This project was supported by Grant No. 98-WE-VX-0012 awarded to the Institute for Law and Justice by 

the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in 

this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the U.S. Department of Justice.

Institute for Law and Justice

1018 Duke Street

Alexandria, Virginia

Phone: 703-684-5300

Fax: 703-739-5533

E-Mail: ilj@ilj.org

National Evaluation of the Grants to 

Encourage Arrest Policies Program

Final Report

November 2002

Report Contributors

Cassandra Archer

Cheron DuPree

Neal Miller

Deborah Spence

Brenda Uekert

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Table of Contents · i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

Overview of the Arrest Policies Program........................................................................................1

Evaluation Approach and Issues......................................................................................................1

Overview of Methodology .........................................................................................................2

Evaluation Issues........................................................................................................................2

Evaluation Findings .........................................................................................................................4

Report Overview..............................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2. Literature Review and Background on the Arrest Policies Program 7

Problem of Domestic Violence........................................................................................................7

Responding to Domestic Violence...................................................................................................8

Catalysts for Change in Law Enforcement and Prosecution Policies........................................9

Overview of Changes at the National Level............................................................................10

Research on Arrest and Prosecution ..............................................................................................12

Minneapolis Experiment, Replications, and Reanalysis ..........................................................12

Research on Law Enforcement Implementation of Arrest Policies.........................................14

Research on Dual Arrests.........................................................................................................15

Research and Policy Change in Prosecution............................................................................16

No Drop and Evidence Based Prosecution..............................................................................18

Other Relevant Research................................................................................................................19

Domestic Violence Courts .......................................................................................................19

Coordinated Community Response.........................................................................................20

Victims’ Assessments of Criminal Justice Interventions.........................................................21

Summary ........................................................................................................................................22

Chapter 3. Local Implementation of the Arrest Policies Program 23

Arrest Policies Program Goals .......................................................................................................23

Offender Accountability and Victim Safety ............................................................................24

Overview of Grantees and Projects..........................................................................................25

National Survey Results...........................................................................................................26

Local Project Implementation ........................................................................................................27

Site Selection for Process Evaluation ......................................................................................28

Overview of Process Evaluation Methods...............................................................................29

Implementation Issues..............................................................................................................29

Staffing and Personnel Issues ............................................................................................29

Administrative and Technology Delays.............................................................................35

Local Resources.................................................................................................................41

Need for Inter-Agency Cooperation and Coordination .....................................................42

Summary ........................................................................................................................................42
Table of Contents · ii

Chapter 4. Arrest Policies Program and Criminal Justice Process Changes 44

Overview of Case Processing Issues..............................................................................................44

Arrest Policies Program System Changes......................................................................................46

Specialized Domestic Violence Units......................................................................................46

Law Enforcement Specialized Units..................................................................................48

Prosecution Units and Court Organization Structures .......................................................50

Probation ............................................................................................................................54

Training and Mentoring...........................................................................................................56

Improved and Increased Services ............................................................................................58

Follow-Up Activities and Services....................................................................................59

Report Writing and Evidence Collection ...........................................................................60

Improved Case Prosecution and Court Processing ............................................................61

Victim Services..................................................................................................................62

Criminal Justice-Victim Services Partnership Changes ................................................................65

Partnerships Descriptions.........................................................................................................65

Types of Partnerships...............................................................................................................67

Differing Paths to Partnerships................................................................................................69

Coordination in Planning...................................................................................................69

Accepting Differences in Agency Philosophies and Roles................................................70

Shared Decisionmaking .....................................................................................................73

Summary ........................................................................................................................................74

Chapter 5. Impact Evaluation 77

Evaluation Strategy ........................................................................................................................78

Site Selection and Local Research Coordinators.....................................................................80

Quantitative Measures..............................................................................................................81

Statistics.............................................................................................................................81

Sample Data .......................................................................................................................82

Qualitative Data .......................................................................................................................84

Content Analysis of Incident Reports ................................................................................84

Focus Groups.....................................................................................................................85

Victims/Survivors Interviews ............................................................................................86

Overview of the Sites.....................................................................................................................87

Domestic Violence Indicators..................................................................................................87

Local Program Focuses............................................................................................................88

Charging Practices ...................................................................................................................89

Characteristics of Arrestees.....................................................................................................90

Program Impacts on Offender Accountability...............................................................................92

Arrest Policies and Trends.......................................................................................................93

Gaps in Law Enforcement’s Response to Domestic Violence ..........................................95

Prosecution Efforts...................................................................................................................99

Filing Decisions and Case Screening...............................................................................100

Charging Practices...........................................................................................................102
Table of Contents · iii

Conviction and Sentencing ....................................................................................................102

Court Dispositions of Domestic Violence Cases .............................................................103

Sentencing Patterns..........................................................................................................106

Oversight of Offenders...........................................................................................................110

Summary ......................................................................................................................................111

Arrest Policies and Trends.....................................................................................................112

Prosecution Efforts.................................................................................................................112

Conviction, Sentencing, and Supervision ..............................................................................113

System Approach ...................................................................................................................113

Chapter 6.. Impact Evaluation 113

Participants...................................................................................................................................114

Research Issues............................................................................................................................115

Victim Services and Satisfaction with Services...........................................................................116

Victim Assistance Arrangements...........................................................................................117

Victim Services Provided.......................................................................................................118

Victim Services................................................................................................................119

Victim Satisfaction with Services....................................................................................121

Need for Additional Victim Services...............................................................................122

Victim/Survivor Perceptions of the Criminal Justice Response..................................................123

Law Enforcement Response...................................................................................................123

Prosecution/Court Response..................................................................................................125

Participation in the Criminal Justice System...............................................................................126

Victim Participation ...............................................................................................................126

Effects of Participation Decisions: Satisfaction with Care ....................................................127

Summary ......................................................................................................................................129

Chapter 7. Evaluation Summary and Recommendations 130

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................131

Grant Program Implementation Issues.........................................................................................131

Criminal Justice Process Changes...............................................................................................133

Impact Evaluation........................................................................................................................135

Arrest Policies and Trends.....................................................................................................135

Prosecution Efforts.................................................................................................................136

Conviction, Sentencing, and Supervision ..............................................................................136

Victims/Survivors Experiences....................................................................................................137

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................137

Administrative Recommendations...............................................................................................138

Domestic Violence Practitioner Recommendations....................................................................139

Research Recommendations........................................................................................................141
Table of Contents · iv

Appendix A. National Survey of Project Directors

Appendix B. Overview of Traditional Approaches to Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Case 

Processing

Appendix C. Survey of Arrest Project Participants

Appendix D. Structured Interview Questionnaire

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3-1: Site Descriptions by Type of Project........................................................................30

Exhibit 4-1: Specialized Units Funded (in whole or part) Through the Arrest 

Policies Program .......................................................................................................47

Exhibit 4-2: Components of Multi-Agency Policing Projects......................................................49

Exhibit 4-3: Arrest Policies Program Staffing at Prosecution-Led Projects.................................51

Exhibit 4-4: Key Components of Specialized Prosecution Units and 

Domestic Violence Courts ........................................................................................52

Exhibit 4-5: “Fast Track” Projects in Pueblo and La Plata Counties, Colorado...........................54

Exhibit 4-6: Criminal Justice Agency Grantees and Their Partners.............................................66

Exhibit 4-7: Role of Community Service Providers in Arrest Policies Projects..........................67

Exhibit 5-1: Types of Summary Statistics ....................................................................................82

Exhibit 5-2: Primary Charges Issued by Prosecutors’ Offices for 1999.......................................89

Exhibit 5-3: Racial/Ethnic Background of Domestic Violence Arrestees for 1999 

(Urban Sites).............................................................................................................91

Exhibit 5-4: Domestic Violence Arrestees by Race/Ethnicity......................................................92

Exhibit 5-5: Prosecution Filing Rates by Site, 1999...................................................................101

Exhibit 5-6: Dispositions of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Cases, 1999 .............................104

Exhibit 5-7: Sentences of Convicted Batterer Misdemeanants for Impact Sites, 1999.............106

Exhibit 5-8: Misdemeanor Sentences, Lozen County, 1996 and 1999.......................................109

Exhibit 5-9: Violation of Probation Cases Filed, Lozen County, 1996-1999.............................111

Exhibit 6-1: Grant Staffing for Victim Assistance at Impact Sites.............................................118

Exhibit 6-2: Types of Victim Services Provided ........................................................................120

Exhibit 6-3: Victim Prosecution Preferences by Level of Violence...........................................127
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation • 1

Chapter 1 

Introduction

The Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ), under a grant from the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), conducted a 

national evaluation of the Grants to Encourag e Arrest Policies Program. 1 The Arrest Policies 

Program is funded under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This final report presents 

findings from the evaluation, which included a survey of 130 grantees, a process evaluation 

involving 20 grant projects, and an impact evaluation involving six projects. 

Overview of the Arrest Policies Program

Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and its reauthorization in 2000, the 

VAWO provides grants for the purpose of establishing or enforcing policies fav oring arrest and 

prosecution of persons committing domestic violence. Development of this program was based 

on testimony at congressional hearings about the pervasiveness and seriousness of domestic 

violence, and on research showing that arrest of batterers can deter future domestic violence by 

defendants. At the time this evaluation began, VAWO had awarded 130 Arrest Policies Program 

grants. Most grants were for projects sponsored by law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ 

offices, with some grants going to probation departments, statewide agencies, and tribal 

organ izations.

Evaluation Approach and Issues

Based on the congressional mandate establishing the program, three primary questions 

were considered in designing the evaluation: (1) What types of projects are being implemented 

under the Arrest Policies Program? (2) How has implementation of the Arrest Policies Program 

changed the criminal justice system and the delivery of services to victims of domestic violence? 

and (3) How has the Arrest Policies Program increased victim safety and well-being and offender 

accountability? 

 

1

In 2000, the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program was renamed the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies 

and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 2

This section provides an overview of the methods employed in the evaluation, followed 

by a discussion of issues that influenced our approach, particularly with respect to addressing the 

third question related to offender accountability and victim safety and well-being.

Overview of Methodology

The evaluation used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to document 

both the national scope of the Arrest Policies Program and the implementation and outcomes of 

local projects. All 130 active grantees were asked to complete a questionnaire requesting 

information on project activities and performance. With guidance from a national advisory 

board, ILJ developed site selection criteria and selected 20 projects to participate in a process 

evaluation. ILJ visited the 20 projects to assess the implementation process by interviewing 

staff, observing grant activities (e.g., courtroom proceedings, police work through ride-alongs),

and collecting documentation. ILJ staff prepared case study reports on each site.2 

Finally, ILJ explored the impact of the Arrest Policies Program on offender 

accountability and victim safety. Six projects were selected from among the 20 that particip ated 

as process evaluation sites. Multiple methodologies were employed, including collection of 

summary statistics on law enforcement, prosecution, and victim services performance (e.g., 

arrests, cases filed, victims served); analysis of sampled data for two time periods, 1996 (pregrant) and 1999 (post-grant); content analysis of police incident reports prepared before and after 

grant implementation; focus groups with key criminal justice agency personnel and victim 

services providers; and interviews and focus groups with victims/survivors.

Evaluation Issues

The Arrest Policies Program was not a test or demonstration of any single, predetermined pro -arrest strategy. Instead, and as Congress intended, grant applicants had a great 

deal of flexibility in designing their projects. In their applications for funding, sites were asked 

to describe how they would address at least one of six legislative purpose areas. Briefly, these 

areas addressed development of mandatory and pro -arrest policies and programs; training; 

creation or enhancement of specialized domestic violence units; domestic violence case tracking 

 

2

The individual site reports prepared by ILJ were approved for Internet distribution by local project directors and 

can be found on ILJ’s web site: www.ilj.org/dv/.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 3

improvements; coordination of case tracking systems across agencies; and strengthened services 

for victims of domestic violence. Many projects addressed several purpose areas, and the grant 

amounts varied, as did existing resources and strategies in the grantee jurisdictions. In short, 

although the grantees had in common certain guidelines and requirements, they could and did 

develop many different interventions. 

This flexibility in local programming afforded grantees many advantages, but it also 

posed challenges for evaluating the impact of the Arrest Policies Program as a whole. 

Significant challenges came from the timing of the evaluation grant award. Many grantees had 

made considerable progress in implementing their projects before the evaluation grant was 

awarded. Although this is a positive comment on the funding agency’s and grantees’ ability to 

move forward with implementation, it limited opportunities to set up special data collection 

systems or control groups for the evaluation. Related to this (and one of the areas that the 

authorizing legislation in fact sought to address) was the fact that local sites varied greatly with 

respect to computer system capabilities for tracking domestic violence cases.

The evaluation team received excellent cooperation from the sites participating in the 

evaluation. The evaluators were able to thoroughly address key questions related to process; for 

example: What obstacles did grantees encounter, how were they overcome, and what barriers 

remained? What changes were made in criminal justice system handling of domestic violence 

cases? Did services to victims/survivors increase as a result of the grant? Were 

victims/survivors satisfied with the services provided?

These were important questions for VAWO and Congress. However, challenges noted 

earlier could not be overcome with respect to evaluating impact. Specifically, an experimental 

research design using control groups and a random sampling process for selecting victims to be 

interviewed3 could not be accomplished. Without such methods, we cannot conclude that certain 

positive outcomes documented in this evaluation were a direct result of interventions supported 

by Arrest Policies Program grant funding, rather than competing factors. To compensate for the 

 

3

In addition, the decision to use methods other than random sampling to recruit victims/survivors for interviews 

was influenced by concerns for victim safety; a desire to ensure that victims/survivors who were members of 

racial and ethnic minority groups were interviewed; and at participating small and rural jurisdictions, small 

numbers of prosecuted cases compared to large urban areas.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 4

inability to implement a more rigorous evaluation design, other qualitative and quantitative 

methodologies were developed. 

The evaluation addressed the following key questions of concern to VAWO and 

Congress: 

• How are Arrest Policies Program funds being spent by grantees? 

• Were victims satisfied with the services provided through Arrest Policies Program 

projects? 

• What impacts did the Arrest Policies Program have on organizations (e.g., law 

enforcement agencies, prosecutors)?

• What impacts did Arrest Policies Program projects have on offender 

accountability?

These questions differ from the questions one might hope to answer had this been an evaluation 

of a field test or demonstration project, but they are important not only to legislators, the funding 

agencies, and researchers, but also to policymakers and practitioners in the field. 

Evaluation Findings

Key findings from the evaluation are summarized belo w and discussed in detail in 

Chapters 3 through 7 of this report.

• The national survey of grantees found that most projects used their funds to 

support development of specialized units and for training. The 111 grantees that 

responded to the survey reported the establishment of 130 new units for 

combating domestic violence. Of that number, 45 new units were in police 

departments, 37 in prosecutors’ offices, 17 in probation, 10 in courts, and 21 were 

multi-agency units.4

• The surveyed grantees also reported the use of grant funds to enhance 92 existing 

specialized units. Of that number, 25 were in police departments, 28 in 

prosecutors’ offices, 17 in probation, 10 in courts, and 12 were multi-agency 

units.

• In total, the 111 grantees funded 536 staff positions, for an average of 4.8 staff per 

project. The majority of those hired (58 percent) were in law enforcement or 

prosecution. The fewest number of people hired were in the areas of probation 

(60 staff, 11 percent of all hires) and courts (70 staff, 13 percent of all hires).

• The process evaluation involving 20 sites showed that grantees used their funds to 

make significant changes in handling domestic violence cases. These changes 

 

4

Jurisdictions may have established more than one specialized unit to assist victims of domestic violence.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 5

ranged from large organizational restructuring, such as establishing domestic 

violence courts, to changes in day -to-day operations, such as improvements in 

evidence collection procedures. 

• In most sites, the grants resulted in improved communication and cooperation 

among criminal justice agencies and community-based victim services 

organizations. As might be expected, collaboration on Arrest Policies Program 

projects was most notable at sites where key agencies already had solid working 

relationships prior to applying for grant funds. 

• Adoption of preferred or mandatory domestic violence arrest policies, or new 

domestic violence law enforcement initiatives, corresponded with an increase in 

law enforcement arrests or referrals to prosecutors across all sites. These 

increases eventually stabilized. Increases in arrest are likely due to the new or 

urgent management emphasis on domestic violence. 

• ILJ’s analysis of the sample data found that the proportion of warrant arrests of 

domestic violence suspects increased from an average across all sites of 4.1 

percent of all arrests prior to the Arrest Policies Program grants to 15.5 percent 

during the grant period. This suggests a change on the part of law enforcement in 

procedures for arresting batterers.

• Some gaps in the law enforcement response were identified with respect to cases 

where the suspect fled the scene and in the enforcement of protection orders. 

− In general, where police departments did not have specialized domestic 

violence resources (e.g., detective units), there was little likelihood that efforts 

would be made to locate and apprehend suspects who fled. 

− Law enforcement officers in focus groups expressed frustrations with 

protection order enforcement, including a perceived lack of support from 

prosecution and courts. In their focus groups, victims/survivors and service 

providers/advocates indicated that a lack of enforcement led them to believe 

protection orders were not an effective safety measure.

• With respect to prosecution practices, several findings stand out as a result of the 

evalu ation:

− Prosecutors file on a high percentage of domestic violence charges.

− Prosecutors reduced dismissals of domestic violence case filings.

− Limited case screening was conducted by prosecutors’ offices. Most 

prosecutors’ offices filed charges on nearly all domestic violence arrests. 

− Charging practices were influenced by the flexibility of the state code and 

reflected agency philosophies.

• Findings with respect to conviction, sentencing, and supervision included the 

following:

− The percentage of cases resulting in convictions remained constant from pregrant to post-grant periods (61.4 percent in 1996; 60.0 percent in 1999).
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 6

− The percentage of cases resulting in some form of diversion increased from 

7.2 percent in 1996 to 14.5 percent in 1999

• The majority of victims/survivors were contacted by victim assistance staff and 

were provided a variety of services, including help with protection orders and 

safety planning.

• In terms of victim services, five developments were documented at various sites:

− Victims/survivors were contacted at earlier stages in the criminal justice 

process.

− The addition of victim witness specialists and community advocates resulted 

in an increase in the number of women who were offered services.

− The types of services were expanded, with civil legal assistance becoming a 

component of victim services. 

− Outreach and bilingual victim assistance staff had the potential of improving 

access for victims/survivors from under-served communities.

− Access to services was improved as victim assistance was delivered at 

criminal justice agencies.

• A majority of victims/survivors in interviews and focus groups reported 

satisfaction with the victim assistance services they received and the law 

enforcement response. With respect to victim services, victims/survivors’ 

primary unmet need was for follow-up information on criminal case status and 

disposition. 

Report Overview

Chapter 2 presents background on the Arrest Policies Program and reviews relevant 

literature, focusing on studies related to mandatory and preferred arrest policies and prosecu tion 

handling of domestic violence cases. Chapter 3 provides additional information on the Arrest 

Policies Program goals, presents findings from the national survey of 130 grantees, and presents 

details on the 20 sites that participated in the process evaluation. Chapter 4 describes how Arrest 

Policies Program grant funds changed the way domestic violence cases were handled by law 

enforcement, prosecution, courts, and probation. The chapter also discusses improvements in 

communication and coordination between criminal justice agencies and community victim 

service organizations. Chapter 5 discusses the impact evaluation. It provides detail on the 

evaluation methodology, including discussions of data collection and analysis, and discusses 

evaluation findings. Chapter 6 discusses victims/survivors’ experiences with victim services 

provided and with criminal justice system handling of their cases. Chapter 7 summarizes key 

findings from the evaluation and offers recommendations for policy and future research.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 7

Chapter 2

Literature Review and Background on the 

Arrest Policies Program 

It is only within the last 30 years that the United States has made significant progress in 

treating domestic violence as a crime, rather than as a private matter. This chapter does not 

attempt an exhaustive review of the literature on domestic violence but instead focuses on 

research findings and public policies—particularly those related to arrest and prosecution of 

batterers—that either led to the Arrest Policies Program or that have become available since 

implementation of the Program.

Problem of Domestic Violence

The Arrest Polices Program defines domestic violence as an act of violence against an 

intimate partner or any other person protected by a state’s domestic violence laws. Intimate 

partners typically include spouses, former spouses, cohabiting couples, couples with a child in 

common, and dating couples. However, this is not a universal definition. In some states, 

domestic violence is more broadly defined to include acts of violence between members of the 

same family or even persons living together as roommates. 

Domestic violence is a serious problem in the United States today. For example, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), using data submitted to the National Incident Based 

Reporting System (NIBRS) from 14 states, estimated that nearly 25 percent of all reported 

violent crimes in 1998 involved domestic violence (FBI 1999).

Estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence vary significantly, however. For 

example, the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW) estimates that 1.8 million 

women and 1 million men are victimized by intimate partners annually (Tjaden and Theonnes 

2000). In contrast, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS) estimated that in 1998, 1 million violent crimes were committed against intimate 

partners, 85 percent of which were against women (Rennison and Welchans 2000). The NCVS 

does not include crimes such as stalking in its definition of domestic violence; moreover, other 

differences in the two surveys’ definitions, methodologies, samples, and other factors account for 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 8

differences in findings on prevalence, as well as the high number of male victims seen in the 

NVAW results. 

Domestic violence is also the largest cause of intentional injury to women. A study of 

violence-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms found that a spouse, ex-spouse, or 

boyfriend was responsible for approximately 38 percent of all emergency room visits by women 

with intentionally caused injuries (Rand, 1997). Furthermore, the risk to women of domestic 

violence victimization is much higher than the risk to men. The NCVS estimated that 22 percent 

of all female victims of violence were attacked by an intimate partner, compared to only 3 

percent of male victims (Rennison and Welchans 2000). The FBI reports a similar trend in 

homicide rates. In 1997, almost one-third (29 percent) of all female homicide victims were 

killed by an intimate partner, a rate that has remained relatively constant since 1976 (OwensManley, 1999). By contrast, intimate partner murders accounted for only 6 percent of all male 

homicides (Rennison and Welchans 2000).

While the NCVS indicates that domestic violence is more prevalent in low-income and 

urban households, it exists in all racial, ethnic, and economic groups. Domestic violence also 

affects women of all ages, although it is most common against women age 20-24, with women 

ages 35-49 most vulnerable to murder by an intimate partner (Rennison 2001).

Under-reporting of domestic violence to law enforcement is another issue that makes it 

difficult to determine prevalence. The NCVS estimates that only half of women victimized by 

an intimate report the violence to law enforcement (Rennison and Welchans 2000), and NVAW 

survey estimates are even lower (only 27 percent of women physically assaulted) (Tjaden and 

Theonnes 2000). Because of this, the criminal justice system faces not only the challenge of 

improving its responses to domestic violence, but to encourage women to come forward and 

report the violence.

