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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Creating a Structured Decision-Making Model

for Police Intervention in Intimate Partner

Violence

Author(s): Madeline Wordes Ph.D.

Document No.: 182781

Date Received: June 7, 2000

Award Number: 96-IJ-CX-0098

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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This project was truly a collaborative effort. Without the inspiration and great work of the 

East Bay Public Safety Conidor Partnership, especially Maria Theresa Viramontes and Linda Lustig, 

this project would not have happened. The openness ofthe Berkeley Police Department to learn and 

develop better ways to handle domestic violence cases was remarkable. The command structure at 

the Department provided crucial support. Special thanks to Chief Dash Butler and Captain Bobby 

Miller. The Domestic Violence Prevention Unit of the Berkeley Police Department deserves great 

praise. They work very hard every day to serve the victims of intimate partner violence. In the Unit, 

Oficer Monica Dunkin was essential in developing the Domestic Violence Safety 

AssessmentISupplemental Form, Sergeant Carl Orsi provided early guidance and created the 

database used by the Unit, Family Violence Law Center advocate Melinda Shock provided helpfid 

feedback for all project tasks, and Officer Bill Judis continues to work to keep the Unit funded, 

growing, and providing better service to the community. I would also like to thank the police 

officers who took time to give us feedback and direction and the victims of domestic violence who 

remind us of the importance of this issue. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 

MagnitudeofProblem .................................................... 2 

Factors Related to or Predictive of Domestic Violence ........................... 5 

Factors Related to General Recidivism and Personal Violence .................... 7 

METHOD ................................................................... 8 

Domestic Violence Definition and Case Handling Practices ....................... 9 

Accessing Automated. Data ................................................ 11 

Decision to Create Two Instruments ........................................ 12 

Safety Assessment/Supplemental Report Form ................................ 13 

Data Collection .................................................. 19 

Site Description ......................................................... 9 

Risk Assessment ....................................................... 17 

Sample ......................................................... 17 

RESULTS .................................................................. 19 

Description of the Sample ................................................ 19 

Domestic Incidents ................................................ 20 

Domestic Violence Cases .......................................... 22 

Constructing the Risk Assessment Model .................................... 37 

RecidivismRates ....................................................... 30 

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ............................................ 37 

REFERENCES .............................................................. 43 

APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION FORM 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table Page # # 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Most Common California Penal Code Violations for Domestic Violence ........... 10 

Random Stratified Sampling Framework .................................... 18 

Sex and Race of Individuals in Domestic Incident Reports ....................... 20 

Characteristics Recorded in Domestic Incident Reports ......................... 21 

Prior Criminal History Statistics on Individuals Involved in Domestic Incidents ...... 22 

Sex and Race of Suspects and Victims in Domestic Violence Police Reports ........ 23 

Current Offense characteristics in Police Reports ............................. 25 

Patrol Officer’s Immediate Response to Incident .............................. 26 

Suspects’ Prior Contact with the Berkeley Police Department .................... 27 

Outcomes of Criminal Processing of Domestic Violence Cases ................... 28 

Suspects’ Prior Criminal History with the Alameda County Court ................. 29 

Percent of Suspects Arrested by Characteristics of the Incident ................... 35 

within Twelve Months ................................................. -38 

Risk Assessment Classification Scheme ..................................... 41 

Percent of Suspects Arrested by Characteristics of the Suspect and Relationship ..... 34 

Results of Logistic Regression Model Predicting Domestic Violence Re-offending 

Figure # Pape # 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Characteristics of Couple by Re-offending Rates .............................. 31 

Incident Characteristics by Re-offending Rates ................................ 31 

Case Handling Characteristics by Re-offending Rates .......................... 32 

Prior Offense History by Re-offending Rates ................................. 33 

Safety AssessmentISupplemental Report Form ...................................... 15 

Risk Assessment Instrument .................................................... 40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

INTRODUCTION 

For the past thirty years, activists in the domestic violence movement have pushed the 

criminal justice system to actively respond to intimate partner violence. Initiated at the grass 

roots level this movement now enjoys increasing support from governments officials, 

researchers, and criminal justice practitioners. Many police departments have responded to the 

charge by creating domestic violence units, instituting better training on the issue, and having 

clearly written policies regarding response practices. 

To address this difficult, but important problem, researchers in this field tend to approach 

it from three different avenues. Work is being done to assess the incidence of prevalence of 

violence among intimates, as well as other types of abuse. Others are working on developing 

interventions aimed at aimed at reducing domestic violence either by treating andor sanctioning 

batterers, aiding the victims and survivors, or a combination of the two. The third avenue 

researchers have taken is to try to determine risk of intimate partner violence or repeated 

violence. 

This study is part of the third group. It is an attempt to contribute to the growing body of 

knowledge about who is at most risk of committing future domestic violence once an incident 

has been recognized by the police. The work presented here is a result of collaboration among 

the Berkeley, California, Police Department, the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, 

and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. It was hded by the National Institute of 

Justice as part of their locally initiated partnership grants, which intent was to forge collaborative 

relationships between researchers and practitioners. 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ.WPD] 1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Magnitude of Problem 

Helping law enforcement assess the risk of repeat offending in domestic violence cases is 

a difficult, yet worthy endeavor. It is worthy of great effort for several reasons. First, according 

to the National Crime Victimization Survey, approximately one million people a year are victims 

of violence by an intimate partner in the United States (Bachman & Saltunan, 1995). Straus and 

Gelles (1 990) report even higher estimates, approximately 1.8 million. A 1995 sample of 

manied or cohabiting couples in the United States estimated at least one in five heterosexual 

couples experienced an episode of partner violence in the previous year (Schafer, Caetano, & 

Clark, 1998). 

Second, children who grow up in violent families are more likely to perpetuate the 

violence than those children who do not (Cappell & Heiner, 1990). However, some intervention 

activities may be promising in stopping the intergenerational transmission of intimate partner 

violence (Herzberger, 1983). Third, police officers are at risk of injury when intervening in a 

domestic violence case. The amount of risk faced by a responding police officer has been 

disputed in the literature. Uchida, Brooks, & Kopers (1 987) found that domestic violence calls 

represented relatively high danger rates for police officers. Other researchers argue that 

domestic violence calls were not more dangerous than other calls (Gamer & Klemmer, 1986) and 

ranked fifth in injury rates out of ten types of calls for service (Hirschel, Dean, & Lumb, 1994). 

Fourth, there is evidence that some perpetrators continue a cycle of battering and 

repeatedly injure the victim and/or subsequent victims. Feld and Straus (1 989) found in a 

subsample from the National Family Violence Survey, that the majority of husbands (67%) who 

[ C:\DV\dvfinalZ. WPD] 2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
reported severe forms of violence against their wives reported continued violence one year later. 

Similary, Aldarondo (1 996) found that about half of the most violent perpetrators continued to 

commit violence on their wives the following year. 

The task of assessing risk of re-offending within a law enforcement context is also quite 

difficult. First, police officers generally have relatively little information about the situation and 

the individuals involved. They are generally not qualified or able to complete a psychological or 

social history investigation. Also, the officer often arrives to a chaotic scene, alcohol or drugs 

may be involved for both parties, and discerning culpability is often difficult. Furthermore, data 

from the National Family Violence Survey shows that women report as much partner violence as 

men, even though men inflict injury at about ten times the rate of women (Straus & Gelles, 

1986). Differential reporting styles may cause confusion for the officer on the scene. To 

complicate a police officer’s decisions, the Family Violence Survey Found found that almost 

one-quarter of the victims hit the perpetrator back (Gelles, 1997). Furthermore the role of law 

enforcement in domestic violence cases is in dispute, especially in misdemeanor cases. Some 

studies have pointed towards mandatory arrest as most effective (Sherman & Berk, 1984; Pate & 

Hamilton, 1992), others show no effect of arrest (Hirshel, Hutchinson, & Dean, 1992). Schmidt 

and Sherman (1 996) summarize the research by saying “Arrest reduced domestic violence in 

some cities but increases it in others” and “Arrest reduces domestic violence among employed 

people but increases it among unemployed people”. @p. 48-49.) Some argue that the focus 

should not be solely on arrest, but on better crisis intervention techniques by police officers 

(McKean & Hendricks, 1997). 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

The issue is complicated by the nature of the relationship between the offender and 

victim. Victims are often reluctant to report incidents of domestic violence. This reticence may 

be due to feelings of shame, embarrassment, or fear of reprisal. The majority of victims who did 

not report their victimization called it “private or personal matter” or they were afraid of 

retaliation from the offender (BJS, 1998). There are also cultural differences. While AfricanAmerican and Caucasian women have similar rates of victimization (Bachman & Saltzman, 

1999, African-American women were more likely to report the incident to police (68 percent) 

compared to Caucasian women (49 percent) (BJS, 1998). 

