. Thompson, Linda E. Saltzman & Holly Johnson, Risk Factors for Physical 

Injury Among Women Assaulted by Current or Former Spouses. Violence Against 

Women, 7(8), 886-889 (2001). 

Nikki R. Van Hightower & Joe Gorton. 2002. A Case Study of Community-Based 

Responses to Rural Woman Battering. Violence Against Women, 8(7), 845-872 

(2002). 

Laura C. M. Vogel & Linda L. Marshall. 2001. “PTSD Symptoms and Partner Abuse: 

Low Income Women at Risk.” Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 569-584. 

Lenore Walker. 1988. The Battered Woman Syndrome. In Hotaling, Gerald T., David 

Finkelhor, John T. Kirkpatrick, and Murray A. Straus. Eds. Family Abuse and Its 

Consequences. 

C. Nadine Wathen & Harriet L. MacMillan. 2003. Interventions for Violence Against 

Women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 589-600. 

Steve J. Weiss, Amy A. Ernst, Elaine Cham & Todd G. Nick. 2003. Development of a 

Screen for Ongoing Intimate Partner Violence. Violence & Victims, 18, 131-141. 

Arlene N. Weisz. 1999. Legal Advocacy for Domestic Violence Survivors: The Power 

of an Informative Relationship. Families in Society, March-April, 138-1 47. 

Arlene N. Weisz, Richard M. Tolman & Daniel G. Saunders. Assessing the Risk of 

Severe Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(1), 75-90 (2000). 

Bruce Winick. 2000. Applying the Law Therapeutically in Domestic Violence Cases. 

U.M.K.C. Law Review, 69, 33-91. 

Martha B. Witwer & Cheryl A. Crawford . 1995. A Coordinated Approach to Reducing 

-1 54- 
Family Violence: Conference Highlights. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Just ice. 

Thomas Wolff. 2001. “Community Coalition Building - Contemporary Practice and 

Research: Introduction.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 165-1 73. 

Lori A. Zoellner, Norah C. Feeny, Jennifer Alvarez, Christina Watlington, Mellanie L. 

O’Neill, Ruth Zager & Edna B. Foa. Factors Associated With Completion of the 

Restraining Order Process in Femal Victims of Partner Violence. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 15( IO), 1081-1 099 (2000). 

-1 55- 
Appendix A: 

Threat Assessment 

-1 56- 
Threat Assessment Inventory Results 

October 2001 

Section I 

We would like to first ask a few questions about yourself. 

A. Name or ID (optional) 

B. Age 

N=57 

Range = 16 - 50 

Mean = 32 ., 

C. Race 

N=60 

White = 93% 

African-American = 3% 

Asian-American = 2% 

Native American = 2% 

D. Ethnicity 

N=59 

H ispanic=3% 

No n- H is pan 197 c= Yo 

E. Are you employed? 

N=61 

Yes = 54 % 

N0=46?40 

F. What is the name of the person you are filing against today? 

G. What is your relationship to 1x1 ? 

N=63 

Husband=36% 

Ex-husband=lO% 

Boyfriend=l3% 

Ex-boyfriend=33% 

Ot her=8 Yo 

H. Do you and 1x1 have any children under the age of 18? 

~ N=63 

Yes=48% 

No=52% 

-1 57- 
Do any of these children live with you? 

N=23 

Yes= 1 00% 

No=O0/o 

Names & ages 

Section /I 

Now we need to ask you a few specific questions about [XI so we know more 

about his daily activities and whereabouts. 

A. Is CX1 currently living with you at your residence? 

N=63 

Yes=2% 

No=98% 

If not, where is he staying (nameladdress of person staying with) 

6. Where does he work (name of business and address) 

What does he do there (occupation)? 

What are his regular working hours? 

C. What kind of vehicle does he usually drive? 

Would this vehicle be registered in his name? 

N=59 

Yes = 52% 

No = 36% 

Don’t know = 12% 

N =62 

Yes = 73% 

Don’t know = 0% 

N=61 

Yes = 34% 

Don’t know = 8% 

N=63 

Yes = 35% 

D. Does he have any relatives in the area? 

NO = 27% 

E. Is he in regular contact with any relatives outside of the area? 

NO = 57% 

F. Does he have a phone card or any credit cards? 

-1 58- 
No = 52% 

Don’t know = 13% 

G. Does 1x1 drink alcohol? 

N=64 

Yes = 89% 

Don’t know = 3% 

If yes, how many days per week 

N=50 

1-2 dayslweek = 44% 

3-5 dayslweek = 10% 

6-7 dayslweek = 46% 

Morning = 0% 

Early afternoon = 0% 

Late afternoon/early evening = 32% 

Late night = 38% 

Varies = 41% 

N=62 

Yes = 32% 

Don’t know = 19% 

NO = 8% 

When in day is he most likely to drink? 

H. Does he use any type of illegal drugs? 

NO = 48% 

If yes, please specify 

How many days per week? 

N=14 

1-2 days/week = 0% 

3-5 dayslweek = 21 % 

6-7 days/week = 79% 

Morning = 6% 

Early afternoon = 0% 

Late afternoonlearly evening = 17% 

Late night = 6% 

Varies = 72% 

I. Has TX1 ever been diagnosed with a mental health problem? 

N=64 

Yes = 28% 

Don’t know = 17% 

When in the day is he most likely to use? 

NO = 55% 

-1 59- 
Is he taking medications for this condition? 

N=l8 

Yes = 50% 

Don’t know = 11 % 

N=63 

Yes = 25% 

Don’t know = 3% 

Army = 62% 

Navy = 25% 

Marines = 12% 

Air Force = 0% 

Coast Guard = 0% 

Don’t know = 0% 

N=64 

Yes = 16% 

No = 84% 

Don’t know = 5% 

N=64 

Yes = 16% 

Don’t know = 0% 

NO = 39% 

J. Has he ever been a member of the armed forces? 

NO = 71 Yo 

If yes, what branch? 

K. Has he had any self-defense training? 

L. Are there any firearms in your home? 

NO = 84% 

M. Does 1x1 regularly have firearms with him (e.g., in his vehicle, glove 

compartment, etc.)? 

N=8 

Yes = 8% 

No = 64% 

Don’t know = 8% 

N=63 

Yes = 0% 

No = 95% 

Don’t know = 5% 

N=62 

Yes = 26% 

N. Does he have a concealed weapons permit? 

0. Does he carry any knives or other type of weapon with him? 

-1 60- 
NO = 64% 

Don’t know = 10% 

N=64 

Yes = 5% 

No = 84% 

Don’t know = 11 % 

P. Has he ever experimented with explosives of any type? 

If yes, please specify 

Now I’m going to ask some specific questions about your relationship with 1x1 

A. How long have you and 1x1 had a relationship? 

Of those responding yes: 

Dated = 78% 

Cohabited = 70% 

Married = 44% 

B. Through the length of your relationship, has TX1 ever ... 

Exhibited unfounded jealousy (N=63) 

Yes = 84% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 0% 

Twice = 6% 

More than twice = 94% 

Tried to limit your contact with friends or family? (N=63) 

Yes = 76% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 0% 

Twice = 2% 

More than twice = 98% 

Stalked or closely monitored your daily activities? (N=63) 

Yes = 78% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 2% 

Twice = 2% 

More than twice = 96% 

Prevented you from calling the police? (N=64) 

Yes = 59% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 13% 

Twice = 10% 

More than twice = 76% 

Damaged or destroyed any of your personal items? (N=64) 

Yes = 69% 

-1 61 - 
Of those responding yes: 

Once = 16% 

Twice = 16% 

More than twice = 68% 

Threatened to harm your pet(s)? (N=64) 

Yes = 20% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 23% 

Twice = 8% 

More than twice = 69% 

Harmed any of your pet(s)? (N=64) 

Yes = 18% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 36% 

Twice = 0% 

More than twice = 64% 

Thrown anything at you? (N=64) 

Yes = 64% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 15% 

Twice = 22% 

More than twice = 63% 

Pushed, grabbed or shoved you? (N=64) 

Yes = 88% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 9% 

Twice = 9% 

More than twice = 82% 

Slapped you? (N=64) 

Yes = 53% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 6% 

Twice = 15% 

More than twice = 79% 

Kicked, bit or hit you with his fist? (N=64) 

Yes = 58% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 17% 

Twice = 19% 

More than twice = 64% 

-1 62- 
Hit or tried to hit you with something? (N=64) 

Yes = 47% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 13% 

Twice = 17% 

More than twice = 70% 

Beat you? (N=64) 

Yes = 39% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 16% 

Twice = 12% 

More than twice = 72% 

Strangled you? (N=64) 

Yes = 42% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 37% 

Twice = 18% 

More than twice = 44% 

Threatened you with a knife or gun? (N=64) 

Yes = 33% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 33% 

Twice = 38% 

More than twice = 29% 

Used a knife or gun on you? (N=63) 

Yes = 10% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 0% 

Twice = 83% 

More than twice = 17% 

Forced you to have sex with him? (N=63) 

Yes = 40% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 4% 

Twice = 17% 

More than twice = 79% 

Forced you to have sex with someone else? (N=63) 

Of those responding yes: 

Yes = 2% 

Once = 100% 

-1 63- 
Twice = 0% 

More than twice = 0% 

Threatened to kill you? (N=63) 

Yes = 59% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 19% 

Twice = 24% 

More than twice = 57% 

Attempted to kill you? (N=62) 

Yes = 34% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 62% 

Twice = 10% 

More than twice = 29% 

Threatened to kill himself? (N=63) 

Yes = 65% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 24% 

Twice = 17% 

More than twice = 58% 

Attempted to kill himself? (N=62) 

Yes = 27% 

Of those responding yes: 

Once = 76% 

Twice = 12% 

More than twice = 12% 

-1 64- 
If yes, how frequently? 

Exhibited unfounded jealousy (N=63) 

Tried to limit your contact with friends or 

family? (N=63) 

Stalked or closely monitored your daily 

activities? (N=63) 

Prevented you from calling the police? 

(N=64) 

Damaged or destroyed any of your personal 

items? (N=64) 

Threatened to harm your pet(s)? (N=64) 

Harmed any of your pet(s)? (N=64) 

Thrown anything at you? (N=64) 

Pushed, grabbed or shoved you? (N=64) 

Slapped you? (N=64) 

Kicked, bit or hit you with his fist? (N=64) 

Hit or tried to hit you with something? (N=64) 

Beat you? (N=64) 

Strangled you? (N=64) 

Threatened you with a knife or gun? (N=64) 

Used a knife or gun on you? (N=63) 

Forced you to have sex with him? (N=63) 

Forced you to have sex with someone else? 

(N=63) 

Threatened to kill you? (N=63) 

Attempted to kill you? (N=62) 

% "Yes" 

84% 

76% 

78% 

59% 

69% 

20% 

i 8% 

64% 

88% 

53% 

58% 

47% 

39% 

42% 

33% 

10% 

40% 

2% 

59% 

34% 

Once 

0% 

0% 

2% 

13% 

16% 

23% 

36% 

15% 

9% 

6% 

17% 

13% 

16% 

37% 

33% 

0% 

4% 

100% 

19% 

62% 

Twice 

6 % 

2% 

2 Yo 

10% 

16% 

a yo 

0% 

22% 

9% 

15% 

19% 

17% 

12% 

18% 

38% 

83% 

17% 

0% 

24% 

10% 

More than 

twice 

94 % 

98% 

96% 

76% 

68% 

69% 

64% 

63% 

82% 

79% 

64% 

70% 

72% 

44% 

29% 

17% 

79% 

0% 

57% 

29% 

-1 65- 
Threatened to kill himself? (N=63) 

Attempted to kill himself? (N=62) 

65% 

27% 

24% 17% 58% 

76% 12% 12% 

C. At what point in your relationship did the above incidents start? 

D. If yes to any of the above, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being very low, 10 being very 

severe), please rate the severity of the abuse in your relationship. 

N=64 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

8% 2% 0% 3% 11% 5% 9% 19% 11% 33% 

F. Before this last incident, had the police ever been notified or called into your 

situation? 

N=63 

Yes = 70% , 

NO = 30% 

If yes, when was that? 

Where was that? 

What happened? 

G. Have you requested a no-contact order against IX1 before? 

N=63 

Yes = 70 

No = % 

If yes, did you receive one? 

N=23 

Yes = 83% 

No = 17% 

If yes, did it keep him from contacting you? 

N=20 

Yes = 45% 

-1 66- 
No = 55% 

If not, please explain what happened 

C. At what point in your relationship did the above incidents start? 

D. If yes to any of the above, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being very low, 10 being very 

severe), please rate the severity of the abuse in your relationship 

F. Before this last incident, had the police ever been notified or called into your 

situation? 

If yes, when was that? 

Where was that? 

What happened? 

G. Have you requested a no-contact order against [XI before? 

If yes, did you receive one? 

If yes, did it keep him from contacting you? 

If not, please explain what happened 

-1 67- 
Frequency Distributions 

Threat Assessment Inventory Results 

October, 2001 

We would like to first ask a few questions about yourself. 