Responding to Domestic Violence

The last 25 years have seen changes in how police and prosecutors respond to and handle 

domestic violence cases. Over the years, states and the federal government have enacted a 

variety of legislative changes concerning violence against women. A review of those changes is 

provided in the sections that follow.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 9

Catalysts for Change in Law Enforcement and Prosecution Policies

Historically, domestic violence was considered a private matter, not one in which 

criminal justice intervention was considered appropriate. Three things changed this attitude with 

respect to law enforcement policies: concerted efforts by advocates for victims and women; 

influential lawsuits challenging police practices; and research—in particular, the Minneapolis 

Domestic Violence Experiment. 

First, the women’s movement in the 1970s took up the challenge of making domestic 

violence a policy issue (Pleck 1987; Schneider 2000). These efforts resulted in legislation in 

many states that provided for civil orders of protection and provided new criminal law powers to 

the police. By 1982, 27 states had enacted laws that authorized police to arrest suspects in 

misdemeanor domestic violence cases based on probable cause, and nearly 40 states had 

provided courts with powers to issue orders of protection against domestic violence. Seven 

states also enacted laws making domestic violence a separate crime (Lerman, Landis, and 

Goldzweig 1983). At best, enforcement of these new laws was inconsistent. Police in many 

jurisdictions at that time were trained to avoid making an arrest, with many local law 

enforcement agencies favoring a family crisis model in which officers attempted to mediate, 

make referrals, and/or temporarily separate the parties. However, there were law enforcement 

critics who felt that this mediation model was not appropriate in cases involving physical 

violence (Loving 1980).

Second, lawsuits challenging police indifference to domestic violence victims,5 caused 

local jurisdictions to take a hard look at how they dealt with domestic violence. In 1984, 

municipal governments across the country took notice when Torrington, Connecticut, was 

ordered to pay $2.3 million to Tracy Thurman on the grounds that the police department had a 

policy of failing to provide equal protection to victims of domestic violence. 6 

Third, arguments for greater criminal justice involvement in domestic violence were 

reinforced in the 1980s by research findings—particularly the results of the Minneapolis 

 

5

See, for example, Bruno v. Codd, 396 N.Y. S.2d 974 (Sup. Ct. 1977); Scott v. Hart, No. 6-76-7395 (N.D. Cal.: 

1976). 

6

Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Conn. 1984). See also Sorichetti v. City of New York, 65 

N.Y. 2d 461, 492 N.Y. 2d (1985), which resulted in an out -of-court settlement in which the New York City 

Police Department agreed to change its policies. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 10

Domestic Violence Experiment, which suggested that arrest was far superior to other traditional 

police responses as a specific deterrent to domestic violence recidivism. 

Research on prosecution practices was not as extensive at that time or as influential. 

However, many researchers as well as victim advocates recognized the limitations of the 

Minneapolis experiment, including a need to examine what happens after arrest with respect to 

prosecution practices and outcomes. By the time Congress enacted the Violence Against 

Women Act in 1994, many victim and women’s advocates had turned their attention to 

reforming prosecution practices. As a result, the last 20 years have seen more prosecutors 

treating domestic violence as a serious crime (Hanna 1996), with many now taking an “evidence 

based” approach to prosecution. 

Overview of Changes at the National Level

Both Congress and the executive branch began to take steps in the 1970s to respond to 

domestic violence. Congress began holding subcommittee hearings on domestic violence as 

early as 1978. These continued through the 1980s and culminated in the Violence Against 

Women Act of 1994. 

Initially, Congress focused primarily on prevention issues. For example, only two of 43 

witnesses at the 1978 hearings were from the criminal justice system, and both represented a 

probation department.7 Executive branch efforts also involved a number of non -criminal justice 

agencies, including the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and Housing and Urban 

Development. By the late 1970s, however, federal support for criminal justice system reforms 

began to increase. For example, the Department of Justice supported several model projects with 

Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA) funding. Several years later, the Attorney General’s 

Task Force on Family Violence (1984) recommended statutory and criminal justice reforms, 

including a recommendation that all law enforcement agencies “establish arrest as the preferred 

response in incidents of family violence.”

Also in the early 1980s, Congress enacted the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), which 

created the federal crime victim compensation program and set priorities for the funding of 

victim services related to domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. VOCA required 

 

7

Domestic Violence, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Child and Human Development of the Committee on 

Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, Second Session (1978). 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 11

victim participation in the criminal justice system for states to get compensation funds. VOCA 

did not require this participation for jurisdictions to receive grants to improve services to victims, 

both within and outside of the criminal justice system, as well as others. VOCA victim services 

grants provided core funding for domestic violence and sexual assault programs that became 

platforms for training and criminal justice system reform during the 1980s. Other congressional 

legislation in this period also dealt with domestic violence in the non -criminal justice context.8

In 1992, Congress enacted the Battered Women’s Testimony Act (Pub. L. 102-527, 106 

Stat. 3459). This law was narrowly drawn to au thorize the State Justice Institute to conduct 

research on testimonial issues relating to the state of mind and experiences of battered women 

when they were defendants in intimate partner homicide cases. 

In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted as part of a 

comprehensive crime bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Pub. L. 103-

322, 108 Stat. 1902). Title IV of VAWA included authorization for grants to combat violent 

crimes against women, including domestic violence; funding for a national hotline for domestic 

violence victims; shelters, and rural law enforcement agencies; and funding to establish 

community programs on domestic violence. VAWA also created the new crimes of interstate 

domestic violence and interstate violation of an order of protection; and it included a focus on 

stalking.9 

VAWA also included authorization for the Arrest Policies Program, providing grants 

assist local efforts in six areas. Briefly, these areas were implementation of mandatory or proarrest policies; training; specialized domestic violence units; coordination of computer case 

tracking systems across agencies; strengthening of legal advocacy programs for victims; and 

judicial education and improved judicial case handling. The legislation authorizing the Arrest 

Policies Program responds to long-standing complaints of victim advocates that police do not 

arrest domestic violence suspects to the extent they should (Schechter 1982); a belief that police 

remain reluctant to arrest in domestic violence incidents compared to otherwise similar assaults 

 

8

For example, a study of domestic violence in the context of child custody (Pub. L. 102-528, 106 Stat. 3451); and 

the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. § 40271 et. seq.), enacted in 1986 and 

administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

9

The National Stalking and D omestic Violence Reduction program was authorized in the 2000 amendments to 

VAWA).
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 12

(Klinger 1995; Avakame 2001); and the need for a strong message that domestic violence is and 

will be handled as a crime. 

In addition, the need to develop coordinated community responses to domestic 

violence—in particular, to build bridges between criminal justice agencies and community based 

victim service providers—was also widely recognized by the time the Arrest Policies Program 

was developed. All grantees were required to work in partnership with a community based 

victim services organization.

Research on Arrest and Prosecution

Minneapolis Experiment, Replications, and Reanalysis

The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was the first experimental test of the 

specific deterrent effect of arrest in misdemeanor domestic violence cases and involved the 

random assignment of three responses—arrest, mediation, or ordering men to leave the scene—

to legally eligible assault suspects. The behavior of the suspects was monitored for six months 

after the police intervention. The researchers concluded that arrests were more effective than 

either of the other two responses in reducing subsequent domestic violence (Sherman and Berk 

1984; Sherman and Cohn 1989).

The Minneapolis experiment findings were widely accepted, with far-reaching results. 

Within one year of the first Minneapolis study publication, more than half of all major police 

departments had heard of the experiment, with three-quarters correctly remembering its general 

conclusion that arrest was the most effective police response (Buzawa and Buzawa 1996). By 

the mid -1990s, most states permitted, and more than half the states and the District of Columbia 

required, police to arrest assailants in misdemeanor domestic violence incidents based on 

probable cause (Zorza 1994, Miller 2000). 

Replications of the Minneapolis study by various researchers over the following decade 

yielded results that suggested the deterrent effect of arrest on spousal abuse was more 

complicated than the original hypothesis suggested. NIJ funded replication studies in five other 

jurisdictions (Omaha, Milwaukee, Colorado Springs, Charlotte, and Miami) in the Spouse Abuse 

Replication Project. In several of the jurisdictions, deterrent effects of arrest were present for 

some outcome measures; but overall, the results led some to conclude that the deterrent effect of 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 13

arrest was short-lived (Sherman et al. 1992) or only marginal (Davis and Smith 1998). Some of 

the replication studies also suggested that mandatory arrest might actually increase recidivism in 

some circumstances. In the Milwaukee study, researchers reported that arrest did have a shortterm deterrent effect and led to a decrease in recidivism with some groups of offenders, but 

higher rates of recidivism were reported among arrestees who were unmarried, unemployed, 

high-school drop-outs, or African-American (Sherman et al. 1992). 

One criticism of the Minneapolis experiment and replication studies is that they were too 

narrowly focused, examining only the initial police response, one of many possible interventions 

(Zorza 1994). In addition, specific deterrence is not seen as the only potential benefit of laws 

and policies favoring arrest; they serve to “ remind the victim, the offender, and society at large 

that particular conduct will not be allowed.” (Buzawa and Buzawa 1996). 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) recognized that it was difficult to generalize from 

the Minneapolis replications because of significant differences in case selection, incident 

eligibility rules, analytical models, and outcome measures (Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan 2001). 

In an effort to address this, NIJ funded a reanalysis examining all of the replication studies. The 

reanalysis showed that arrest did reduce recidivism across all five study sites, although the 

relationship was “modest compared with the effect of other factors (such as the batterer’s age 

and prior criminal record) on the likelihood of repeat offending.” The researchers also found no 

indication that arrest increased the risk of subsequent aggression. 

The reanalysis employed two data sources: data from victim interviews and the criminal 

history database. Response categories were collapsed into arrest and non-arrest. Looking at the 

likelihood of re-offending based on victim interviews, the researchers found that about 36 

percent of suspects in the arrest group re-offended, compared to 48 percent of suspects in the 

non-arrest group. Overall, about 40 percent of the interviewed victims reported subsequent 

victimization, whether the suspect had been arrested or not. Maxwell et al. (2001) found this 

rate to be consistent with other studies of batterer recidivism. Finally, although a majority (60 

percent) of batterers did not re-offend, there was a high concentration of repeat offending among 

a small number of batterers; victim interview data revealed that 82 percent of 9,000 new 

incidents were reported by only 8 percent of the victims. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 14

Research on Law Enforcement Implementation of Arrest Policies

By the time the 1994 VAWA was enacted, state laws and police policies had clearly 

moved in a pro -arrest direction. However, there were still concerns that police remained 

reluctant to arrest in domestic violence cases compared to otherwise similar, non-domestic 

violence incidents (Klinger 1995; Avakame 2001). 

For example, studies of the adoption of mandatory arrest policies in a southern 

jurisdiction found that arrests did not, in fact, increase (Greenleaf 1993); rather, what increased 

significantly were the number of incident reports containing explanations of why an arrest was 

not made (Lanza-Kaduce, Greenleaf, and Donahue 1995). In contrast, an evaluation of the New 

Jersey mandatory arrest law found that police arrests for domestic violence increased 33 percent 

in the eight years following the new law’s enactment in 1991, even though arrests for violent 

crimes generally dropped 12 percent. One interesting by-product of the new law was increased 

reporting; after the new law went into effect, reports of domestic violence increased by 51 

percent (Ciraco 2001). 

Even more dramatic increases in arrests were reported in Massachusetts. Prior to a new 

preferred arrest law, only 7 percent of domestic violence calls resulted in an arrest, compared to 

37.8 percent after the law’s enactment; and arrests in protection order violations, where arrest is 

mandatory upon a finding of probable cause, rose to 49.4 percent. Among the other key findings 

was that the more experienced the officer, the less likely was arrest. However, state training to 

reduce dual arrests was considered largely successful, with dual arrests occurring in only 2.4 

percent of the cases; and the new law’s clarification of the police role was reported to have 

improved cooperation between victim shelters and the police (Holmes, Mignon, and Headley 

1993). 

A third state study was conducted in New York, which adopted a mandatory arrest law in 

1994. This study found significant problems with implementation of the law. Suspects fled the 

scene in over 50 percent of the cases, yet officers were given no guidance on how to proceed. 

There was also a tendency in the first two years after the law’s adoption to undercharge crimes of 

domestic violence, i.e., to charge suspects with harassment rather than assault. The study also 

looked at probation policies and found that they treated a first violation of court orders of 

protection more seriously than a repeat abuse incident. Overall, probation agencies initiated 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 15

probation violation proceedings 50 percent more often than was the case prior to adopting the 

new policy. Most probation agencies (76 percent) referred batterers to intervention programs 

and 87 percent of the probation agencies monitored the referrals; 80 percent initiated violation 

proceedings for non-compliance. Recidivism, as measured by repeat calls for service, occurred 

in 30 percent of the cases within nine months of the original incident. Overall, the results of this 

study suggested that the new mandatory arrest law had been effective, but that there were some

problem areas that needed to be addressed.

Finally, only a few researchers have focused on organizational and policy changes that 

have been designed to improve the police and prosecutor response. For example, Epstein and 

Langenbahn (1994) note a need for research on multi-disciplinary cross-training, the use of 

victim witness advocates, third-party reporting, and measures to protect victim privacy in the 

hope of encouraging reporting and prosecution. 

Research on Dual Arrests

Another concern about mandatory arrest policies is whether they result in increased “dual 

arrests,” where both parties are arrested even though one party is a victim resisting abuse. Arrest 

of both parties in a domestic assault or related criminal incident may trivialize the seriousness of 

the batterer’s conduct and compromises the safety and legal rights of the victim. There is also 

some reason to believe that true mutual combat is not common. The North Carolina Governor’s 

Crime Commission (1998) has estimated that only in 3 to 4 percent of cases are both parties the 

combatants. 

Studies in a number of states have indicated that pro -arrest policies have coincided with 

an increase in dual arrests. Martin found that dual arrests constituted on average one-third of 

battering arrests when Connecticut’s mandatory arrest law was first implemented (Martin 1997). 

Another review of statistics in pro -arrest jurisdictions found dual arrest rates ranging from as 

high as 50 percent to 1 percent (in a department with intensive training to help officers avoid 

arresting both parties) (Jones and Belknap 1999). Similarly, concerted efforts to reduce both 

dual and female arrests in Rhode Island have resulted in dual arrest rates that vary from a low of 

1.3 percent in Providence to a high of 13.7 percent in East Providence. Providence police have a 

special domestic violence squad that reinforces command policy to arrest only primary 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 16

aggressors and reviews dual arrest reports to ensure that exceptions are warranted; if not, 

arresting officers receive training and correction. 

Dual arrests, however, are only a subset of the larger problem of inappropriate arrests of 

female suspects in domestic violence cases. The California Criminal Justice Statistics Center 

(1999) reported that 17 percent of all arrests in domestic violence cases are of females, and both 

the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (1997) and the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal 

Investigation (1999) found an even higher rate of 23 percent.10 Unfortunately, studies that have 

examined what forces are driving arrests of females do not provide consistent answers (Jones and 

Belknap 1999). A study by Lyon (1999) found that, in one jurisdiction, arrests of female 

suspects were correlated with prior calls for service from the household where the woman 

resided. Conversely, where there had not been a prior call, victim reports of prior abuse 

correlated with arrest of the batterer. Lyon speculates that these findings may reflect 

unconscious retaliation by police against the woman for staying with her abuser (Lyon 1999). 

For some police officers, mandatory arrest may suggest that an arrest of one party must be made, 

even where they do not have the time or skills to investigate the circumstances of the domestic 

violence and to ascertain which party is the primary aggressor. In these situations, officers may 

make a determination about the party to be arrested based on the most visible injuries. 

Research and Policy Change in Prosecution 

Whereas adoption of mandatory and pro-arrest policies was in fluenced by research on the 

deterrent effect of arrest, early studies of the deterrent effect of prosecution were not as 

numerous or as influential. One difference was the promotional campaign that was launched to 

publicize the results of the Minneapolis study (Buzawa and Buzawa 1996). Another difference 

was that unlike the Minneapolis study, early research on the deterrent effects of prosecution was 

not as convincing, although it did uncover significant trends that were explored in later studies. 

It has been argued that arrest without effective prosecution cannot be expected to produce 

significant deterrent effects (Hirschel and Hutchinson 1992). In the sites participating in the 

Spousal Assault Replication Project, a majority of the offenders were booked but n ever 

 

10 These rates are significantly higher than the 15 percent male victimization rates reported by the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics victimization surveys.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 17

prosecuted. Indeed, the failure to prosecute may explain findings at some replication sites that 

any deterrent effect from arrest is limited to batterers with no prior criminal record. 

One of the first studies of the prosecution/adjudication process was conducted between 

1980 and 1983 by Barbara Smith, who examined how domestic violence cases were handled in 

four jurisdictions. In Minneapolis, Smith found a very low case dismissal rate (10 percent); and 

in Minneapolis and Charlotte, convictions were reached in over half the cases and jail sentences 

were imposed in one-third. These findings contrasted with commonly held views that domestic 

violence cases were extremely difficult to prosecute and that sentences of incarceration were 

rare. One reason why dismissal rates in Charlotte were low was the establishment of a special 

domestic relations court to hear domestic violence cases. 

In Minneapolis, there was some suggestion that prosecutors had adopted evidence-based 

prosecution practices, since victims rarely appeared in court. Another important finding was that 

prior domestic violence incidents seemed to be highly correlated with short-term recidivism. 11 

For most batterers, however, arrest and prosecution was correlated with no repeat violence 

(Smith 1983). Although these findings did not receive much attention at the time, many of the 

themes identified in this early study have been the subject of later research.

Other research on deterrent effects of prosecution has produced mixed results. Fagan,

Friedman, Wexler, and Lewis (1984) studied the deterrent effects of prosecution in a sample of 

720 battered women seeking services and found that neither prosecution nor conviction reduced 

the rate of new violence. Two studies by Steinman (1988, 1990) fo und that arrest and 

prosecution together had a significant deterrent effect, whereas arrest alone had no such effect. 

Davis and Smith (1998) investigated re-arrest after court disposition in a large sample of 

domestic violence misdemeanor cases in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in 1995, but found no 

evidence that dispositions affected the likelihood of recidivism in these cases.

 

11 Data on long-term recidivism was gathered in only one site (Brooklyn). At that site, long-term recidivism was 

not so highly correlated with prior incidents; however, there was an indication that this was because the parties 

were no longer together and the focus of the bat terer’s violence had shifted.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 18

No Drop and Evidence Based Prosecution

The most important policy change in prosecution has been to reduce reliance on the 

victim’s willingness to testify in determining whether a case will proceed.12 Some prosecutors 

began to institute “no drop” policies, making the prosecutor the sole decision maker with respect 

to whether a case should be prosecuted; and more recently, “evidenced based prosecution” 

strategies have gained ground.

While the clear trend has been toward more aggressive prosecution, neither prosecutors 

nor the domestic violence advocates have reached consensus on the extent to which the state 

should use its powers to compel women to help prosecute their batterers (Hanna 1996). 

Proponents contend that domestic violence is a crime against the public order, not just the 

individual victim. They maintain that no-drop policies could help reduce pretrial intimidation of 

the victim because the batterer would realize that the victim does not have the ability to have the 

prosecutor drop charges. Others fear that the policies might in fact do more harm than good, 

citing instances where women who fail to cooperate may be charged with filing false police 

reports or obstruction of justice and cases where women compelled to testify lied under oath to 

avoid batterer retaliation, exposing themselves to criminal liability. Additional concerns are that 

requiring the involuntary testimony and participation of victims may cause fewer women to 

report abuse (Booth 1999), and that credence must be given to victims’ capacity and need to 

make decisions affecting their safety. 

Ford and Regoli (1993) conducted a randomized study in Indianapolis in 1986 and 1987, 

comparing mandatory prosecution and drop-permitting policies and found that the prosecution 

protocol used could affect batterer recidivism. Victims who were permitted to drop charges but 

chose to proceed with prosecution were far less likely to experience new violence either during 

the prosecution process or within the six-month follow-up period. From this group, none of the 

victims interviewed were assaulted during the process, and only 13 percent were battered after 

case settlement. The researchers also found that victims in the drop-permitted category who 

chose not to prosecute had a risk of re-abuse greater than those in the no -drop category. Since 

 

12 Until recently, the only evidence gathered by police at the scene of domestic violence was the complaint of the 

victim. With the introduction of pro-arrest policies, police training on evidence gathering reduced the need of 

the prosecutor to rely on victim testimony. Technological advances such as the use of PolaroidTM and digital 

cameras have further increased the quality of evidence gathered.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 19

the experiment involved only cases that were unlikely to involve a high risk of injury to the 

victim, the results cannot be generalized to high -risk cases (Mills 1998). 

Over time, no drop policies have evolved into an evidence-based prosecution approach in 

many jurisdictions. Evidence based prosecution relies heavily on enhanced investigation by law 

enforcement and/or the prosecutor’s staff. Decisions about whether to prosecute are based on an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the criminal case, rather than on the 

availability of victim testimony. The victim may or may not testify. Victims are not usually 

coerced into testifying nor does their refusal result in sanctions against them. There is 

recognition that in some cases, the victim’s safety or well being may be compromised by 

testifying. Where the prosecution is unlikely to prove the case without victim testimony, a 

decision about proceeding with prosecution may then be made in light of the victim’s willingness 

to testify. In contrast, in no-drop jurisdictions, prosecutors typically emphasize successful 

prosecution and often use measures to compel victim testimony. 

Other Relevant Research 

Domestic Violence Courts

One of the six legislative purpose areas for the Arrest Policies Program was related to 

judicial training and improved judicial case handling, and several Arrest Policies Program 

evalu ation sites used grant funds to enhance their work through domestic violence courts. 

Several evaluations of special domestic violence courts have been conducted. The studies have 

varied with respect to methodology, ranging from process descriptions (Fritzler and Simon 

2000), to prescriptive (Tsai 2000), to limited statistical measurements (Yanich 1999). 

One study of the San Diego Domestic Violence Court found a one-third reduction in 

recidivism (Peterson and Thunberg 2000). Another study looked at the impact on convictions of 

a special domestic violence court in Milwaukee. The court not only centralized the handling of 

domestic violence cases, but also established a “fast track” procedure resulting in trials being 

scheduled within 60 days of intake. Case disposition time was shortened from 188 days to 86 

days. This acceleration was thought to be responsible for an increase in conviction rates from 56 

to 69 percent. This occurred despite the fact that the prosecutor accepted twice as many cases as 

before the policy (30 versus 15 percent). To encourage pleas, the incidence of jail sentencing 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 20

was reduced to only 39 percent of the cases compared to 75 percent before the establishment of 

the new court (perhaps also reflecting prosecution’s need to accept lesser sentences in weaker 

cases). There was little evidence that recidivism changed after the establishment of the new court 

(Davis, Smith, and Rabbitt 2001). The study also included interviews with victims about their 

feelings of satisfaction and safety, and there was a trend toward feelings of improved safety 

among victims whose cases were heard in the new unified court. 