Deciding on the best intervention given the specific circumstances of the domestic 

violence incident is complex. The patrol officer’s response to a scene of a domestic violence call 

is a critical point in the intervention process. How the officer handles the case often prescribes 

the steps to follow. The officers are often called to a chaotic scene in which some feel there is a 

personal risk to their own well-being. In the midst of this situation, with often little information, 

the officer must make critical decisions that could greatly impact the lives of the victim, the 

offender, and their children. In the absence of adequate information and clear standards for 

evaluating this information, the patrol officer must fall back on “gut instinct” which can be 

colored by race, class, and gender bias. 

This project was an attempt to help officers handle domestic violence calls more 

systematically and start the victim and offender down the appropriate intervention path. The 

goals of this research were to create a tool to help police standardize their practice and 

systematically classify offenders into risk categories. 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ. W PD) 4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Factors Related to or Predictive of Domestic Violence 

According to a report from the National Research Council, “it seems most likely that the 

complex interaction of personal history, personality traits, and demographic factors with social 

and environmental influences leads to violence in the family” (National Research 

Councilhstitute of Medicine, 1998, p.41). Even though we haven’t yet been able to take into 

account all the factors responsible for an individual’s violent behavior toward an intimate, our 

best efforts may have life saving rewards. 

Researchers are beginning to take the accumulated knowledge of the various risk factors 

for family violence and use them to create classification systems. One good example of this is 

the work of Kropp and Hart (1 997). They created an instrument called the Spousal Assault Risk 

Assessment Guide (SARA). This checklist is based on careful consideration of the research 

literature. It was not derived empirically from any specific data set. The creators of the SARA 

intended it for use by criminal justice professionals, mainly those responsible for making pretrial, sentencing, corrections, or parole decisions. Several risk factors are assessed fiom various 

sources. Included are items regarding criminal history and spousal assault history, psychosocial 

issues (e.g., relationship problems, mental illness, substance use), and the seriousness of the 

current offense. This instrument includes items that require an indepth interview and assessment 

which is not in the purview of the police department. 

Dutton (1 995) devised a measure called the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale which was 

developed as a self-report instrument for potential perpetrators. It was shown to have good 

psychometric properties and discriminated between men who were abusive (as reported by their 

partners) and men who were not. It is basically a psychological profile consisting of items 

(C:\DWvfinalZ. WPD] 5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
regarding personality, anger, trauma, among others. This scale may be very useful in certain 

criminal justice environments where there is more time for a full evaluation. Unfortunately, the 

factors on this scale will not be available to police oficers responding to a domestic violence 

call. 

There are also researchers working in the area of assessing risk of homicide or femicide. 

One important finding is that women in cohabiting relationships are at greater risk of lethal 

violence than married women or those in dating relationships (Daly and Wilson, 1988). Dawson 

and Gartner (1 998) summarize “the characteristics found to be more common among cohabiting 

couples - youth, unemployment, poverty, alcohol problems, and family structure - are associated 

with higher risks of violence” (p. 38 1). Furthermore, women who are estranged or separated 

from their intimate partners are at greatest risk (Daly and Wilson, 1988). In a study in North 

Carolina, Moracco, Runyan, and Butts (1 998) found that male intimate partners were 

responsible for about half the femicides. In the vast majority of cases, the women were either 

physically assaulted (76.5%) or threatened (83.4%) by the partner who eventually killed them. 

Other types of prior violence included destroying property (3 1%) and stalking (23%). In about 

one-half of the cases where women were eventually killed, the police were summoned to the 

house on a domestic violence call in the previous year. In another study across three counties in 

separate parts of the country, researchers found that killing by a intimate partner was strongly 

associated with illicit drug use in the household, prior domestic violence, renting the home, and 

having one or more guns (Bailey, Kellermann, Somes, Banton, Rivara, and Rushforth, 1997). 

The study also found that one quarter of all perpetrators of domestic femicide committed suicide 

as well. 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
While assessing risk of domestic homicide is vitally important to the field, those factors 

do not necessarily predict the more common types of partner violence. The base rate of fatalities 

is low (in fact there were no murders by an intimate partner in the city of Berkeley during the 

study period), and the factors that predict them may be quite different than more common 

domestic violence calls. This is an empirical question that needs more indepth examination. 

There is also a body of literature that focuses on the characteristics of batterers. Gelles 

(1 997) conveniently summarizes these factors in his book “Intimate Violence in Families”. 

These factors include psychological characteristics such as low self esteem and tendency towards 

borderline personality and antisocial personality disorders. Demographic factors include younger 

age (typically less than 30 years old), lower socio-economic status, and being unemployed. Data 

fiom different sources has yielded conflicting findings regarding race as a factor, although 

race/ethnicity is clearly confounded with other unmeasured factors. Gelles also summarized the 

studies that found the most severe forms of violence is most likely to happen immediately after a 

separation. Other factors included childhood exposure to violence, certain relationship dynamics 

(e.g., dominance, hierarchy), and social and financial stress and isolation. 

Factors Related to General Recidivism and Personal Violence 

There is a history in criminology of creating risk assessment classification schemes for 

probation, corrections, and parole. Several of these have been validated and are currently being 

used by criminal justice agencies around the country. For a meta-analysis of these predictors see 

Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, (1 996). In general they found that both static (e.g., childhood 

experiences) and dynamic (e.g., educational attainment) affect general recidivism rates. Across 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ. WPD] 7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
studies, the variables most affecting recidivism included age, gender, race, criminal history, and 

social achievement. It is important to note that the purposes of these studies were to guide 

correctional policy and not poiice decision-making. Furthermore, the information gathered from 

a convicted offender involved considerable time and expertise (e.g., psychological tests, Level of 

Service lnventory scores). This level of involvement is not possible in a police decision-making 

risk instrument. 

In the field of violence in general there are some who are working on assessing the 

suspect’s threat to the individual (e.g., de Becker, 1997; Fein, Vossekuil, Holden, 1995). 

However, much more information is used in these assessments than are generally involved in a 

routine police call and the items are not specific to domestic violence situations. 

The published literature gives a solid starting ground on which to base a structured 

decision making model for the Berkeley Police Department. The following sections describe 

how the previous research and the current data collection and analysis effort provided tools to 

help assess the risk of domestic violence re-offending. 

METHOD 

This locally initiated partnership stemmed from a concerted effort by the East Bay Public 

Safety Comdor Partnership (EBPSCP) to improve the quality of law enforcement practice in 

domestic violence cases. Originally EBPSCP created policies and protocols to be adopted by 

several law enforcement agencies and a concurrent training module. They then teamed up with 

[C:\DWvfinalZ. WPD] 8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
NCCD and the Berkeley Police Department to develop tools for police officers to use in making 

decisions in domestic violence cases. 

Site DescriDtion 

The East Bay Corridor Public Safety Partnership in northern California spans AIameda 

and Contra Costa County and 23 law enforcement jurisdictions. The city of Berkeley is headed 

by a mayor who chairs a task force specifically devoted to ameliorating the problem of domestic 

violence in the city (Berkeley Mayors Domestic Violence Task Force, 1996). Berkeley has a 

population of approximately 100,000. The Berkeley Police Department is generally considered 

the most progressive of those jurisdictions. A few years ago the police department created a 

Domestic Violence Prevention Unit (DVPU). This unit was grant funded and was originally 

staffed by two officers and two advocates from the Family Violence Law Center. New officers 

in Berkeley received 16 hours of training in the academy and the DVPU developed a 5 hour 

training which all officers were required to attend. 

Domestic Violence Definition and Case Handling Practices 

Each year, the Berkeley Police Department takes reports on approximately 500 domestic 

violence cases and another 500 domestic incidents. Domestic incidents involved writing a noncriminal incident report on a dispute charge. The Berkeley Police Domestic Violence Training 

Manual states that domestic incidents are defined as: 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
“domestic disputes that do not result in physical contact, and involve a spouse, 

former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect 

has had a child, or is having, or has had a dating or engagement relationship”. 

Domestic Violence is defined in the Training Manual as 

“abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, 

former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or a person with whom the suspect 

has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. 

‘Abuse’ means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily 

injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious 

bodily injury to himself or herself, or another. ‘Cohabitant’ means two unrelated 

persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some 

permanency of relationship”. 

The most common penal code violations found in the category of domestic violence cases 

are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Most Common California Penal Code Violations for Domestic Violence 

Penal Code Violation Definition 

273.5 

646.9 

422 

262 

Willful infliction of body injury on spouse, cohabitant, or co-parent 

of child which resulted in a traumatic condition (e.g., bruise, 

redness, swelling, laceration, bleeding) 

Violation of a domestic violence related court order 

Willful use of force upon a non-cohabitating former spouse, fiance, 

or a person with whom the suspect has, or previously had, a dating 

relationship. 