A. Name or ID (optional) 

B. Age n = 57 Range = 16 - 50 Mean = 32 

C. Race: n=60 White 93% African-American 3% 

Asian-American 2% Other 0% 

Native American 2% 

D. Ethnicity: n = 59 Hispanic origin 3% Non-Hispanic origin 97% 

E. Are you employed? n = 61 Yes 54% No 46% 

F. What is the name of the person you are filing against today? 

G. What is your relationship to-(X)_ n = 63 

Husband 36% Ex-boyfriend 33% 

Ex-husband 10% 

Boyfriend 13% 

Other 8% 

H. Do you and -(X)- have any children under the age of 18? n = 63 Yes 48% No 52% 

Do any of these children live with you? n = 23 Yes 100% No 0% 

Names and ages 

Now we need to ask you a few specific questions about -X)- so we know more about his daily 

activities and whereabouts. 

A. Is -(I()- currently living with you at your residence? n = 63 Yes 2% No 98% 

If not, where is he staying (nameladdress of person staying with) 

B. Where does he work (name of business and address) 

-1 68- 
What does he do there (occupation)? 

What are his regular working hours? 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

---percen fages---- 

C. What kind of vehicle does he usually drive? 

Would this vehicle be registered in his name? n = 59 

D. Does he have any relatives in the area? n = 62 

E. Is he in regular contact with any relatives outside the 

area? n = 61 

F. Does he have a phone card or any credit cards? n = 63 

G. Does -(XI- drink alcohol? n = 64 

If yes, how many days per week? n = 50 

lor 2 44% 3to5 10% 6or7 46% 

When in the day is he most likely to drink? n = 54 

Morning 0% 

Early afternoon 0% 

Late afternoon I early evening 32% 

Late night 38% 

Varies 41% 

H. Does he use any type of illegal drugs? n = 62 

If yes, please specify 

How many days per week? n = 14 

lor2 0% 3to5 21% 6 or 7 79% 

52 36 12 

73 

34 

35 

89 

32 

27 

57 

52 

8 

48 

0 

8 

13 

3 

19 

When in the day is he most likely to use? n = 18 

Morning 6% 

Early afternoon 0% 

-1 69- 
Late afternoon I early evening 17% 

Late night 6% 

Varies 72% 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

---percentages---- 

I. Has -(X)- ever been diagnosed with a mental health 

problem? n = 64 

Is he taking any medications for this condition? n = 18 

28 55 17 

J. Has he ever been a member of the armed forces? n = 63 25 

. If yes, what branch? 

Army 62% 

Navy 25% 

Marines 12% 

Air Force 0% 

Coast Guard 0% 

Don’t know 0% 

K. Has he had any self-defense training? n = 64 16 

50 39 11 

L. Are there any firearms in your home? n = 64 16 

M. Does -(XI- regularly have firearms with him (e.9. in his 

vehicle, glove compartment, etc.)? n = 64 8 

N. Does he have a concealed weapons permit? n = 63 

0. Does he carry any knives or other type of weapon with 

him n=62 

regularly? n = 62 

If yes, please specify 

0 

26 

71 

80 

a4 

84 

95 

64 

3 

8 

5 

10 

-1 70- 
P. Has he ever experimented with explosives or any type? 

n = 64 5 84 11 

If yes, please specify 

Now I’m going to ask some specific questions about your relationship with -(X)-. 

A. How long have you and -(X)- had a relationship? Dated 78% 

(percent responding yes ) Cohabited 70% 

Married 44% 

B. Through the length of your relationship, has -(X)- ever ... 

Exhibited unfounded jealousy? n = 63 

Tried to limit your contact with friends or family? 

n = 63 

Stalked or closely monitored your daily 

activities? n = 63 

Prevented you from calling the police? n = 64 

Damaged or destroyed any of your personal 

items? n = 64 

Threatened to harm your pet(s)? n = 64 

Harmed any of your pet(s)? n = 61 

Thrown anything at you? n = 64 

Pushed, grabbed or shoved you? n = 64 

Slapped you? n = 64 

Kicked, bit, or hit you with his fist? n = 62 

Hit or tried to hit you with something? n = 64 

Percent 

“yes” 

84 

76 

78 

59 

69 

20 

18 

64 

88 

53 

58 

47 

0 

0 

2 

13 

16 

23 

36 

15 

9 

6 

17 

13 

If yes, how frequently? 

Once Twice More than twice 

--------------- percentages __-__-_-_____ 

6 94 

2 98 

2 96 

10 76 

16 68 

8 69 

0 64 

22 63 

9 82 

15 79 

19 64 

17 70 

-171- 
Beat you? n = 64 39 

Strangled you? n = 64 

Threatened you with a knife or gun? n = 64 

Used a knife or gun on you? n = 63 

Forced you to have sex with him? n = 63 

Forced you to have sex with someone else? 

n = 63 

Threatened to kill you? n = 63 

Attempted to kill you? n = 62 

Threatened to kill himself? n = 63 

Attempted to kill himself? n = 62 

42 

33 

10 

40 

2 

59 

34 

65 

27 

16 

37 

33 

0 

4 

100 

19 

62 

24 

76 

12 

18 

38 

83 

17 

0 

24 

10 

17 

12 

72 

44 

29 

17 

79 

0 

57 

29 

58 

12 

C. At what point in your relationship did the above incidents start? 

D. If yes to any of the above, on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being very low, 10 being very severe), please 

rate the severity of the abuse in your relationship n = 64 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

8 Yo 2% 0% 3% 11% 5% 9% 19% 1 1 Yo 33% 

Yes No 

------percentages----- 

F. Before this last incident, had the police ever been notified or called into 

your situation? n = 63 70 30 

If yes, when was that? 

Where was that? 

What happened? 

G. Have you requested a no-contact order against -(X)- before? n = 63 41 59 

If yes, did you receive one? n = 23 83 17 

If yes, did it keep him from contacting you? n = 20 45 55 

-1 72- 
If not, please explain what happened 

-1 73- 
Appendix B: 

Quality of Life 

-1 74- 
Quality of Life Inventory 

Time I (Initial Assessment) 

Mostly 

Satisfied 

39 

61 

11 

44 

50 

41 

33 

24 

69 

Section I (N=18) 

Extremely 

Satisfied 

0 

0 

6 

6 

19 

18 

11 

18 

0 

Extremely 

Dissatisfied 

18 

17 

29 

Mixed I Mostly 

Dissatisfied 

24 

39 

29 

b. I am happy about my family life 

a. Your life as a whole? 

12 24 

0 

d. I have friends I can turn to when I need help 

e. I sometimes wonder if I am “going crazy” 

f. I sleep well 

11 I 50 

0 6 

41 24 

28 39 

b. Yourself? 6 6 I 28 

c. Your personal safety? 17 28 I 39 

d. The amount of fun and 

enjoyment you have? 

6 

~__ 

e. The responsibilities you have 

for members of your family? 

0 

f. What you are accomplishing in 0 

your life? 

g. Your independence or 

freedom? 

0 

~ ~~__ 

h. Your emotional and 

psychological well-being? 

0 

i. The way you spend your spare 

time? 

0 6 I 25 

Section II (N=l8) 

Strongly I Agree 

Strongly Disagree Agree 

Disagree I 

a. I feel safe in my home 25 I 31 31 I 12 

41 1 24 

38 I 31 

c. I am able to concentrate on the things I need 

to O I 31 

29 I 65 

-1 75- 
g. My family provides transportation and 53 

childcare when I need it 

h. I believe I can meet my children’s emotional 

needs 

12 6 

6 19 

j. My partner thinks of me as an equal 

k. My life would seem empty without my 

partner 

1. I do not feel confidence in myself 

m. I am worried I will become so angry that I 

won’t be able to control myself 

70 20 

69 15 

47 18 

44 38 

n. I have a difficult time expressing my feelings 

0. I have a hard time getting things done 

p. I don’t get out very much 

33 28 

22 50 

38 12 

a. Your life as a whole? 

b. Yourself? 

c. Your personal safety? 

d. The amount of fun and 

enjoyment you have? 

6 6 

11 0 

6 6 

17 0 

e. The responsibilities you have 

for members of your family? 

f. What you are accomplishing in 

your life? 

6 24 

11 0 

25 

- ~____ ~____ ~ ~~ I 24 

i. I sometimes feel like I have no control over 

my life 

41 29 

0 

15 

24 

6 

39 -4 

22 61 

38 12 I 

Time II (3-month follow-up) 

Section 111 (N=l8) 

Mixed Mostly 

Satisfied 

Extremely I Dissatisfied I Ditz%ed I Extremely 

Satisfied 

24 41 24 

11 

28 

’ 17 

18 

11 

28 50 

50 11 

22 44 

24 29 

33 44 

-1 76- 
g. Your independence or 

freedom? 

h. Your emotional and 

psychological well-being? 

6 6 22 33 

17 0 22 50 

Section IV (N=18) 

i. The way you spend your spare 

time? 

6 0 39 44 

0 I I 28 I 44 

c. I am able to concentrate on the things I need 

to 

a. I feel safe in my home 

b. I am happy about my family life 

d. I have friends I can turn to when I need help I 0 I 6 I 50 

Strongly Disagree Agree 

Disagree 

6 28 44 

6 6 31 

e. I sometimes wonder if I am “going crazy” 18 29 35 

f. I sleep well 7 13 60 

g. My family provides transportation and 0 18 47 

childcare when I need it 

m. I am worried I will become so angry that I 

won’t be able to control myself 

n. I have a difficult time expressing my feelings 

0. I have a hard time getting things done 

p. I don’t get out very much 

I h. I believe I can meet my children’s emotional 

needs 

17 22 44 

11 39 28 

6 47 24 

6 44 33 

i. I sometimes feel like I have no control over I 12 I 31 I 31 

my life 

j. My partner thinks of me as an equal 6 38 31 

k. My life would seem empty without my 25 19 25 

partner 

Strongly 

Agree 

22 I 

44 I 

_____I 

17 

22 

24 

17 I 

-1 77- 
Frequency Distributions 

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT (Quality of Life Instrument) 

TIME I (Initial assessment) 

SECTION 1. (n = 18) 

Extremely Mostly Mostly Extremely 

a. 

b. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

C. 

Your life as a whole? .......................... Yourself? ............................................. 

The amount of fun and enjoyment you 

have? ..................................................... The responsibilities you have for 

members of your family? .................... What you are accomplishing in your 

life? ........................................................ Your independence or freedom? ....... Your emotional and psychological wellbeing? .................................................... 

Your personal safety? ........................ 

6 17 28 44 6 

0 6 25 50 19 

0 18 24 41 18 

0 17 39 33 11 

0 29 29 24 18 

i. The way you spend your spare time? 0 6 25 69 0 

SECTION 11. (n = 18) 

a. I feel safe in my home 

Strongly Strong1 

Disagree Disagree y- 

--------------- percen tages----------- 

25 31 31 12 

b. I am happy about my family life 12 24 41 24 

c: I am able to concentrate on the things I need to 0 31 38 31 

d. I have friends I can turn to when I need help. 0 6 29 65 

e. I sometimes wonder if I am “going crazy” 41 24 18 18 

f. I sleep well 28 39 22 11 

g. My family provides transportation and childcare 12 6 53 ’ 29 

when I need it. 

-1 78- 
h. I believe that I can meet my children’s emotional 

needs 6 19 25 50 

i. I sometimes feel like I have no control over my 

life 

j. My partner thinks of me as an equal. 

k. My life would seem empty without my partner 

1. I do not feel confidence in myself 

m. I am worried I will become so angry that I won’t 

be able to control what I do 

n. I have a difficult time expressing my feelings 

0. I have a hard time getting things done 

p. I don’t get out very much 

24 41 

70 20 

69 15 

47 18 

44 38 

33 28 

22 50 

38 12 

29 6 

0 10 

15 0 

24 12 

6 12 

39 0 

22 6. 

38 12 

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT 

TIME II (3 month follow-up) 

SECTION 1. (n = 18) 

a. 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

Your life as a whole? .......................... Yourself? ............................................. Your personal safety? ........................ The amount of fun and enjoyment you 

have? ..................................................... The responsibilities you have for 

members of your family? .................... What you are accomplishing in your 

life? ........................................................ Your independence or freedom? ....... Your emotional and psychological wellbeing? 

17 0 22 44 17 

6 24 24 29 18 

11 0 33 44 11 

6 6 22 33 33 

17 0 22 50 11 

i. The way you spend your spare time? 6 0 39 44 11 

-1 79- 
SECTION II. (n = 18) 

a. 

b. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

gh. 

C. 

1. 

i. 

k. 

1. 

I feel safe in my home ............................................ I am happy about my family life ........... ................. I am able to concentrate on the things I need to 

I have friends I can turn to when I need help. ..... I sometimes wonder if I am “going crazy” .......... I sleep well .................................................--............ 