Coordinated Community Response

Some have argued that for arrest to succeed, the responses of all areas of the criminal 

justice systemlaw enforcement, prosecution, courts, jails, probation, and treatmentneed to 

be reinforced and redesigned to complement each other (Walsh 1995). Researchers have begun 

to look at arrest not just in terms of its immediate effects but also as an integral part of a wider 

response that takes into consideration the complex patterns and wide range of behaviors 

associated with domestic violence (Bracher 1996). For example, Clark et al. (1996) in 

conducting a study of coordinated community responses to domestic violence in six sites, 

concluded that “the overall impact of the criminal justice response is only as strong as its 

weakest link. In order to bring about system-wide changes, a community needs to raise the 

consciousness of each agency about their role in addressing domestic violence and how this role 

interacts with and affects the ability of other agencies to respond to this issue.”

A few researchers have recently gone further. In line with earlier recommendations 

(Bowman 1992; McCord 1992), they have attempted to measure criminal justice responses that 

include aggressive prosecution and meaningful judicial sanctions, combined with a range of 

services that aid and protect victims. For example, Thistlethwaite, Wooldredge, and Gibbs 

(1998) studied the effects of court dispositions on rearrest for domestic violence. They suggest 

that sentence severity (type of sentence as opposed to sentence length) may contribute to the 

prevention of further violence.

Syers and Edelson (1992), in examining coordination among police, prosecution, and the 

courts, found that police home visits followed by arrest, prosecution, conviction, and courtmandated treatment resulted in greater reductions in recidivism than any of these interventions 

alone. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 21

A study of Iowa legislation mandating a minimum jail sentence for conviction of 

domestic violence shows how complicated the issue of sanctions can be. The study found that 

jail sentencing increased dramatically; and the new emphasis on domestic violence intervention 

also resulted in the increased use of batterer intervention programs (Carlson and Nidey 1995). 

These changes did not come without a cost. When researchers re-analyzed the data, they found a 

10 percent reduction in the number of cases resolved by pleas, and that dismissals increased by 

nearly 200 percent. The numb er of cases going to trial in the year immediately following the 

new law’s adoption went from 5 to 45, although this number was later reduced by adoption of 

new dismissal policies. Reanalysis also showed that combining both dismissals and not guilty 

findings, over 40 percent of all domestic violence filings did not result in a conviction, compared 

to 18 percent before the new law. 

More recently, Tolman and Weisz (1995) looked at the effect of prosecution as part of a 

system-wide protocol for handling domestic violence cases. Comparing cases resulting in 

conviction with cases resulting in dismissal or acquittal, they examined recidivism over an 18-

month period; they failed to find any change in subsequent recidivism as measured by police 

reports or arrests. 

Others advocate broadening the research focus to include examining the continuum of 

services and resources needed to overcome the fragmented and incomplete response to the needs 

of battered women and their children (Owens-Manley 1999). These resources include not only 

emergency services but also long -term resources such as housing assistance, access to 

employment opportunities, health and mental health services, child care, educational 

opportunities, and legal assistance. 

Victims’ Assessments of Criminal Justice Interventions 

Official recidivism statistics are an indirect and weak measure of victim safety. Not 

su rprisingly, some of the early arrest experiments were criticized for not pursuing more victiminformed assessments or for downplaying the results of victim interviews (Bowman 1992; Zorza 

1995). In recent years, research solicitations by NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 

for example, have emphasized a need to develop more direct measures of victim safety. In 

addition, several recent and ongoing studies sponsored by NIJ focus on the experiences of 

immigrant and racial/ethnic minority victims of crime. Another study by Buzawa, Austin, 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 22

Bannon, and Jackson (as reported in Stephens and Sinden 2000) examined factors associated 

with officer decisions to arrest and victims’ preferences concerning arrest. They found t hat 

victim satisfaction with the police response was almost entirely dependent on whether officers 

followed victims’ wishes. Muraoka’s survey of residents in an Omaha shelter found that 

interpersonal reasons were key to victims’ approval of their experience with police (Stephens 

and Sinden 2000).

Summary

Several factors have been important to the development of pro-arrest and pro-prosecution 

policies. Adoption of state laws and police policies favoring arrest were influenced by pressure 

from concerned victims’ and women’s advocates, lawsuits against local police agencies, and 

research, most notably the results of Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment published in 

1984. By 1996, five replications of the Minneapolis experiment had been completed, with 

varying results. Five years later, a reanalysis of those replications concluded that arrest did in 

fact have a consistent, specific deterrent effect on domestic violence recidivism in misdemeanor 

cases, although the effect was determined to be more modest than that found in the Minneapolis 

experiment.

At a practical level, prosecutors have been challenged to process an increasing number of 

arrest cases. In addition, there has been significant support for the theory that arrest combined 

with prosecution and conviction will have a greater specific deterrent effect than arrest alone, 

and prosecutors have adopted more aggressive strategies in prosecuting domestic violence cases. 

Training throughout the country, including national training conferences (e.g., annual domestic 

violence conferences sponsored by the National College of District Attorneys) also appear to 

have served as catalysts for change, as well as sources of information about prosecution 

strategies, including evidence based prosecution approaches. 

The Arrest Policies Program, which was first authorized under the Violence Against 

Women Act of 1994, was designed to assist states and local jurisdictions in meeting a broad 

range of challenges associated with pro -arrest and pro -prosecution approaches. Paramount 

among them is the need to address issues of victim safety and well being, at the same time 

holding offenders accountable for the crimes they commit. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 23

Chapter 3 

Local Implementation of the Arrest Policies Program

The first sections of this chapter present results from two tasks undertaken during the 

start-up phase of the evaluation. These tasks were to 

• Review the goals of the Arrest Policies Program as set forth in the authorizing 

legislation and the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) grantee application 

kit; and 

• Review grant applications provided by VAWO to determine who received Arrest 

Policies Program grants and for what purposes. 

The rest of the chapter discusses the following tasks associated with the process 

evalu ation phase of this study:

• Develop and conduct a survey of all grantees to understand more specifically 

how grantees were using or intended to use their grant funds.

• Analyze the grantee survey results and develop criteria for selecting 20 local 

project sites to participate in the process evaluation.

• Conduct site visits to the 20 local projects and examine how the funds were 

actually used. 

The chapter includes descriptions of the types of projects implemented by the 20 grantees and 

explores implementation challenges faced by a number of grantees. 

Arrest Policies Program Goals

The Arrest Policies Program promotes the implementation of mandatory or pro-arrest 

policies as an intervention that is part of a coordinated community response to domestic 

violence. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) directs that the Arrest Policies Program 

funds be used to

• Implement mandatory arrest or pro -arrest programs and policies in police 

departments, including mandatory arrest programs or pro -arrest programs and 

policies for protection order violations.

• Develop policies and training programs in police departments and other criminal 

justice and tribal agencies to improve tracking of cases involving domestic 

violence.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 24

• Centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution, probation, parole, or 

judicial responsibility for domestic violence cases in groups or units of police 

officers, prosecutors, probation and parole officers, or judges.

• Coordinate computer tracking systems to ensure communication between police, 

prosecutors, and both criminal and family courts.

• Strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of domestic violence by 

providing complete information and support for a victim of domestic violence as 

the case against her abuser moves through the criminal justice system.

• Educate judges and others responsible for judicial handling of domestic violence 

cases, in criminal, tribal, and other courts about domestic violence to improve 

judicial handling of such cases.13

Offender Accountability and Victim Safety

A VAWO “program brief” for the Arrest Policies Program14 explains that arrest “should 

be one element in a comprehensive criminal justice system response to hold offenders 

accountable and enhance victim safety.” With respect to criminal justice system handling of 

domestic violence cases, the program brief states the following:

• Arrest should be followed by immediate arraignment and a thorough 

investig ation.

• Orders of protection should be enforced, and cases should be vigorously 

prosecuted.

• Designated dockets can enhance the management of domestic violence cases and 

expedite the scheduling of trials. 

• Frequent judicial oversight and the use of graduated sanctions can help courts 

monitor the behavior of domestic violence offenders.

• Probation and parole agencies should closely monitor o ffenders and strictly 

enforce the terms and conditions of probation or parole.

Clearly, the Arrest Policies Program encourages cooperation and participation from most 

major sections of the criminal justice system—law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and 

probation. The items listed above, however, do not represent short-term grant requirements; 

rather, they suggest a “model” of criminal justice system coordination to consider over the long 

 

13 The 2000 Violence Against Women Act expanded the goals of the program, which is currently known as the 

Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program; however, this evaluation 

predates those additions.

14 The program brief can be found under Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection 

Orders Program at the Violence Against Women Office web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo). October 2002.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 25

term for achieving offender accountability. Not every grantee was expected to address all of the 

elements of the model. 

At the same time that grantees seek to do more to hold offenders accountable, they are 

also expected to address the second key objective for the criminal justice response: to enhance 

victim safety. Much of the research suggests that without attention to victims’ needs, attempts at 

perpetrator accountability are not likely to succeed. Beyond physical safety from future 

domestic violence, victims’ requirements often include (a) services and resources to improve 

their overall well-being (e.g., long-term health care, housing, means of financial recovery), and 

(b) empowerment to participate more fully in the criminal justice process (e.g., input in assessing 

risk for conditions of release, restitution). Specific expectations for victim safety and 

participation are not described specifically in the same program brief but are emphasized in other 

VAWO and VAWO-supported materials and training programs. 

The Arrest Policies Program recognizes that independent victim services and advocacy 

organizations have distinct roles to play in helping domestic violence victims achieve greater 

safety and well being. As the Arrest Policies Program evolved, the development of a 

coord inated community response became a required element of grant applications. Each grantee 

must generate a memorandum of understanding that formalizes the grantee’s relationship with a 

nonprofit, non-governmental domestic violence program, such as a local battered women’s 

shelter, or an advocacy organization. 

Overview of Grantees and Projects

At the start of this evaluation, the VAWO reported that there were 130 active Arrest 

Policies Program grantees in 1998. The majority of grantees were county or city governments, 

13 grantees were tribal governments, and 12 grantees were statewide initiatives. The Arrest 

Policies Program was implemented in jurisdictions of all sizes, including both rural areas and 

major metropolitan centers. Of the 130 grantees, 15 were located in rural areas with populations 

of less than 25,000 and 11 grantees were located in cities or counties with populations in excess 

of 1 million. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 26

Initial grant awards varied considerably, ranging from $7,473 for creation of an advisory 

task force and police training in the city of Williamsburg, Massachusetts, to over $1.8 million for 

the development of a statewide computer tracking system in Maryland.15 

A review of 125 grant applications prepared by the grantees before the grant funds were 

awarded showed that there were four general categories of projects planned: 

• Law enforcement projects (28 percent)

• Prosecution, courts, and probation projects (26 percent)

• Multi-agency collaborative projects (35 percent)

• Computer technology projects (e.g., case tracking system) (11 percent).

National Survey Results

In January 1999, to obtain more detailed information about how the local grantees had 

actually implemented their grants, ILJ staff sent a mail survey to project directors of the 130 

active Arrest Policies Program grants. A total of 111 project directors completed and returned 

the survey, a response rate of 85 percent. Among the key survey findings were the following.

• Training was the most popular grant-funded activity, with 82 percent of grantees 

reporting that they had developed and implemented domestic violence training 

programs. In nearly all cases (93 percent), training was directed to law 

enforcement officers. 

• Law enforcement policies were developed by 67 percent of the grantees. Most 

new policies were directed at arrest and related responsibilities (e.g., weapon 

seizure) and services for victims and child witnesses. Sixteen percent of the 

grantees developed law enforcement policies to improve responses to victims 

belonging to under-served populations (e.g., translation services, deployment of 

multilingual officers).

• New prosecution policies were developed by 52 percent of the grantees. These 

included policies relating to evidence based prosecution, victim safety planning, 

and services to victims.

• About two -thirds of the grantees created a new (or enhanced an existing) 

specialized law enforcement unit (53 percent) or prosecution unit (49 percent). 

New or enhanced domestic violence units were also established by probation 

agencies (26 percent) and the courts (16 percent). Special multi-agency units 

were created or added to by 28 percent of the grantees. In total, 130 specialized 

units were created and 92 existing specialized units enhanced. 

 

15 Award amounts were available for 124 of the 130 grantees included in the survey. These amounts do not 

include any continuation awards. The median initial award amount was $266,483. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 27

• New staff positions created by grant funds averaged nearly five persons per 

grantee, with the majority of new hires being in law enforcement (32 percent) or 

prosecution (26 percent). Less than 20 percent of the new hires were for victim 

services positions. The remainder of the new positions were for court and 

probation personnel (24 percent).

• Imp roved or new services for victims were reported by 70 percent of the grantees.

Other important findings included:

• Forty -three percent of the grantees reported court practices had changed with 

respect to issuance of orders of protection and referral of defendants to batterer 

intervention programs.

• Thirty-nine percent of grantees addressed probation or parole policies or 

practices. Policies on collaboration with domestic violence advocates and batterer 

intervention programs were the most common. A few grantees reported 

implementing intensive supervision of domestic violence offenders. 

• A large proportion of the grantees (69 percent) reported that their grant activities 

included creation or enhancement of case tracking systems.

• Twenty-three percent of the grantees reported being engaged in judicial education 

programs.

• Twenty percent of the grantees used their funds to create or enhance existing 

dedicated domestic violence courts or dockets.

A detailed report on the national survey findings was submitted as an interim product to 

NIJ and VAWO. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A.

Local Project Implementation

To both validate the grantee survey findings and assist in selecting sites for the impact 

portion of the evaluation, visits were made to 20 sites. At each site, ILJ staff conducted a 

process evaluation of grantee efforts. In addition to examining how the grantees implemented 

their projects, staff identified common issues that resulted in delays, modifications, and even the 

collapse of specific project objectives, as well as grantees’ ability to overcome obstacles. These 

issues are important because the lessons learned can be of value to new grantees, the funding 

agency, and the grantee itself as it seeks to ensure project survival after grant funding ends.

The rest of this chapter discusses the site selection criteria for the 20 grantees 

participating in the process evaluation; provides an overview of process evaluation methods 

employed; describes the types of projects implemented by the sample of 20 grantees; and 

explores common implementation issues and highlights specific challenges faced by a number of 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 28

grantees. Additional findings are presented in Chapter 4, which details how the Arrest Policies 

Program grants affected the criminal justice system and assisted grantees in developing a 

coordinated community response to domestic violence.

Site Selection for Process Evaluation

The selection of 20 process evaluation sites was a joint effort of ILJ staff and the advisory 

board for the evaluation. Two approaches to site selection were considered, each of which 

offered benefits and presented drawbacks. One approach would have involved grouping the 

projects (e.g., based on type of grantee agency such as law enforcement agency, prosecutor’s 

office, etc.) and then randomly selecting a proportion of grantees in each category. This would 

have had the advantage of avoiding selection bias; however, a major disadvantage is that it 

would have required spending significant evaluation funds to assess projects that may have been 

of limited interest to the field. For example, projects operating in unusual legal environments, 

extremely complex projects, and projects that had not completed their planning phases would 

have been just as likely as others to have been selected. 

The advisory board strongly recommended and ILJ ultimately opted for a different 

approach. The overall goal was to produce information that would have greater practical value 

for other agencies interested in working toward Arrest Policies Program goals. Based on 

information from the grantee surveys, follow-up interviews, and other information (e.g., grantee 

progress reports to VAWO), the pool of eligible projects was first limited to those that had made 

considerable progress in implementation. Other criteria included geographic and local ethnic 

diversity, size of jurisdiction, and program diversity. With respect to program diversity, the 

evaluators made every effort to select 20 projects that represented a microcosm of the Arrest 

Policies Program as a whole. They included 7 law enforcement-led projects; 6 prosecution-led 

projects; 5 projects that represented collaborations between criminal justice agencies (primarily 

prosecutors and courts) in establishing domestic violence courts; and 2 projects with key 

objectives for enhanced probation. Most importantly, they included projects that provided 

increased services to victims of domestic violence, often in the context of new working 

relationships between police or prosecution and victim services agencies. A final factor in site 

selection was the grantees’ ability and willingness to cooperate in the evaluation by providing 

data, documentation, and access to key personnel.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 29

The study’s advisory board, NIJ, and VAWO approved the selection of sites for the 

process evaluation. 

Overview of Process Evaluation Methods

The methodologies used during site visits included interviews; court observation; review 

of statistical records of performance; and examination of grantee reports including grant 

proposal, progress reports, training materials developed, policies and procedures manuals, and 

others. Because of the diversity of the projects, interview protocols were designed to capture 

information on less common project objectives (e.g., probation initiativ es, domestic violence 

courts) as well as information applicable to all sites. The focus was on understanding the 

procedures used by the local projects for arrest and prosecution; delivery of services to victims; 

project staff selection and staffing levels; training; and the process by which specific project 

goals and strategies had been selected. Short descriptions of each site visited are provided in the 

Exhibit 3-1. The sites are grouped according to the dominant partner or grant goal.

Implementation Issues

Nearly all projects experienced either delays in beginning grant implementation or in 

modifying project goals to reflect unanticipated problems. While the specifics of these 

implementation issues were uniquely local, ILJ found that regardless of the type of project, four 

factors commonly influenced project implementation:

• Staffing and personnel issues 

• Administrative requirements and technology priorities 

• Local resources 

• Cooperation among key criminal justice system agencies.

Staffing and Personnel Issues

A number of staffing issues dominated many of the projects and affected operations. 

Staffing issues fell into the following categories:

• Unit staffing and turnover levels

• Staffing resources in the agencies

• Project leadership.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 30

Exhibit 3-1: Site Descriptions by Type of Project

Law Enforcement-Led Projects

Greenville, Mississippi3⁄4Six officers were hired to staff the domestic violence unit, 

with two domestic violence officers working each shift. A sergeant, who supervised the 

unit, conducted follow-up investigations and handled aggravated assault cases.

Eloy, Arizona3⁄4Police department hired a full-time detective to handle domestic 

violence cases.

Durham, North Carolina3⁄4Police department created a domestic violence unit 

composed of three investigators and specialized field response officers.

Brockton, Massachusetts3⁄4Police department created a domestic violence unit, 

consisting of a sergeant, a part-time detective, and a multilingual civilian advocate.

Jefferson County, Kentucky3⁄4Police department created a domestic violence unit 

composed of three teams. Each team included a patrol officer, an advocate from the 

local victim services organization, a probation officer, and a home incarceration officer. 

Chicago Heights, Illinois3⁄4Police department created a domestic violence unit 

composed of five detectives, a project director, and an assistant. The unit was housed in 

a separate facility that included other community services organizations.

Austin, Texas3⁄4Grant funds were used to create the Family Violence Protection Team 

(FVPT). The team consisted of detectives and victim witness specialists from the police 

department and county sheriff’s office, as well as many different legal and social 

service providers. All team members were housed in one location.

Prosecution-Led Projects

Everett, Washington3⁄4Grant funds were used to create a prosecution -based unit 

consisting of two police officers, a victim witness coordinator, and an office assistant. 

The city attorney supervised the unit.

Lynchburg, Virginia3⁄4Commonwealth Attorney’s Office created a domestic violence 

unit consisting of two prosecutors, a paralegal, a victim witness assistant, and a 

Management Information Systems manager.

Lake County, California3⁄4Arrest Program was headed by the District Attorney’s 

Office, which used funds to support a deputy district attorney, a district attorney 

investigator, a sheriff’s investigator, two victim witness specialists, a deputy probation 

officer, and an office assistant.

Marin County, California3⁄4Grant supported the salaries of an attorney/project 

coord inator, a part-time grant administrator, a victim advocate coordinator, a temporary 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 31

restraining order volunteer coordinator, and in the continuation grant, a deputy district 

attorney.

Exhibit 3-1 (Cont.): Site Descriptions by Type of Project

Prosecution-Led Projects (Cont.)

Santa Fe County, New Mexico3⁄4First Judicial District Attorney’s Office created a 

specialized unit composed of three felony prosecutors, two misdemeanor prosecutors, 

three victim advocates, two administrators, two administrative assistants, and two 

investigators.

Dane County, Wisconsin3⁄4Arrest Program was used to expand the number of 

specialized domestic violence prosecutors from two to five and to support two 

additional victim witness specialists. The project also included a specialized bail 

monitoring position.

Prosecution-Domestic Violence Courts Projects

Sacramento County, California3⁄4Arrest Program grant established a specialized 

“Home Court” to hear domestic violence cases. The grant expanded the prosecutor’s 

unit to permit handling of misdemeanor cases, supported two victim witness specialists, 

and funded a special probation unit. 

Queens County, New York3⁄4Prosecutor established a domestic violence misdemeanor 

unit that worked with new victim assistance staff from a non-profit partner. The unit 

handled cases that appeared in front of a specialized domestic violence court and a 

special treatment-monitoring court component.

Shelby County, Tennessee3⁄4Grant funds were used to consolidate all pretrial judicial 

proceedings in one court, create a dedicated prosecution unit, enhance pretrial services, 

and support victim services. 

Pueblo, Colorado3⁄4District Attorney’s Office designated a deputy district attorney to 

oversee “fast track” prosecution. Grant funds also supported a domestic violence 

detective in the police department, a deputy in the sheriff’s department, and victim 

assistance staff. Funds were also used to create a local task force.

La Plata County, Colorado3⁄4Grant funds were used to hire a dedicated prosecutor to 

handle all domestic violence cases in the “fast track” court. The project was later 

expanded to fund a magistrate and probation staff. The grant also supported victim 

advocacy, civil legal assistance, and a community task force. 

Probation-Led Projects

Clinton County, New York --Grant funds were used to create a Domestic Abuse 

Reduction Team (DART) consisting of probation officers, victim advocates, and a case 

coordinator. A task force coordinator was also hired through grant funds.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 32

Jackson County, Oregon--Arrest Program included creation of a domestic violence 

unit consisting of a probation officer, a unit coordinator, and community advocates. 

The grant also supported the salary of a task force coordinator.

Unit Staffing 

Two types of unit staffing issues were seen in the site visits. First, staff turnover caused 

problems in operations and inter-agency relations due to chronic vacancies and changes in unit 

staffing. Second, the assignment of staff to the unit reflected both the priority g iven domestic 

violence and the extent to which this assignment fit into any larger agency plan for career 

development. 

Staff Turnover. To some degree, turnover in any agency, public or private, is routine. 

In many law enforcement agencies, departmental policy is to rotate officers and investigators 

between units and divisions every few years. Staff turnover in several of the law enforcementrun grantee projects was much higher than the norm. In two police agencies, major 

reorganizations led to an overhaul of unit staff. In one agency, staff turnover was temporarily 

crippling. The police department reorganization, along with the promotional process, resulted in 

the loss of all six members of the Domestic Violence Unit (including field response officers and 

investig ators) in a very short period of time. While the staff were soon replaced, it took some 

time before the unit ran as effectively as it had before. In another project, the officer/advocate 

response teams were in a perpetual state of rebuildin g—primarily a result of high turnover in the 

advocate position.16

Several other projects experienced significant turnover in the areas of prosecution and 

victim witness services. For example, in Queens, victim assistance was provided by a local nonprofit partnering agency. Counselor turnover was a chronic problem, primarily a result of low 

salaries and uncertainty of federal funding sources. A few more examples are given below.