Stalking 

Terrorist threats to family 

Spousal Rape 

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
In 1996, the Penal Code was amended to include encouraging arrest if there is probable 

cause to believe an offense has been committed. In Berkeley, they call this a presumptive arrest 

policy. However, arrest is not mandatory. Departmental policy also encourages the officer to 

determine a primary aggressor and not to make dual arrests unless it is absolutely warranted. 

Once the police have responded to a call, the DVPU’s policy is to follow up by a telephone call 

or visit to the victim by an advocate or police officer fiom the DVPU. Given the caseload, this is 

often not possible. They curreptly use an informal method of prioritizing cases. The advocate 

works with many of the victims to develop safety plans and get temporary restraining orders. 

The DVPU officers do follow-up investigations and other follow through on the case. 

Accessing Automated Data 

Interviews with each key persons involved in data collection and management 

information systems at the police department were conducted to determine the usefulness and 

accessibility of automated data. The interviews revealed much data ambiguity and 

incompleteness. The Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) system has data on all calls to the 

police department. The complainant is listed (or the person who called in), but the suspect is not. 

The offense is coded, but many domestic violence cases are missed as they do not originally 

present as a domestic violence case. 

The Records Management System (RMS) keeps information on all reports taken by the 

police. Basic information on the offender, victim, and witnesses are recorded, along with the 

offense code. However, not all cases that the department would term domestic violence were 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ. W PD] 11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
. .. 

coded as such in this system. The Rh4S data turned out to be very diflicult to access and 

provided little useful information. 

The Domestic Violence Prevention Unit created their own database just prior to the 

beginning of this project. All domestic violence cases or domestic incidents are forwarded to this 

unit for follow-up. Each case is entered into a stand alone computer system in the office of the 

unit. While this database is very useful, it did not provide enough detail for the researchers to 

create a risk assessment classification instrument. 

Decision to Create Two Instruments 

Through several ride-alongs with patrol officers (on morning, afternoon, and midnight 

shifts), the researchers learned that they felt they would not benefit from an on-the-scene risk 

assessment because they already had a policy of presumptive arrest. Their presumptive arrest 

policy entails if there was any physical injury to the victim (from a red mark or abrasion to a 

serious injury), the officer is supposed to arrest the suspect. They felt they had little discretion on 

the scene, so a risk assessment would only add extra paperwork rather than be a he1pfi.d decisionmaking tool. 

The collaboration partners then decided that two instruments would be created for this 

structured decision making system. Using this system, the patrol officer would fill out a 

Domestic Violence Safety Assessment/Supplemental Report which is both a protocol for the 

officers to follow and a data collection instrument for the Domestic Violence Prevention Unit 

and the District Attorney. This Supplemental Report does not replace the existing standard 

report, it is an enhancement. The second tool to be created was a risk assessment instrument to 

(C:\DV\dvfinalZ. WPD] 12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
be used by the DVPU to classify offenders into risk categories. A matrix determining the level 

and type of intervention was to be created by the DVPU in conjunction with outside advocacy 

groups. 

Safetv Assessment/Sumlemental Report Form 

Officers and advocates in the DVPU clearly expressed a need for a protocol for officers to 

follow. While the training was useful, structured guidance for officers to use on the scene was 

necessary. Also, sometimes important information about the offense or the crime scene was not 

being written down in the standard police reports. 

With inspiration from the San Diego Police Department’s supplemental domestic 

violence form, we created the Domestic Violence Safety Assessment/Supplemental Report Form. 

The dual purpose of this Safety Assessment is both to give officers a written protocol which to 

follow during their on-scene investigation and to provide a data collection tool from which 

further intervention may follow. Information included in the standard police report is not 

duplicated on this form. The Safety Assessment is necessarily compact; it is one sheet of double 

sided paper containing seven main sections. 

A primary concern of some officers was having difficulty in determining who was the 

primary aggressor in certain cases as mutual arrests were being highly discouraged. The first 

section of the Safety Assessment helps the officer make that distinction. 

The form then asks the oficer to describe the incident, with coding options for the 

physical and emotional condition of both the victim and suspect. Also coded is 

alcohol/substance use, whether anyone used a weapon, and a description of the scene. 

[C:U)WvfinalZ.WPD] 13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
The third main section asks the officer to retrieve some background information. This 

includes: the relationship between the victim and suspect; prior domestic violence or domestic 

incidents, and whether or not there is a current restraining order. 

The fourth section is an offense matrix which outlines the steps to follow based on the 

relationship between the parties and whether or not there was a visible injury. The matrix 

contains information that the officer will use to determine the penal code charge and whether a 

citizen’s arrest is required. 

The fifth section prompts the officer to collect various types of evidence including photos 

and statements from all witnesses. It also prompts the officer to determine whether there is a 

firearm in the residence and to impounded it if necessary. 

The sixth section has several questions regarding the disposition of the case. The items 

include whether the suspect was arrested, an information pamphlet given to the victim, 

emergency protective order issued, and whether language translation was needed. This section 

also includes a priority assessment which tells the DVPU or the next shift whether follow-up is 

necessary and what other agencies were contacted. 

The final section contains a release of medical information which the DVPU can use to 

gather evidence from the hospital or other medical professiona!. 

Pilot Test 

The Safety Assessment was pilot tested by approximately twenty officers. While a few 

officers did not like to do the extra paperwork, the vast majority expressed satisfaction with the 

form. Many said it helped them structure their chronological narrative for the standard police 

[C:\DWdvfinaP.WPD] 14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
REPORT 

Name: 

DOB: / / Height: Weight: 

Badge #: Case #: 

0 obtained prior protective orda 

0 inflicted defensive wounds 

0 had personal things destroyed 

0 witnesses identify this person 8s victim 

~ 

WEAPO\ USED 

VICTIM SUSPECT Describe 

Name: 

DOB: / / Height: - Weight: 

0 escalated the violence 

0 inflicted offensive wounds 

0 

considerably stronger and bigger 

has history of prior violence 

SCENE 

0 broken items 

Describe 

0 mutual combat (only if pnmary aggressor cannot be identified) 

PHYSICAL CONDlTlON Describe injury or complant 

VICTIM SUSPECT 

0 0 cornplan of pain 

0 0 scratches/abrasions 

0 0 bruises 

0 0 lacerations 

0 0 broken bones 

0 0 severe wounds 

Dsexual assault 

Uvictim evidentiq exam 

C7susDect evidentiar) exam 

EhlOT104AL CONDITION 

VICTIM SUSPECT 

Describe behavior and affect 

0 none 

0 knife 

gun 

D afraid 

0 anm 

0 calm 

0 depressed affect 

13 irrational 

0 nervous 

0 physically aggressive 

0 remorseful 

0 tearful 

E verbally threatening 

0 blood stains 

0 phone unusable 

~~ 

A l.COHOL/S['BSTANCE USE 

VICTIM SUSPECT 

Specify type and amount 

~~ ~ 

0 none 0 alcohol 

0 0 drugs 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

hands/feet 

C other I ~~~ 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTIM AND SUSPECT 

(Check all rhot apply) Victim Complains ok 

Ckpouse Dprior domestic abuse 

Dcohabitant 

@have children together Eprior emotional abuse 

ages of children - Gpnor harassmentktalking 

Qrior property damage by suspect Wormer spouse 

Wormer cohabitant 

PRIOR DV/DI HISTORY 

offenses: 

report U's 

I 

Ddating Explam cornplants 

Wormer dating 

RESTRAINING ORDERS 

Current11 has Dcmergency Demporary opermanent Oorder not filed [hone 

Order # 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Case#: 

273.5 Felony 

No C.A. Required 

Issue EPO 

GBI: 243 (d)( 1) 

No C.A. required 

No GBI: 243 (e) (1) 

C.A. required 

Issue EPO 

Cohab 

Spouse 

Child in Common 

Dating 

Former Dating 

Former Spouse Issue EPO 

FianceelFiancC 

r 

243 (e) (1) misd. 

No C.A. required 

Issue EPO 

243 (e) (1) misd. 

C.A. required 

Issue EPO 

[hone 

Dvictim 

c3suspect 

Uchildren 

Cbther, who 

Weapon 

firearm in residence UYes UNO 

impounded OYes UNO 

items booked into evidence OYes UNO 

(list) 

iuspectarrested Dyes UNO 

Zitizen's arrest OYes UNO 

1 V pamphlet given out OYes UNO 

f273 5 or sexual assault. victim request name confidentiality 

Xes UNO If yes. complete and attach 293PC form 

u'ictim needs EPO OYes UNO 

Served OYes UNO 

Order # 

Parties have difficulty with English OYes UNO 

If yes, which ones? Ovictim Buspea Owitness 

PRIORlTY ASSESSMENT 

Follow-up necessary OYes UNO 

If yes, answer following questions 

Next shift notified OYes UNO 

via Overbal 

Ownnen 

OCAD flag 

Supervisor notified OYes UNO 

Outside agencies contacted OYes UNO 

(list) 

Pnmaq language. 