My family provides transportation and childcare 

when I need it. ........................................................ I believe that I can meet my children’s emotional 

needs ....................................................................... I sometimes feel like I have no control over my life 

My partner thinks of me as an equal. ................... My life would seem empty without my partner ... I do not feel confidence in myself ......................... 

................................................................................... 

m. I am worried I will become so angry that I won’t be 

able to control what 1 do ........................................ n. I have a difficult time expressing my feelings .... 0. I have a hard time getting things done ................ 

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagre e e 

-------------- percentages---------- 

- e 

.6 28 

6 6 

0 28 

0 6 

18 29 

7 13 

0 18 

0 7 

12 31 

6 38 

25 19 

12 29 

17 22 

11 39 

6 47 

44 

31 

44 

50 

35 

60 

47 

47 

31 

31 

25 

35 

44 

28 

24 

p. I don’t get out very much ...................................... fi - Ad .. 33 

22 

56 

28 

44 

18 

20 

35 

47 

25 

25 

31 

24 

17 

22 

24 

17 

-1 80- 
Appendix C: 

Structured Interview of Teams 

-181- 
POET Evaluation 

Structured Interview Outline 

Individual Team Members 

I NTRODUCTI 0 N 

POET grant has an evaluation component, and we’re seeking another grant to do a 

formal evaluation of the grant, too. We need some baseline information in order to 

show what impact, if any, the POET grant has on the way that the process works and 

the participants’ perceptions of performance. 

Begin with basic information about you and about the system: 

I. PERSONAL INFORMATION 

Name 

Experience 

Age 

Years in this agency: 

Years in other agencies: 

Other: 

II. BASIC INFORMATION 

Estimate how many DV cases you personally encounter each month. 

Estimate how many PO cases you encounter each month 

emergency 

temporary 

permanent 

civil PO (598 or 236) 

criminal PO 

Estimate the O/O of DV victims ask for PO. 

How often do victims drop their PO’S? 

-1 82- 
Why do you think they drop? 

(Are they no longer in danger?) 

Do you talk with the victims directly, or hear about it from someone else? 

Ill. THE PROCESS 

Describe a “typical” DV case you might encounter (more than one, if can describe 

types) 

Who reports? 

How is it reported? 

Time of dayhight? 

Types of injuries? 

Describe a typical offender (or types of offenders). 

How many offenders have the potential to kill themselves or others? 

What procedures are in place to provide some protection from potential harm? 

Describe how criminal charges are brought 

Who decides? 

Who has input? 

How are people notified about charges? 

How does a case progress through the system? 

Trial vs. plea 

Amount of time to process cases 

Who is apprised of the progress and how? 

What are the typical sentences? 

Misdemeanor 

Felony 

Describe what happens in a typical PO case? 

-183- 
Who reports? 

How is it reported? 

Include in-county and out-of-county PO’s? 

How are PO’s recorded in your jurisdiction? 

How do you check on PO’s? 

Where is the offender arrested? 

Transported to where? And by whom? 

Contempt or criminal charges? 

Disposition of PO cases? 

What if a violation of a PO from your county occurs in another county? 

How do you find out about the violation? 

How do you check for the PO? 

How do you respond? 

What if it’s a violation of your PO in another county? 

Sentencing 

when defendant is sentenced, do you know about it? 

What is your role? 

Are you made aware of defendants who are placed on probation? 

Is PO regularly part of probation? 

What services are available to defendants? 

What are the typical caseloads for probation officers? 

Do you use any threat assessment tools? 

If no, why not? (Want to use some?) 

If yes --- 

Which ones? 

When are they used? How are they used? 

Do they work? 

Do you discuss the threat assessment with the victim? 

IV. INFORMATION AVAILABLE 

What information is currently captured in your database? 

-1 84- 
Arrest 

Conviction/plea 

Sentence 

Who gathers the information? 

Who inputs the data? 

Is the data checked for accuracy? 

V. INTERACTIONS 

Describe the relationship of your agency with other agencies on the team. 

Police 

Prosecutor 

Judge 

Corrections 

Victim Advocate/victim program 

Victim 

How often do you talk to other members of the team? 

How would you describe the contact? 

Formal or informal 

Relaxed, tense, varied 

How do you resolve conflicts? 

What contraints are there in sharing information? 

How much time do you spend with each victim? 

Is it enough time? 

Would there be any benefit in spending more time? 

Do you regularly do a follow-up? (Want to?) 

Do you regularly talk with the victim about safety measures? (More time, more 

info?) 

-1 85- 
VI. TRAINING 

What type of training has been done in your agency? 

Did you attend? 

Was it adequate? 

What was most/least valuable? 

What type of training would you like to see? 

V11. WISH LIST 

Any changes that you want to make? 

Data collection 

Processing cases 

Follow-up on cases 

What do you hope that this grant will accomplish? 

POET Evaluation 

Structured Interview Outline 

DARTlPOET Group Interview 

1. Describe the history of your team. How did it begin, how has it progressed, who was 

responsible for getting it started, and how have things gone? 

2. How has your caseload progressed and what is your current caseload? 

3. What community resources do you have available? 

4. How do victims find out about these resources? 

5. Do you encounter any language or cultural barriers? If so, how do you address 

them? 

6. What would be on your “wish list” if you could have anything at all? 

7. What are your future plans? 

-1 86- 
Appendix D: 

Structured Interview of Victims 

-187- 
POET Evaluation 

Domestic Violence Victim 

Interview Outline 

Let’s begin by asking you to tell me a little about yourself 

Is there information about your experience that you would like to share? 

Dealing with police, prosecution, courts, advocates 

What went well, what went badly 

How many occasions 

Describe what happened on occasions you recall 

Have you had the services of an advocate? 

Did you get a protective order? 

How did that come about? 

Did anyone help you with the process? 

Were you satisfied with the process? 

What was the criminal justice reponse? 

Were there violations of the protective order? 

What types of violations? 

How did the police, prosecutor and judge respond? 

Where did you receive support as you were dealing with the violence? 

What information did you receive about community resources or the criminal justice 

system ? 

Who provided that information? 

Was it helpful? 

-188- 
Victim Interviews 

Respondent or 

Group No. 

Multidisciplinary 

Team No. 

Respondent 1 

Respondent 2 

Respondent 3 

Respondent 4 

Respondent 5 

Respondent 6 I Team 6 

Team 6 

Team 6 

Team 6 

Team 6 

Team 6 

Respondent 7 

Respondent 8 

Respondent 9 

Respondent 10 ~ 

Respondent 11 I Team 1 

Team 7 

Team 7 

Team 1 

Team 1 

Group 1 I Team 3 

Group 2 Team 4 

Grow 4 Team 2 

-1 89- 
Appendix E: 

Team Summaries 

-1 90- 
Measure Team 

# 

Prosecutor VbW Coord Police I Probation 

\dvoca te 

,I 

1 3 wk here NA 

3 yr other off ices 

I1 years here 

Z years 

Leaching 

NA 

1 in flux -9 NA 

focus on probation 

28 10 

Experience 4.5 yr here 

55 yr other PD 

1,5 yr day care 

Education 1 IJD I NA police academy year college I NA 

PO #Imo, 1 1 20 criminal 1 NA 30.40 3040 I NA 

9’0 request I I all (automatic) I NA don’t know 10-1 5% I NA 

% drop 1 185% don’t know INA 25% I NA 

Lethality 1 190% 1 I3 all I NA 

Going rate misdem. don’t know I NA 

7 days 

deferred 

22% 

~~ 

Conv. rate 1 don’tknow 1 ~ 

Time to trial 1 1 not est’d yet 1 NA don’t don’t know I NA I know 

AG 

weekly or less 

~~ 

Risk inst, informal I NA I 

Team Contact PD daily weekly 1 NA 

VA weekly 

NA 

-191- 
2 2.5 yr here 

2‘5 yr other off ice 

2 50% 

2 Most could 

1 in 20 = real 

2 

-~ 

don’t track 

most plead 

Measure Team # I Prosecutor V-W Coord Dolice Uvoca t e Probation 

2 (30 33 I9 15 

i501 

NA 

Experience 1 yr here 

DVA 1 yr 

GAL 2 .yr 

25 yr here 

[ 13 yr here] 

[lo+ yr academic 

I yr here NA 

13 yr mental 

iealth agency 

Education 2 (JD 4-yr college academy byr college 

!a 

NA 

PO # 2 130.35 18.20 15 (city) NA 

[5 per officer] 

% request 2 115% 7540% 

~- 

always NA 

[90%] 

9085% 

YO drop 50% after wk 

~ 

15% or more 

[60% or more] 

5/mo, (20%) NA 

Lethality 25% 3001yr 

(2 homicideslyr 

[SO%] 

20% self 

30.35% others 

NA 

Going rate 2 don’t know 

[don’t know] 

3 days 

felony : 6 mom 

5 days jail 

90 days susp, 

2 yr probation 

felony varies 

30 da susp 

2 yr prob 

felony = 

prison 

90% plead 

NA 

Conv. rate don’t know 

[don’t know] 

don’t know 

2 1 mo-I yr avg 120 dam 

don’t know 

[don’t know1 

Time to trial don’t know NA 

-192- 
Risk inst. PD (AG) 

Team Contact daily for WC 

I r- 7 1 

others : several 

timeslwk 

T 1- I I 

PD (AG) informal 

daily daily 

[frequent] 

often NA 

-1 93- 
Measure 

I Age 

Team # Prosecutor V=W Coord Police Advocate Probat ion 

13 1 Unavailable 

% request 

I Unavailable 140's 

3 Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable NA 

1 Unavailable 1 NA 

1 

1 Experience 13 1 Unavailable 

Unavailable 

Unavailable 

Unavailable 

' Unavailable ' Unavailable 

1 Unavailable I 16 yr 

Unavailable Unavailable NA 

Unavailable Unavailable NA 

Unavailable Unavailable NA 

Unavailable Unavailable NA 

Unavailable Unavailable NA 

I Unavailable 1 NA 

Team Contact 

I Education 

3 Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable NA 

13 1 Unavailable I Unavailable I unk I Unavailable I NA 

I PO# 1 Unavailable I Unavailable 1 ]&wailable INA 

I YO drop 13 I Unavailable I Unavailable I I Unavailable I NA 

Lethality 13 

Going rate I 3 

Time to trial 13 

Risk inst, 13 

-1 94- 
Measure 

Age 

Experience 

Education 14 1 JD 

Team # Prosecutor V=W Coord 

4 32 NA 

4 2 yr here NA 

1 yr other office 

I NA 

6 yr here 

2 yr other police 

I 

1 yr here 

9 yr advocate 

13 yr here 

5.5 yr police 

14 

1 85.90 pending I NA 5 civil 

crim. automatic 

8.1 0 

% request 

YO drop 

4 unsure NA 

4 80% .NA 

NA 

Lethality 

1 Conv, rate I 4 1 most plead 

4 5-10% great NA 

concern 

Going rate 

I I I 

I 

4 deferred or 

suspended 

I Riskinst, 1: 1 Not used 

Team Contact weekly or more ;: 

misd = 2 days 

Police I Advocate 

Misd =2 days 

Felony = plead 

to aggravated 

2 days +BEP 

felony = plea 

I Probation 

Time to trial 

28 I34 

4 3 mob or more NA 60.90 days 

2 yr college I 4 yr college I 4 yr college 

6 mo, for trial varies 

2 mo, for plea 

weekly or more 

2 

2.3 timeslwk weekly meeting 

daily contact 

don't know 125% I don't know 

I13 droplmodify I 25% I 50% or more 

majority 15.20% 

most plead I most plead 1 Most plead 

DCS does it I SARA I SARA 

-1 95- 
I Measure Feam # 

~ 

/=W Coord 

.~ 

Prosecutor 'olice Mvocate Probation 

5 

~ 

29 10 NA - 

Experience 

-~ ~ ~ 

3 yr here 

2 yr other off ice 

- .~ ~ 

1 yr here 

2 yr DV program 

IO+ yr 

counselor 

VA 17 yr here NA 

1 yr factory 

5 

- 1 Education 5 JD NA academy 4 yr college NA 

I PO# 5 30 NA 30 30 NA 

5 crim = automatic NA 

civil = 25% 

% request NA 10.1 5% 60% 

1 % drop 5 90% NA 

~ 

many 

~ 

many NA 

1, Lethality 5 10 per year NA small Yo dozen a year NA 

5 simple =2 days 

ser = 5.1 0 days 

agg = 10.20 days 

felony : 5yrs 

NA Misd few days 

Felony = 5 yrs 

Going rate few days in jail NA 

5 87% convicted 

82% as charged 

4% dismissed 

many pleas as 

charged 

Conv. rate most go to trial 

I Time to trial 5 4.5 mo. NA 2 months 6 mo, NA 

I Riskinst. PD does it 

~. 

5 PD does it NA 18-factor inst, NA 

I Team Contact 5 

~ 

daily NA daily daily NA 

-1 96- 
Police 

35 

~~ 

10.5 yr here 

75% threat assess; ' 60975% per victims 1 re: suicide talk 

~ -~ 

Probation 1 

~ ~~ 

24 yr here 

[all here] 

I 

125% I 

6 36 

6 I 

changing 

changing 

shelter has one 

POET has one 

unsure 

34 mo, 

?? 