• In La Plata County, turnover in the victim witness specialist position and th e 

coordinator of the local task force affected inter-agency relations. 

 

16 The advocates who rode with the police officers were employees of the shelter-based victim services 

organization and worked within that organization’s wage structure. Staff reported that it was challenging to 

retain competent advocates with the amount of compensation offered and the high expectat ions in terms of 

hours, hazardous duty, skill, and judgment. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 33

• In Lake County, there was significant turnover in the domestic violence 

prosecutor position, and for a period of time, more than one prosecutor was 

handling d omestic violence cases. 

• The Everett project experienced a number of changes in the police officers and 

victim witness specialists staffing the specialized prosecution unit. 

• In Jackson County, a private contractor was hired to serve as a training 

coordinator and to work closely with the Domestic Violence Council’s training 

committee. When the coordinator left the project, the training calendar had to be 

modified and some scheduled events were canceled.

Although turnover was a problem for many grantees, turnover can sometimes be 

managed. For example, in Queens, the domestic violence prosecution unit was elevated in status 

by transferring it to the Special Victims Bureau and assigning a Deputy Bureau Chief to head the 

unit (more recently, the unit was elevated to Bureau level). This helped ensure continuity of 

leadership. Queens was also one of the few prosecutor’s offices to manage attorney staff 

turnover by assigning new attorneys to the domestic violence unit for 18 months. As this period 

neared its end, a replacement attorney was assigned to work with and train under the reassigned 

attorney. This allowed for continuity in the unit’s practice of assigning cases for vertical 

prosecution.

Staff Experience. A related problem, especially for prosecutor’s offices, was the 

assignment of inexperienced staff to the new domestic violence unit. At a number of projects, a 

new attorney (not experienced in domestic violence) was designated the “domestic violence 

prosecutor” and handled nearly all of the agency’s domestic violence cases. For example, both 

projects in Colorado were headed by new attorneys who not only acted as project director but 

also prosecuted cases. 

On the one hand, prosecutor’s offices emphasized the importance of domestic violence 

by creating a special position or unit. On the other hand, the position was often advertised as 

entry -level and filled by a recent law school graduate with limited experience. While some of 

these new attorneys performed admirably, the handling of domestic violence cases was generally 

not seen as a career path. In contrast, Dane and Sacramento Counties’ domestic violence 

prosecution units had experienced prosecutors working with and mentoring junior attorneys. In 

these units, new attorneys were gradually tutored in prosecution techniques and how to handle 

domestic violence cases, and the unit was generally given greater prestige within the agency. 

The Queens approach was especially innovative in making the domestic violence unit an 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 34

attractive position for new attorneys because of the opportunities it gave them to try cases in 

court and receive extra training in trial advocacy. In -service training was also emphasized and 

included weekly staff meetings with the Bureau Chief. The result was that assignment to the unit 

typically went to well qualified new attorneys. 

Staffing Resources

Implementation of the Arrest Policies Program was also affected by the overall staffing 

resources of the agencies participating in the project. In some communities, especially those 

with an inadequate tax base or high living expenses, agencies had difficulties attracting qualified 

applicants to local government careers. Several examples are given below.

• In Eloy, the police department had a large number of unfilled vacancies. For a 

time, the department had on ly one detective handling all crimes, including 

domestic violence. The project, which called for a designated domestic violence 

detective, could not be fully operational until additional detectives became 

available. 

• In Greenville, the police department was chronically understaffed. While the 

Arrest Policies Program supported specialized domestic violence police officers, 

in reality the officers responded to a variety of calls. Prioritization of domestic 

violence calls would have left parts of the city without any police coverage. 

• In Santa Fe, understaffing of the District Attorney’s Office was a chronic 

problem, partly due to the combination of residency requirements,17 low salaries, 

and the high cost of living in the immediate Santa Fe area. 

• In Lynchburg, both the police department and the Commonwealth Attorney’s 

Office experienced staff shortages as high as 20 percent. Staffing was a problem 

for the non-profit victim services partner as well. 

• The prosecutor’s office in Shelby County estimated that it was 50 percent 

understaffed according to a state prosecutor association study.

Leadership

Leadership was a third staffing-related issue, and it often proved critical to the creation of 

multi-agency teams. The role of leadership can have two differing impacts. Strong leadership 

can positively affect morale and unit effectiveness, but it may make unit stability somewhat 

dependent on an individual personality. 

Several examples of leadership issues were present at some of the projects. In 

Sacramento, for example, leadership of the prosecution unit changed several times. After the 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 35

city’s Domestic Violence Home Court was established, there were three different chiefs of the 

special prosecution unit. This had the short-term effect of reduced unit effectiveness as 

measured by number of convictions. However, at the time of our site visit, the District Attorney 

for Sacramento County had recently appointed a new chief of the domestic violence unit, who 

was specifically charged with re-instituting strong pro -prosecution policies and practices. In 

Eloy, there was a constant change in police leadership.18 Fortunately, the major non-profit 

partner, the Pinal Hispanic Council, provided some stability to the project. In Austin, the multiagency Family Violence Protection Team had leadership issues that resulted in problems with 

meeting grant reporting requirements. 

Ironically, strong leadership was also seen as an issue at a few sites. In Chicago Heights 

and Brockton, the Arrest Policies projects were dependent on the leadership of the project 

directors, who were responsible for writing the proposals, designing the units, establishing policy 

and operations, and overseeing the projects. The project directors were extremely dedicated and 

managed a staff that rema ined unusually stable, even adding staff through a continuation grant. 

Yet both projects relied to some degree on individual personalities for their continued success; 

and both project directors acknowledged the downside of their centralized role. In Chicago 

Heights, the project director stayed on for the primary purpose of institutionalizing the project 

and setting the procedures and support systems in place so the unit could function well under 

other management. In Brockton, the project was designed so that nearly all responsibilities 

would be placed in the hands of one sergeant who would serve as a “facilitator of domestic 

violence on the whole force.”19 Like Chicago Heights, the Brockton project director worked to 

create an infrastructure to ensure the survival of the unit beyond his tenure. Ultimately, projects 

driven by individual personalities and leaders may be difficult to replicate. 

Administrative and Technology Delays

Following the receipt of grant awards, many project directors experienced difficulties 

implementing the participation promises given by partner agencies that supported the project’s 

 

17 Employees of the District Attorney’s Office are required to live within the First Judicial District.

18 The chief of police, who initiated the department’s application for Arrest funds, left shortly after the grant was 

awarded. Project management was assumed by a sergeant, who also resigned from the department to take a 

position with another agency.

19 Part of the emphasis on the sergeant’s role relates to a specific component of the Brockton Arrest project: 

improving the oversight of officer responses to domestic violence incidents. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 36

grant application. Each agency had internal policies and procedures to comply with before 

undertaking any new activity, much less the reassignment or hiring of new staff to carry out 

these new activities. Federal requirements sometimes presented other obstacles to immediate 

implementation. In addition, many of the projects’ technology goals, such as development of 

inter-agency case tracking systems, could not be realized because of other priorities. This 

section discusses three types of issues: 

• Local administration

• Federal conditions

• Technology delays.

Local Administration. Grantees represented just one government agency, yet project 

implementation required hiring staff and coordinating with other agencies. Since these activities 

required administrative approval, delays in project implementation were common. Chicago 

Heights and Durham provide two typical experiences. In Chicago Heights, creation o f a new 

unit required hiring officers to replace the individuals who would be assigned to the domestic 

violence unit. Hiring took several months, so the unit was initially composed of two detectives 

until the remaining detectives could be pulled from other assignments. Similarly, the police 

department in Durham had to await city approval before officers could be hired to replace the 

officers to be assigned to the new unit. The department used this time to establish a selection 

committee, with participants including the local non -profit partner and the prosecutor’s office. 

In this manner, the administrative delay was used productively to gain input from other agencies 

in considering the qualifications needed to be an effective domestic violence detective.

Many of the court-involved prosecution -based projects also required accommodation and 

participation from various segments of the justice system. For example: 

• In Pueblo County, the project called for a new case processing system, which 

required the county jail to modify its policies and the court to hold arraignments 

on domestic violence cases the same time each day.20

• The La Plata project was complicated by the fact that the Sixth Judicial District 

included three counties. While a magistrate and specialized docket were 

established in La Plata County, separate arrangements were made in the 

neighboring counties of San Juan and Archuleta, which hear fewer cases.

 

20 Jail staff worked with the District Attorney’s Office to ensure that domestic violence defendants remained in 

custody until arraignment and were transported t o court at the designated time. The jail also provided a 

common room that was used for group video advisement and pre-trial conferences.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 37

• In Marin County, the processing of cases presented an obstacle to the Arrest 

Policies project. The lead partner, Legal Aid, identified prospective clients from 

police reports of domestic violence incidents. Yet the source of these reports, the 

District Attorney’s Office, was not a partner in the initial grant and was reluctant 

to turn over copies o f reports. Eventually, the lack of agreement and continuing 

problems with this process, along with a number of other problems, influenced the 

project directors to end the project.

While some level of administrative delay is to be expected, some projects minimized 

delays by involving collaborating agencies in the planning stage of the Arrest Policies Program 

proposal. For instance, in both Sacramento and Queens counties, the prosecutors’ offices and the 

court administration collaborated on the establishment of their domestic violence courts during 

the grant application planning period. In these counties, project implementation was a relatively 

smooth process.

One interesting example of grant management problems was in Austin, Texas. The 

project experienced administrative problems and lost its funding. However, through tenacious 

efforts of the police administration, community organizations, and others, the project improved 

its response to domestic violence and received new VAWO funding.

Federal Requirements. Three types of federal grant requirements presented difficulties 

for various sites: (1) limits on the types of projects or activities eligible for funding; (2) special 

conditions delineated by VAWO at the time of grant award; and (3) other restrictions on the use 

of grant funds that VAWO imposed when unforeseen issues required interpretation of the 

guiding policies. 

An example of the first type of restriction–limits on the types of activities eligible for 

funding–affected the Brockton project. The VAWO request for proposals clearly stated that 

Arrest Policies Program funds were not to be used for domestic violence curricula in schools; 

this restriction was reiterated in the form of a special condition imposed on all grantees.21 

Nevertheless, Brockton’s proposal contained a strong K-12 educational component. Since this 

component was not eligible for Arrest Policies Program funding, the site was required to rethink 

 

21 Special conditions placed on all Arrest Policies Program grantees included the following: “The recipient agrees 

that grant funds will not be used to support the development or presentation of a domestic violence curriculum 

for primary or secondary schools. The grantee further agrees that grant funds will not be used to teach primary 

or secondary school students from an already existing curriculum.”
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 38

its approach; ultimately, the funds Brockton originally budgeted for educational programming 

were reallocated to hire a local task force coordinator.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 39

Snapshot: Loss of Federal Funds in Austin

Austin’s experience is not only an example of implementation problems, 

but of the importance of dedicated professionals working together to keep a 

project afloat. The Austin project was an innovative attempt to coordinate the 

criminal justice system with community-based service providers. The sheer 

number of participating agencies made project implementation an ambitious, 

complicated endeavor. 

Austin experienced typical delays in the creation of the new unit. A 

coordinator was not brought on board until four months after the grant was 

awarded, and the technology initiatives were delayed because the county was 

purchasing a new integrated justice information system. The real problem was 

that the absence of formal policies and procedures and inter-agency agreements 

led to role confusion and conflict about the supervision of the Family Violence 

Protection Team (FVPT). Communication and collaboration among team 

members was limited. 

A year after the project began, the police department reorganized and the 

team’s lieutenant was reassigned, the team’s sergeant retired, and the project 

director/coordinator moved to part-time status (after revising the grant to 

eliminate the coordinator position). Administrative and staffing problems 

prompted a visit from the Violence Against Women Office in 1998. After the 

visit, the FVPT funding was discontinued. 

The loss of federal funds could have signaled the end of the FVPT. 

However, a new commitment emerged from this event and the FVPT was 

reconstituted. When the federal funding was discontinued, various agencies 

collaborated to apply for interim funds from the state Victims of Crime Act 

(VOCA) program. The agen cies received the grants; and combined with cost 

savings from the first Arrest Policies Program grant, they were able to continue 

operations. In January 1999, a new coordinator was hired with VOCA funds. 

Under this new project d irection and leadership, t he FVPT team pulled together to 

reapply for VAWA Arrest Policies Program funds in 1999. In the spring of 1999, 

the team was notified that the VAWO had approved its new application.

The second type of requirement–a special condition delineated by VAWO at the time of 

grant award–was exemplified by a federal government requirement that all grant funded 

information systems comply with the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Procedures, 

which specifies confidentiality, security, and access, among other things. This requirement is not 

unique to VAWO grants; however, because grantees had not worked out these issues in detail 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 40

with their partners prior to grant award, start-up of the technology component of all grants was 

delayed until this condition could be satisfied. 

The third type of requirement–conditions imposed by VAWO to address postimplementation issues that arose–resulted in major changes in several projects. In Sacramento, 

the original grant was used to fund staff from the public defender’s office. This component was 

eliminated in the second grant at the request of VAWO. Santa Fe County used its original grant 

funds to support a pre-trial diversion program, which required offenders to complete 

individualized treatment plans within a two-year period or face prosecution. The VAWO 

notified the county that the use of grant funds for diversion programs would be prohibited. In 

response, the District Attorney’s Office, working with the Magistrate Courts, turned the 

diversionary practices into a post-plea deferred prosecution program, called the Coordinated 

Community Intervention Program. 22 The county was asked to return the grant funds that had 

been used for diversion to the federal government. Finally, Dane County had developed and 

pilot tested a lethality index when it was informed that Arrest grant funds “may not be used to 

acquire or develop lethality assessment tools, instruments or devices which seek to summarize 

the potential for violence through numeric scoring devices.” The responsible local task force 

turned the index into an assessment tool, which contains a checkbox of items that are not scored. 

Eventually, this component of the project languished.

Technology Delays. A majority of the projects (70 percent of grantee survey 

respondents) included a technology component. The prosecution-based projects often involved 

development of computer systems to link agencies and allow cases to be tracked throughout the 

criminal justice system. While federal conditions for compliance with Criminal Intelligence 

Systems Operating Procedures resulted in some delays in start-up, the ability to meet technology 

goals was affected by local priorities at nearly every site. Most Arrest Policies projects were just 

underway in 1997 and 1998—the same timeframe when many local governments had begun 

updating information technology (IT) systems to handle the year 2000 (Y2K) transition. 

According to interviews with many grantees, this meant that few technology staff were available 

 

22 Noncompliance results in termination from the program and the client is charged with contempt of a court order.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 41

to work on specialized systems, resulting in delays in developing domestic violence systems until 

larger government systems could be updated. 

In Lake County, for example, all IT staff were assigned to upgrade the county’s system to 

meet Y2K needs, requiring the technology components of the Arrest Policies project to be 

postponed. Creation of a multi-agency system was also delayed by the Sheriff’s Department, 

which could not address technology issues until the department relocated into new facilities. A 

similar problem occurred in Pueblo County, where the technology resources were simply not 

available to assist with creation of a case tracking system. The technology component in Pueblo 

was also delayed for other practical reasons—the state of Colorado was developing a case 

tracking system that would link five agencies.23 And in Dane County, the proposed interface 

between the database used by law enforcement and prosecution and the database used by the 

state court system ran into roadblocks. The technology component was eventually carried out on 

a limited scale, but staff delayed further action until the state could complete development of its 

integrated system.24

Local Resources

In some communities, limited facilities and other local resources were a minor obstacle 

for staff and clients. In other communities, there were so few resources that key proposal 

objectives, especially those involving staff specialization, could not be adequately imp lemented. 

Examples of the effect of local resources on project implementation include the following:

• Implementation of “fast track” prosecution in Pueblo was complicated because of 

insufficient meeting facilities for victim interviews in the courthouse. This 

resulted in community advocates and victim witness staff meeting with victims in 

hallways. 

• A lack of facilities affected project implementation in Durham, where the 

domestic violence unit changed its location several times, from police 

headquarters, to an office at a shopping center, to a rented house a few miles 

from downtown (where it was located at the time of the evaluation). The unit’s 

relocations made it difficult to keep operations running smoothly and limited the 

unit’s community visibility .

• In Lake County, the non-profit victim services partner had to disband, resulting in 

the loss of the only women’s shelter in the county. However, the project director 

 

23 In 1998, Pueblo County became the first site to test the new system.

24 The application has been limited by internal networking barriers. Only 50 users can access the database at any 

given time. The number of users often exceeds 50, requiring users to request others to close out their sessions.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 42

secured a commitment to participate in the Arrest Policies project from the 

county’s only other non-profit human services provider.

In addition, at two of the 20 process evaluation sites, the general lack of funding for basic 

victim services led to alterations in project implementation. In these sites, the cities have a low 

tax base and sub sequent difficulty maintaining basic services. Specialized staff often found 

themselves responding to a variety of calls for service. The grant projects in these communities 

had difficulty creating and maintaining the domestic violence focus of their programs.

Need for Inter-Agency Cooperation and Coordination

Both VAWA and the Arrest Policies Program emphasize the need for a coordinated 

response to domestic violence. For criminal justice agencies, coordination between police and 

prosecutors was expected to produce well documented arrest reports followed by vigorous 

prosecution. Subsequent chapters of this report include examples of proactive approaches by 

prosecutors who worked closely with law enforcement to improve evidence collection and other 

investigative techniques. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if agreement and coordination 

cannot be achieved early on, the entire project can be derailed. The snapshot that follows 

presents an example of this from the study.

Snapshot: Limited Cooperation of Prosecutor 

In one city, the police department joined in developing a domestic 

violence team to provide investigative services, civil legal assistance, and social 

services. However, the local prosecutor did not participate except to provide a 

paralegal to assist victims in filing for court orders of protection. According to 

focus group participants, a lack of agreement on goals and poor coordination 

between police and prosecutors were contributing factors in the prosecutor’s use 

of diversion in lieu of pressing for convictions in domestic violence cases. One 

result was to diminish the benefits that might have been gained because of 

improved evidence collection practices by police responding to reported domestic 

violence. In addition, coordination between prosecutors and service agencies was 

lacking; several prosecutors noted their office’s need for victim advocates. The 

effect of these issues on successful prosecution could not be determined because 

of limited access to prosecution data.

Summary

This chapter outlined the Arrest Policy Program goals; summarized results from the 

national survey of grantees; and explained the approach to conducting the process evaluation. It 

then summarized implementation issues found across a significant number of Arrest Policies 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 43

Program sites participating in the process evaluation. Some of the issues encountered mirror 

trends that have been found over the years in other major, national projects funded by the Office 

of Justice Program (OJP). These issues persist despite the efforts of OJP staff to enhance the 

federal programs with detailed program instructions, technical assistance and training, site visits 

by federal staff, guideline documents, and more. Some grant-related implementation problems 

may well be intractable and endemic to the nature of federal funding. Other problems can be 

anticipated and avoided through careful planning and monitoring. 

Chapter 7 presents a series of recommendations offered to address key issues identified in 

this chapter. These issues include turnover in the project director’s position and among key 

project staff; the need to assign experienced personnel to handle domestic violence cases and 

work with victims/survivors; the importance of strong project leadership and the need to not only 

train replacement personnel but ensure they are committed to achieving the project objectives; 

difficulties related to the administrative requirements of federal grants; project delays related to 

information technology acquisitions and local procurement rules; and finally, the need to ensure 

proposed partners fully appreciate the extent of collaboration and resource sharing expected 

under federal grant projects.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 44

Chapter 4 

Arrest Policies Program and Criminal Justice

Process Changes

The overriding purpose of the Arrest Policies Program is to encourage local criminal 

justice systems to assign greater priority to domestic violence by developing new ways of 

responding to domestic violence cases, and improving offender accountability and victim safety. 

Grantees responded to this challenge primarily through the following approaches:

• Increases in staffing/specialized units

• New court structures

• Staff training

• Improved case handling procedures

• Increased capacity to provide victim services

• Increased coordination among agencies.

This chapter first provides a brief review of issues and problems associated with 

trad itional domestic violence case handling. The chapter then describes changes in local 

criminal justice processes that occurred as a result of the Arrest Policies Program grants. The 

chapter concludes with a discussion of grantee experiences with community partnerships. 

Overview of Case Processing Issues

Appendix B provides background information on case processing issues (see “Overview 

of Traditional Approaches to Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Case Processing.”). It is difficult 

to provide a “typical” scenario because variations in state laws, agency policies, court structures, 

local resources, and many other factors are almost infinite. The overview in the appendix is 

offered to assist readers who are somewhat unfamiliar with the details involved in processing 

misdemeanor domestic violence cases from arrest through sentencing. 

What all states do have in common are laws that authorize a law enforcement officer to 

arrest without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe a suspect has committed 

domestic violence. Most states’ laws provide that arrest for domestic violence is required (or in 

a few states, “preferred”) where probable cause to arrest exists. These laws generally apply only 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 45

to misdemeanor-level domestic violence, since common law has always authorized warrantless 

arrests based on probable cause in felony cases.

The Arrest Policies Program focused grantees on overcoming a number of obstacles, 

identified both in research and in practice, that were widely viewed as impediments to 

implementing those laws. Some of the critical case processing and organizational objectives that 

various projects were responsible for addressing included the following.

Law Enforcement

• Better understand the seriousness of domestic violence; do a better job of 

assessing the potential of each incident for future violence.

• Conduct more thorough investigations.

• Arrest suspects when probable cause exists.

• Gather all the evidence needed for successful prosecutions.

• Demonstrate greater responsiveness to victims’ needs; inform victims of their 

options; refer or link victims to community resources available to assist them.

Prosecution 

• Assign a sufficient number of specially trained, experienced prosecutors to 

vigorously prosecute domestic violence cases.

• Provide law enforcement with feedback to improve the quality and thoroughness 

of police investigations and related reports.

• Employ a vertical prosecution approach

Court Processes

• Develop judicial expertise in domestic violence cases; institute a specialized 

docket for domestic violence cases.

• Screen domestic violence cases carefully to assess whether the defendant should 

be released on his own recognizance, not released, or released with conditions. 

• Provide meaningful sanctions that serve to hold offenders accountable for their 

criminal conduct, violations of protection orders, and violations of conditions of 

probation

Other issues of concern to grantees with respect to prosecution and court processes included 

inconsistency in charging, prosecution, and sentencing; and lack of attention to unique 

accountability requirements of individual offenders, especially in assessing future 

dangerousness.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 46

Community Coordination

• Coordinate the response to domestic violence across all criminal justice agencies.