Translatoronscene UYes UNO Name: 

Was medical treatment necessary? 

Clno need 

Mirst aid administered 

Defused medical aid 

Dwill seek own medical care 

Oparamedics on scene 

IJuanspon to hospital, name: 

RELEASE OF MEDICAL INFORMATION 

I authorize all health care providers to release my medical records and laboratory reports in connection with the diagnosis and treatment of injuries 

suffered on I I to the Berkeley Police Department and the Ofice of the District Attorney of Alameda County. 

Signature Pnnted Name Date 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
report. The officers who used the form made several suggestions for its improvement and all 

have been incorporated into the final document. The District Attorney was also consulted for his 

input so that the information gathered would be useful to his office as well. Clearly, further 

study must be conducted to determine the validity, reliability and usefulness of this tool. 

Risk Assessment 

Sample 

The database used to sample cases became operational September 1, 1996. Since the 

beginning, all reports written by the Berkeley Police Department (both full domestic violence 

reports and domestic incidents) were entered into this database. The sample was chosen 11 

months after the database became operational. Having 11 months of data allowed us to ascertain 

the rate of reoffending within six months for a five month cohort of suspects. Twenty percent of 

the suspects had some type of report in the DVPU database within six months of the sampled 

offense. The reports included those for domestic violence as well as those for domestic incidents 

or disputes as defined above. A slight majority of the reoffenses were for domestic violence. 

One concern in sampling was the low base rate of appearing again in the records. 

In order to have enough recidivists on which to base a model of reoffending, we decided 

to strati@ by recidivism status before sampling. Table 2 shows that there were 176 unique 

suspects for domestic violence and 136 unique suspects for domestic incidents in the DVPU 

database between September 1,1996 and January 3 1,1997. If suspects were in the database 

more than once in that time period, only their first appearance was counted. For domestic 

violence suspects, there were 36 recidivists and 140 non-recidivists accounting for the 20 percent 

[C:V)V\dvfinalZ.WPD] 17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
rec.3ivism rate within six months. Out of the 132 suspects for domestic incidents, 30 were 

suspects again in another offense within six months. Given the small sample size, the relatively 

low base rate of recidivism, and our wide definition of reoffending (in the police records for 

domestic violence or a domestic incident), we chose to include all recidivists and a random 

sample of non-recidivists. 

Table 2 

Random Stratified Sampling Framework 

Type of Report Taken 

Domestic Violence Domestic Incident 

Total Suspects 176 132 

(9/1/96 - 1 /3 1/97) 

Recidivist (6 mo) 36 30 

Non-recidivist (6 mo) 140 106 

(randomly selected I14 as sample) (randomly selected 20 a sample) 

Stratified Random Sample Drawn 

Actual Sample Coded 

150 

138 

50 

47 

Ninety-two percent of the sampled cases were found and coded. Most of the uncoded 

cases were actually misiabeied as intimate partner violence. They tended to be other types of 

family violence cases (i.e., parentkhild or brotherlsister). 

[C:U)V\dvfinalZ.WPD] 18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Data Collection 

Since the automated data was insufficient to create the risk assessment instrument, data 

was hand coded from police files. Also each individual’s prior offense history with the Berkeley 

Police Department and the Alameda County Court records were coded. For the domestic 

incident cases, each party was treated as a suspect because the individuals involved were not 

designated victim and suspect. Thus, the records checks (for police and courts) were completed 

for both parties involved for these types of events. Thus, the sample of 47 domestic incidents 

resulted in the coding of information on 94 suspects. 

To create the data collection forms, several cases were reviewed to ascertain the scope of 

infomation collected in a police report including the chronological narrative. Items included 

demographics of the victim and suspect, their relationship status, specific characteristics of the 

incident (injuries, statements, location, etc ...), and outcome of the event (see Appendix A). 

Unfortunately, the data gathered is limited to the information the police officers wrote in their 

reports. At the point of the data collection, the Safety AssessmentISupplemental Report Form 

was not yet finished and implemented. 

RESULTS 

DescriDtion of the Samde 

The sample was broken down into those with full police reports and those with incident 

reports. An incident report contained very little information and was used by officers for 

domestic disputes that did not involve any apparent violence. 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Domestic Incidents 

The following tables describe the sample of incident reports. Since an incident report did 

not name a suspect, information on 94 individuals was coded. Thus, this information is used 

only for descriptive purposes and these cases were omitted fiom the predictive model. 

Table 3 shows that a little over half the participants in domestic incidents were male. 

African Americans made up 56 percent of this small sample, followed by 28 percent Caucasians, 

and 16 Hispanic, Asian or others. 

Table 3 

Sex and Race of Individuals in Domestic Incident Reports (n=94) 

C haracteri st ic Percent 

Sex 

Female 

Male 

Race/Ethnicity 

African American 

Caucasian 

Hispanic 

Asian or Other 

44% 

5 6% 

56% 

28% 

9% 

7% 

The incident reports are very short and contain only a brief narrative of the event. We 

coded the narratives for as much information as possible. If the variable is not Iisted below, it 

was not recorded by the officers. Seventeen percent of the incident reports stated that alcohol 

and drugs were involved with the dispute. The call for service was most often made by one of 

the individuals involved in the incident, however 40 percent were reported by others. 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ.WPD] 20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4 

Characteristics Recorded in Domestic Incident Reports (n= 47 reports, 94 individuals) 

Characteristic Percent 

Drugs or alcohol involved 

Children present at scene 

Happened at home 

Reported by: 

Individual involved in dispute 

Neighbor, relative, other 

DV pamphlet given by officer 

17% 

20% 

94% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

A substantial portion of the individuals involved in domestic incidents had prior criminal 

justice involvement. In fact, Table 5 shows that 20 percent had been arrested for a crime in the 

City of Berkeley and 3 1 percent were suspected, yet not arrested. About one in five had been 

suspected of a domestic violence offense, but only six percent had been convicted of an offense. 

The victimization rate was quite high; 59 percent were victims of crimes recorded by the 

Berkeley Police Department. 

It is clear from the preceding tables that some people involved in disputes had also been 

involved in domestic violence. One in seven (1 4 percent) of the individuals involved in these 

disputes were contacted again by Berkeley police as domestic violence suspects. These data 

indicate that attention must also be focused on domestic incidents for prevention and 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 5 

Prior Criminal History Statistics on individuals involved in Domestic incidents 

(1147 incident, 94 individuals) 

Prior History with Berkeley Police Department Percent 

Arrested for any crime 20% 

Suspect for any crime 31% 

Victim of any crime 59% 

Dispute Suspect 17% 

Domestic Violence Suspect 21% 

Conviction for Domestic Violence 6% 

intervention. It is hoped that in the future, the Safety AssessmentlSupplemental Form will be 

used on these types of cases in order to gather more information for a risk assessment. 

Domestic Violence Cases 

Described below is the sample of cases with a full police report (~138). This sample 

cases was later used to devise the risk assessment instrument. Table 6 shows that 84 percent of 

the suspects were male. Approximately 68 percent of the population of domestic violence 

suspects were African-American, 12 percent were Hispanic, 11 percent were Caucasian, 4 

percent were Asian or Native American, and 5 percent were classified as Other or unknown. 

There were more Caucasian victims than suspects. The median age of the suspect was 32 years 

old, although they ranged in age fiom 13 to 81. Similarly, victims ranged in age from 13 to 78, 

with a median age of 32. 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6 

Sex and Race of Suspects and Victims in Domestic Violence Police Reports (n=138) 

Characteristics Percent of Suspects ~~ 

Sex 

Female 16% 

Male 84% 

RaceEthnicity 

African American 

Caucasian 

Hispanic 

Asian or Other 

Age 

25 & Younger 

26 through 35 

36 through 45 

46 & Older 

68% 

11% 

12% 

9% 

24% 

36% 

31% 

9% 

Percent of Victims 

84% 

16% 

65% 

20% 

9% 

7% 

26% 

37% 

28% 

10% 

At the time of the sampled incident, only 16 percent of the couples were married and five 

percent were separated or divorced. The most likely relationship status at the time of the 

sampled incident was cohabitation (29 percent), followed closely by former dating (28 percent). 

Sixteen percent were dating and seven percent were in another type of relationship or unknown. 

According to the police report narratives, 3 1 percent of the couples had children together. Police 

only reported that 4 percent of the victims were pregnant. It is difficult to know the number of 

(C:U)WvfinaP. WPD] 23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
actual pregnancies or children present because it is likely that it was either not apparent to the 

officer or the officer did not write it in the report. 