Jleasure bW Coord 

VA !4 

261 

48 

[501 

Experience 3 wk here 

3 yr utility GO, 

~ 

NA 

~ ~~ ~ 

I yr here 

I yr other agency 

:4 yr DV agency] 

:2,5 yr other 

WncYl 

Education 6 JD NA 1 yr college 

[4 yr college] 

4 yr college 

[4 yr college] 

academy 

PO # 6 12 NA 60.90 3545 200 

[501 ~ .~ 

Oh request 6 unsure NA 25% 25% 

crim : automatic 

50.60% 

unsure 

% drop many NA 3360% a lot 

(CA requires 

class) 

Lethality 6 none so far NA anyone can 

Going rate 6 unsure NA 2 days + BEP 2 days + BEP 2days ] IIzrI unsure 

I 

Conv. rate unsure 

Time to trial unsure unsure 

Risk inst 6 PD does it 

I 

-1 97- 
Team Contact 

Factors 

6 often NA daily daily with PD ?? 

team 2 weekly team weekly 

1 2 3 4 

~ 

5 6 

NA 

- 

- 

NA 

- 

NA 

NA 

- 

NA 

- 

NA 

How began VA led effort, then CA 

&then PD 

~~ 

CA & VWC began NA VA led effort, then 

PD, then CA 

CA led effort with VA 

Personnel 

changes 

2 prior ACA 

1 prior PD 

2 prior VA 

1 prior ACA 

1 prior WC 

2 prior VA 

1 prior ACA 

several PDs 

1 prior VA 

1 prior ACA 

1 other PD 

2 prior advocates 

1 other ACA 

1 other PD 

CA= county 

PD = city 

VA no limits 

CAS county 

PD city 

VA = no limits 

C A=county 

PD= city 

VA = no limits 

CA= county 

PD = city 

VA = no limits 

CA= county 

PD = city 

VA = no limits 

Resources DHS 

financial assistance 

interpreters 

DV program 

Housing 

DHS 

Medical facilities 

Language line 

NA DV program 

DHS, mental health 

housing 

food 

general relief 

crisis care 

some interpreters 

DV program 

Housing 

Utilities assistance 

Group counseling 

Legal services 

Interpreters 

Pending 

Issues 

no VWC 

bad going rate 

Plea bargains lack of coordination 

add team members 

stop dual arrests 

victimless prosec, 

Future 

plans 

change going rate 

increase victim trust 

use PD better 

new legal advocate 

child witness issues 

expand team 

more training 

NA training PD’s 

Medical personnel 

Training experts 

other PD’s 

keep doing same 

reduce continuances 

-1 98- 
Wish list 

Leader 1 prosecutor 

more cell phones Equipment 

computer programs child care 

photography EAP for DART 

members 

Primary 

influence lwc prosecutor 

NA VW Coordinator 

court advocate 

prosecutor 1 prosecutor 

PD I VA 

DV court 

prosecutor 

PD 

-1 99- 
Appendix F: 

Protective Order Procedures 

-200- 
A Summary of 

I wa Law on Protectiv Orders 

The growth in the use of protective orders has overwhelmed some courts. The 

Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Act was the first reform to allow protective orders 

for domestic violence victims. (Davis, et al., 1997) In 1983, only 17 states had 

legislation authorizing the issuance of protective orders, but that number increased to 

48 by 1990. (Dobash & Dobash, 1987) Today, almost every state has some type of 

protective order provision, either in criminal or civil court. (Davis & Smith, 1995) 

Availability and effectiveness are very different questions, however, and the 

indications are that protective orders provide, at best, only limited protection. Davis and 

colleagues (1 997) report: 

60% of the women interviewed twice in one year after receiving a 

protective order suffered abuse at least once. Over one in five reported 

threats to kill, 20% reported severe violence, and 43% reported property 

damage. Threats and violence did not subside over time: there were no 

significant differences in the percentage reporting subsequent violence in 

the first 3 months of the year compared to the final 9 months of the year. 

Other researchers also have concluded that protective orders appear to have no more 

deterrent effect than other interventions. (Davis, et al., 1997) The history of abuse was 

the best predictor of the success of a protective order. (Davis & Smith, 1995) A study 

in California, involving domestic violence cases arising in 1989 and 1992, found that 

women who were more financially dependent were less persistent in seeking a civil 

protective order, and women who were more severely abused also were less persistent 

in seeking a civil protective order. (Fernandez, et al., 1997) Arrest rates in response to 

-201 - 
protective order violations were very low in one study in Colorado in the early 1990's. 

(Davis & Smith, 1995) Nonetheless, a recent study by the National Center for State 

Courts found that 72% of the women who had obtained protective orders reported that 

their lives had improved, and in follow-up interviews, 65% reported no continuing 

problems. (Keilitz, et al., 1997) 

I. Procedures for Obtaining Protective Orders 

The Iowa law provides for civil protective orders, including pro se petitions for 

relief, as well as criminal no-contact orders (which are pretrial release conditions or 

post-trial orders connected with the criminal case). The broad civil options for victims 

of domestic violence mean that victims who are reluctant to participate in prosecution 

may opt instead for a civil protective order remedy. Thus, it may be helpful to explore 

the civil options available, in order to understand what assistance can be provided 

through prosecution as part of a multidisciplinary team effort. 

A domestic abuse victim can seek relief from domestic abuse pursuant to 

chapter 236, by seeking: (1) an emergency order (good for 72 hours and available 

when the court is not open on an ex parte basis), pursuant to Iowa Code $236.6 (2001); 

a temporary order (available in an ex parte proceeding and good for about 15 days), 

pursuant to Iowa Code 5236.4 (2001); or a final (long-term) order (available after a 

hearing at which the defendant has an opportunity to defend, and good for up to one 

year and longer upon further proceedings to extend), pursuant to Iowa Code 5236.5 

(200 1 ). 

-202- 
There are form pleadings available for use by both pro se plaintiffs and lawyers 

representing plaintiffs. These include a petition and motions to dismiss, modify, and 

initiate contempt proceedings regarding protection orders. Any of the orders issued 

under chapter 236 may include provisions regarding child custody and visitation, 

maintenance and support, occupancy of the home, possession of property, counseling, 

and no-contact provisions, as well as any other provision which is necessary for the 

safety of the plaintiff. See Iowa Code § 236.5 (2001). 

Violation of the chapter 236 order can be contempt of court. Police can start 

these contempt proceedings by taking the alleged order violator into custody and before 

a magistrate. However, it is up to the pro se victim/plaintiff, or the attorney representing 

the victim/plaintiff, to pursue the contempt action beyond this initial appearance. 

Violations may also be filed as a simple misdemeanor complaint, at the discretion of the 

police and county attorney. In this case the matter is prosecuted by the state. 

There are advantages in proceeding under chapter 236 for protection. Chapter 

236 orders can be obtained quickly and at low or no cost, even after regular court 

hours. Effective July 1, 2001, filing fees and court costs were waived for plaintiffs, and 

service of process by sheriffs and other public officials is required to be done without 

charge to the plaintiff. If the defendant is located out of state, law enforcement officials 

will usually cooperate in serving the defendant in that area. Police are required to take 

an alleged order violator into custody and violators are jailed for violation of the orders. 

There also are disadvantages in proceeding under chapter 236. Relief is 

temporary. Court orders cannot ensure safety, but do provide further sanctions if the 

-203- 
domestic abuse continues. Modification or cancellation of the order is required if the 

parties wish to reunify. Violation of the order by either party can constitute contempt of 

court. The victim can be charged with aiding and abetting if it is proven that the victim 

has encouraged or otherwise assisted the abuser to violate the protection order. Only 

the sheriff, as opposed to a private process server, can perform service of the petition 

for domestic abuse and any orders and notices, upon the defendant. 

II. Specific Provisions for Obtaining a Protective Order 

Eligibility. In order to qualify for relief under chapter 236, two things must be 

shown: (a) the plaintiff and defendant fit one of the statutorily defined relationships; and 

(b) the plaintiff has been the victim of, or is in present danger an assault as defined in 

Iowa Code § 708.1. 

In order to qualify for relief under chapter 236, the plaintiff and defendant must 

be: 

family or household members who resided together at the time of the 

assault, excluding children of such family or household members who are 

under the age of eighteen. 

the assault. 

e separated or divorced persons who did not reside together at the time of 

parents of the same minor child. 

people who have been family or household members residing together 

within the past year, but are not currently residing together. 

“Family or household members” is defined as spouses, persons cohabitating, 

parents or other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, except persons under 18. 

Iowa Code § 236.2(4) (2001). It includes both heterosexual and homosexual 

partnerships. 

-204- 
In State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 518 (Iowa 1996), the court held that proof 

of a sexual relationship was not necessary to establish cohabitation for purposes of 

chapter 236. The court listed a number of indicia, to consider when making factual 

determination as to whether a couple was cohabitating: 

e sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living 

q u a rte rs . 

sharing of income or expenses. 0 

e 

e 

joint use or ownership of property. 

whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife. 

a the continuity of the relationship 

e the length of the relationship 

In addition to the relationship which must be proven, certain conduct must be 

alleged to have occurred or must be in danger of occurring: 

a acts intended to cause pain or injury to another, coupled with the apparent 

acts intended to result in physical contact which would be insulting or 

ability to execute the act; 

offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act; 

would be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the 

apparent ability to execute the act; 

weapon toward another in a threatening manner. 

0 

e acts intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which 

e intentionally pointing a firearm toward another, or displaying a dangerous 

No actual physical contact need be proven in order to satisfy the "assault" definition. 

See State v. Christenson, 472 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 1991) (in a domestic abuse case, high 

speed car chase constituted an "assault" within the meaning of section 708.1). 

Relief Available. Under chapter 236, the plaintiff can ask for specific relief in 

several respects, including: 

-205- 
Stop abuse. The court can order the defendant to cease domestic abuse of the 

plaintiff. Iowa Code 9 236.5(2)(a) (2001). This can include a general order, or can 

specify that the defendant cease harassment, stalking, attempts by the defendant to 

find the plaintiff, or other specific behaviors. 

Possession of the home. The court can order exclusive possession of the 

residence to the plaintiff, or can order the defendant to provide suitable alternate 

housing, based on a finding that the plaintiff and/or children are in immediate and 

present danger of violence. Iowa Code § 236.5(2)(b) (2001). See In re Marriage of 

Blitstein, 155 111. Dec. 746, 212 111. App. 3d 124, 569 N.E.2d 1357 (111. App. 2 Dist. 1991) 

(proper to exclude husband from home); Grant v. Wright, 222 N.J. Super. 191,536 

A.2d 319, cerf. denied, 11 1 N.J. 562, 546 A.2d 493 (N.J. 1988) (proper to award wife 

the apartment); Kilmer v. Kilmer, 109 A.2d 1004,486 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. A.D., 3 Dept. 

1985) (proper to exclude husband from home, even though he is tenant by the entirety 

and had equal right to residence). This order does not affect title to the property, but 

only possession. Iowa Code § 236.5(4) (2001). See Boyle v. Boyle, 12 D & C 3d 767 

(Pa. Common Pleas 1979) (temporary title to real estate upheld). The protection order 

cannot affect title to real property. Iowa Code § 236.20. Orders to vacate can be 

issued even if the plaintiff has fled the home to escape the abuse. Iowa Code § 

236.7(2) (2001). 

Stay away. The court can order the defendant to stay away from the plaintiffs 

residence, school, and/or place of employment. Iowa Code § 236.5(2)(c) (2001). If 

necessary to prevent further abuse, the court can order the defendant to stay away 

-206- 
from places frequented by the children or other family members. Iowa Code €j 

236.5(2)(c) (2001). The court should be specific about the defendant's use of 

telephone calls or children in an effort to reach the plaintiff indirectly. A protective order 

issued by another state should be filed with the clerk of court of the county in which the 

protected person resides. Iowa Code § 236.19. Mutual protective orders are permitted 

only when both parties file a petition requesting a protective order. Iowa Code Ej 

236.20. 

Custody and visitation. The court can determine temporary child custody and 

visitation, giving primary consideration to the safety of the plaintiff and the children. 

Iowa Code Ej 236.5(2)(d) (2001). See Marriage ofHoufchens, 233 Mont. 266, 760 P.2d 

71 (1 988) (presumption of joint custody rebutted by evidence of domestic violence). 

The court must investigate whether any existing custody awards must be modified in 

light of its custody and visitation determination. Id. 

The court should consider the potential for renewed violence during visitation 

and explore the need for special provisions, such as visitation arrangements through 

neutral third parties, supervised visitation, defendant's completion of a counseling 

program before visitation is begun, or revocation of visitation if the terms are not 

followed. See Hall w. Hall, 408 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. App. 1987) (not necessary to show 

that any violence was directed at the children; sufficient for wife to allege danger of 

violence against her). 