• Increase collaboration among criminal justice agencies and non-profit victim 

services and advocacy agencies.

Most Arrest Policies Program grantees limited their approaches to a manageable number 

of objectives based on needs they saw as local priorities. The sections that follow describe key 

features of the approaches taken and resulting changes in domestic violence case handling 

processes, as well as changes in organizational structures and priorities needed to support those 

changes.

Arrest Policies Program System Changes

The Arrest Policies Program required applicant jurisdictions to examine how funds could 

be used to improve local criminal justice practices. For the first time in some jurisdictions, 

domestic violence became a significant policy concern, requiring assessment of domestic 

violence-related problem areas and development of alternative strategies. The result was that the 

Arrest Policies Program changed the way many local criminal justice systems responded to 

domestic violence cases. Using program funds, local criminal justice agencies reexamined 

existing priorities, policies, and practices for domestic violence cases; increased staffing directed 

at domestic violence; developed new organizational units, including domestic violence courts; 

created staff training and mentoring programs; worked to improve law enforcement’s response; 

increased victim services; made changes in prosecution case handling policies and procedures; 

and worked to address other issues to increase offender accountability and victim safety. These 

efforts are discussed in more detail below.

Specialized Domestic Violence Units

While each project varied in terms of objectives and implementation, one change 

common across sites was an increase in staffing devoted to responding to domestic violence 

cases. Most grantees applied grant funds available for staffing toward creation of new 

specialized domestic violence units or enhancement of existing units. Often, these units also had 

non-grant funded staff assigned to them. Exhibit 4-1 shows which grantees used funds to create 

or enhance existing specialized domestic violence units in law enforcement, prosecution, 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 47

probation, or victim witness services. As the exhibit reflects, many grantees developed more 

than one specialized unit.

Exhibit 4-1: Specialized Units Funded (in whole or part) Through the Arrest 

Policies Program

Law 

Enforcement

Prosecution 

and Courts Probation

Victim 

Witness

POLICE-LED PROJECTS

Eloy, AZ  ̧

Greenville, MS  ̧

Durham, NC  ̧

Chicago Heights, IL  ̧  ̧

Jefferson County, KY  ̧  ̧  ̧

Brockton, MA  ̧  ̧

Austin, TX  ̧  ̧

PROSECUTION-LED PROJECTS

Everett, WA  ̧  ̧

Lynchburg, VA  ̧  ̧  ̧

Lake County, CA  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

Marin County, CA  ̧

Santa Fe County, NM  ̧  ̧

Dane County, WI  ̧  ̧

Pueblo County, CO  ̧  ̧  ̧

La Plata County, CO  ̧  ̧

Sacramento County, CA  ̧  ̧  ̧

Queens County, NY  ̧  ̧

Shelby County, TN  ̧  ̧

PROBATION-LED PROJECTS

Clinton County, NY  ̧  ̧

Jackson County, OR  ̧  ̧

Depending on the jurisdiction’s size and the grant amount, the number of staff hired for 

these specialized units ranged from one person (a single dedicated officer or prosecutor) to 

mu ltiple staff assigned in four different agencies (Lake County, California).
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 48

Law Enforcement Specialized Units

The creation of specialized grant-funded units drew more of management’s attention to 

the domestic violence problem. Specialized units also provided more oversight, accountability, 

and training for field personnel. 

Most of the newly created units in law enforcement were investigative units. Typical 

functions of domestic violence detectives included follow-up on cases where the suspect fled the 

scene, investigation of complex cases, review of incident reports, referral to victim services 

agencies, and officer training. The Greenville and Durham police departments created 

specialized units with first response officers. These officers responded to domestic violence calls 

whenever possible. 

Snapshot: Durham Police Department

The Durham Police Department used Arrest Policies Program funds to 

create a Domestic Violence Unit composed of three investigators and specialized 

field response officers (one officer per shift). The police department’s first efforts 

under the Arrest Policies Program involved creation of a domestic violence 

investigative unit. Investigators soon noted the low quality of incident reports 

written by patrol officers and a lack of evidence collected at the scene. 

To improve patrol response, the department expanded its Arrest Policies 

Program grant to hire additional staff to specialize in field response. At the time 

of this evaluation, the Domestic Violence Unit included a special domestic 

violence officer available on each shift. In addition to providing the initial 

response to domestic violence calls, the officer performed a variety of follow-up 

tasks (such as obtaining and serving arrest warrants) and provided on-scene 

training for other patrol officers. While these officers were able to prioritize their 

assignments to handle domestic violence incidents, they were not able to cover all 

domestic violence calls because of limited staffing. The detectives conducted 

follow-up investigations on cases not handled by the domestic violence field 

officers. 

Multi-Agency Teams. Four jurisdictions used grant funds to create multi-agency teams 

in which specialized police officers formed just one component of the response. In several of the 

multi-agency teams, non -grant fu nds were used to fund staff. For example, probation, which 

played a key role in Brockton’s project, did not receive grant funds through the Arrest Policies 

Program. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 49

A key difference between specialized units in law enforcement and multi-agency 

sp ecialized units was the relationship with victim services and advocacy staff. In addition to a 

stronger victim services component, multi-agency units tended to either have a working 

relationship with probation or were housed in a common facility with community service 

providers. Exhibit 4-2 shows the key components of multi-agency projects led by police 

departments.

Exhibit 4-2: Components of Multi-Agency Policing Projects

Police Department

Victim Services 

On-Site Probation

Special Shared 

Facility

Brockton  ̧  ̧

Jefferson County  ̧  ̧

Chicago Heights  ̧  ̧

Austin  ̧  ̧

There are several features that set these projects apart from more traditional units:

• Victim Services. All four police-led multi-agency teams provided some form of 

victim services on -site; and all but one of the projects included victim witness 

staff and/or community advocates who were able to provide services to non -

English speaking victims/survivors. 

• Probation. In both Brockton and Jefferson County, the specialized units had 

formal arran gements with probation departments. These relationships included 

ride-alongs and regular communication between police and probation officers, 

essentially adding an extra layer of supervision to offenders and alerting police 

officers, advocates, and victims to escalating conditions.

• Shared Facilities. In Chicago Heights and Austin, the detectives were located in 

a facility that was apart from police headquarters and included a number of victim 

services providers. 

Generally, these projects had specific objectives to address multiple needs of victims and 

help protect victims from future violence; and to improve inter-agency communication (in two 

departments, by housing officers and victim service providers together). By establishing closer 

relationships with other agencies and interacting with victims in a variety of contexts, law 

enforcement sought to take on a more pro -active role.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 50

Snapshot: Austin’s Family Violence Protection Team

The Austin Police Department took a team-oriented approach to the 

domestic violence problem. Grant funds were used to create the Family Violence 

Protection Team (FVPT), which consisted of staff from the police department, 

Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Travis County Attorney’s Office, and many legal 

and social service providers (e.g., Legal Aid of Central Texas, Women’s 

Advocacy Project, SafePlace). All team members, and the full-time civilian 

coordinator, were housed in one location and provided investigative, legal, and 

social services.

The police department had eight FVPT detectives to handle domestic 

violence incidents where the suspect had fled and other types of incidents that 

require follow-up. Most of the cases assigned to the unit were assault with injury 

cases; one detective specialized in stalking cases. The team in cluded a detective 

from the Travis County Sheriff’s Office who followed up on all domestic violence 

incidents, including arrests, occurring in the county.

Prosecution Units and Court Organization Structures

All prosecution -led projects created or expanded a specialized unit of domestic violence 

prosecutors. The units usually included victim witness staff and/or community advocates who 

provided victim services. Some prosecution-led projects operated in jurisdictions with a 

trad itional court structure, and some operated in a specialized domestic violence court setting.

Specialized Prosecution in a Traditional Court Structure. Six prosecution -led 

projects created a designated prosecution unit that operated under a traditional court structure. 

No changes were made to the way in which the courts operated in these jurisdictions. Instead, 

these grants focused office resources on domestic violence cases and increased the number of 

prosecutors assigned to these cases. Several of these projects also enhanced victim assistance and 

staffing for other agencies. Exhibit 4-3 shows the variety of efforts involved in the prosecutionled grant projects in traditional court settings.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 51

Exhibit 4-3: Arrest Policies Program Staffing at Prosecution-Led Projects

Grantee Prosecution

Victim 

Assistance Police Probation Other Staff

Dane County  ̧  ̧

1 bail monitor

1 MIS specialist*

Everett  ̧  ̧  ̧ None

Lake County  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧ 1 office assistant

Lynchburg  ̧  ̧  ̧ 1 MIS manager*

Marin County  ̧  ̧ 1 grant administrator

Santa Fe  ̧  ̧ 4 administrative staff

* Management information systems

In some jurisdictions, the Arrest Policies Program grant was instrumental in increasing 

the number of prosecutors in an established domestic violence unit. This often enabled 

prosecutors to handle both misdemeanor and felony-level domestic violence crimes. In other 

jurisdictions, the grant afforded (for the first time) a designated prosecutor who handled all 

domestic violence cases, signaling to law enforcement and the community that these cases would 

be taken seriously. The snapshot that follows describes this situation in Lynchburg, Virginia. 

Snapshot: Lynchburg Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office

Virginia law does not require the Commonwealth’s Attorney to prosecute 

misdemeanors. Prior to the Arrest Policies Program grant, Lynchburg’s 

prosecutor handled only those misdemeanor cases in which the defendant was 

represented by counsel. With grant funds, the Commonwealth’s Attorney started 

a domestic violence unit to prosecute all domestic violence crimes, including 

misdemeanors. The unit consisted of two prosecutors, a paralegal, a victim 

witness assistant, and a management information systems specialist. A 

continuation grant added a domestic violence coordinator for the Lynchburg 

Police Department.

Specialized Prosecution in Domestic Violence Courts. In three sites (Sacramento, 

Queens, and Shelby County), special prosecution units worked within newly created domestic 

violence courts. Two smaller sites (Pueblo and La Plata Counties in Colorado), had “fast track” 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 52

prosecution projects; specialized prosecution staff at those two sites worked with a domestic 

violence docket within the same criminal court.25

New Domestic Violence Courts

The domestic violence courts in Queens, Sacramento, and Shelby counties involved 

establishing a separate court docket for domestic violence cases and assigning a single judge to 

the domestic violence court. Typically, these courts were created to manage the domestic 

violence cases handled by the newly created special prosecution units. By using a single 

courtroom for these cases, the prosecutors improved efficiency in handling the domestic violence 

caseload. 

Each court system operated somewhat differently. Some details of the domestic violence 

court and specialized prosecution units operations are summarized in Exhibit 4-4.

Exhibit 4-4: Key Components of Specialized Prosecution Units and Domestic 

Violence Courts

Component Sacramento County Queens County Shelby County

Domestic violence 

prosecution staff

16 prosecutors 8 prosecutors 6 prosecutors

Case screening Extensive Minimal None

Hearings handled 

by special court 

(average caseload)

3,000 filings/year 4,700 filings/year 4,000 filings/year

Domestic violence 

court jurisdiction

Misdemeanors and 

preliminary felony 

matters

Intimate partner 

domestic violence 

misdemeanors

Misdemeanors and 

preliminary felony 

matters

Prosecution unit 

jurisdiction

Misdemeanors and 

felonies

Misdemeanors Misdemeanors

Judges 1 judge

1 domestic violence 

judge, 1 compliance 

judge

1 judge

 

25 Domestic violence courts existed at some other sites, but the Arrest Policies Program did not directly involve the 

courts at those sites.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 53

Snapshot: Queens District Attorney’s Office Domestic Violence Unit

In Queens, Arrest Policy Program funds were used to expand the domestic 

violence misdemeanor unit from three part-time prosecutors to eight full-time 

prosecutors. The unit was also transferred to the Special Victims Bureau, 

elevating its status in the District Attorney’s office. Recently, the unit became a 

bureau itself. The specialized unit, because of the high caseload, handled only 

domestic violence cases involving violence among intimate partners. The District 

Attorney’s Office also worked closely with the city’s probation department to 

pursue probation violations. A fundamental aspect of the project was delivering 

victim services provided by advocates from Safe Horizon, a non-profit 

community victim services organization. The victim advocates worked in the 

same offices as the DA’s domestic violence unit and case screening unit. The 

grant also funded a civil legal attorney who worked for Safe Horizon. An 

additional component of the grant was training for prosecutors, police, and 

emergency room hospital staff. 

In Queens, the court had a special compliance component, in which a retired judge held 

regular status hearings of batterers. In Shelby County, the domestic violence judge held status 

hearings every 90 days to check on batterers’ progress.

Domestic Violence Dockets 

Another type of court-involved project was implemented in two Colorado counties. 

Locally, the projects were referred to as “fast track” prosecution, implying that a project goal 

was to increase the speed at which the justice system operated. “Fast track” was based on the 

premise that a quick disposition and sentencing to treatment would deter batterers from 

continued violence and abuse.26

“Fast track” prosecution placed primary importance on the arraignment hearing.27 The 

court process was streamlined. Each morning, a prosecutor reviewed the previous day’s 

domestic violence arrests and made charging decisions. The prosecutor met with defendants, as 

authorized by Colorado law, informed them of their rights of legal representation, discussed their 

cases, and negotiated pleas when appropriate. In the afternoon, defendants were brought to court 

 

26 No statistics were available to determine whether “fast track” increased offender participation in treatment and 

whether it reduced recidivism.

27 An arraignment is a court hearing in front of a judge where a defendant is advised of the formal charges filed by 

the state attorney’s office or law enforcement. The defendant is allowed to enter a plea of guilty, no contest, or 

not guilty to the charges. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 54

where they waived the right to counsel and pled guilty or the case was held over and a not guilty 

plea entered. In Pueblo, pre-trial negotiations were held at the jail, while the La Plata prosecutor 

held the defendants’ pre-trial conferences in the courtroom just prior to appearance before a 

magistrate. In both counties, “fast track” prosecution was limited to first-time domestic violence 

misdemeanor offenders where no aggravating circumstances were present. Pueblo County 

prosecutors reported that of 141 domestic violence cases handled between July and October 

1998, 125 (89 percent) were disposed of either on the arrest date or date of advisement (initial 

court appearance). Due to the quick turn -around, case screening and the ability to conduct 

follow-up investigations was limited.

Both Colorado projects had some important similarities: both programs included strong 

victim advocacy components, and both District Attorney Offices had close links with probation 

departments. However, as shown in Exhibit 4-5, there were differences in vertical prosecution, 

judicial arrangement, and police partnerships. 

Exhibit 4-5: “Fast Track” Projects in Pueblo and La Plata Counties, Colorado

Component Pueblo County La Plata County

Vertical prosecution “Fast track” assigned to 

prosecutors on rotating basis

One prosecutor handled all 

domestic violence cases

Judicial arrangement Rotating judges Designated magistrate

Police partnerships Partnerships with police 

department and sheriff’s office

No formal partnerships with law 

enforcement 

Probation Specialized officers, assessment and oversight of 

treatment, some supervision

Victim witness and 

advocacy

Victim witness support, community advocates provided early access to 

victims, links to civil legal assistance

Probation

Probation tended to be the least-funded component of the Arrest Policies Program. Of 

the 20 projects participating in the process evaluation, two were led by probation departments 

and a total of five projects funded probation staff to specialize in domestic violence cases. 

Because of staffing shortages for misdemeanant probation, many grantees instituted alternatives 

to probation.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 55

Probation-Involved Projects

When misdemeanants are placed on probation, there is typically little or no personal 

supervision. To fill this gap, Arrest Policies Program grants were sometimes used to designate 

specialized domestic violence probation officers to provide increased supervision for domestic 

violence probationers assigned to intensive supervision. In Sacramento, grant funds were used to 

establish a team of two probation officers who provided intensive supervision to the highest 

threat batterers. Similarly, in Lake County, California, a deputy probation officer (DPO) was 

assigned to provide intensive supervision of both felony and misdemeanor offenders. 

Historically, probation staff had been so limited that most misdemeanor offenders, including 

domestic violence offenders, received little supervision. This lack of supervision was recognized 

as a significant gap in the domestic violence response continuum in Lake County because most 

batterers begin at the misdemeanor level. The DPO was given a reduced caseload to free up time 

for field work, such as monitoring batterers’ compliance with probation conditions.

Additionally, a number of the Arrest Policies Program projects worked to strengthen 

police and probation relations. For instance, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, the domestic 

violence teams were composed of a patrol officer, an advocate from the local victim services 

organization, a probation officer, and a home incarceration officer. In Sacramento, the probation 

officers worked with police officers to conduct compliance and warrant sweeps.

Snapshot: Clinton County’s Domestic Abuse Reduction Team

The Clinton County (New York) Department of Probation created a 

Domestic Abuse Reduction Team (DART) that consisted of one probation officer, 

a victim advocate, and a case coordinator. The unit worked out of the District 

Attorney’s Office. It handled follow-up investigations for domestic violence 

cases and provided training to local law enforcement. Continuation funding paid 

for two additional specialized probation officers, two community advocates, and a 

task force coordinator. The team met weekly to share information and review 

pending cases. Each probation officer carried a caseload of approximately 40 

probationers. 

Probation Alternatives for Monitoring and Supervision of Batterers

Monitoring and supervision of batterers was sometimes assigned to non-probation staff. 

As noted earlier, in Queens and Shelby Counties, court officers took responsibility for 

monitoring batterer court-ordered attendance at intervention programs. Supervision of batterers 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 56

was not always limited to post-conviction. For example, the Dane County project developed a 

bail monitoring program for domestic violen ce defendants.

Snapshot: Queens District Attorney’s Office

In Queens, a variety of initiatives have been implemented to increase 

supervision of batterers. The Criminal Court’s special “Treatment Part” was 

presided over by a retired judge who served as a special master. Once defendants 

were sentenced to attend a treatment or intervention program, they were required 

to attend the Treatment Part to periodically report on program attendance. The 

defendant was required to provide proof of program attendance, typically receipt 

of payment given each time the defendant attended the program. The special 

master provided individual attention to all delinquent defendants in an effort to 

minimize program failures. If program failure occurred, the case was returned t o 

the sentencing court for a hearing, at which incarceration could be imposed.

In addition to the Treatment Part, two other innovations were 

implemented. First, the District Attorney’s bureau chief could request that police 

officers from the domestic violence unit conduct an unannounced visit to the 

victim’s home to determine whether the criminal court’s stay-away order was 

being obeyed. Violations of the court order were subject to felony penalties. 

Second, the bureau chief notified the Probation Department’s domestic violence 

coord inator of any rearrest of convicted batterers who were on probation or 

parole. This information was given to appropriate probation officers to file 

violation of probation complaints.

Results of Changes in Supervision

As a result of the changes discussed in this section on how batterers were supervised, the 

following changes were observed:

• Suspects were more likely to undergo a formal assessment to evaluate the 

appropriateness of programs.

• Intensive supervision was being conducted on “hard -core” batterers to increase 

accountability.

• Probationers were subject to increased supervision where specialized probation 

officers were assigned.

• Compliance with court orders was enhanced through periodic court appearances.

Training and Mentoring

Training was part of nearly every Arrest Policies Program grant. At some sites, training 

was limited to sending staff to regional or national conferences. At other sites, project staff, 

often in collaboration with partners, developed and delivered training to large segments of the 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 57

criminal justice system. Most grantees reported that the amount of training devoted to domestic 

violence had increased. In addition, the role of specialized personnel often included informal 

mentoring and tutoring of less experienced staff.

The Austin Police Department’s project included the institutionalization of domestic 

violence training for both recruit and experienced police officers, as noted by two detectives who 

participated in a focus group: 

It used to be that training happened on the job. In the last two to three 

years, the training is much better. It’s continuous training throughout the 

year. 

The Family Violence Protection Team has made a big effort to train 

officers. It’s much more tailored and specific to domestic violence. The 

training is excellent now.

Austin’s Family Violence Protection Team also increased patrol officers’ awareness of when and 

how to get assistance. In another focus group in Austin, a patrol officer noted: “Domestic 

violence calls take more time to figure out. If you don’t know what to do in every case, call the 

detectives to find out what to do to cover yourself.”

Snapshot: Police Training in Brockton, Massachusetts

Training was an important component of the Brockton Police 

Department’s Arrest Policies Program grant. The supervisor (and project 

director) of the Domestic Violence Unit actively monitored family violence 

incident reports and required officers to file a Family Incidence Report Form 

when a family distu rbance was considered unfounded by the responding officers. 

This change ensured that cases that did not result in an arrest were still reviewed 

and that follow-up action could be taken if deemed appropriate. The project 

director, in conjunction with a civilian advocate and the local non -profit partner, 

developed a “Manual on Domestic Violence” to guide police response and 

conducted training sessions. In 1997 alone, the team conducted 13 training 

sessions for officers. The sessions covered the dynamics of domestic violence, 

Massachusetts laws, departmental policies, arrest powers, and patrol procedures. 

The team delivered training to p olice recruits and trained the detective division, 

the narcotic and gang unit, and all emergency telecommunications division and 

dispatch personnel. In addition, training was expanded to park and school police. 

By June 1998, the entire police department had received domestic violence 

training and the team began to focus on continuing roll-call training for officers.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 58

The prosecutor’s role in training was also helpful in many projects. At a number of sites, 

domestic violence prosecutors provided officers with feedback on the quality and content of 

incident reports. Previously, the officers rarely received feedback on reports and were seldom 

informed of case disposition. In Pueblo, Colorado, the prosecutor developed a special form, 

which he completed on all domestic violence cases, to notify arresting officers of case outcome 

and sentence. In addition, the prosecutor frequently contacted s upervising officers to both 

acknowledge and admonish patrol officers for their response to particular incidents. 

Snapshot: Queens County District Attorney’s Office

In Queens County, the new domestic violence unit was staffed with new 

attorney hires. Historically, domestic violence cases were viewed as difficult to 

win and assignment to these cases was often perceived to be “punishment.” 

Extensive training was provided to the new domestic violence attorneys, 

including trial advocacy, since the unit was taking a firm position on plea 

bargaining and had to be ready to try cases. It was this promise of litigation, 

along with the training, that attracted eager new attorneys to the unit. 

Once a week, the unit’s attorneys met with supervisors for in-service 

training over lunch. Additional lunch sessions were devoted to group case 

discussion and problem solving. The new attorneys litigating the cases were also 

assisted in court by supervisors who served as court mentors. 

Specialized prosecutors and victim witness staff were also helpful in developing and 

delivering training that addressed the importance of evidence and documentation in domestic 

violence cases. For instance, in Everett, Washington, the domestic violence prosecutor taught a 

four-hour class to police recruits that addressed evidence-based prosecution, statutory 

requirements, report writing, and testifying. The prosecutor also provided in -service training for 

sworn officers.