Table 7 shows the offense types of the sample of cases. The majority of the recorded 

offenses were assaults, with 41% being felonious assault. The sample contained one attempted 

murder and one rape by an intimate partner. Disputes and disturbing the peace comprised 13% 

of the reports, followed by intimidation (7%) and violation of a court order (4%). 

By policy, the police department codes a domestic violence offense with any sign of visible 

injury, a felony. 

The police considered only nine percent of these cases “mutual”, meaning both parties 

were aggressors. Seventeen percent of the incidents involved a weapon other than hands and 

feet. Thirty percent of the victims had visible injuries and nine percent of the suspects had 

visible injuries. 

The suspect was only present 58 percent of the time; for 42 percent of the cases when the 

officer arrived, the suspect had already left the scene or the incident had happened at a another 

time. Ninety-two percent of the victims were present when the officers arrived. The victim was 

the most likely reporter of the incident (59 percent), with neighbors, children, other witnesses, 

and a few suspects comprising the remainder. In 38 percent of the report narratives, the police 

officer mentioned that drugs or alcohol was involved. In one out of five cases there was a child 

present at the time. Witness were present in 39 percent of the cases. While most incidents 

happened at home, about one in five happened in a public place. 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ. W PD) 24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

Y 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

Table 7 

Current Offense Characteristics in Police Reports (~138) 

Offense Type Number Percent 

Attempted MurderRape 2 1 Yo 

Felony Assault 56 41% 

Assault and Battery 43 31% 

Intimidation 10 7% 

Violation of Court Order 6 4% 

Disturbing the Peace/Dispute/Other 21 15% 

Pending Warrant at Time of Current Incident 10 7% 

Drugs/Alcohol Involved 52 3 8% 

Weapon Involved 24 17% 

Victim injured (mostly scratched or bruised) 42 3 0% 

Suspect injured (scratches) 12 9% 

Victim Complained of Pain 40 29% 

Victim Treated for Injuries 10 7% 

Victim Declined Treatment 48 35% 

Location of Incident 

Home 

Public Place (e.g., street, restaurant) 

Other or Unknown 

People Present at Scene 

Suspect 

Victim 

Witness 

Child 

Statements Taken 

Victim 

Witness 

Victim Reported Incident 

Mutual Aggression 

25 

102 74% 

28 

8 

20% 

6% 

80 5 8% 

127 92% 

54 3 9% 

29 21% 

86 

32 

82 

13 

62% 

23% 

59% 

9% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
We also coded the reports and victim’s statements to ascertain whether the victim 

reportedly suffered past abuse or violence. One of four victims (27%) indicated to the officer 

that there had been past physical abuse by the suspect. Prior emotional abuse was reported by 17 

percent. Prior to this incident, a temporary restraining order had been issued in seven percent of 

the cases. 

Table 8 shows the response of the officer at the scene of the incident. Forty-four percent 

of the suspects were arrested by police. Twenty-one percent were categorized as a citizen’s 

arrest. Citizen’s arrests were made when the officer did not see the offense and the injuries were 

not readily apparent. The victim would have to request that the officer arrest the suspect. 

Table 8 

Patrol Officer’s Immediate Response to Incident (n=138) 

Number Percent 

Photographs Taken 

Translation Needed 

Information Pamphlet Given to Victim 

Suspect Arrested 

Citizen’s Arrest Made 

Victim Requested that Charges be Filed 

Emergency Protective Order Issued 

27 3 7% 

3 2% 

59 43% 

60 44% 

29 21% 

44 32% 

6 4% 

Many of these suspects were heavily involved in the criminal justice system. Table 9 

lists the percent of suspects with a prior history with the Berkeley Police Department. Twothirds (66 percent) had at least one prior offense (any type) recorded. Forty-one percent were 

prior suspects in at least one domestic violence case, while only 12% had a record of a violent 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
(non-domestic violence) offense or weapons violation. Over one-third were involved with prior 

disputes where the police were called and 3 1% had been suspects in drug or property offenses. 

The victimization rate was also high. Over one-half (56%) of the current suspects reported being 

a victim of a crime in Berkeley in the past. 

Table 9 

Suspects’ Prior Contact with the Berkeley Police Department (n=138) 

Prior Police Contact Number Percent 

Suspect in Any Crime 91 

Suspect in Domestic Violence Offense 56 

Disputes 49 

Drug or Property Offense 43 

Violent (non-DV) or Weapons Offense 17 

Victim of Any Crime 77 

66% 

41% 

3 6% 

31% 

12% 

56% 

The court statistics show even greater criminal justice involvement than the police 

statistics. These numbers are higher than the Berkeley Police Department records because the 

court database covers the County which includes the large city of Oakland where many of the 

suspects have prior records. Unfortunately, Oakland police data was not accessible for this 

project. 

Table 10 shows that over one-half (55 percent) of the suspects had been convicted of at 

least one crime in the Alameda County Court. Forty-one percent had been charged with a violent 

offense or a weapons violation. Almost half (47 percent) were in the court records for a domestic 

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

31 

m 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

n 

violence charge. More than one in four suspects (28 percent) had an actual prior conviction for a 

domestic violence offense and 42 percent of those had been convicted more than once. 

Table 10 

Suspects’ Prior Criminal History with the Alameda County Court (n=138) 

Prior Criminal Court Histow Number Percent 

Conviction for Any Crime 76 55% 

Charge of Domestic Violence 65 4 7% 

Conviction for Domestic Violence (1 6 had two or more) 38 2 8% 

Charge for Violence or Weapons 57 41% 

The criminal justice system’s response to these cases was also coded. Data fiom the 

Alameda County courts was matched to the police records by offense date and suspect’s name. 

Sixty-six records had matching court information. Less than half of the police cases were 

matched to court records. The most likely explanation is that these cases never even entered the 

court system. There were 42 cases of Felony Assault and Battery in the court records. The 

outcome of the court process for all cases found matching in the court records is Iisted in Table 

11. 

Thirty percent of the cases found in the court records showed a conviction and 14 percent 

of the total sample were convicted. Of the felony cases, 12 percent were either convicted or 

plead no contest (24 percent of those in court records). The majority of cases were not filed. In 

total, only three offenders served six months or more in jail. 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 11 

Outcomes of Criminal Processing of Domestic Violence Cases (n46 matched cases) 

Number 

1 

9 

6 

12 

3 

6 

4 

1 

Number 

6 

1 

3 

1 

Number 

2 

1 

2 

Number 

2 

2 

Number 

1 

3 

FELONY CASES (~42) 

Outcome 

convicted, sentenced to 80 days jail, 3 yrs probation, no firearms 

convicted-plead no contest, sentenced to jail from 4 days to 2 years & probation 

dismissed 

no filing - lacks evidence 

no filing - no stated reason 

no filing - victim unavailable 

transfer out toknother jurisdiction 

amended charge 

ASSAULT AND BATTERY (n=l 1) 

Outcome 

convicted-plead no contest, sentenced up to 30 days in jail 

dismissed 

no filing - lacks evidence 

amended charge 

INTIMIDATION CASES (n=5) 

Outcome 

convicted-plead no contest, sentenced up to 30 days in jail 

dismissed - compromised case 

no filing - victim unavailable and other event 

VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER (n4) 

Outcome 

convicted-plead no contest, sentenced up to 10 days in jail 

dismissed 

DISTURBING THE PEACE OR DISPUTES (n=4) 

Outcome 

dismissed 

no filing 

[C:U)V\dvfinalZ.WPD) 29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Recidivism Rates 

Using the data gathered from the full police reports (n=138), we completed a series of 

analyses examining the relationship between re-offending and various factors compiled from the 

records. Re-offending was defined as being a suspect in the police records for a domestic 

violence case within 12 months (subsequent domestic incidents were not included). The most 

common type of offenses included as domestic violence are the same as shown in Table 1. 

The re-offending measure was based on the same offender, rather than the same couple. 

However, only three suspects had different victims within one year of the sampled offense. 

Furthermore, we chose to focus on re-appearance in the police records rather than arrest because 

we wanted our risk model to reflect the reality of police being called again to a domestic situation 

rather than what actions the police took once they were at the scene. 

The bivariate analyses suggested several important relationships. While overall, 22.5 

percent of the domestic violence suspects had another report of domestic violence within one 

year, certain characteristics of the sampled offense showed higher re-offense rates. Figure 1 

shows the re-offense rates by characteristics of the couple. If the victim had reported past 

physical abuse, approximately twice as many suspects re-offended as the average (42 percent). 

Similarly, if the victim was pregnant or the couple had children, the re-offense rate was higher. 

Older suspects had lower re-offense rates. 

Figure 2 shows the relationship between characteristics of the incident and re-offending. 