Support. The court can order the defendant to pay to the clerk of court or 

collection services a sum of money for the support of the children and the plaintiff 

-207- 
Mandatory child support guidelines are used to determine the amount of child support 

the defendant will be ordered to pay. Many times the plaintiff will have filed the petition 

before the attorney meets with her. The Supreme Court has granted pro se plaintiffs 

some leeway in completing the forms. A pro se plaintiff need not recite every allegation 

of abuse in the petition. Knight v. Knight, 525 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 1994). In Smith 

v. Smith, 513 N.W.2d 728, 731 (Iowa 1994) the plaintiff must allege only “enough facts 

to make it conceivable that [defendant] had assaulted her.” 

Attorneys fees. The court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs 

attorney’s fees and court costs. Iowa Code § 236.5(2)(e) (2001). Some evidence 

regarding the need for support presumably must be provided at the hearing. 

Counseling. The court can order the defendant, the plaintiff, and the children in 

the household to participate in counseling. Iowa Code § 236.5(2)(e) (2001). The court 

should carefully consider the potential for renewed violence when ordering such 

counseling, as the defendant who feels he is not responsible for abuse may become 

dangerous when participating in joint counseling with the plaintiff. 

Arrest for violations. The court should specify in the protective order that the 

defendant should be taken into custody by police for violation of the order. Iowa Code 

§ 236.5(2)(e) (2001). Whether or not this language appears, peace officers are still 

required to enforce orders by taking alleged violators into custody and before a 

magistrate. This enforcement mechanism is one benefit of chapter 236 protective 

orders over other injunctions. 

-208- 
Court cosfs. The court can order which party should be responsible for payment 

of court costs, as in any other case. That decision may be based on who prevails in the 

litigation, or who has the ability to pay. The court may order defendant to pay plaintiffs 

attorney fees. Iowa Code 5 236.5(3). 

Otherrelief. The court’s order is not limited to fhe relief specifically set out in the 

statute. Iowa Code § 236.5(2) (2001) (“The court may grant a protection order or 

approve a consent agreement which may contain but is nof limited to any of the 

following provisions . . .”) (emphasis is added). It can also contain orders for property 

and debt distribution such as possession of the family car or payment of the car loan. 

Other jurisdictions have read similar provisions broadly to include such things as the 

removal of weapons. Hoffman v. Union City, 572 A.2d 1200 (N. J. 1990) (police 

removed husband’s rifles, shotguns and Japanese saber after a domestic incident, and 

court ordered discontinuation of husband’s firearm purchase identification card). See 

also Powell v. Powell, 547 A.2d 973 (D.C. 1988). It might also include the return of 

property needed to care for the children, such as the family car, cribs or toys. 

Ill. Overview of Chapter 236 Procedure 

Filing and ex parte relief. In order to obtain a civil protective order under chapter 

236, the plaintiff must file a verified petition in the district court. Iowa Code § 236.3 

(2001). Venue is proper where either party resides. Courts vary on whether presence 

of the parties in the county is sufficient to establish venue, or whether it is necessary to 

prove that the “abuse” occurred in the county as well. 

-209- 
Sequence of available orders. The plaintiff can request an emergency order 

(good for up to 72 hours) when the courthouse is not open for business. Otherwise, the 

temporary order (good until a hearing is held) will be the first order which may be 

issued. This temporary order is issued ex parte, either upon the district judge reviewing 

the petition, or speaking with the plaintiff, or both. If a temporary, ex parte order is 

issued, the court must set the matter for hearing. Judges will not necessarily issue an 

ex parte, temporary order in every case. The court should only issue an ex parte, 

temporary order on a showing of “good cause.” If the court finds the petition meets the 

threshold elements of relationship, abuse, and jurisdictionhenue, but does not merit the 

issuance of an ex parte, temporary order, the court may set the petition for hearing, at 

which time it will consider whether to issue an order good for up to one year. At this 

hearing, the court need only find that the “defendant has engaged in domestic abuse” in 

order to issue the order. Iowa Code s236.5 (2001). 

Due process rights to notice and hearing may give way if exigent circumstances 

are shown. Although Iowa has not yet ruled on the subject, other state courts have 

upheld ex parte orders when they have been challenged on constitutional grounds, 

holding that the present danger of abuse outweighs the temporary deprivation of 

property and liberty. A hearing must be set with a relatively short period at which time 

the defendant can contest the allegations. See, e.g., Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 

(Minn. 1992); Marqueffe v Marqueffe, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Ct. App. 1984); State ex re/ 

Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1982); Blaze/ v. Bradley, 698 F. Supp. 756 

(W.D. Wis. 1988). But see Deacon v. Landers, 68 Ohio App.3d 26,587 N.E.2d 395 

J 

-21 0- 
(Ohio App. 1990) (the plaintiffs due process rights were violated when a mutual 

protection order was issued at end of scheduled hearing, upon oral request of the 

defendant, without any testimony presented in support). 

The protective order that can be effective for up to one year (sometimes referred 

to as a “permanent” order or “final” order) is issued after the full hearing if the plaintiff 

carries the burden of proof. 

Filing and service fees. Before the 2000-2001 legislative session, prepayment of 

fees for filing chapter 236 actions could be waived if the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating 

that she did not have sufficient funds to pay the costs of filing and service. If 

prepayment of fees was waived, the court was to determine at the time of hearing 

whether payment of fees would Aprejudice the plaintiffs financial ability to provide 

economic necessities for the plaintiff or the plaintiffs dependents. Additionally, the 

court could order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees and court costs. In 

2001, in response to federal Violence against Women Act funding certification 

requirements, the Iowa legislature amended this section by providing in all cases that 

the court costs and filing fees be waived for the plaintiff. Likewise, service of process 

by the sheriff in any county in the state, other law enforcement, and corrections officers 

shall be done without charge to the plaintiff. 

Attorney’s fees. A provision of Iowa law which permits the court to order the 

defendant in a Chapter 236 action to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees, as well as the 

court costs. 

-211- 
Injunctive relief. The court may grant whatever injunctive relief it deems 

necessary “upon a finding that the defendant has engaged in domestic abuse.” Iowa 

Code § 236.5 (2001). “Chapter 236 is protective rather than punitive in nature. We 

place upon the statute ‘a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effect its 

purpose rather than one which will defeat it.’” State v. Christenson. 472 N.W. 2”d 279, 

280 (Iowa 1991). The Minnesota court has said that past abusive behavior may be 

probative in determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Boniek v. Boniek, 443 

N.W.2d 196, 198 (Minn. App. 1989). 

Hearing. A hearing on a petition for relief should be held within 5 to 15 days of 

the filing of the petition and notice to the defendant. Iowa Code 5 236.4 (2001). 

Indefinite continuances are probably not contemplated. The defendant must be served 

notice pursuant to the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. Iowa Code § 236.7 (2001). 

At the hearing on the protection order, the plaintiff has the burden to prove the 

alleged abuse by a preponderance of evidence. Plaintiffs have subpoena powers. The 

defendant has a right to continue the hearing in order to obtain counsel. The statute 

does not specify that counsel must be appointed at government expense. If the 

allegations are proven, the court can issue a protective order that can be in effect for up 

to one year. Iowa Code §236.4(1) (2001). 

The failure of the plaintiff to appear at the hearing may justify dismissal of the 

petition. Iowa R. Civ. P. 230. Arguably, the court may not, howeyer, dismiss a petition 

without a hearing, based on the prior dismissal of similar petitions. State ex re/. 

Marshall v. Hargreaves, 302 Or. 1, 725 P.2d 923, 925 (1 986). 

-21 2- 
Consent agreements. Chapter 236 allows for consent agreements to be 

approved by the court instead of holding a hearing. Iowa Code 9 236.5(2) (2001). The 

defendant may agree to be bound by the terms of a protection order, even though he 

does not agree that domestic abuse occurred. Not all judges will enter an order for 

protection or approve a consent agreement without a finding of domestic abuse. Iowa 

Code 9 236.5 may require that there can be no relief granted without a finding of 

domestic abuse. 

Orders and scope of relief. After the hearing for the one-year order, the court 

must make specific findings (written or on the record in open court). Iowa Code 9 236.6 

(2001) If the court finds probable cause to believe that domestic abuse has occurred 

(including a “threat” as included in the definition of assault), an order should be issued. 

Alternatively, the court can approve the terms of a consent agreement reached by the 

parties. The court’s order should provide that the defendant must be taken into custody 

for violation of the order. Iowa Code § 236.5 (2001). A court shall not issue mutual 

protective orders unless both parties have filed a petition. Iowa Code 9236.21 (2001). 

Extending protection orders. No new acts of abuse appear to be required in 

order to renew the protective order. One-year protective orders may be extended. 

Upon filing for an extension with notice and hearing, the court may grant an extension 

of the order if the defendant continues to pose a treat to the safety of the plaintiff. The 

number of extensions is not limited. 

Modifying protection orders. A plaintiff may desire to change the terms of a 

protection order once it has been issued. For example, she may want to keep the 

-213- 
provision which enjoins domestic abuse and that which grants her custody of the 

children and the home, but may wish to have the defendant visit her and the children. 

In this case, it is possible to request that the court modify the terms of the order. 

Child custody. A party is estopped from litigating custody or placement of a child 

who is the subject of a juvenile court action. The jurisdictional requirements of the 

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) apply in domestic 

abuse cases. The information required by the UCCJEA is prompted in the form pro se 

domestic abuse petition. 

Notice of protective order. The clerk of court should give notice of the order to 

the plaintiff, the defendant, and the county sheriff (written notice within 6 hours), and to 

the 24-hour dispatcher for the sheriff (written notice within 6 hours). The dispatcher 

must notify law enforcement agencies of the entry of the order. Notice may be sent by 

facsimile. 

Confidentiality of records and plaintiffs address. Plaintiffs may use alternative 

mailing addresses, as set out in section 236.10, both for purposes of filing petitions and 

for obtaining utilities and other services. The provision also provides for sealing certain 

court records under chapter 236 by court order. Iowa Code $236.10(3) and (4) (2001). 

Uniform Orders. The Iowa Supreme Court issues uniform orders for protection 

that are required to be used by all judges without modification, and must be used in all 

civil, criminal and dissolution actions. 

IV. Enforcement of Protective Orders 

-2 14- 
In general. A court “may” hold a party in contempt for violating a chapter 236 

protective order; a chapter 598 temporary or permanent protection order or order to 

vacate the homestead; or a criminal no-contact order. Iowa Code § 236.8 (2001). A 

court is not required to hold a party in contempt, even when the facts indicate that the 

order has been violated. State v. Lipcamon, 483 N.W.2d 605, 607-08 (Iowa 1992). 

+ 

Hearing on the contempt action should be held 5-15 days after the issuance of a rule to 

show cause. Iowa Code § 236.8 (2001). 

Differences in contempt proceedings. Chapter 236 contemplates that violations 

of orders -- whether originating from chapters 236 or 598, or from chapter 708 as a 

condition of release in a domestic abuse criminal case - may be treated either as a 

contempt of court under Chapter 665 of the Iowa code or as a simple misdemeanor 

offense. Iowa Code 5 236.8 (2001). Significant differences exist between the two 

treatments: 

How filed. If peace officers are involved in the violation case, and determine that 

there is probable cause to believe that an order has been violated, their duty is to bring 

the alleged order violators into custody and before a magistrate. See Iowa Code § 

236.1 1 (2001). 

Willfulness requirement. Another difference between the two treatments of order 

violations is whether willfulness is required to be proved. If the order violation is 

proceeding as a contempt of court under Chapter 665, a showing of willfulness, beyond 

a reasonable doubt, will be required. Bell v. Iowa District Courl for Linn County, 494 

N.W.2d 729,730-31 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). In lnferest of B.C.A.K., 508 N.W.2d 738, 

-21 5- 
740 (Iowa App. 1993) (contempt proceeding is essentially criminal in nature). Henley v. 

lowa District Court for Emmet County, 553 N.W. 2d (Iowa 1995). In Merest of 

B.C.A.K., 508 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa App. 1993) (contempt proceeding is essentially 

criminal in nature). “Willful disobedience requires evidence of conduct which is 

‘intentional and deliberate with a bad or evil purpose, or wanton and in disregard of the 

rights of others, or contrary to a known duty, or unauthorized, coupled with an 

unconcern whether had the right or not.”’ Bell, 494 N.W.2d at 730. An attorney’s 

advice to ignore a court order will likely not be a defense to a contempt proceeding. 

Nicklerv. Nickler, 45 D & C 3d 49 (Pa. Common Pleas 1985). 

In contrast to the willfulness required for proving contempt of court for a violation 

of a protective order under Iowa Code § 236.8, proof of a violation of an order as part of 

a simple misdemeanor prosecution under Iowa Code § 236.8 does not require a 

showing of willfulness. State v. Moeller, 589 N.W. 2d 53 (Iowa 1999). 