Improved and Increased Services

Objectives among the majority of Arrest Policies Program grantees were focused in the 

following areas: 

• Improved new case follow-up and investigation by law enforcement

• Improved report writing and evidence collection

• Increased and more responsive victim services
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 59

• Improved prosecution case handling

• Increased options for holding batterers accountable.

Follow-Up Activities and Services 

Prior to the Arrest Policies Program projects, there was seldom any follow-up on cases 

that did not involve arrest and prosecution. But with grant funds, police departments began to 

make efforts to follow up on many more domestic violence cases. The special investigators in 

District Attorney’s offices and police departments provided additional personnel to track down 

at-large suspects and provide victims/survivors with support services. 

The effect of follow-up services was most noticeable in policing. For many victims, a 

common complaint has been the lack of police follow-up when the suspect has fled the scene. 

Another area of concern has been a lack of police attention to protection order violations. A few 

grantees devoted special attention to these concerns and established policies to improve the 

relationship between law enforcement and victims. For instance, in Eloy, Arizona, officers were 

instructed to periodically check up on domestic violence victims. A number of Eloy domestic 

violence victims who participated in the focus groups expressed appreciation for the police 

follow-up: 

Now, the police come and check up on youstop by the housenot to be 

nosey, but to help. 

I’ve seen changes in the last year. Cops come back to check around the 

house.

Things have gotten better. They come to my house and check or call and 

let me know if they’ve picked him up.

Lake County, California, also placed a higher priority on tracking down domestic 

violence batterers who fled. A sample of arrest cases, comparing the pre-grant to the post-grant 

period, showed that there was greater variety in the location of arrests. Using grants funds, law 

enforcement was making more arrests at traffic stops, defendants’ apartment, and defendants’ 

workplaces, suggesting that law enforcement was being more aggressive in pursuing at-large 

suspects.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 60

Report Writing and Evidence Collection 

Most projects reported that the quality of police reports improved as a result of the Arrest 

Policies Program. This improvement appeared to be associated with the increased training 

efforts within police departments, as well as greater monitoring and feedback from prosecutors. 

To verify this information, ILJ staff examined a sample of arrest reports from pre-grant 

and post-grant periods from five sites.28 Report contents were reviewed according to criteria 

associated with successful domestic violence prosecution, such as documentation of physical 

injuries29, inclusion of excited utterances, and attachment of photographs of victim injuries. The 

reports were coded and entered into a database. At four of five sites, the quality of incident 

reports improved in the post-grant period.30 Specific findings include:

• In Eloy, post-grant police reports were more likely to contain victim statements, 

documentation of victim injuries, descriptions of victim and suspect demeanors, 

and a history of domestic violence, when present. The most improvement 

occurred in the description of both suspect and victim demeanors (included in 11 

percent of pre-grant reports and 49 percent of post-grant reports).

• In Lake County, the percentage of cases in which victims’ injuries were “well 

documented” rose from 9 percent to 22 percent post-grant. In the post-grant 

period, more victims were interviewed separately from their attackers, rising from 

27 percent to 40 percent, and witnesses were more likely to be interviewed 

separately from both the victim and perpetrator (from 7 percent to 13 percent). 

The percentage of reports with photographs included rose from 25 percent to 38 

percent.

• In Austin, victim statements in the incident reports were more detailed in the postgrant period. In those incidents involving injury, the percentage of cases 

documented with photographs more than doubled (from 20 percent in the pregrant period to 48 percent in the post-grant period). 

• In Shelby County after the grant, police included more pictures and provided 

more details about victim injuries; and more often than before, they included the 

suspect’s statement and information about the suspect’s alcohol use. On average, 

the length of the police reports increased over 15 percent. 

 

28 ILJ staff examined an average of 50 pre- grant reports and 50 post-grant reports from each site. At the sixth site, 

Queen County, we were not granted access to police reports. However, a review of the prosecutor case long-ins, 

which detailed the evidence collected by the police, showed considerable improvement in evidence collection, 

e.g., 100 percent increase in photographs of victim and a crime scene being provided.

29 Injuries were coded as “well documented” when the nature and location of the injury was described in detail. In 

contrast, if there was simply a statement that the victim was injured, with no further details, then it was coded as 

“documented.”

30 The fifth site, Dane County, has a history of quality law enforcement response to domestic violence. Incidents 

were well documented in both pre-grant and post-grant periods.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 61

Improvements in the quality of case documentation were also noted by prosecutors at a 

number of sites. For instance, in Austin, a prosecutor indicated that his office’s ability “to 

su ccessfully prosecute the offender has increased because of the better paperwork by the police 

department.” Similarly, a Shelby County prosecutor noted that “overall, the quality of cases has 

improved. We get about 50 percent of the cases with pictures. They are also doing better 

reports.”

Improved Case Prosecution and Court Processing

The Arrest Policies Program contributed to a variety of changes in the way cases were 

prosecuted and in the court process itself. In many sites, partnerships between trained law 

enforcement officers, specialized prosecutors, victim support coordinators, and community 

victim services enabled greater efficiency in case handling. Changes at various sites included the 

following:

• Greater consistency in case handling because of specialization of prosecution and 

vertical prosecution

• Improvements in prosecution’s ability to handle cases based primarily on the 

evidence rather than victim testimony

• Increased use of alternative charging

• Greater consistency in sentencing through closer coordination among court, 

prosecutor, and probation

• Increased court enforcement of conditions of release/probation 

• Streamlining of court functio ns and processes.

In Shelby and Lake Counties, the prosecutors increased the use of alternative charging 

options. The Shelby County project also developed a program to monitor abusers who were on 

bail awaiting their court appearances.

Some sites (Shelby County, Santa Fe, and Dane County) made greater attempts to assess 

the risk of repeated violence among domestic violence offenders. In Shelby County, pre-trial 

services began routinely contacting the victim (prior to bail decision) to include information 

from them as part of a risk assessment. Santa Fe’s program included training on determining the 

primary aggressor in domestic conflicts. In Dane County, risk assessments also addressed cooccurrence of domestic violence and child abuse; and the grantee wo rked with a nonprofit 

service provider for long -term victim/survivor support. In contrast, Pueblo’s and La Plata’s 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 62

domestic violence projects chose to implement a fast response (“fast track prosecution”) to gain 

quicker access to offender treatment and in crease court efficiency, rather than conducting pretrial 

risk assessments.

Evidence based prosecution was also aimed at improving domestic violence case 

management in Lake County, Everett, LaPlata, and Lynchburg. In Lynchburg, police-initiated 

cases seemed to increase somewhat, and the Lynchburg Commonwealth’s Attorney responded 

by providing resources and personnel for prosecution and victim services coordination.

Snapshot: Queens County District Attorney’s Office

In Queens County, New York, before the Arrest Policies Program grant, 

prosecution of domestic violence cases was the responsibility of three assistant 

prosecutors who also had other duties. With grant funding for four prosecutors, 

the District Attorney’s office established a specialized domestic violence unit 

consisting of eight prosecutors and one deputy bureau chief. The unit instituted 

vertical prosecution of all misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Special efforts 

were made to contact victims as soon as the police made arrests: unit paralegals 

accessed the police department’s on-line booking system to obtain incident 

information. Close supervision by the unit chief ensured consistency in case 

handling. The unit chief also worked closely with police commanders in Queens 

to improve supervisory monitoring of police officer evidence collection and report 

writing. New policies have also mandated that prosecutors petition the 

arraignment court to issue pretrial orders of protection and request that the 

sentencing court require batterer intervention and issue multi-year orders of 

protection where authorized. 

Victim Services

Services to domestic violence victims/survivors increased as a result of the Arrest 

Policies Program. In the sites studied by ILJ, services were provided by professional victim 

witness staff working in criminal justice agencies and by advocates from community based 

organizations. In addition, police officers, prosecutors, and probation officers provided some 

types of victim assistance. In terms of victim services, five developments were documented at 

various sites:

• Victims/survivors were contacted at earlier stages in the criminal justice process.

• The addition of victim witness specialists and community advocates resulted in an 

increase in the number of women who were offered services.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 63

• The types of services were expanded, with civil legal assistance becoming a 

component of victim services. 

• Outreach and bilingual victim assistance staff had the potential of improving 

access for victims/survivors from under-served communities.

• Access was improved as victim assistance was delivered at criminal justice 

agencies.

At many sites, victims/survivors were more often provided with referral information upon 

contact with a police officer during a domestic violence call,31 and some projects developed 

information packets for officers on the scene to hand victims. In Brockton, Massachusetts, for 

example, victims were provided with information that included a safety plan, a copy of the 

Abuse Law, and a guide for parents when children were witness to domestic violence. Some 

projects developed teams of officers and advocates who rode together to provide direct 

assistance to victims on the scene. 

Victim assistance was a common function of the prosecutors’ offices participating in the 

Arrest Policies Program. With grant funds, specialized services for domestic violence 

victims/survivors were sometimes offered for the first time. For example, in Queens and Shelby 

Counties, the non-profit partner’s advocates worked with the prosecutor’s domestic violence 

unit. The advocates worked to contact victims/survivors whose misdemeanor cases were being 

handled by the unit. The result was that many more women were offered services than prior to 

the grant. 

The types of victim services were also expanded b y the grants. In some sites, non-profit 

partners provided attorneys to assist victims with civil legal matters such as divorce proceedings, 

child custody, housing, etc. where these services had not existed before. In Dane County, grant 

funds were used to hire a legal advocate to work at the community victim services agency. The 

legal advocate, among other things, assisted victims with obtaining protection orders. In Queens, 

grant funds were used by the community victim services agency to hire an attorney to assist 

victims with civil legal matters. One important service provided by the attorney was helping 

victims obtain extended orders of protection from Family Court. These extended orders were for 

 

31 Many state codes require officers responding to a domestic violence incident to provide the victim with notice of 

rights and with referral information. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 64

three years versus the typical one-year court orders. About 20 percent of victims served by this 

attorney obtained extended orders (most victims did not seek extended o rders). 

Additionally, victim witness specialists, working with police, prosecutors, or probation 

officers, often expanded the services they provided. For example, in Brockton, a civilian 

advocate was hired to assist victims on a full-time basis. Housed in the district court, the 

advocate helped victims file for restraining orders, assessed victim needs, and offered referrals to 

community services, including social services, legal advocates, housing authority staff, and 

hospital p atient advocacy staff. 

Language and cultural barriers sometimes prevent victims from seeking criminal justice 

assistance. A number of Arrest Policies Program grantees addressed this issue by hiring 

bilingual victim witness specialists or community advocates who could enhance outreach to 

specific underserved communities. For example, in Brockton, the bilingual advocate was able to 

make connections to the minority Cape Verdean community. The victim advocates in Queens 

used a telephone-based interpreter service to talk with victims (over 150 ethnic groups live in the 

county). In some sites, these bilingual positions were difficult to fill.

The two Colorado projects represent examples of increased cooperation between criminal 

justice staff and community organizations that resulted in improved access to victim services. In 

both Colorado projects, the community advocate worked with victim witness staff to ensure that 

victims received information and services prior to speaking with the prosecutor the day 

following the domestic assault. Projects that included shared facilities were able to provide 

immediate access to services for women who approached the center for assistance with domestic 

and other criminal matters.

Snapshot: Austin Victim Services Division

The Victim Services Division at the Austin Police Department consisted 

of 28 full-time counselors, 3 of whom were assigned to the Family Violence 

Protection Team. Victim services staff offered counseling, information, and 

referrals to victims and also accompanied detectives on interviews at victims’ 

homes and at the police station. The division had crisis teams to respond to 

incidents in all sectors of the city and deliver crisis intervention 24 hours a day. 

All crisis teams were equipped with an unmarked car, police radio, handi-talkie, 

and mobile data terminal. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 65

Criminal Justice-Victim Services Partnership Changes

The Arrest Policies Program required criminal justice agencies to partner with local non -

profit, non -governmental victim service providers to encourage development of coordinated 

community responses. At many sites, communication and cooperation increased between 

criminal justice agencies and community organizations. Police officers, victim witness 

assistance staff, prosecutors, probation officers, and advocates began to discuss individual cases 

and brainstorm ways to make victims safe. Much of the impetus for these changes came from 

the Arrest Policies Program grant requirements. At the same time, the degree to which 

collaboration o ccurred was often dependent on the history of interagency relations and individual 

personalities. 

Findings on the influence of the Arrest Policies Program on the nature and strength of 

these partnerships were well documented in the evaluation. To assess these partnerships, ILJ 

staff distributed a brief survey to key agency and community-based organization personnel at all 

sites. A copy of the survey instrument is contained in Appendix C. The sections that follow 

discuss changes in interagency coordination that resulted from the grant program, along with 

assessments of how and why changes did or did not occur.

Key factors included planning processes, agency philosophies and roles, and shared 

decisionmaking. 

Partnerships Descriptions

When the Arrest Policies Program began, it did not adequately require grantees to 

document their proposed partnerships, and some of the partnerships were not developed. As 

VAWO gained experience with the grant program, it (a) required memorandums of 

understanding showing agreement among agencies and (b) required that some funds be used to 

support the victim service provider partner. Those requirements sent a message to criminal 

justice grantees that partnerships with community service providers should be taken seriously. 

Criminal justice agency relationships with community partners increased as the program 

evolved, and community partners were more likely to be compensated in the continuation gran ts 

than in the original grants.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 66

Some projects involved a number of system agencies and community service providers, 

while others were limited in both number and involvement of partners. Exhibit lists the lead 

agency, justice system partners, and community partners for each of the 20 projects included in 

the process evaluation component of this study.

Exhibit 4-6: Criminal Justice Agency Grantees and Their Partners 

Lead Agency System Partners Community Partners

POLICE-LED PROJECTS

Eloy Police Department Justice Court (protection orders) Pinal Hispanic Council, Against Abuse

Greenville Police Department Salvation Army (1s t grant), Our House, 

Inc. (2nd grant)

Durham Police Department Coalition for Battered Women

Chicago Heights Police 

Department So uth Suburban Family Shelter

Brockton Police Department Adult Probation Department Family and Community Resources

Jefferson County Police 

Department

Department of Corrections, 

Probation and Parole Center for Women and Families

Austin Police Department County Attorney’s Office, County 

Sheriff’s Office

Legal Aid of Central Texas, Women’s 

Advocacy Project, SafePlace

PROSECUTION-LED PROJECTS

Everett, WA (City Attorney’s 

Office) Everett Police Department Center for Battered Women

Lynchburg, VA 

(Commonwealth’s Attorney’s 

Office)32

Lynchburg Police Department (2nd

grant)

YWCA Domestic Violence Prevention 

Program

Lake County, CA (District 

Attorney’s Office)

Lake County Sheriff’s Department, 

Lake County Probation Department

Sutter Lakeside Community Services, 

Inter-Tribal Council of California 

Marin County, CA (Legal Aid 

of Marin)

Marin County District Attorney’s 

Office (2nd grant)

Marin Abused Women’s Services, Family 

Law Center

Santa Fe, NM (1st Judicial 

District Attorney’s Office) The Crisis Center, Esperanza

Dane County, WI (District 

Attorney’s Office)

Circuit Court, Madison Police 

Department, Dane County Sheriff’s 

Department

Domestic Abuse Intervention Services

Pueblo County, CO 

(10th Judicial DA’s Office) 

Pueblo Police Department, 

Probation Department YWCA Family Crisis Shelter

La Plata County, CO (6th

Judicial DA’s Office) Probation Department Violence Prevention Coalition, Alternative Horizons

Sacramento County, CA 

(District Attorney’s Office) 

Probation Department, “Home” 

Court WEAVE (unfunded)

Shelby County, TN (Pre-Trial 

Services) Prosecutor’s Office Shelby County Victim Assistance Center,YWCA

Queens County, NY (District 

Attorney’s Office)

New York Police Department, 

Probation, Criminal Court

Safe Horizons, Minority Group 

Associates

 

32 Lynchburg’s initial grant included a “cooperation and participation agreement” between nine agencies. In 

practice, only the police department and the non-profit service provider had direct responsibility for the Arrest 

project.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 67

PROBATION-LED PROJECTS

Jackson County Community 

Corrections

Courts, 

District Attorney’s Office Dunn House

Clinton County Department of 

Probation District Attorney’s Office Stop Domestic Violence

Types of Partnerships

Community victim services agencies provided a range of services to Arrest Policies 

Program grantees. In general, relationships between the justice agencies and the community 

victim services agencies at the 20 sites were either 

• Traditional relationships in which the justice agencies referred victims to the 

service providers at a remote location or,

• Newly created arrangements in which service providers were housed at justice 

agencies or worked alongside justice agency staff. 

Co-housing of agencies’ staff generally appeared to increase pro jects’ ability to provide 

victim assistance services efficiently, although at several sites where services were not colocated, mutual referrals between community based service providers and police or prosecutor 

special units were routine. Service providers were much more likely to do this when they 

personally knew the justice agency staff to whom the referral would be made and to whom they 

could explain the seriousness of the referral (including the level of threat involved). Co-housing 

increased the level of familiarity between agencies’ staff. Exhibit 4-7 lists each of the sites by 

type of arrangement with community based service provider.

Exhibit 4-7: Role of Community Service Providers in Arrest Policies Projects

Traditional

Relationships

Integrated Services:

Providers On-Site

Eloy Chicago Heights

Greenville Jefferson County

Durham Brockton

Dane County Austin

Lake County Pueblo County

Marin County La Plata County

Santa Fe County Shelby County

Everett Queens County

Sacramento County Clinton County

Lynchburg Jackson County
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 68

Snapshot: Integrated Services/Providers On -Site: Queens County District 

Attorney’s Office-Victim Services Partnership

In Queens County, the prosecutor’s newly formed domestic violence unit 

was moved from the criminal court building to a modern office a block from the 

courthouse. The co -funded victim services unit was given space in the same suite 

as the prosecutor’s unit. This included a play area for children accompanying 

their parent and an interview room with one-way mirrors to permit observation of 

interviews with children. As a result of the co-location, referrals from assistant 

prosecutors to the victim services staff became quite common, both at the 

courthouse, where one victim services staff member handled intake, and in the 

shared office. The resulting closeness and sense of shared mission also permitted 

victim services staff to alert the prosecutors when a victim was arrested by the 

police on a false complaint from the batterer. 

Prosecutors and victim services staff also worked together on an 

emergency response team that was called out to help with serious domestic 

violence cases. This led to a joint project to work with the emergency room staff 

at the borough’s largest public hospital to identify domestic violence cases at 

hospital intake so victim services staff could provide early services and make sure 

police were notified. Another victim services staff member is co -located with the 

prosecutor’s case intake unit, permitting the staff to telephone victims as soon as 

the case is received to provide immediate services, thus increasing the likelihood 

of victim cooperation with the prosecution.

Snapshot: Traditional Partnership: Dane County Domestic Violence Unit 

and Domestic Abuse Intervention Services (DAIS)

Within the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, the domestic violence 

unit provided both general and child-focused services to domestic violence 

victims. DAIS is the leading domestic violence abuse program in Dane County 

and offers a broader range of services, including a 24 -hour crisis line to legal 

assistance. While there was a long-standing relationship between DAIS and the 

Dane County domestic violence unit, there was no protocol designating the 

automatic referral of victims to DAIS. Rather, referrals were made on an asneeded basis to DAIS by domestic violence unit staff. The primary function of 

DAIS within the Arrest Policies Program was the training of project staff, 

including law enforcement, prosecutors, court personnel, child protective services, 

and emergency health care. Also, the grant created a legal advocacy position at 

DAIS.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 69

Differing Paths to Partnerships

Local partnership arrangements were a reflection of (1) different organizational 

structures, (2) resources of criminal justice and victim services agencies, and (3) the degree to 

which the agencies were already familiar with each other. Prior relationships were particularly 

important; they helped in several ways:

• Early grant planning for interagency coordination 

• Acceptance of differences in agency philosophies and defined roles

• Coordinated implementation as an ongoing process requiring shared 

decisionmaking.

Where a pre-grant relationship existed among key criminal justice and community based 

project personnel, community based organizations usually played a more active role in 

accomplishing project tasks- for example, the CBO provided staff, participated in 

decisionmaking, regularly handled referrals, etc. Other projects established new relationships 

under their grants that appeared to be evolving into stronger roles for victim services 

organizations; however, given the limited time frame of the evaluation, the new relationships 

could not be documented over a long period.

Coordination in Planning 

In general, effective working partnerships were more likely to occur at sites where 

proposal development was a joint effort. Sites that submitted grant proposals demonstrating 

significant input from multiple agencies and service provider partners were those where personal 

relationships among key personnel usually existed prior to the grant. In sites without those preexisting relationships, other structures, such as task forces, helped bring the partners together for 

the grant writing. In a few cases, community task forces played a central role in developing the 

proposal and identifying additional potential partners. 

• Two projects were initiated and co -authored by a police officer and the director of 

a community service provider. In both cases, some level of collaboration between 

police officers and service directors had already been established. In Brockton, 

the service provider had previously worked closely with a police lieutenant to 

provide domestic violence training. In Eloy, the police chief and director of the 

Pinal Hispanic Council worked together to outline the program they wanted and 

worked out the division of labor and funding. Both projects subsequently 

expanded their partnerships beyond the original grant application (probation 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 70

became an active partner in Brockton; the Justice Court was added to the Eloy 

project).

• Several projects were the inspiration of local task forces. For example, in 

Louisville, the Jefferson County Domestic Violence Prevention Coordinating 

Council initiated the grant writing process by requesting a needs assessment, 

which was conducted by the Jefferson County Police Department. The initial 

proposal was written by the county’s grant coordinator, the Director of the Office 

for Women, and members of the Crime Commission. In Austin, the 

Austin/Travis County Family Violence Task Force developed goals and 

objectives and then encouraged the Austin Police Department to submit the initial 

proposal. Both the Jefferson County and Austin grants were ambitious, including 

criminal, civil, and social components. For example, Jefferson County’s project 

included funding for the Exchange Center, a centralized visitation center that 

provided victims with a safe place for their children to meet with the other parent 

for court-ordered visitations.

At some sites, failure to include the service provider partners in the proposal process 

reflected a lack of communication with these agencies. 

• In Greenville and Durham, the Arrest Policies Program proposals were written by 

police staff with limited input from the community.33 These two police-oriented 

projects did not involve a high level of coordination with service providers. For 

the most part, the service providers acted in more of an advisory capacity. They 

assisted in training efforts and worked to develop referrals from the police special 

units, but tended not to be involved in daily operations. Neither of these projects 

expanded their partnerships beyond the original grant. 

• In Lynchburg, the original Arrest Policies Program proposal was initiated by the 

Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. Virtually every aspect was centered on

domestic violence prosecution, supplementing activities and personnel in the 

Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. The Arrest Policies project was not widely 

known in the community—several members of the local domestic violence task 

force were unaware that Lynchburg had received such a grant.