While only a small number of victims were not present at the scene when police arrived, 

domestic violence re-offending rates were much higher than average for these cases. However, if 

the incident happened in public or there were witnesses present, recidivism was less likely. 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ.WPD] 30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 1 

Characteristics of Couple by Re-offending Rates (n=138) 

Victim complained of pain 

Medical treatment was necessary 

A weapon was used 

Incident was a felony DV offense 

Victim had visible injunes 

Children were present 

Witness was present 

Past physical abuse reported 

Victim pregnant 

Couple has children 

Stated drug history of suspect 

Cohabitating, not married 

Suspect over 30 years old 

I 

I 

Percent re-offending within one year I 

I I 

I I I 

I I 

I I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 

I! 

average =22 5% 

Figure 2 

Incident characteristics by Re-offending Rates (n=138) 

Percent re-offending within one year 

0 5 10 15 20 ~ 25 30 35 40 45 

~ average=22 5% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
How a case was handled by police was also related to the re-offense rate. The more 

action police took, the lower the re-offense rate. Figure 3 shows the re-offense rate was lower 

than average if the suspect was arrested, a pamphlet of domestic violence was given to the 

victim, witness’ statements were taken, and an emergency or temporary restraining order was 

issued on the case. If the victim had to make a citizen’s arrest, the re-offense rate was 

considerably higher than average. The issue of citizen’s arrests and putting the burden of arrest 

on the victim deserves future attention given the implication of these findings. The sample size 

is too small to draw any firm conclusions, but it does raise an important issue. 

Figure 3 

Case Handling Characteristics by Re-offending Rates (n=138) 

Percent re-offending within one year r 

I 

Suspect arrested , 

DV pamphlet given out 

, 

I 

Witness’ statement taken I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 I 25 30 35 40 45 

[C:\DWvf~nalZ. WPD] 

1 average=^.^% 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

II 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

Prior offense history had some relationship to re-offending, but not as much as one might 

expect. In fact, Figure 4 shows that being a suspect in a prior domestic violence incident was 

only related to a slightly higher than average recidivism rate. Having a pending warrant at the 

time of the incident and a prior non-DV offense was more strongly related to higher recidivism. 

Having a prior conviction for domestic violence also shows a slightly higher recidivism rate than 

average. 

Figure 4 

Prior Offense History by Re-offending Rates (n=138) 

Percent re-offending within one year 

Had pending warrant 

Prior disturb peace 

Prior non-DV offense 

Prior convictions 

Prior 

for 

DV 

other 

convictions 

offenses 

0 

1 I 

5 10 15 120 25 30 35 40 45 

I 1 average=Z. 5% 

Some of the relationships between the various factors listed above and re-offending may 

be affected by whether or not the suspect was arrested because suspects who were arrested tended 

to recidivate less. To examine this issue more closely, Table 12 lists the relationship between 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ.WPD] 33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
being arrested and various demographic characteristics. African American and Hispanic suspects 

were more likely to be arrested than Caucasian or Asian suspects. This finding may be partially 

explained because African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be charged with a 

felony than Caucasians and others. However, the rate of observable injuries inflicted by 

Caucasian suspects was only slightly lower than African American suspects and was slightly 

higher than Hispanic suspects. This issue needs Mer exploration with a bigger sample. 

. Table 12 

Percent of Suspects Arrested by Characteristics of the Suspect and Relationship (~138) 

Percent Arrested Total Number in Sample 

RaceEthnicity 

African American 

Caucasian 

Hispanic 

Asian or Other 

Relationship Status 

Cohabiting 

Other (married has similar arrest 

rate to dating) 

Victim Pregnant 

Victim Not Pregnant 

48% 

33% 

41% 

25% 

59% 

3 7% 

94 

15 

17 

12 

99 

39 

6 

132 

Suspects who were cohabiting with the victim were considerably more likely to be 

arrested than those who were either married, dating, or formerly in a relationship. This small 

sample shows that there may be some relationship between being arrested and the victim being 

observably pregnant to the officer. 

[C:\DWvfinalP.WPD] 34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Several characteristics of the incident showed some correlation to being arrested. In the 

rare case that the officer declared the incident as a mutual combat situation, the person listed as 

the suspect was half as likely to be arrested than if it was not mutual. Similarly if drugs or 

alcohol was involved with the incident, the suspect was twice as likely to be arrested. If the 

suspect or the victim was not present when the officer arrived the suspect was much less likely to 

be arrested. This difference cannot be explained by data coding errors because these arrest 

percentages include those people who were arrested on a later date for the original incident. 

Table 13 

Percent of Suspects Arrested by Characteristics of the Incident (n=138) 

Percent Arrested Total Number in Sample ~ ~~~ ~~ 

Police Coded as Mutual Combat 

Yes, mutual 

No, not mutual 

Weapon Involved 

None 

Club, Stick, or Pipe 

Drugs/Alcohol Involved 

Yes 

No 

Suspect Present at Scene 

Yes 

No 

Victim Present at Scene 

Yes 

No 

23% 

46% 

3 8% 

71% 

64% 

31% 

60% 

21% 

45% 

27% 

13 

125 

114 

24 

52 

86 

80 

58 

127 

11 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 13 (continued) 

Percent of Suspects Arrested by Characteristics of the Incident (n=138) 

Percent Arrested Total Number in Sample 

Child Present at Scene 

Yes 

No 

Victim Complained of Pain 

Yes 

No 

Victim Treated for Injuries 

Yes 

Declined 

Not Necessary 

Suspect had Visible Injuries 

Scratches 

None 

Offense Type 

Attempted MurderRape 

Felony Assault 

Assault and Battery 

Intimidation 

Violation of Court Order 

Disturbing the Peace 

Dispute 

66% 

3 8% 

60% 

3 7% 

70% 

50% 

3 6% 

83% 

40% 

0% 

70% 

26% 

20% 

5 0% 

18% 

43% 

29 

109 

40 

98 

10 

48 

80 

10 

128 

2 

56 

11 

10 

6 

11 

7 

As expected those incidents that can be characterized as more serious were more likely to 

result in an arrest. For instance, if there were injuries, weapons involved, or a felony charge, the 

suspect was more likely to be arrested. 

[C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Constructing the Risk Assessment Model 

In order to construct the risk assessment classification system, several steps were used. 

First, the variables were converted into dichotomous or categorical responses. Then 

multicollinearity was examined among the variables. Highly correlated variables were not used 

together in the multivariate model. The outcome variable was dichotomous and defined as being 

a suspect in the Berkeley police records on a new domestic violence case within one year of the 

sampled event. Third, logistic regression analyses were run to find the variables and values that 

I 

would best predict the outcome. The independent variables were not entered in a purposeful 

order. Finally, the results of the regression served only as a guide for creating the risk assessment 

instrument. The sample was small and we did not want to over rely on the fit of the model to the 

data. Instead we used the regression results as a guide to weight the items in the risk assessment 

instrument, rather than a prescriptive analysis. 

The results of the logistic regression model are shown in Table 14. Only four variables 

were significantly related to the outcome at the .05 level. If the incident happened in a public 

place and the victim was present for questioning when the police arrived, the risk of reoffending 

was lower. The risk was hgher if the couple had children and the suspect had a prior court 

record of domestic violence. 

Although only four items were found to be significantly related to re-offending, the small 

sample size points to looking at other variables which did not reach the standard significance 

level. The equation shows several other variables that should be seriously considered for 

inclusion. A child being present or a witness being present at the incident may be related to 

[C:\DV\dvfinalZ.WPD] 37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
reduced risk of re-offending. If the victim claimed past physical abuse and the more serious the 

current offense, the higher the risk of reoffending. 

Table 14 

Results of Logistic Regression Model Predicting Domestic Violence Reoffending 

within Twelve Months 

Number of Cases = 138 

-2 Log Likelihood 109.428 

Goodness of Fit 120.142 

Cox & Snell- R”2 .237 

Nagelkerke - R”2 ,361 

Chi-square df Significance 

Model 37.090 15 .0012 

__--------- Variables in the Equation ------- 

Variable B S.E. sig 

Happened in public place 

Couple has children 

Victim present 

Children present 

Victim treated for injuries 

Victim reports prior physical abuse 

Prior court record of domestic violence 

Severity of current offense 

Suspects drug use history 

Weapon involved 

Witness present 

Victim pregnant 

Prior record of non-DV offense 

Victim complained of pain 

Drugs or alcohol involved in incident 

Constant 

-2.6368 

1.2199 

-2.2488 

-1.231 8 

0.1257 

1.267 

1.211 

0.6027 

0.1756 

0.3449 

-0.8958 

0.61 22 

0.4971 

0.5893 

-0.14 

-2.473 

0.9327 

0.5584 

0.9299 

0.6881 

0.3166 

0.7384 

0.5296 

0.4043 

0.81 96 

0.6566 

0.5769 

1.0022 

0.5424 

0.6654 

0.7416 

1.6355 

0.0047 

0.0289 

0.01 56 

0.0734 

0.6914 

0.0862 

0.0222 

0.136 

0.8304 

0.5994 

0.1205 

0.5413 

0.3594 

0.3758 

0.8503 

0.1305 

[C:U)WvfinalZ.WPD] 38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
The point value scheme for the items of the risk assessment instrument was developed 

using the results of the regression and the bivariate analyses, as well as from suggested 

relationships in the literature. For instance, the bivariate analysis showed that if the victim 

declined treatment for the injury, the rate of re-offending was higher, this item was included in 

the final model. Pregnancy was included in the model because the small number of occurrences 

of this factor may have contributed to it not showing significance in the multivariate model. We 

also included items concerning alcohol and drugs and whether the victim complained of pain in 

the risk assessment even though these variables were not significant in the regression equation. 