Jail time. All violations of protection or no-contact orders are to be punished with 

jail time, with any time in excess of a day being served on consecutive days. Iowa 

Code § 236.8 (2001) (‘‘If convicted or held in contempt, the defendant shall serve a jail 

sentence...”). See also In Re: S.D.L., 568 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 1997) (holding that a 

juvenile court has the power to issue a “detention sentence” for contempt charges in a 

violation of a no contact order under Iowa code chapters 232 and 236). However, a 

careful reading of the code provisions appears to set a mandatory minimum jail 

sentence of 7 (seven) days for violations of no-contact orders in criminal cases only. 

-2 16- 
Compare Iowa Code 5 236.14(2), last unnumbered paragraph with Iowa Code § 236.8, 

first unnumbered paragraph. 

Who prosecutes. If the order violation proceeds as a simple misdemeanor, it is 

clear that the county attorney prosecutes the action. If, however, the matter is filed as a 

contempt of court and will proceed under chapter 665, it is less clear whether the 

county attorney has any role. An Iowa Attorney General’s opinion has concluded (I) the 

county attorney is authorized to prosecute contempt actions; and (2) no one is 

specifically “required” to prosecute contempt actions. 1993 Iowa Op. Atty. Gen. 26 

(Brenden to Appel). 

It must be made clear, that if the county attorney pursues a contempt action, it is 

done on behalf of the public and not on behalf of the individual litigant. To represent 

the individual litigant would likely create an unethical conflict of interest for the county 

attorney. When the contempt is prosecuted by the county attorney, the victim does not 

control the litigation. Therefore it is advisable, from her point of view, that a private 

attorney prosecutes the contempt action. The Iowa courts generally have preferred that 

the “real party in interest’’ represent the interests of the court in prosecuting a contempt 

action. See Iowa R. App. P. 303. See also State w. Rudolph, 240 Iowa 726, 37 N.W.2d 

483 (1949). Cf. Young v. United States ex re/. Vuitton, 481 U.S. 787,801, 107 S. Ct. 

2124, 95 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1987)(holding as a matter of its supervisory authority over the 

lower federal courts that “counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may 

not be appointed to undertake contempt prosecutions for alleged violators of that 

order;” and “a court ordinarily should first request the appropriate prosecuting authority 

-21 7- 
to prosecute contempt actions, and should appoint a private prosecutor only if that 

request is denied”). 

On the other hand, there are some strong advantages when the county attorney 

pursues enforcement actions. The case may be less likely to “fall between the cracks” 

when the clerk of court informs the county attorney that an order violation is alleged 

than when the plaintiff is notified and must find a private attorney to prosecute. 

Likewise, if the county attorney controls the progress of the contempt action, double 

jeopardy issues might be avoided. In order to avoid any problems with double 

jeopardy, an attorney who is representing a plaintiff in a domestic abuse protection 

order contempt action should tell the county attorney of contempt enforcement actions. 

Extensions of orders. Orders may be extended beyond the original time set 

upon proof that the defendant continues to pose a treat to the safety of the plaintiff. 

The number of extensions is not limited. Iowa Code § 236.5(2)(e) (2001). Another 

difference between “civil protection orders” (Le., those issued under chapter 236) and 

“no-contact orders” issued as part of a release or sentencing order in a criminal 

domestic abuse action relates to the time of filing of extensions. In criminal cases, the 

court may modify a no-contact order to make it effective up to one year beyond the date 

of judgment or deferred judgment. If the state seeks to extend this modified order, it 

must file for such an extension ninety days prior to the expiration of the sentencing 

order. Iowa Code § 236.14(2) (2001). 

Victim participation in the contempf offense. The victim’s permission and 

participation is not a defense to a violation of a no-contact order, but can be considered 

-21 8- 
in determining willfulness. Lipcamon, 483 N.W.2d at 607; Henley v. lowa District Court 

of Emmet County, 533 N.W.2d 199,202 (Iowa 1995). The court found that the victim 

was subject to the summary proceedings of chapter 236, and did not have a right to 

notice and a show cause hearing under chapter 665. See also Mohamed v. Mohamed, 

232 N.J. Super. 474, 557 A.2d 696 (N.J. App. Div. 1989) (reconciliation of parties 

destroyed the viability of the protective order). It is, however, possible for the victim to 

aid or abet a contempt. Hutcheson v. lowa District Court for Lee County, 480 N.W .2d 

260, 263 (Iowa 1992). 

Notice to the defendant. Notice of the hearing to show cause must be served on 

the defendant, not on the defendant's attorney. Bell, 494 N.W.2d at 731. The 

defendant must have knowledge (not necessarily service) of the court's order before 

being held in contempt. State v. Delap, 466 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa App. 1990); Small v 

State, 809 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex. App. 1991). 

Contempt is criminal in nature. If found in contempt, the contemnor must be sent 

to jail, and any jail sentence must be served on consecutive days. Iowa Code § 236.8 

(2001). Because the punishment for the contempt is jail, it is criminal contempt. Hicks 

v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624,631, 108 S. Ct. 1423,99 L. Ed. 2d 721, 731 (1988). 

Therefore, the defendant has a right to court-appointed counsel for this hearing. The 

defendant has no right to a jury trial. Cooke v. Naylor, 573 A.2d 376, 377-78 (Me. 

1990). 

Foreign protection orders. Iowa law provides for enforcement of an out-of-state 

protective order. Iowa Code 5 236.19 (2001). The order must have been issued by 

-219- 
another state, Indian tribe, or territory that had jurisdiction and must be the equivalent of 

protective or no-contact orders issued in Iowa. Iowa Code §236.19(1) (2001). Iowa 

law provides for treatment of foreign orders -- notice to law enforcement, and 

enforcement by peace officers, for instance --the same as Iowa orders. 

V. Efficacy of Protective Order 

Use of the civil domestic abuse protective order grew exponentially in Iowa when 

the pro se process was first enacted in 1985. Although the number of criminal nocontact orders has not been tracked as closely, anecdotal information suggests that the 

use of criminal orders also has grown dramatically. 

Protective orders do not necessarily reduce revictimization. (Mears et al., 2001 ) 

The orders may, however, serve as another resource for victims who try to regain some 

* control in their relationships, at least temporarily. It also can serve as a test of legal 

system. In one study, less than half of the women who initiated the protective order 

process actually obtained a final protective order. The researchers attributed the small 

number to the practical difficulties in obtaining the final order: the need to go to the 

court on two different occasions, often with lengthy waits that take time away from 

family or jobs. (Zoellner et al. 2000) Two primary factors affected the likelihood that a 

woman would obtain a final order: (1) her attachment to the batterer, and (2) her 

perception of the severity of the threat that the abuser posed. A woman who was more 

closely attached to her abuser was less likely to seek a final order. A woman who 

perceived that the abuser posed a serious threat was more likely to seek a final order. 

(Zoellner et at. 2000) 

-220- 
When victims are not given control over the imposition of a protective order, 

there is a great risk that the protective order will not only fail to serve as a resource for 

the victim, but that it may serve to entrap the victim in another uncontrollable and 

unmanageable situation. (Tarr, 2003) 

One of the primary disadvantages of any type of protective order in Iowa is the 

possibility that the person seeking protection can be charged with aiding and abetting 

the violation of that order. The issue first arose in a case in which an attorney sought 

an order of protection against his girlfriend - after he had previously been charged with 

domestic abuse assault against her - and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the aiding 

and abetting principle applied to protective order violations, just as it did to any other 

criminal act. Hutcheson v. Iowa District Courf for Lee County, 480 N.W.2d 260, 263 

(Iowa 1992). 

The second case of aiding and abetting involved a domestic abuse victim who 

sought a protective order against her abuser and then invited him back to her home. 

Henley v. lowa District Court of Emmet County, 533 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 1995). In 

that case, the county attorney sought to speed the victim’s process of leaving by forcing 

her to separate from her abuser. (Personal communication with prosecutor.) 

The practical effect of such a principle of law, of course, can be devastating. 

Violence often escalates at the time of separation, which may cause victims to return to 

the relationship in order to de-escalate the violence. In addition, leaving a violent 

relationship is a process, and victims often return to the violent relationship several 

-221- 
times before they gather enough resources to be able to leave. Criminal charges 

against the victim may not speed the process of leaving, and in fact may impede it. 

The aiding-and-abetting option is particularly troublesome when the protective 

. order is a criminal no-contact order. The victim has no control over the imposition or 

removal of a criminal no-contact order. Rather, the prosecutor makes the decision 

about such no-contact orders. Victims may be caught between Scylla and Charibdis: 

they face increased risk of violence at the time of separation if they refuse to reconcile, 

or a very real risk of criminal sanctions if they do reconcile. 

The aiding-and-abetting issue has created tension between victim advocates and 

prosecutors in Iowa. Prosecutors who receive federal funding can endanger their 

funding if the VAWA prosecutor is assigned to prosecute victims. Some county 

attorneys have responded by disallowing the VAWA prosecutor from prosecuting 

victims, but assigning the prosecution to another attorney in the county attorney’s office. 

The effect is the same, from the victim’s viewpoint. 

The policy of prosecuting aiding and abetting violations diminishes the victim’s 

trust in the prosecution. As the POET project demonstrated, the victim’s trust in the 

prosecution is the key to providing meaningful risk assessment. 

-222- 
- AppendixG: 

Official Statistics 

-223- 
POET Project 

Official Statistics 

The following data were extracted from data provided by the Iowa Court Information System 

regarding domestic abuse based charges filed in the Iowa District Court for the POET county, 

during SFY 1995 - SFY 1999. 

The population of those charged in court with a domestic abuse based crime during the study 

period totaled 1,144 individuals, who were charged with 1,748 separate offenses in 1,470 

separate court cases. Of the 1,144 individuals, 222, or 19.4%, had between two and eight 

separate court cases initiated against them. There were a total of 548 charges filed against the 

222 recidivist offenders, which comprised 31.4% of the total charges filed against all offenders. 

Table 1: Court Cases Filed Involving Domestic Abuse Charges 

Table 2: Distribution of Domestic Abuse Charges by Case , 

I I I I I 

TOTALCASES I 314 I 31 9 I 28 1 I 295 I 26 1 

Table 3: Cases Involving Defendants With More Than One Domestic Abuse Related 

Court Case from SFY 1995 Through SFY 1999 

-224- 
Filed 

Number of Enhanced 

Felony Charges 

Percentage of All Filed 

Charges 

0 0 0 13 7 20 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 2.1% 1.1% 

1999 

TOTALS 

-225- 

86 62 72% 19 22% 0 0% 0 0% 5 6% 

336 237 71% 87 26% 4 1% 3 1% 5 1% 

S FY Number JaillPrison JaiVPrison Probation Fine Attend 

VPO Suspended BEP 

b Convictions 
sanctions for a single conviction, e.g., serve a term of incarceration and, upon release, serve a period of 

probation. 

-226- 
Sample DART County 

Official Statistics 

The following data were extracted from data provided by the Iowa Court Information System 

regarding domestic abuse based charges filed in the Iowa District Court for a sample DART 

county, during SFY 1995 - SFY 1999. 

The population of those charged in court with a domestic abuse based crime during the study 

period totaled 1,236 individuals, who were charged with 1,237 separate offenses in 1,236 

separate court cases. Of the 1,236 individuals, 239, or 19.3%, had between two and thirteen 

separate court cases initiated against them. There were a total of 753 charges filed against the 

239 recidivist offenders, which comprised 60.9% of the total charges filed against all offenders. 

Table 7: Types of Domestic Assault Related Cases By SFY 

1998 322 322 180 56% 18 6% 9 3% 115 36% 

1999 242 242 124 51% 17 7% 12 5% 89 37% 

TOTAL 1236 1237 728 59% 83 7% 21 2% 405 33% 

Notes: YO = Percentage of Court Charges. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 

Table 8: Domestic Abuse Assault (Non-Enhanced) Charge Outcomes By SFY 

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 

-227- 
Table 9: Sanctions Imposed in Domestic Abuse Assault (Non-Enhanced) Charges by 

SFY 

i 998 

1999 

TOTAL 

133 26 20% 3 2% 1 1% ~~ 102 77% 23 17% 

106 46 43% 10 9% 0 0% 73 69% 10 9% 

520 235 45% 41 8% 4 1% 377 73% a0 15% 

Table IO: Domestic Abuse Assault Enhanced Misdemeanor Outcomes by SFY 

TOTAL a3 56 68% 2 2% 17 21% a 10% 

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 

Table 1 1 : Sanctions Imposed in Domestic Abuse Assault Enhanced Misdemeanor 

Charges by SFY 

not 

-228- 
Notes: JaiVPrison Suspended indicates a case in which some portion of the jail/prison sentence 

imposed was suspended. More than one sanction may be imposed for a charge. Percentages may 

total 100% due to rounding and due to the imposition of multiple sanctions. 

Table 12: Domestic Abuse Assault Enhanced Felony Outcomes by SFY 

Notes: Felony level DAA became effective in SFY 1998. Percentages may not total 100% due to 

rounding. 