Accepting Differences in Agency Philosophies and Roles

Projects that appeared to have successful operations and “buy-in” from partners were 

characterized by mutual understanding and acceptance of differences in agency philosophies and 

roles. Justice agency victim witness staff often perform a smaller range of tasks within a limited 

 

33 In Greenville, the police department hired an independent consultant to author the proposal. In Durham, the 

non-profit partner was asked for assistance in selecting goals and objectives. In Chicago Heights, the police 

chief wrote the grant in consultation with the local shelter-based organization. The police chief was on the local 

domestic violence task force and earlier, as a state’s attorney, she had served on the board of the local domestic 

violence shelter. As a result, the department’s grant application did include coordination between police 

investigators and court advocates.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 71

time frame, e.g., help victims apply for victim compensation. In contrast, community-based 

service providers and advocates generally perform more tasks over a longer time; their work is 

not case-limited or time-limited. In addition, police or prosecutor victim witness staff cannot 

offer victims promises of confidentiality. Community-based advocates have no such split 

loyalties and in many states, statutory provisions protect victims’ confidentiality.34 

In practice, the reality was much more complex. Where victim witness agency staff were 

lacking, community advocates performed tasks typically assigned to agency staff, such as 

providing help with victim compensation applications. Conversely, at some sites, agency victim 

witness staff provided services and referrals to help victims meet basic needs (e.g., for 

transpo rtation, health care, childcare). At other sites, community based service providers worked 

alongside agency victim witness staff, providing nearly identical services to help meet basic 

needs. (This was most common where the agency victim witness staff had formerly been 

community advocates or service providers. However, community advocates perform work that 

victim witness staff are seldom authorized to do–for example, provide assistance with civil 

remedies, provide long -term counseling, work for criminal justice system reform. Victim 

witness staff and community advocate roles are no t interchangeable in these and other areas.). 

Finally, in one project, the agency’s staff offered confidentiality to victim statements under the 

umbrella of the agency supervisor’s therapist license in a state where there is a therapist-patient 

privilege.35 

Whatever the difficulties of defining organizational roles, the most common barrier to 

interagency cooperation and coordination was the failure of “organizational empathy”one 

agency fails to understand the other agency’s defined role. For example, ad vocates might not 

understand the probable cause requirement for mandatory arrest. Police officers might not 

understand why advocates refuse to tell them what the victim said to them. Further, police and 

prosecutors often have difficulty understanding, unless they have received special domestic 

 

34 These laws typically provide that statements made by a victim to a domestic violence counselor are confidential 

and may not be divulged, even in court proceedings, without the consent of the victim. In addition, the laws 

related to advocate- victim privilege are not designed to cover only counseling. Some (not all) of the statutory 

privileges address communications, identify/address, shelter records, work products, papers, and 

communications with third parties to facilitate the purposes for which the victim sought assistance of the 

advocate. Beyond state codes, funding sources, including VAWO, preclude disclosure of the above.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 72

violence training, why advocates might challenge mandatory arrest and prosecution policies and 

criticize the prosecutor for ignoring the victim’s choice about whether to prosecute.

Sites that developed close working relationships between police officers/prosecutors and 

victim service providers often involved (1) joint multi-disciplinary training and (2) formal 

arrangements for how and when information could be shared. 

Four police-led projects involved community advocates co-housed or working alongside 

police officers or detectives. In Chicago Heights, Brockton, and Austin, outside service 

providers generally did not accompany police officers or detectives to the domestic violence 

scene. In these sites, there was a standard agreement between service providers and police staff. 

Officers and detectives did not have access to service providers’ victim files and advocates did 

not have access to law enforcement automated offense report databases. However, the disclosure 

of incident reports varied—some states consider police reports to be public information. In 

Chicago Heights, community advocates had access to certain police files. In Austin, civilian 

team members, in the presence of police, could review offense reports assigned to the Family 

Violence Protection Team. 

In Jefferson County, community advocates rode with police officers and were essentially 

under the supervision of police staff, but they reported to the local victim shelter. While this 

created some issues over confidentiality, a larger question was raised over supervision and the 

lines of authority between police and advocates. In this case, there was a persistent struggle to 

define the relationship between police officers and advocates.

In terms of prosecution-led projects, the relationships between prosecutors’ offices, 

agency victim witness staff, and community service providers were also complicated. In Queens 

County, the grant-funded victim assistance staff worked side-by-side with prosecutors. Other, 

non-grant funded victim service staff were assigned to work at some of the police precincts or 

walk-in centers near the Family Court. This resulted in a larger borough-wide network of service 

provider-prosecutor communication than would typically occur. To some extent, the fact that 

service providers were able to provide assistance soon after arrest may have resulted in increased 

 

35 The contention at this project is that the agency staff were acting as agents for the therapist/supervisor, similar to 

the relationship between an attorney and an investigator working for the attorney who is covered by the 

attorney’s confidentiality privilege. This interpretation of state law has not been challenged in court.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 73

victim cooperation with the prosecution,36 although this was not an expected work task for the 

advocates. In Sacramento, the prosecutor’s victim witness staff had formerly been with the local 

community -based victim advocate program. This facilitated cross-referrals of victim-clients for 

services, but had little impact on prosecutor decisionmaking. 

Given the many barriers to mutual role understanding and organizational empathy, it is 

not surprising that problems related to this occurred at a number of Arrest Policies Program sites. 

Some example are provided below.

• In Marin County, the role of the victim advocate was unclear from the start. A 

particular point of contention was the provision of court/legal advocacy. In 

particular, the community advocate sometimes acted on behalf of the client as a 

court advocate. In cases where the victim did not wish prosecution to proceed, 

the advocate was in direct conflict with the agency victim witness staff and 

prosecutors from the District Attorney’s office. 

• In Austin, the Family Violence Protection Team struggled to develop a referral 

system that would allow agencies to complement one another. The team also 

realized that the intake process could be streamlined to both improve victims’ 

experiences and ease agency paperwork requirements (the agencies developed a 

standard screening form so that clients need only complete one form). Yet the 

boundaries between short-term assistance (provided by agency victim witness 

staff) and long-term counseling (the domain of SafePlace counselors) were 

sometimes ambiguous, and the roles of staff from the two agencies were an 

ongoing topic of discussion. 

• In Dane County, victim witness specialists had long been an integral part of the 

District Attorney’s Office. The relationship between prosecutors and victim 

witness staff was collegial, and domestic violence prosecutors and victim witness 

staff worked with the community victim services provider to conduct training and 

educational workshops. These relationships endured beyond recent changes in 

the leadership of the District Attorney’s Office, the victim witness unit, and the 

local non-profit organization. Similar long -term relationships between prosecutor 

offices and the community victim advocate agencies were seen in Sacramento and 

Queens counties.

Shared Decisionmaking

In general, project partners expected to be included in some form of decisionmaking, at 

least in regard to the project funded by the Arrest Policies Program. These expectations ranged 

from minimal consultation in future grant applications to participation in strategy meetings to 

 

36 Anecdotal evidence suggested that this occurred. Additional research beyond the scope of this evaluation would 

be needed for verification.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 74

refine the project. As a result, some non -profit organizations that were asked to be a partner on 

the project, but then excluded from policy-oriented activities, were not satisfied with the 

relationship. On the other hand, some community organizations were content with a limited role. 

One reason for these varying responses was that collaboration and equality of 

decisionmaking are difficult in the context of public-private agency collaborations. In the Arrest 

Policies Program, the criminal justice agency was the lead agency and handled the administrative 

and financial aspects of the project. A hierarchy is automatically built into the program, and the 

non-profit partners were aware of this. 

While a number of factors influenced shared decisionmaking, the projects that were most 

promising were those led by managers who sought input from other agencies and then 

incorp orated the input into decisions about project goals and operations. For instance, the Pueblo 

County District Attorney’s Office was particularly open to working with a variety of individuals 

and o rganizations. The high levels of support provided to project staff and the respect given to 

the community victim service provider helped create a positive working relationship. Similarly, 

the Lake County project continued to expand the number of agency partners on the project, 

primarily as a result of the project director’s reputation for working with other agencies and 

involving them in decisionmaking and grant activities. The other extreme can be found in a site 

where the partnership was under tremendous strain in the initial stages and promises were made 

to the community victim service provider that could not be kept.

Summary

This chapter has described changes in criminal justice processes that occurred as a result 

of the Arrest Policies Program grants: processes by which criminal justice agencies responded to 

domestic violence cases, and processes for coordinating those responses with community based 

victim service providers. Based on national survey results and site visits to 20 projects, apparent 

criminal justice system changes are summarized below. 

New or enhanced specialized law enforcement and prosecution units were created to 

arrest and prosecute domestic violence batterers. All but two of the 20 grantees established 

specialized law enforcement or prosecution units (or both, in three sites). Most of the law 

enforcement units were investigative units that handled follow up of serious domestic violence or 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 75

cases where the suspect fled to avoid arrest. Sixteen jurisdictions established new or enhanced 

existing domestic violence victim assistance units. Four projects established multi-agency 

teams, including two projects with a shared facility. 

New court structures or specialized criminal dockets were created to hear domestic 

violence cases. Five projects modified the way the courts assigned domestic violence cases for 

hearings. In three sites, a specialized domestic violence court, or part, was established that heard 

only domestic violence cases. Two smaller sites with “fast track” prosecution projects were 

served by a specialized domestic violence docket established to hear only domestic violence 

cases.

In most sites, Arrest Policies Program grants were not used to fund probation staff.

Probation agencies were eligibly to apply for Arrest Policies Program grants, but most applicants 

were police or probation agencies. Only two of the 20 projects examined were led by probation 

agencies. These sites used their grant funds primarily to establish specialized probation units 

specializing in domestic violence (three other sites also funded probation unit staff). 

Training was part of nearly every Arrest Policies Program grant. Some sites sent 

staff to regional or national conferences, while others collaborated with partners to deliver 

extensive training locally. Most grantees reported that the amount of training devoted to 

domestic violence had increased. Many found it economical, as well as beneficial for 

understanding victim needs and agency roles, to have staff working in specialized units 

participate together in training. In addition, the role of specialized personnel often included 

informal mentoring and tutoring of less experienced staff.

Projects where prosecutors took the initiative to train police and inform them of 

case status reported that the quality of police reports improved. At a number of sites, 

domestic violence prosecutors provided officers with feedback on the quality and content of 

incident reports. Previously, these officers rarely received feedback on reports and were seldom

informed of case disposition. 

Most of the projects examined resulted in improved case handling procedures, 

including increased evidence collection. Case handling by both police and prosecutors was 

dramatically changed. Police improved their handling of evidence of domestic violence, 

including increased use of photographs to document injuries, and better documenting of cases 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 76

through interviewing victims, suspects, and witnesses. The creation of specialized prosecution 

units enabled vertical prosecution, with one prosecutor responsible for all facets of the domestic 

violence case. This resulted in greater consistency in case handling by experienced prosecutors. 

New court units at several sites also provided for enhanced monitoring of defendants to ensure 

attendance at court-ordered batterer intervention programs. Training and new evidence 

collection guidelines contributed to the improved evidence collection. Other advances at various 

sites included the following: 

• Improvements in prosecution’s ability to handle cases based primarily on the 

evidence rather than victim testimony

• Innovations in charging practices and sentencing recommendations

• Greater consistency in sentencing

• Enforcement of release/probation conditions by the court.

The capacity of the sites to provide victim services increased as a result of the Arrest 

Policies Program grants. With respect to victim services, various sites reported the following: 

• Victims/survivors were contacted at earlier stages in the criminal justice process.

• The addition of victim witness specialists and community advocates resulted in an 

increase in the number of victims who were offered services.

• The types of services were expanded, with civil legal assistance becoming a 

component of victim services at two sites.

• Outreach and the hiring of bilingual victim assistance specialists was seen as 

having the potential to improve access to services for victims/survivors from 

underserved communities.

• Referrals increased and the provision of services to victims was more efficient 

when agencies were co -located.

The Arrest Policies projects that were studied showed increased coordination among 

criminal justice agencies, with coordination most common between police and prosecutors. 

Coordination between criminal justice agencies and community-based victim service providers 

also improved. Nearly two -thirds of the lead criminal justice agencies developed partnerships 

with community -based victim service organizations. The remaining projects had at least some 

level of cooperation between criminal justice agencies and community based organizations. Four 

police-led projects had community -based advocates working alongside police or co-housed with 

them. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 77

Effective working partnerships were more likely to occur at sites where proposal writing 

had been a joint effort. Proposals demonstrating significant input from multiple agencies and 

service providers usually came from jurisdictions where personal relationships between key 

personnel had existed prior to the grant. 

Sites that demonstrated close working relationships between police officers/prosecutors 

and victim service providers often involved (1) joint multi-disciplinary training, (2) formal 

arrangements for how and when information could be shared, and (3) project leaders who 

activ ely sought input from other agencies and then incorporated their ideas into project goals and 

operations. The most common barrier to interagency cooperation and coordination was a lack of 

organizational empathy−one agency fails to understand or accept the other agency’s defined role. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 78

Chapter 5 

Impact Evaluation

Six grantees were selected for more intensive evaluation to study the impact of the Arrest 

Policies Program. The first sections of this chapter describe the evaluation strategy, site 

selection, and quantitative and qualitative data sources and analysis methods. Next, an overview 

of the six sites is provided, with a focus on findings related to offender characteristics. The 

chapter then presents findings on the effects of criminal justice agency responses on offender 

accountability, followed by a summary of key points discussed in the chapter. Findings on the 

impact of the grants on victim safety and well being are provided in Chapter 6. 

Evaluation Strategy 

Multiple methods were selected for the evaluation design, which included collection of 

both quantitative and qualitative measures related to (1) criminal justice system changes, (2) 

offender accountability, and (3) victim safety and well being. 

With respect to criminal justice system chang e and offender accountability, the 

evalu ation plan first called for collection of quantitative data on arrests, prosecution filings, 

convictions, and sentences imposed. Diligent efforts were made to obtain these data from key 

criminal justice agencies participating in the local projects. Ultimately, we found that the 

quantity and quality of available data varied widely across the six sites. For example, case 

processing statistics from the prosecutors’ offices were not available at four of the six study sites. 

As a consequence, statistics were not forthcoming from these sites on the number of convictions 

and conviction rates before and during the project period.

To compensate in part for this problem, the evaluators created a database containing data 

from a sample of 1,185 domestic violence cases across the six sites. Before and after data on 

case processing and outcomes, offender characteristics, and other factors were analyzed, as 

explained later in this chapter. However, since it was not possible to establish control groups at 

the six selected sites (see Chapter 1), we had to rely heavily on qualitative methods (e.g., key 

personnel interviews, analysis of police incident reports, and others) to help interpret the official 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 79

statistics and sampled data and determine more specifically what changes occurred and what 

factors influence (or inhibited) the changes. 

The net result is that (1) several significant findings related to offender accountability 

were identified through our comparisons of pre- and post-grant data, but (2) in many instances it 

was not possible to state definitively that the observed changes were a direct result of Arrest 

Policies Program interventions. 

The Arrest Policies Program goal of improved victim safety was even more difficult to

measure. Criminal justice agencies do not maintain official statistics on victim safety. An 

analysis of calls for police service might indicate a reduction in repeat victimization. However, 

fewer calls to police might also mean that victims do not consider police involvement useful, or 

that victims are reluctant to call for fear of retaliation by the batterer. Much more information 

and analysis would have been needed before conclusions could have been drawn from call for 

service data. Moreover, several of the selected jurisdictions did not have computer-assisted 

dispatch systems or call coding schemes that were sophisticated enough to capture data on 

domestic violence victimization. As explained later, only qualitative data (results of focus 

groups and interviews with victims and service providers/advocates) were used to assess how 

well the sites achieved the goal of victim safety.

We also considered methods for measuring the impact of the grant projects on victim 

well-being . The term well-being, as u sed by domestic violence victim advocates, characterizes a 

range of positive outcomes for victims. Often, well being is seen as including safety from harms 

such as assaults, injuries, threats, and harassment. But well being also encompasses outcomes 

such as satisfaction with criminal justice agencies’ handling of the case; financial recovery or 

self-sufficiency; access to support resources and counseling; access to health care; improved 

general health as well as recovery from injuries sustained from battering incidents; access to 

information needed for decisionmaking and an increased capacity for making decisions; 

resolution of problems affecting the care of children; and others. The protocols that guided 

interviews and focus groups with victims of domestic violence included questions about various 

outcomes associated with well being in this broader sense. 

The next sections discuss site selection and provide more detailed information on data 

sources and analysis methods. Briefly, the methodology included the following measures:
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 80

Quantitative

• Collection of summary statistics on law enforcement, prosecution, and victim 

services performance (e.g., arrests, cases filed, victims served)

• Analysis of sampled data for two time periods, 1996 (pre-grant) and 1999 (postgrant)

Qualitative 

• Content analysis of police incident reports prepared before and after grant 

implementation

• Focus groups with key criminal justice agency personnel

• Interviews with victims/survivors 

Site Selection and Local Research Coordinators

ILJ selected six grantees to participate in examining the impact of the Arrest Policies 

Program grants on offender accountability and victim safety and well being. We believed that 

six sites would allow for inclusion of different types of projects and project environments. We 

also determined that six was the maximum number of sites that could be examined in depth 

within the evaluation budget. 

The 20 sites participating in the process evaluation were the starting point for selecting 

the six sites. Criteria had been established earlier in the project to assess each of the 20 projects 

in terms of data availability and access to victims/survivors. Other factors were also considered: 

type of project leadership (e.g., police, prosecutor), focus of the grant-funded efforts, jurisdiction 

size, geographic representation, and access to samples of domestic violence victims who were 

members of racial and ethnic minorities. The final selection of sites was made by the ILJ 

research staff in consultation with members o f the national advisory board, the federal technical 

assistance providers, the National Institute of Justice, and the Violence Against Women Office. 

The sites are identified by the following pseudonyms to honor confidentiality agreements 

and respect the wishes of those who participated in the evaluation. 

• Huerta City

• Lozen County

• Addams County

• Jovita City

• Barnett County 

• Stanton County.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 81

ILJ researchers were assigned to each of the six sites. In addition, ILJ hired a local 

coordinator at each site to help implement the evaluation plan. The local coordinators were 

experienced researchers who also received training specific to this project from ILJ research 

staff. A research protocol was provided to guide the local consultants in supervising the 

collection of agency data, facilitating focus groups, and interviewing victims/survivors. ILJ staff 

closely monitored the work of the local coordinators through site visits as well as regular contact 

via email, phone, fax, and mail. 

Quantitative Measures

As noted earlier, two different approaches were used to collect quantitative data related to 

offender accountability. First, we collected summary statistics on agency performance, such as 

arrests or cases filed by the prosecutor, at every site for a period before and after grant 

implementation. As reflected throughout this chapter, the six sites varied considerably in terms 

of the availability, quality, and level of detail of the statistics provided. Second, we collected and 

analyzed samples of data from two periods in 1996 and 1999 to develop more reliable pre-and 

post-grant data on selected measures. 

Statistics 

Statistics on agency performance pre- and post-grant were collected from criminal justice 

agencies at all six sites. Local coordinators were provided a template for collecting specific data 

pertaining to (1) arrests, (2) prosecutions, (3) criminal case dispositions, (4) sentences, and (5) 

victim services; and statistics on such factors as gender, race/ethnicity, and age of offender were 

recorded. The d ata collection forms were adjusted to allow for site variations in charging codes, 

as well as disposition and sentencing options. Exhibit 5-1 lists the types of summary statistics 

that were requested at each site.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 82

Exhibit 5-1: Types of Summary Statistics 

Incidents and Arrests

Number of domestic violence arrests (at the scene and off-scene)

Number of dual arrests

Arrestee and victim demographics

Level and type of charges

Prosecutions

Number of cases referred to, rejected by, and filed by the 

prosecutor

Cases filed by primary charge (and level of charge)

Offender demographics

Dispositions

Numbers for case dismissals (after filing)

Number of convictions and acquittals

Post-conviction diversion

Conviction sentences

Probation Sentences Number of probationers

Number of revocations

Victim Services Number of referrals for services/number of victims contacted

Number of victims provided services

While the methodology was intended to gather comprehensive and comparable statistics 

from all sites, data availability and reliability varied. For example, only one site could provide 

arrest statistics on domestic violence for years prior to 1996. Since most grantees began 

operations in 1997, this offered just one year of pre-grant data across all sites, although most 

projects were able to provide data for the years 1996 through 1999. Cross-site comparisons were 

also hampered by missing data in records and the lack of automation at all sites (see the section 

on “Overview of the Sites” later in this chapter for mo re details). As a result, we were not able 

to make valid cross-site comparisons from available statistics on the measures of interest. 

Sample Data 

Data Sources and Data Collection Process

To address the problem of inconsistent official data across sites, ILJ selected samples of 

cases from two time periods at all six sites. The sampling plan called for random selection at 

each site of 100 misdemeanor cases from a specified time period in 1996 (pre-grant), and 100 

cases from the same time period in 1999 (post-grant). The cases were to be identified from 

police arrest reports and were restricted to intimate partner violence cases involving a male 

offender and female victim, which provided a focus on the most common form of domestic 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 83

violence. Because not all six sites had specific provisions in the law for designating domestic 

violence as felonies distinct from other felonies, only misdemeanors were included in the 

sample. The selection process also required that each offender be included in the database only 

once.

Although all six sites followed the data collection protocols to the extent possible, 

circumstances at the individual sites led to variations at three sites in how cases were selected: 

• In Huerta City, the small number of cases annually required a change in the 

number of cases sampled to 50 for each year. 

• In Lozen and Stanton Counties, police arrest information was not available, and 

cases had to be selected from prosecutor files. 

After the samples were selected, the local coordinators reviewed criminal justice agency 

case files to determine the case status at each stage of criminal justice processing. Case 

information was recorded in an Access database. 

Data Analysis

While there were minor variations in each of the sites’ databases to reflect local 

differences in charges, disposition codes, and sentencing options, a core set of data elements was 

captured. Information collected included the following:

• Incident date

• Offender and victim demographics

• Use of drugs, alcohol, or weapons by either party

• Primary arrest and filing charges, and level of charge

• Disposition of case and date of disposition

• Sentencing for those convicted

• Probation violations

• Victim contact made by the victim witness unit.

The individual site databases were merged to create a case sample database, which 

served as an important source of quantitative data for the evaluation with respect to offender 

accountability measures. The database was exported into SPSS for quantitative analysis.

Cases were weighted at each site based on the ratio of the sample to the universe for the 

time period of the sample. For example, in Lozen County, all of the cases were selected into the 

sample, resulting in a weight of one for each case. In Jovita City, every third case was selected 

in the specified time period, so each case received a weight a three. The case sample database 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 84

consisted of 1,185 cases total. The weights range from 1 for Barnett, Lozen, and Stanton 

counties, to 5 for Addams County. The weighting procedures gave a weighted total of 2,552 

cases.