These items were included because the data was based on what police officers were writing in 

their narratives and it was very likely that information about these issues were greatly underrepresented. Furthermore the literature supports the notion that alcohol and drug abuse can play 

a role in domestic violence re-offending (Tolman & Bennett, 1990). 

Using the model we were able to make four risk group classifications of offenders. We 

chose a classification scheme that would screen out low risk offenders relatively well and 

overestimate the number of high and very high risk offenders. In this case, false negatives (not 

classifying a case as high risk, when it really is) were thought to be more problematic than false 

positives. It is our intention that the interventions associated with the categories will be focused 

on providing services for the victim andor suspect, rather than punishment. The interventions 

associated with each of the risk levels will not be chosen until further verification of the 

instrument and the model are completed. Thus, arguments about labeling and over classifying 

suspects are less important, because the intent of the classification is to direct services towards 

the high risk groups. The classification scheme can be found in Table 15. 

[C:\DWvfmal2. WPDJ 39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION UNIT 

RISK ASSESSMENT FOR DV RE-OFFENSE 

Score 

Does the couple live with their children? 

no .......... .O 

yes .......... 4 

no ........... 0 

yes .......... 3 

no ........... 0 

yes .......... 1 

Is the victim pregnant? 

Does the suspect have a history of drug use? 

Was the suspect on alcohol or drugs at time of incident? 

no ......... ..O 

yes .......... 1 

Does the victim say the suspect has been physically abusive in the past? 

no ........... 0 

yes ......... .4 

Is there a court record of prior domestic violence for the suspect? 

no .......... .O 

yes .......... 4 

Has the suspect been previously arrested or suspected of other (non-DV) offenses by BPD? 

no ......... ..O 

yes .......... 2 

What category does the current offense tit into? 

disturbing the peace ................ 2 

violation of court order ........... 4 

dispute or intimidation ............ 6 

physical assault (misd or fel) ... 8 

very serious violence ............. 10 

no ............ .O 

yes ............ 1 

Did the suspect use a weapon? 

Did victim complain of pain? 

Was the victim treated for injuries? 

no ............ .O 

yes ............ 1 

no, not necessary .............. 3 

declined ............................ 6 

yes .................................... 0 

no ........... .O 

yes .......... -5 

no ............ .O 

yes .......... -8 

no ............. .O 

yes ......... ..-3 

no .............. 0 

yes ............ -2 

Did the incident occur in a public place? 

(not home, mote1,etc.) 

Was the victim present for questioning? 

Was a child present during the incident? 

Was a witness present during the incident? 

TOTAL SCORE 

Discretionary Override: State reason 

Total Score Breakdown (circle one): 

LOW (<4) MED (4 -10) HIGH (I 1-14) VERY HIGH (>14) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 15 

Risk Assessment Classification Scheme 

LOW Medium High Very High 

Percentage of cases in sample 34% 45% 15% 5 yo 

Percent reoffending within one year 2% 27% 43% 5 7% 

In this classification scheme, only five percent of suspects were classified as high risk and 

57 percent of them re-offended within the twelve month study period. Some of the highest risk 

suspects might have been in jail, but given that only three were incarcerated for six months or 

more, the risk assessment model was built using data on all suspects. The low risk category 

contained about one-third of the suspects and that group only had a two percent reoffense rate. 

Approximately one-quarter (27 percent) of the medium risk suspects re-offended and 43 percent 

of those classified as high risk were recidivists within one year. This classification scheme was 

thus able to create four distinct groupings of suspects based on their likelihood of reoffending. 

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

Through this collaborative effort, we were able to accomplish three important tasks. 

First, we created a usehl Domestic Violence Safety AssessmentlSupplemental Report for the 

Berkeley Police Department. Second, we developed a preliminary risk assessment that the 

Domestic Violence Prevention Unit can use to develop appropriate interventions based on risk of 

[C:U)V\dvfinalZ.WPD] 41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
recidivism. Third, we developed and sustained a locally initiated partnership between 

researchers and practitioners to work together on the problem of domestic violence. 

There are many important next steps to take in fkthering this work. First, the risk 

assessment instrument should be validated with prospectively collected data. Retrospective data 

is usefid in developing an instrument, however, we must see if the instrument can accurately 

predict which suspects will fall into the risk categories developed. Also, the data used to develop 

the risk instrument was limited by the report writing capability of the officers. Once the 

Domestic Violence Safety Assessmenthpplernental Report is fully in place, the report writing 

should be more standardized and the information richer. The new standardized data should be 

used for prospective validation. Furthermore, we were limited by a small sample size. Larger 

samples should be used in future studies. 

As the prospective validation of the instrument takes place, it is also important to assess 

the validity of the outcome measure. Most studies, including this one, used officially reported 

domestic violence or arrest as the outcome variable. While this is one measure of recidivism, it 

is extremely important to know whether the victim is actually getting abused again. One way to 

know this is to ask her. It is possible that some victims will not report another incident to police 

(for a variety of reasons), so that the suspect will appear to be a non-recidivist. It may be 

possible that this group of suspects may be the most dangerous to the victims, but are not 

appearing in the data used to develop the model. Therefore, having researchers interview victims 

is a crucial step in the process of making the most valid and useful risk classification we can. 

Finally, when the classification instrument is validated, several agencies including police, 

advocates, shelters, the courts need to come together to create community-wide policies based on 

(C:\DWvfinalZ.WPD] 42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
the risk classification. In collaboration, they should devise a graduated series of interventions 

based on the latest research literature and on the risk classification to help ensure the safety of 

victims of intimate partner violence. 

REFERENCES 

Aldarondo, E. (1 996). Cessation and Persistence of Wfe Assault: A Longitudinal Analysis. 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66: 14 1 - 15 1. 

Bachman, R. & Saltman, L.E. 1995. Violence Against Women: Estimatespom the Redesigned 

Survey. NCJ-I 54348. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bailey, J., Kellermann, A., Somes, G., Banton, J., Rivara, F., and N. Rushforth, 1997. Risk 

Factors for Violent Death of Women in the Home. Archives of Internal Medicine, 

1571777-782. 

Berkeley Mayors Task Force Report on Domestic Violence. 1996. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook. 1998. Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes 

by Current or Former Spouses, Boy>iends, and Girlfriends. NCJ-167237. Washington, 

D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Cappell, C. & Heiner, R.B. I 990. The Intergenerational Transmission of Family Aggression. 

Journal of Family Violence, 5: 135-1 52. 

Daly, M. & Wilson, M. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine. 

Dawson, M. & Gartner, R. 1998. Differences in the Characteristics of Intimate Femicides: The 

Role of Relationship State and Relationship Status. Homicide Studies, 2:378-399. 

DeBecker, G. 1997. The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals that Protect Us porn Violence. New 

York, NY: Little Brown & Co. 

Dutton, D.G. 1995. A Scale for Measuring Propensity for Abusiveness. Journal of Family 

Violence, 10:203-219. 

Fein, R.A., Vossekuil, B. & Holden, G.A. 1995. Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent 

Targeted Violence. NIJ Research in Action. 

[C:\DWvfinal2.WPD] 43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Feld, S. & Straus, M. 1989. Escalation and Desistance of Violence in Marriage. Criminology, 

271141-161. 

Herzberger, S. 1983. Social Cognition and the Transmission of Abuse. In Finkelhor, D., Gelles, 

R., Hotaling, G., & Straus, M. (eds.), The Dark Side of Families: Current Family 

Violence Research. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Hirschel, J.D., Dean, C.W., & R.C. Lumb. 1994. The Relative Contribution of Domestic 

Violence to Assault and Injury of Police Oficers. Justice Quarterly, 1 1 :99-117. 

National Research Council / Institute of Medicine. 1998. Violence in Families Assessing 

Prevention and Treatment Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Gamer, J. & Clemmer, E. 1986. Danger to Police in Domestic Disturbances -A New Look. NIJ 

Research in Brief. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Gelles, R. 1997. Intimate Violence in Families, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gendreau, P., Little, T. & C. Goggin. 1996. A Meta-analysis of the Predictors of Adult Oflender 

Recidivism: What Worh!. Criminology, 34575-607. 