Table 13: Sanctions Imposed in Domestic Abuse Assault Felony Charges by SFY 

Notes: Felony level DAA became effective in SFY 1998. JaiVPrison Suspended indicates a case in 

not 

which some portion of the jail/prison sentence imposed was suspended. More than one sanction may 

be imposed for a charge. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding and due to the imposition of 

multiple sanctions. 

Table 14: Violation of Protective Order Outcomes By Fiscal Year 

-229- 
1998 

1999 

TOTAL 

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 

115 41 36% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 62 54% 12 10% 

ag 38 43% I 1% o 0% 2 2% o 0% 2 2% 33 37% 13 15% 

405 15 38% 1 0% 3 1% 3 1% 3 1% 8 2% 15 39% 75 19% 

5 7 

Table 15: Sanctions Imposed in Violation of Protective Order Charges by SFY 

imposed was suspended. More than one sanction may be imposed for a charge-. Additional sanctions 

not listed may also be imposed. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding, due to other 

sanctions being imposed and due to the imposition of multiple sanctions. 

-230- 
Appendix H: 

Model DART Policy 

-23 1 - 
Model Policy 

for Domestic Abuse Response Team Projects 

Many communities have found that their response to domestic violence improves 

dramatically when they develop cooperative efforts to address domestic violence 

issues. The focus of team efforts has been criminal prosecution, but response teams 

also may include representatives from the medical, social service, or business 

community. 

Because each team must be geared to the particular community in which it operates, 

policies may vary widely and composition of the team also may vary. This model policy 

provides some suggestions regarding possible policy determinations by the response 

team. 

(1 ) Terminology 

For purposes of this protocol, the following definitions will be used: 

“Domestic violence” means a pattern of assaultive and coercive or controlling 

behaviors, including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks, as well as economic 

coercion, that adults and adolescents use against their intimate partners. 

“Domestic abuse” is defined in Iowa Code section 236.2(2) as follows: 

committing assault as defined in section 708.1 under any of the following 

circumstances: 

a. The assault is between family or household members who resided together 

at the time of the assault. 

6. The assault is between separated spouses or persons divorced from each 

other and not residing together at the time of the assault. 

c. The assault is between persons who are parents of the same minor child, 

regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time. 

d. The assault is between persons who have been family or household 

members residing together within the past year and are not residing together at 

the time of the assault. 

e. The assault is between persons who are in an intimate relationship or have 

been in an intimate relationship and have had contact within the past year of the 

assault. In determining whether persons are or have been in an intimate 

relationship, the court may consider the following nonexclusive list of factors: 

(1) The duration of the relationship. 

(2) The frequency of interaction. 

(3) Whether the relationship has been terminated. 

-232- 
(4) The nature of the relationship, characterized by either party's expectation of 

A person may be involved in an intimate relationship with more than one person 

sexual or romantic involvement. 

at a time. 

(2) Composition of the Team 

The team should be composed of the following: 

- Assistant County Attorney(s) 

- Victim-witness coordinator 

- Police Department 

- Dedicated officer 

- Overtime officers 

- Sheriffs off ice 

__ Dedicated officer 

.- Overtime officers 

__ Victim advocate 

- District Correctional Services 

- Probation officer 

- BEP coordinator 

- Medica I corn m u n it y 

__ Doctors 

___ Nurses 

- Public health nurses 

__ Business community 

- Other 

Comment 

At a minimum, the team must include a prosecutor, an investigator and an advocate. 

If the team has a large caseload, each of these roles could be filled by more than one 

person. 

The addition of a probation/parole officer from the judicial district department of 

corrections (particularly if the officer also serves as the Batterer Education Program 

-233- 
coordinator) is advantageous, because it enhances the ability to hold the offender 

accounta ble. 

reduced. The disadvantage is that the team is not able to respond to as many cases. 

need to have a 28E coopecation agreement with otherjurisdictions in order to cover 

investigations throughout a county. 

The advantage of a small team is that the group works together well and conflicts are 

If only one investigator is assigned, that officer may have limited jurisdiction, or may 

(3) Support for the Team 

The leaders of the various agencies should express their support for the efforts of 

the response team by 

__ Articulating a specific policy for the agency 

- Amending agency policies to further the goals of the response team 

- Training for response team members 

- Training for others in agencies 

Comment 

Support for the team is critically important to its success. The county atforney, the 

local law enforcement agency and the local domestic violence program must provide 

affirmative support (not merely tacit support) for the concept and the implementation of 

the response team program. This support must come from the top administrator in 

each of the various agencies, and must be clearly stated. Without such explicit support, 

the team’s actions may be tentative and ineffective. In addition, without that supporf, 

any domestic violence commifted by employees of any of the participating agencies 

may be ignored or minimized. 

In addition, the success of the team is more likely if there is support from the local 

judiciary, the judicial district department of corrections, and the community at large. 

Law Enforcement Agency Support. The chief of police or the sheriff should make it 

clear that the response team program is supported. This includes not only public 

statements and official policies, but also a .commitment to continued training of all 

oftkers, and continuous review of all invesfigations related to domestic abuse. The 

chief or sheriff must make it clear that domestic abuse cases are a priority for the 

department, and that a victim’s “use”of the criminal justice system is not an abuse, but 

a resource for the victim. 

Prosecution Support. The county attorney must provide support for the response 

team prosecutor by permitfing the prosecutor to set prosecution policies on domestic 

-234- 
violence cases, and by supporting the response team prosecutor‘s efforts in particular 

cases. The caseload must be manageable, that is, in the range of 100-125 open 

cases. 

The county attorney also must recognize that domestic violence cases are different 

from other cases. The prosecutor who handles these cases must have a different kind 

of emotional support system, within or outside the office. +A domestic abuse prosecutor, 

unlike other prosecutors in the county attorney’s office, may feel demoralized when 

regularly working with victims who do not support the prosecutor’s efforts. In addition, 

the domestic abuse prosecutor will work with victims who have been repeatedly 

traumatized, and the prosecutor may be subjected to secondary trauma that is unlike 

other cases. 

Victim Advocate Support. The non-governmental agency that provides the team’s 

victim advocate must be willing to support the criminal justice efforts, while balancing 

the particular needs of specific clients. Advocates should be trained on criminal justice 

system procedures and principles, as well as system-advocacy techniques. 

(4) Goal setting 

The team should agree on the overriding goals of the team, and should set 

objectives that are clear and measurable. In addition, the team should set up periodic 

reviews of goals and objectives. The goal-setting should be accomplished jointly and 

should include top-level administrators as well as team members. 

___ Set up meetings to discuss goals & objectives 

__ Include top-level administrators 

- Include DART members 

- 6-month review by DART members 

- Annual review by top-level administrators 

- Provide for periodic review of goals & objectives 

Examples of Response Team Goals 

0 There are two overriding goals in any domestic abuse response effort: (1) offender 

accountability and (2) victim safety. All policies and procedures should be designed 

with these dual goals in mind. 

0 Leaving a violent relationship is a process. Victims leave when they have gathered 

enough resources to be able to live independently and safely. The DART program 

can refer victims to other agencies so that the victim can gather more resources, 

more quickly, in order to be able to leave a violent relationship safely. The DART 

program cannot impose a timeline for a victim to leave a relationship. 

-235- 
o The criminal justice system can be a resource or a barrier to a victim leaving a violent 

relationship. The goal of the DART project is to make the criminal justice system a 

resource, by focusing on victim safety issues and by holding offenders accountable 

for the violence. 

on the victim’s concern for safety. A victim’s reluctance to participate in the criminal 

justice system is not a personal affront to law enforcement officers or to the 

prosecutor, but a reflection of the victim’s assessment of safety. 

criminal justice officials must recognize that victims and offenders must depend on 

other resources in the community to hold the offender accountable and to protect the 

victim’s safety. The response to domestic violence must be community wide in order 

to have an impact on the incidence of domestic violence. Thus, the team will work 

with other community agencies and individuals who can provide resources that will 

assist the targets of domestic violence. 

responses. Every effort will be made to facilitate communication, to remove barriers, 

to coordinate agency efforts, to hold offenders accountable, and to maximize the 

safety of victims. Inter-agency or intra-agency turf battles are counterproductive and 

must be avoided. Conflict resolution should occur promptly and professionally. If an 

outside mediator would be beneficial, the team may call upon [name of mediator or 

mediation group]. 

0 Domestic violence cases cannot be relegated to response team members, to the 

exclusion of other members of an agency. Thus, team members will provide 

specialized training to other members of the agency or will arrange for training by 

others, so that the team response can be expanded to include more than team 

members. 

0 Domestic abusers are master manipulators, are likely to punish their victims for any 

perceived disloyalty, and may engage third parties who are unfamiliar with domestic 

violence to assist in the manipulation and punishment of victims. The DART project 

should make every effort to identify these manipulative techniques and thwart efforts 

to manipulate or punish victims. 

0 Domestic violence committed by employees of each participating agency must be 

addressed promptly and professionally. Cases involving employees who engage in 

domestic violence in their personal lives should be handled by outside agencies in 

order to avoid conflicts of interest, and should be referred promptly in order to ensure 

the safety of the targets of the domestic violence. Each agency is encouraged to 

develop a policy to address the problem of domestic violence perpetrated by an 

employee. 

o A victim’s decision to work with law enforcement officers and prosecutors is based 

0 The domestic violence response is not limited to the criminal justice system, and 

0 Team responses have the potential to be more effective than individual agency 

Examples of Response Team Objectives 

-236- 
o DART members will attend training on domestic violence issues at least 

[onceltwicelthree] times per year. At least once a year, the team will attend a 

multidisciplinary training together. 

o The DART members will train employees in their respective agencies to respond to 

domestic violence more effectively. 

o DART members will learn how to use threat assessments and will be able to identify 

high-risk factors in the cases they handle. 

o DART members will make contacts with local community services to ensure that 

referrals can be made to well-qualified community members.. 

o DART members will participate in organizing community training programs that focus 

on domestic violence issues. 

o Information about case processing will be based on compatible information systems, 

so that information can be shared among team members in a meaningful way. 

o The DART program will develop protocols for dealing with common issues (e.g., 

confidentiality of shelter information; investigative contacts, etc.) 

0 Evaluation of goals and objectives should occur at least annually, and can be 

conducted by a third party. 

(5) Response Team Policy Development 

Scope of response team activities. 

- Types of cases to be handled by the response team 

- Domestic abuse assaults 

- Domestic related misdemeanors 

___ Domestic related felonies 

- Civil protective order violations prosecuted as misdemeanors 

- Civil protective order violations prosecuted as contempt 

__ Criminal no-contact order violations 

- Who handles cases 

__ Assistant county attorney on response team 

- Another assistant county attorney 

__ Dedicated officer(s) 

- Overtime officers 

- Dedicated victim advocate 

__ All victim advocates 

- Dedicated probation officer 

- All probation officers 

-237- 
- Processing of cases 

- Initial response standards 

__ Follow up investigation standards 

Charging decision standards 

- Criminal assaults 

- Protective order violations 

- Standards for review of charging decisions 

- Standards for contact with victim 

- Initial appearance procedures 

- Bail reconsideration procedures 

~ Pretrial release conditions and no-contact orders 

- Policies regarding trial continuances 

- Pretrial motion procedures 

- Trial procedures 

- Jury or bench trial requests 

- Jury selection strategies 

- Trial strategies 

- Post-trial questioning of jurors 

- Sentencing policies 

Comment 

The team should establish what cases will be handled, who will handle them, and how 

they will be handled. For example, the scope might range from handling only 

misdemeanor domestic abuse assault cases, to handling any crime that is committed by 

one intimate against another, or from handling only criminal no-contact order violations 

to handling all civil and criminal protection order violations. 

The response team should have standardized policies regarding who will be arrested 

and how those arrests will be handled. This should include the handling of cases 

involving persons who work within the criminal justice system or persons who work wifh 

the agencies represented on the response teams, in order to avoid claims of favoritism 

or special treatment of persons connected with the team. 

The prosecutor should establish who will bring charges, what considerations will be 

made in deciding on a charge, and how information about the final charge will be 

communicated to the investigator and the victim advocate on the team. 

The prosecufor should establish at least general sentencing policy recommendations. 

The prosecutor may have a ‘ktandard sentence,” or may simply set sentencing ’Qoals” 

that are designed to hold the offender accountable. 

-238- 
The team should decide whether civil protective order violations will be included within 

the purview of the team. Presumably, the person who obtained the protective order will 

be arrested only if the prosecutor determines that charges should be brought, and the 

policies should reflect his assumption. 

Examples of Policies 

+ Initial response to the crime will be by police officers dispatched to the scene. 

o Initial response to the crime will be by police officers and victim advocates 

o Initial investigation should include documentation of the following: identifying & 

dispatched to the scene 

demographic information; 91 1 emergency calls; interviews with all eyewitnesses and 

neighbors; documentation of any protective orders in effect; observations of the 

victim, the offender and the home; weapons in the home or available to the primary 

physical aggressor; evidence of first aid, clothing tears, blood spots, property 

damage or telephone damage or alteration; statements from the victim and the 

offender, both pre-arrest and post-arrest; any physical injuries to the victim or to the 

offender; any medical treatment sought by the victim or the offender; any indications 

of strangulation; any signs of intoxication; seizure of “I’m sorry” letters; recommended 

follow up; consent to search form; medical release form; Miranda form; juvenile 

waiver form; body map depicting injuries and photographs of injuries. 

0 If the offender is not present at the scene, the investigating officer should forward the 

investigative report to the prosecutor so that an arrest warrant application may be 

prepared. 

o Follow up investigation will be conducted by a dedicated officer within 24 hours. 

o Follow up investigation will be conducted by overtime officers within 24 hours. 

o Follow up investigations will include documentation of the following: identifying & 

demographic information; 91 1 emergency calls; interviews with all eyewitnesses and 

neighbors; documentation of any protective orders in effect; observations of the 

victim, the offender and the home; weapons in the home or available to the primary 

physical aggressor; evidence of first aid, clothing tears, blood spots, property 

damage or telephone damage or alteration; statements from the victim and the 

offender, both pre-arrest and post-arrest; any physical injuries to the victim or to the 

offender; any medical treatment sought by the victim or the offender; any indications 

of strangulation; any signs of intoxication; seizure of Ym sorry” letters; recommended 

follow up; consent to search form; medical release form; Miranda form; juvenile 

waiver form; body map depicting injuries and photographs of injuries. 

0 Charging decisions will be made initially by police officers, based on the evidence 

obtained at the time of the arrest. If there is a bodily injury visible, or a complaint of 

-239- 
pain that would indicate a bodily injury, an arrest must be made. If there is no bodily 

injury or complaint of pain, then arrest is discretionary. 

o Only the primary physical aggressor in an arrest shall be arrested. Persons who are 

acting in self-defense or defense of others should not be arrested. Arrests of primary 

physical aggressors should not be based on who struck the first blow or who was 

more severely injured. Dual arrests are permissible only if there are two separate 

and distinct assaults and the officer is persuaded from the evidence that each party 

qualified as a primary physical aggressor, pursuant to Iowa Code section 236.12(3): 

“In identifying the primary physical aggressor, a peace officer shall consider the need 

to protect victims of domestic abuse, the relative degree of injury or fear inflicted on 

the persons involved, and any history of domestic abuse between the persons 

involved. A peace officer’s identification of the primary physical aggressor shall not 

be based on the consent of the victim to any subsequent prosecution or on the 

relationship of the persons involved in the incident, and shall not be based solely 

upon the absence of visible indications of injury or impairment.” 

violation. Arrest is mandatory only if the protective order violation is committed by 

the person against whom the protective order is issued. The subject of the protective 

order (i.e., the protected party) may be charged only by the county attorney. Under 

federal regulations, a prosecutor who receives VAWA funding is prohibited from 

prosecuting cases against victims of domestic abuse. 

0 Investigative police reports will be available to [all members of the team/the 

prosecutor/the victim advocate/other team members]. 

0 Charging decisions by the police shall be reviewed by the prosecutor within [24/48 

hours] and may be amended, based on the investigation that has been conducted. 

0 The prosecutor may notify the appropriate member of the police department or 

sheriffs office to indicate any deficiencies in the investigation that affect the charging 

decision. 

0 Charging decisions shall be communicated to the police agency and to the victim 

advocate by [e-mail, written form, telephone call, informal discussions]. 

0 Charging decisions [may be reviewed by the county attorney, the first assistant 

county attorney] {or charging decisions by the team prosecutor will be final}. 

0 The prosecutor will consider several factors in making charging decisions: the 

seriousness of the offense, the strength of the evidence (regardless of whether the 

victim participates in the prosecution), the likelihood of conviction, the defendant’s 

prior record, and the potential effect on the victim’s safety if charges are brought or 

dismissed. 

occu rs . 

community resources and make referrals as appropriate. 

0 Only the primary physical aggressor should be arrested for a protective order 

0 The prosecutor should meet with the victim as soon as possible after the incident 

0 The victim advocate will meet with the victim and provide information regarding 

-240- 
o The victim advocate will not share information provided by the victim without the 

express written consent of the victim, consistent with Iowa Code Chapter 236A and 

any pertinent federal statutes or regulations. 

o The victim-witness coordinator in the prosecutor‘s office will have regular contact with 

the victim and will provide information about the legal process. The victim-witness 

coordinator will explain to the victim that information provided to the victim-witness 

coordinator is not privileged and can be shared with the prosecutor. If no victimwitness coordinator is available, the prosecutor will provide this information. 

0 In order to better accommodate victims, each agency will provide adequate 

resources for victims who bring their children along for interviews or court 

appearances. 

o Victims will be provided with information regarding crime victim assistance monies. 

0 Victims and offenders will be treated with respect. 

o Victims will not be blamed for their victimization or their response to it. Instead, the 

focus will be on holding the offender accountable. 

o The prosecutor will appear at the [initial appearance, preliminary hearing, 

arraignment or other chapter 81 I] proceeding in which bail or conditions of release 

are determined or amended. The prosecutor will make every effort to provide the 

court with information about the potential danger to the victim and the conditions 

necessary in order to best ensure the victim’s safety. 

o Prompt resolution of domestic violence cases can reduce the problems that arise in 

the prosecution of the case. Therefore, trial continuances generally will be resisted, 

unless it is in the victim’s best interest to continue the trial. 

0 The prosecutor will develop standard pretrial motions and accompanying briefs in 

order to limit damaging and irrelevant information about the victim and in order to 

ensure the admissibility of inculpatory evidence about the offender. 

0 The prosecutor generally will seek a [jury/bench] trial in domestic violence cases. 

0 The prosecutor will have well-defined and well-developed jury selection questions 

prepared, and will tailor the jury selection to the facts of the case. 

o The prosecutor will develop an overall “theme” of the case, which will be introduced 

in the jury selection process and the opening statement, and which will continue 

throughout the trial and the closing arguments. The prosecutor will take training on 

trial techniques in order to more effectively present the case. 

testifies for the defense. When a victim testifies for the defense, the prosecutor will 

limit cross-examination of the victim in order to avoid leading the victim into perjury, 

and will focus instead on the victim’s feelings, perceptions and emotions. 

0 In general, the goal is to leave victims better than we found them and to ensure that 

victims are connected with available resources in the community. 

0 The prosecutor will not engage in victim blaming, even when the victim recants or 

-24 1 - 
o Prosecutors will make appropriate efforts to contact jurors after cases in order to find 

out what techniques were effective and how jurors responded to particular evidence, 

trial techniques or trial strategies. 

minimum] [seek the statutory maximum in cases in which the seriousness of the 

offense and the offender’s prior record and likelihood of reoffending are greatest] 

[seek to have increasingly lengthy periods of supervision as the defendant reoffends, 

so that each conviction can be enhanced, and after several violations, the defendant 

then will be likely to be incarcerated, so that the victim has a greater opportunity to 

escape the violence]. 

0 In making sentencing recommendations, prosecutors will [seek the mandatory 

(6) Caseload limitations. 

The team may set an absolute number of cases that the various members of the team 

can handle, based on state or national averages or on some other objective criteria. 

For example, most DART prosecutors have a pending case load of about 100-125 

cases on average. 

(7) Sharing information. 

Clear policies should set forth what information must be kept confidential, and under 

what circumstances. Restrictions on information provided by victim advocates are most 

common, because of the sfatutory limitations. However, discussion of criminal history 

information or discussion of the presentence investigation report also may be restricted. 

Policies regarding the sharing of the following information should be established in 

writing: 

- Police investigative reports 

- Prosecutor’s file 

__ Trial information and minutes of testimony 

__ Grand jury information 

__ Victim advocate’s information about the victim 

- Location of shelter (including references in records that may be public) 

- Threat assessments 

__ Civil protective orders 

(8) Threat assessments. 

-242- 
- Team members will be trained on threat assessment principles and will recognize 

indicators of lethality. 

__ Information for threat assessment will be collected from a variety of sources and 

will not depend solely on information provided by the victim. 

abusers, and may be coerced to recant information later. 

should be documented. 

- Victims who provide information could be subjected to retaliatory actions by 

__ Similar information can be obtained from other sources, and such information 

__ Threat assessment will be conducted by advocates who can maintain 

confidentiality of the information. 

- With consent of the victim, advocate can share some or all information in the 

- When the advocate has conducted the threat assessment, the advocate can 

threat assessment 

indicate to the prosecutor when it appears that a case is high-risk, and the 

advocate’s assessment of risk will be taken seriously. 

- Threat assessment conducted by police or prosecutor, who cannot maintain 

confidentiality of the information. 

__ Information must be shared with defense upon request. 

__ Investigators and prosecutors will be sensitive to the risk to victims who provide 

information that could result in retaliation by the abuser. 

Comment 

The team should decide whether and when threat assessments will be made, whether 

they will be formal or informal, whether and when they will be communicated to victims 

or others, and what factors will be used as part of threat assessments. The quality of 

the threat assessment depends on the amount and quality of information available. 

Victims possess the greatest information about lethality factors, but sharing information 

with criminal justice authorities poses a danger to victims because an abuser may 

retaliate against a victim for sharing fhe information. This may result in further violence 

to the victim, and the abuser may coerce the victim to recant information provided. 

Liberal discovery rules in Iowa criminal procedure allow discovery of information in the 

hands of the prosecutor. This means that information that the prosecutor obtained from 

the victim will have to be disclosed upon request. lnformation provided fo a victim 

advocate, however, can be kept confidential. The safest balance may be to allow victim 

advocates to conduct threat assessments of victims, and to share only that information 

that is deemed necessary or helpful, and only when to the extent that disclosure does 

not further endanger the victim. Advocates who conduct such a threat assessment 

should be trained in how to conduct the assessment, how to interpret the results, and 

how to counsel victims regarding potential lethality. 

(9) Training duties. 

-243- 
Policies regarding training should be established regarding: 

- Training for team members 

- Police training 

Response team officer training 

- Police department training 

- Sheriff‘s office training 

__ Prosecutor training 

- In-state training 

- Out-of-state training 

- Advocate training 

- Training for other agency members 

- Training by response team members 

Training by other agencies or outsiders 

- Annual training (or more often) 

- Community training 

__ Business community 

__ Medical community 

- Legal community 

- Human services community 

- Housing community 

Comment 

The various team members’ duties in training others should be clearly set out, including 

the frequency and type of training, whether cross-training is expected, and whether 

training should occur by persons from within the team, within one of the sponsoring 

agencies, or from an outside agency. 

(IO) Referrals & community support 

___ Develop a comprehensive list of community resources 

- Advocacy services for domestic and sexual assault 

- Housing 

- Food assistance 

- Clothing assistance 

__ Child care services 

- Child custody exchange services 

- Mental health services by persons trained in trauma and domestic violence 

- Health care services & screening 

-244- 
Legal services, including professionals trained in domestic violence 

__ Department of Human Services intervention & support services 

- Crime Victim Compensation program 

- Education, including school policies regarding domestic violence responses 

- Businesses, including workplace violence policies 

- Religious services by persons trained in domestic violence response 

- Federal government referrals 

__ Firearms violations 

- Federal VAWA violations 

- Federal benefits and entitlement programs 

- Develop procedures for making referrals at every stage of the criminal justice 

process. 

- Police/S heriff 

- Clerk of court 

__ County Attorney 

- Domestic Violence Coalition participants 

- District Correctional Services 

Comment 

Response team members should decide how and when to provide referral 

information to other agencies within the community. In addifion, response feam 

members should consider whether and when to provide or to coordinate training with 

other community groups (particularly the health care communify and the religious 

community) in order to maximize community resources available to domestic abuse 

victims. 

(1 1 ) Domestic Violence Policy Development 

- Crimina I just ice 

__ Development of policies that promote victim safety in all criminal justice 

__ Training for criminal justice officials 

agencies 

- Referrals to community agencies that can enhance victim safety 

- Training within the community 

__ Health care organizations 

- Religious organizations 

- Mental heath care providers 

__ Government employees 

___ Business persons 

-245- 
__ Professional groups 

- Community groups 

- Legislative changes & lobbying to enhance victim safety 

Comment 

Response team members are on the forefront of domestic violence policy 

development because of their experience on the team. They may have the greatest 

insight into %/hat works”and what policy or statutory changes need to be made, and 

how best to raise awareness and improve community response to domestic violence. 

(1 2) Response team project input into policy development 

Policy development may include not only departmental policies related to domestic 

abuse, but also legislative proposals at the state and national levels, as well as budget 

considerations. 

In addition, response team members should be encouraged to initiate or to continue 

discussions regarding the appropriate definition and implementation of criminal justice 

policies, or other policies that would affect domestic abuse victims in the criminal justice 

system or in the community at large. 

(1 3) Response team project efforts in the community 

The response team members should clearly define their role in the community and 

determine whether their mission includes primarily or exclusively criminal justice 

actions, or whether the response team project should become a part of other 

community efforts to combat domestic violence, and how that team effort can be 

integrated with other community efforts. 

-246- 
-247-