Hirschel, J.D., Hutchison, I. W., & C. W. Dean. 1992. The Failure of Arrest to Deter Spouse 

Abuse. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29:7-33. 

Kropp, P.R. & Hart, S.D. 1997. Assessing Risk of Violence in Wi$e Assaulters: The Spousal 

Assault Risk Assessment Guide. In Webster, C. & Jackson, M. (eds.) Impulsivity: Theory, 

Assessment and Treatment. New York, New York: Guilford Press. 

McKean, J. & Hendricks, J.E. 1997. The Role of Crisis Intervention in the Police Response to 

Domestic Disturbances. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8:269-294. 

Pate, A. & Hamilton E. 1992. Formal and Informal Deterrents to Domestic Violence: The Dude 

County Spouse Assault Experiment. American Sociological Review, 57: 69 1-697. 

Schafer, J, Caetano, R., & Clark, C. 1998. “Rates of Intimate Partner Violence in the United 

States.” American Journal of Public Health 88: 1702-1 704. 

Schmidt, J. & Sherman, L. 1996. Does Arrest Deter Domestic Violence?. In Buzawa, E. & 

Buzawa, C. (eds.) Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Sherman, L.W. & Berk, R. 1984. “The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic 

Assault.” American Sociological Review 57:261-272. 

(C:U)WvfinalZ.WPD] 44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and 

Adaptations to Violence in 8I45 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 

Straus, M. & Gelles, R. 1986. Societal Change and Change in Family Violence from 1975 to 

1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48:465- 

479. 

Tolman, R. & Bennett, L. 1990. A Review of Quantitative Research on Men who Batter. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5:87-118. 

Uchida, C., Brooks. L., & Kopers, C. 1987. Danger to Police During Domestic Encounters: 

Assaults on Baltimore County Police, 1984-1986. Criminal Justice Police Review 2:357- 

371. 

[C:U)V\dvfinalZ.WPD] 45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A: 

DATA COLLECTION FORM 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT 

DATA COLLECTION FORM 

1.0. 

CASE NUMBER: 

CODER: 

TODAY'S DATE: 

VICTIM'S DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

Name: 

Last First Middle 

DOB: ,-/-IMM DD YY 

Race: 

1 =White 5 =Asian 

2 =Black 6 =Other 

3 =Hispanic 99 =Missing 

4 =Native American 

Sex: 

0 = Male 1 =Female 

History of drug use (circle all that apply): 

1 =None 5 = Heroin/Opiates 

2 =Alcohol 6 = Other 

3 =Cocaine 7 = Unknown 

4 =Marijuana 

Address: 

City: Zip: 

PFN #: 

SUSPECT'S DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

Name: 

Last First Middle 

DOB: / I 

MM DD YY 

Race: 

1 =White 5 =Asian 

2 =Black 8 =Other 

3 =Hispanic 99 =Missing 

4 =Native American 

Sex: 

0 =Male 1 =Female 

Height (In feet, inches. If missing, code 99.): 

Weight (In pounds. If missing, code 99.): 

Build: 

1 =Thin 

2 = Medium 

3 =Heavy 

4 =Muscular 

99 = Missing 

History of drug use (circle that apply): 

1 =None 5 = Heroin/Opiates 

2 =Alcohol 6 =Other 

3 =Cocaine 7 =Unknown 

4 = Marijuana 

Address: 

PFN #: 

>, 

\-h - ( L" \'/4 

r 

RELATIONSHIP 

Type: -?-- 

1 =Married 5 =Former Dating 

2 = Separated/Divorced 6 =Other 

3 =Cohabiting 7 =Unknown 

4 = Dating 

Number of children in common: 

Is victim currently pregnant ? 

O=no 1 =yes 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
CHARACTERIZATION OF INCIDENT 

ffense Category (list all) 

Date of incident: 1-1- 

MM DD YY 

Time of incident (Military time): eBoth parties are mutual suspects? 

O=NO 

Weapon involved: 

0 =None 

1 =Club, Stick, Pipe 

2 =Knife 

Drugs involved: 

0 =None 

1 =Alcohol 

2 =Cocaine 

Suspect present at scene? 

O=NO 

Victim present at scene? 

O=NO 

Victim's statement taken? 

O=No 

Witness present at scence? 

O=No 

Witness' statement taken ? 

O=No 

Children present? 

O=No 

9=NA 

Location ID we1 Ii ng : 

1 =Home 

2 =Public Place 

Who reported the incident: 

1 =Victim 

2 =Victim's Relative 

3 = Friend 

1 =Yes 

3=Gun 

4 =Other 

3 =Marijuana 

4 =Heroin 

5 =Other 

1 =Yes 

1 =Yes 

1 =Yes 

1 =Yes 

1 =Yes 

1 =Yes 

3 = HotellMotel 

4 =Other9 = Missing 

5 =Co-worker 

6 =Suspect 

7 =Medical Personnel 

4 = Neiahbor 8 =Other -a ~- 

fF:\USERS\EVERYONE\-TL\DVlOLFRZ. WPD) 

Victim complained of pain? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Victim's Visible injuries (Circle all that apply): 

0 =None 

1 =Facial Scratches, Clawing Marks 

2 =Bodily Scratches, Clawing Marks 

3=Facial Bruises (ex., slap to face marks) 

4 = Black-Eye 

5 =Bodily Bruises (ex.,frompunching, kicking) 

6 =Facial Cuts, Laceration (lips, face) 

7 =Bodily Cuts, Laceration 

8 =Strangulation Marks 

9 =stab wounds 

7 0 =gunshot wounds 

1 1 =Moderate Bleeding 

12 =Severe Bleeding 

13 =Shock 

Suspect's visible injuries (Circle all that apply): 

0 =None 

1 =Facial Scratches, Clawing Marks 

2 =Bodily Scratches, Clawing Marks 

3=Facial Bruises (ex., slap to face marks) 

4 = Black-Eye 

5 =Bodily Bruises (ex.,frompunching, kicking) 

6 =Facial Cuts, Laceration (lips, face) 

7 =Bodily Cuts, Laceration 

8 =Strangulation Marks 

9 =stab wounds 

10 =gunshot wounds 

1 1 =Moderate Bleeding 

12 = Severe Bleeding 

13=Shock 

Victim treated for injuries? 

0 =No, not necessary 

1 =No, victim declined 

2 =Yes, by paramedics 

3 =Yes, at clinic in hospital 

Photographs taken? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Victim complained of past physical abuse? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Previously reported to police? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Victim complained of past sexual abuse? - 

O=No 7 =Yes 

Previously reported to police? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Victim complained of past emotional 

abuse and threats? 

O=NO 1 =Yes 

Previously reported to police? 

O=NO 1 =Yes 

Translation needed? 

O=NO 1 =Yes 

D.V. pamphlet given? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

9 =Missing 

Suspect arrested? 

O=NO 1 =Yes 

Citizen's arrest? 

0 =No 1 =Yes 

Victim requested charges filed? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Did victim request an EPO? 

O=NO 

1 =Yes 

2 =Already issued, not served 

3 =Already issued & served 

Is there a TRO? 

O=No 2=lssued & served 

1 =Issued, not served 

Suspect have pending arrest warrant? 

O=No 1 =Yes 

Officer's ID number: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
POLICE RECORDS (ASSOCIATES) 

NAME SEX RACE DOB HGT 

1. 

2. 

3. 

WGT INVOLVEMENT 

SU. AR, VI 

NAME 

1. 

2. 

SEX RACE DOB HGT WGT INVOLVEMENT 

SU, AR, VI 

I 

1- I I I I I 

3. I I I I I I 

NAME 

1. 

2. 

3. 

SEX RACE DOE HGT WGT INVOLVEMENT 

SU. AR. VI 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
COURT REFERRALS 

CHARGE 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

c 

SENTENCE POLICE CASE RESULT 

NUMBER DATE OF OFFENSE DATE FILED POLICE AGENCY 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
Result 

1 =Dismissed 

2 =Not file-no reason 

3 = Not file-lack evidence 

4 = Not file-other event 

5 = Amend-less offense 

6 = Convicted-no contest 

7 = Convicted 

8 = Bench warrant issue 

9 =Transfer out 

10 =Not file-victim unavailable 

12 = Dismissed-insuff evidence 

13 = Not file-insuff evidence 

14 = Dismissed-pros other case 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.
October 30, 1999 

Final Report 1 

/8A26Q 

Final Report for National Institute of Justice Grant #97-IJ-CX-O033 “Focusing on the Clients of Street 

Prostitutes: A Creative Approach to Reducing Violence Against Women.” 

Martin A. Monto, P1i.D. 

Principal Investigator 

University of Portland 

5000 N. Willainette Blvd. 

Portland, OR 97203-5798 

monto@up.edu 

(503) 943-7252 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the

U.S. Department of Justice.