Qualitative Data

Qualitative research efforts formed a critical component of the research strategy, helping 

to explain variations in the quantitative data; identify victim and staff perceptions of case 

handling, including improvements and unmet needs; and document the quality of system 

responses. Three qualitative data sources were used: police incident reports, focus groups, and 

interviews with victim/survivors.

Content Analysis of Incident Reports

The content analysis of police inciden t reports had two objectives. The first was to 

identify changes in the quality of police documentation at the sites after grant implementation. . 

Improved police documentation of domestic violence incidents should contribute to better 

prosecutions and increased convictions. The second objective was to aid the researchers in 

making cross-site comparisons of police response practices. However, due to wide variations in 

documentation practices, cross-site analyses of incident reports proved not to be feasible.

Incident reports for the content analysis were drawn from the case samples used to create 

the sample databases at five of the six sites.37 Because of budget and time constraints, half the 

incidents were selected, resulting in content analysis of 50 cases for the pre- grant periods and 50 

cases for the post-grant periods. A standard coding scheme was developed and information was 

recorded in an Access database, which was then exported to SPSS for analysis. Variables 

identified for coding included:

• Length of narrative report

• Inclusion of victim quotes in narrative

• Extensiveness of victim statement and documentation of history of violence

• Documentation of physical environment

• Histories of mental illness

• Victim and offender demeanor

• Injuries to either party

• Presence of children or other witnesses and whether they were interviewed

 

37 In Stanton County, police incident reports were not considered public information and researchers were not 

granted access.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 85

• Provision of medical assistance 

• Safe living arrangements

• Domestic violence assistance referrals to victim.

Focus Groups

ILJ staff and local coordinators conducted focus groups at all six sites. The focus groups 

were designed for several purposes: to gather information on the quality of domestic violence 

responses in each community from a variety of perspectives; to obtain insights into the local 

impact of Arrest Policies Program funding; and to identify areas where participants felt 

improv ements were needed at various stages of case processing and in the overall response to 

victims’ needs.

Focus groups were organized with a number of different groups at each site. Specifically,

an effort was made to conduct focus groups with victims/survivors, law enforcement officers, 

prosecutors, victim assistance providers, and female arrestees. The project plan also encouraged 

the creation of victims/survivor focus groups composed of women representing underserved 

minority communities whenever possible. 

Victim focus group participants were identified through shelters, community support 

groups, and other community based organizations, which provided victims/survivors with 

contact information for the local research coordinator. Flyers were also posted in public places 

requesting participation.

In total, 326 people participated in focus groups across all sites. A breakdown by type of 

group follows:

• 148 victims/survivors in 24 groups

• 73 law enforcement officers, investigators, and supervisors in 11 groups

• 36 prosecutors in 5 groups

• 44 victim services providers in 8 groups 

• 25 female arrestees in 4 groups.

In the two smallest jurisdictions (Huerta City and Lozen County), where there was only 

one prosecutor or victim witness specialist handling domestic violence cases, personal interviews 

were substituted for a focus group. Also, two sites (Lozen and Stanton counties) were unable to 

conduct focus groups of female arrestees. The recruitment of focus group participants was 

largely dependent on personal contacts with agency staff and community organizations. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 86

Consequently, focus group participants cannot be considered representative of any larger 

population. The use of agency staff to help identify possible focus group participants and contact 

them to ask for participation was needed to protect victim safety.

Victims/Survivors Interviews

In-depth personal interviews were conducted with domestic violence victims/survivors to 

(1) learn more ab out victim experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response, 

and (2) obtain victim perceptions about how the arrest and/or prosecution of their batterers 

affected their safety and well-being.

The evaluation design called for completion of 30 interviews with victims/survivors at 

each site. Fifteen of these 30 women were to be selected to participate in a “long version” of the 

interview. These women would have experienced the arrest and prosecution of their batterers. 

The additional 15 women were to be selected for a “short version” of the interview. In these 

cases, the batterer would have been arrested, but the case would have been declined for 

prosecution or dismissed initially by the prosecutor. With the level of prosecutorial effort as the 

primary difference between the two groups, the researchers sought to explore the effect of the 

prosecution on the victims’ safety and well-being. 

The recruitment of victims/survivors for interviews was challenging at all sites. The key 

variable—prosecution effort—required that victims/survivors be first identified from 

prosecutor’s files. In addition, the cases selected had to be closed to assure prosecutors that the 

interviews would not interfere with any criminal cases. 

With assistance from victim witness staff, local research coordinators used a variety of 

techniques to recruit victims/survivors. Across sites, the greatest difficulty was locating, 

contacting, and recruiting victims whose cases had not been fully prosecuted. As might be 

expected based on prior research involving victims of domestic violence, attempts to locate 

correct addresses or phone numbers were not always successful. Because of these problems, 

local coordinators were not always able to obtain the desired number of victims for interviews. 

Despite recruitment difficulties, a total of 81 interviews were conducted across the six 

sites, with the number of victim interviews at a single site ranging from 1 to 30. Each interview 

was conducted using a structured questionnaire that included both closed - and open-ended items. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 87

Copies of the interview instrument are included in Appendix D. The “long interviews” with 

women whose cases had been prosecuted lasted approximately 90 minutes and consisted of 86 

multi-item questions covering a wide range of topics, including the following: 

• Severity and history of domestic violence 

• Social support networks 

• Perceptions of police response 

• Satisfaction with the criminal justice process and the sentence

• Experiences in court 

• Satisfaction with prosecutors, victim services providers/advocates and probation 

officers. 

The closed-ended interview responses were coded for analysis using SPSS. Responses to openended items, as well as additional remarks, were entered into a narrative document for review 

and analysis. 

Inconsistencies in selection methods, recruitment difficulties, the lack of a complete list 

of victims, and the low number of completed interviews produced a non-representative sample. 

Therefore, findings cannot be generalized to other victims served by the Arrest Policies Program 

projects or the broader population of victims/survivors. Nevertheless, the interviews provided 

rich, interesting, and often eloquent views of domestic violence victims’ experiences in the 

criminal justice system. 

Overview of the Sites 

This section provides background information on the incidence of domestic violence 

cases at the six sites; findings on offender characteristics; and information on differences among 

the sites in local charging practices.

Domestic Violence Indicators

The most reliable agency statistics on domestic violence incidents at each site tended to 

be either for arrest or prosecution (only one site could provide both arrest and prosecution data). 

Data availability was related to the type o f local agency administering the Arrest Policies 

Program project. For example, three of the projects administered by prosecutors (Barnett, 

Stanton, and Lozen Counties) could not provide the number of domestic violence police calls for 

service or arrests. One obstacle was that police did not have a separate database code for 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 88

“domestic violence” arrests; an assault occurring in the context of a domestic relationship could 

not be distinguished from other assaults.38 Two of the police-led sites (Huerta City, Jovita City), 

which had law enforcement data, could not provide data on prosecution filings or convictions; 

the prosecutors’ offices serving those jurisdictions were somewhat reluctant to participate in this 

evaluation. The number of years for which data was available also varied across sites. In both 

Stanton and Barnett counties, data was available for a two -year period only.

Local Program Focuses

Based on interviews and focus groups conducted during the evaluation, a synopsis of 

agency involvement at each site follows.

• In both Huerta City and Jovita City, Arrest Policies Program grant resources were 

directed at improving law enforcement’s ability to follow up on domestic violence 

cases.39 However, in both cities, policing efforts under the grants received limited 

support from local prosecutors. 

• In Addams County, local law enforcement had a long history of being proactive in 

domestic violence cases, and the Arrest Policies Program grant was used to 

enhance specialized prosecution.40 However, those convicted of domestic 

violence offenses were seldom subjected to court or probation d epartment 

supervision. 

• In Barnett County, pre-trial services worked to improve the assessment and 

sentencing recommendation process, and designated prosecutors were assigned to 

domestic violence cases. A domestic violence court provided some level of 

offender oversight.41 

• In Stanton County, the Arrest Policies Program focused on misdemeanor 

prosecutions.42 Judicial oversight of offenders was strong, and coordination 

between law enforcement and prosecution improved.

• In Lozen County, the District Attorney’s Office formed the cornerstone of the 

county’s domestic violence response, which involved active participation from 

law enforcement and probation. In Lozen County, grant funds created new 

positions at the sheriffs office, the prosecutor’s office, and the probation office to 

 

38 Lozen County did have a specific domestic violence charge code, however, the law enforcement agencies did 

not have data for any years prior to the current year.

39 In Huerta City, a domestic violence detective followed up on incidents; in Jovita City, a team of eight detectives 

followed up on domestic violence incidents that did not result in an arrest at the scene.

40 The Arrest Policies Program added three domestic violence prosecutors, bringing the total number of domestic 

violence prosecutors to five.

41 Funds were used to develop an assessment center and hire a supervising prosecutor for the domestic violence 

unit.

42

 The county had eight prosecutors handling domestic violence misdemeanors.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 89

increase the level of cooperation between the different agencies and improve the 

county’s response to domestic violence.

Charging Practices

Statistics on domestic violence will be affected by state law definitions of domestic 

violence. Accordingly, charging practices varied across the six sites. For instance, in Stanton 

County, 24 different offense codes were listed under misdemeanor crimes filed by the 

prosecutor’s domestic violence unit. In other states, laws are more restrictive and prosecutors 

seldom file non -assault charges on domestic violence cases. 

Depending on the site, either the sample data or the summary statistics were used to 

document the primary charge on which the prosecutor filed charges. Summary statistics are 

reported here for Lozen and Stanton counties. However, prosecution charges were either not 

available or the summary statistics were unreliable in the other four sites and the sampled data 

was used instead. Exhibit 5-2 shows the primary prosecution charges in the six sites. The 

general types of charges listed in the Exhibit should be interpreted as follows: 

• Assault/battery includes physical violence and very often, injury to t he victim. 

• Disorderly conduct encompasses not only disorderly conduct charges, but crimes 

such as vandalism, criminal mischief, and public order crimes, all of which are 

considered domestic violence charges in some states.

• “Other” refers to a variety of non -assault charges, such as criminal damage to 

property, contempt, and criminal trespass. 

Exhibit 5-2: Primary Charges Issued by Prosecutors’ Offices for 1999

Charge

Huerta 

City

Addams 

County

Jovita

City

Lozen 

County

Barnett 

County

Stanton 

County

Assault/Battery 68% 24% 98% 75% 99% 69%

Disorderly conduct 18% 39% 0% 0% 0% 9%

Other non-assault 14% 37% 2% 25% 1% 22%

50 cases 

sampled

99 cases 

sampled

100 cases 

sampled

274 

cases*

155 cases 

sampled

3,687

cases*

* This number represents all cases at this site during 1999

The summary of primary charges shows that in two sites—Jovita City and Barnett 

County—at least 98 percent of prosecutor filings were assault cases. In three of the other sites 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 90

(Huerta City, Lozen and Stanton Counties), assault charges comprise at least two-thirds of the 

cases. In Addams County, the majority of domestic violence crimes were filed as disorderly 

conduct or other non-assault charges, with only 24 percent filed as assault charges. This 

variance in charges was consistent with the levels of injury to the victim as documented in the 

sampled data. For instance, the sample of cases from Addams County indicated that an injury to 

the victim occurred in 38 percent of the cases, while the other five sites recorded victim injuries 

in 63 to 71 percent of the cases analyzed.

Statistics on dual arrests were collected at four sites. Dual arrest rates ranged from 6 

percent in Addams County to 12 percent in Huerta City. These rates are relatively low. For 

example, a review of statistics in pro -arrest jurisdictions by Jones and Belknap (1999) found dual 

arrest rates ranging from as high as 50 percent to 1 percent (in a department with intensive 

training to help officers avoid arresting both parties). In terms of women arrested or prosecuted 

on domestic violence charges, Lozen County reported a low percentage of women being 

prosecuted- 10 percent of case referrals- while the highest percentages of women arrested on 

domestic violence charges were in Addams County and Jovita City (20 and 19 percent, 

respectively). 

Characteristics of Arrestees

In the four urban sites, African Americans were arrested or prosecuted for domestic 

violence in disproportion to their presence in the population. This was not as noticeable with 

Hispanic domestic violence offenders.43 Exhibit 5-3 shows the percentages for racial/ethnic 

background for these urban sites, according to available summary statistics from the sites.

 

43 Compare California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California 

1998 (1991) that reported that Blacks had the highest rate of arrests (447.6 arrests per 100,000 population, 

followed by Hispanics (230.2 per 100,000), followed by Whites (no data). Accordingly, charging practices 

varied across the six sites.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 91

Exhibit 5-3: Racial/Ethnic Background of Domestic Violence Arrestees for 199944 

(Urban Sites)

Arrest Data Prosecution Data

Race/Ethnic 

Background of 

Arrestees

Addams County 

(intimate partner 

arrests)

Jovita 

City

(arrests)

Barnett County 

(arraignments)

Stanton County 

(intimate partner 

misdemeanors)

White 62% 29% 19% 18%

African 

American 33% 28% 81% 33%

Hispanic 3% 42% — 31%

Other 2% 1% — 18%

Sample 2,298 cases 3,829 cases 4,171 cases 3,687 cases 

These statistics by race/ethnicity were compared to city and county data, using 2000 

Census Bureau statistics:

• In Addams County, African Americans comprised one-third of intimate partner 

domestic violence arrests, but just 4 percent of the county’s population.

• In Jovita City, African Americans comprised 28 percent of domestic violence 

arrestees, but just 10 percent of the population. Hispanics comprised 31 percent 

of the population, and made up 42 percent of the domestic violence arrests.

• In Barnett County, 81 percent of those arraigned on domestic violence charges 

were African American, while the county’s population is 48 percent African 

American.

• In Stanton County, one-third of the intimate partner case filings included an 

African American defendant, while African Americans comprise 19 percent of the 

county’s population. Approximately 31 percent of domestic violence offenders 

were identified as Hispanic, while Hispanics made up 25 percent of the county’s 

population.

These findings are consistent with other studies that have found high percentages of 

racial or ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, arrested for domestic violence 

compared to their representation in the general population. Recently, NIJ and VAWO have 

begun to focus greater attention on this issue by sponsoring related research and discussion 

forums. Research issues include a need to examine the correlation between race, class, and 

individual characteristics and the rates at which domestic violence occurs or is reported to 

 

44 In Addams County, data for 1998 was used.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 92

police.45 This evaluation did not collect data that would shed light on those issues (e.g., offender 

or victim income levels or employment status). However, we did explore whether there were 

any changes in arrests by race/ethnicity pre-and post-grant based on the sampled data. Our 

analysis showed virtually the same distribution of white, African American, and Hispanic 

persons arrested pre- and post-grant (see Exhibit 5-4 below).

Exhibit 5-4: Domestic Violence Arrestees by Race/Ethnicity

(Weighted n=2,509 cases)

Pre-Grant

 (1996)

Post-Grant

 (1999)*

White 39.5% 37.0%

African American 34.1 36.2

Hispanic 23.7 24.6

Other 2.7 2.2

Source: Sampled data

The sample data was also used to calculate the median age of offenders. While most 

offenders were in their early 30s, white batterers tended to be older than minority batterers (35.5 

years of age versus 31.5 years). 

Program Impacts on Offender Accountability

The Arrest Policies Program anticipates that batterers’ arrests and other criminal justice 

system interventions will increase offender accountability. This section provides findings at the 

six sites in terms of arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and oversight of offenders. 

The criminal justice response begins with a report of an incident. Decisions are then 

made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges to determine the likelihood that offenders will 

be held accountable for their crimes. There are several key questions related to the 

decisionmaking process:

• Will reporting a domestic violence incident to law enforcement lead to an arrest?

• If an arrest is made or the victim complains directly to the prosecutor, will the 

prosecutor file charges? 

 

45 See for example, Rinku Sen, 1999, “Between a Rock & a Hard Place: Domestic Violence in Communities of 

Color,” ColorLines Magazine, published by the Applied Research Center and available at 

www.arc.org/C_Lines.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 93

• Will prosecution of the case be pursued?

• Will the offender be convicted?

• What sentence will be imposed?

• If the sentence includes treatment, will the offender be monitored to ensure 

compliance?

To answer these questions and assess the impact on offender accountability, ILJ used 

both the database of sampled cases and available summary statistics from the six sites. Results 

are supported through the aid of qualitative observational and interview/focus group information. 

Arrest Policies and Trends

The evaluation found that: 

Adoption of preferred or mandatory domestic violence arrest policies, or new 

domestic violence law enforcement initiatives, corresponded with an increase 

in law enforcement arrests or referrals to prosecutors across all sites. These 

increases eventually stabilized. Some gaps in the law enforcement response 

existed with respect to cases where the suspect fled the scene and in the

enforcement of protection orders.

Three of the sites specifically funded law enforcement activities through their Arrest 

Policies Program grants −Huerta City, Jovita City, and Lozen County. At Stanton and Barnett 

counties, useable arrest data were not available. In Addams County, mandatory arrest polices 

were well-established and the number of arrests remained steady over time. A closer look at 

arrest trends in three of the projects shows the following:

• Huerta City−there was an initial increase in the number of intimate partner 

domestic violence arrests, but arrests later declined to pre-grant levels. The 

number of intimate partner domestic violence arrests ranged from 110 in 1995 to 

a high of 126 in 1997. The number of arrests declined to 99 in 1998 and rose 

slightly to 105 in 1999.

• Jovita City−the number of domestic violence arrests increased steadily from 1996 

to 1998 and then decreased slightly in 1999. The police department recorded 

3,108 domestic violence arrests in 1996 and 4,132 in 1998, a 33 percent increase. 

Domestic violence arrests were 3,981 in 1999, a decrease of 3.7 percent over 

1998. 

• Lozen County−the number of domestic violence referrals to prosecution 

dramatically increased from 162 in 1996 to 387 in 1997, a 139 percent increase. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 94

These data suggest that the creation of new domestic violence arrest policies or domestic 

violence initiatives results in an initial increase in arrests, with the number of arrests peaking and 

then leveling off. Increases in arrest are likely due to the new or urgent management emphasis 

on domestic violence. 

The fact that the increases in arrests peaked and leveled off is not unusual. First, the raw 

numbers of reported domestic violence incidents are not likely to continue to rise. As officers 

are trained to recognize domestic violence and adapt to the mandatory/preferred domestic 

violence arrest policies, the number of arrests are likely to normalize over time. Second, police 

officers interviewed in Jovita City and Huerta City indicated that the leveling off in arrests might 

be indicative of frustrations with what they perceived as a lack of support from the rest of the 

criminal justice system. Related comments from officer interviews included the following: 

Initially, when the laws first came out, it was very serious. Somebody had 

to go to jail. Now over the years, maybe because of the frustrations over 

enforcing [domestic violence] laws, why make the effort? The offender 

gets released; the prosecutors don’t enforce any kind of mandatory

minimum sentencing. The courts don’t take it seriously. It’s gone back in 

the other direction. (Huerta City police officer)

When the laws first changed, there was always an arrest. Now the victims 

say, “why bother?” So it gets real frustrating for the officer, too. We now 

have to make an evaluation. Then we’ll see how the situation is. (Jovita 

police officer)

At each site, ILJ also examined arrests based on warrants. This was of interest b ecause in 

many situations, persons suspected of domestic violence flee before the police arrive and are not 

arrested. The jurisdictions had differing policies about when police should seek arrest warrants 

or how those warrants should be served upon domestic violence batterers. 

ILJ’s analysis of the sample data found that the proportion of warrant arrests of domestic 

violence suspects increased from an average across all sites of 4.1 percent of all arrests prior to 

the Arrest Policies Program grants to 15.5 percent during the grant period. This suggests a 

change on the part of law enforcement in procedures for arresting batterers.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 95

Gaps in Law Enforcement’s Response to Domestic Violence 

While most police officers made domestic violence arrests based on p referred/mandatory 

policies, the following two situations were reported by victims and victim advocates with enough 

frequency to suggest trends:

• A significant number of victims and victim service providers reported that while 

domestic batterers were likely to be arrested at the scene, there was limited patrol 

officer (first responder) follow-up when the suspect had fled the scene.

• These reporters also believed that police officers could have made more extensive 

efforts to enforce protection o rders.

At-Large Domestic Violence Suspects

Across sites, there were complaints from service providers/advocates and 

victims/survivors that patrol officers (first responders) did not make sufficient efforts to find 

suspected batterers who had fled the scene. First-responding officers at the focus groups 

confirmed this problem. For instance, a patrol officer in Barnett County noted, “If the suspect is 

gone and it is a misdemeanor, you don’t go looking for him.” Most patrol officers did not feel it 

was their job to locate suspects and did not believe they had to do so because of their call 

handling responsibilities. ILJ’s evaluation found that two factors affected the likelihood that atlarge suspects would be apprehended:

• Suspects who fled the scene were unlikely to be immediately arrested for the 

domestic assault unless the police department had a sufficient staff of specialized 

domestic violence detectives (although the victim could swear out a warrant for 

arrest). 

• Rural police departments were in a better position than urban departments to 

locate domestic violence suspects who had fled and follow-up with victims.

Mandatory and preferred arrest laws are often circumscribed by time limitations. For 

example, a domestic violence arrest in Barnett County can be made if the suspect is still at the 

scene. If the suspect has fled, the victim must appear in court to request a warrant. Even if a 

warrant is granted, police departments are not likely to actively pursue at-large suspects. In fact, 

ILJ found that some police departments could not even identify warrants taken out for domestic 

violence offenses. For example, the investigator in Lozen County noted that the only way to 

identify domestic violence-related warrants was to manually sort through outstanding warrants. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 96

None of the six sites could provide data on the number of domestic violence arrest warrants 

issued and served.

Some domestic violence victims/survivors reported that patrol officers did not take the 

time to track suspects who fled and did not always make arrests when suspects were later found. 

The comments below were made by victims/survivors in Addams County, where the urban 

police department does not have designated investigators to follow up on domestic violence 

cases. 

The police came, but by then my husband had left to cool off. The police 

would have arrested him if he had been there, but because he had left, the 

police said that it was “null and void.” They did find him and explained 

that he should just keep separated from me for eight hours. 

He had left before they arrived and the police informed me that they 

would follow up on the abuse and just to “leave it at that.” I later 

contacted them to find out what happened and was told that the case had 

been stamped closed and there was nothing else to do .

He came over to where I was staying in the middle of the night with a gun 

and tried to break in. Not having a phone, we hollered for the neighbors to 

call the police, but by the time the police arrived, he had run. The police 

told us if no one was hurt, there was really nothing they could do, but that 

if he should come back to call. 

In general, where police departments did not have specialized domestic violence 

resources (e.g., detective units), there was little likelihood that efforts would be made to locate 

and apprehend suspects who fled. No jurisdiction had a policy of requiring officers to seek arrest 

warrants for fleeing suspects, and lack of staff resources often limited the opportunities for the 

original responding officers to return at a later time to see if the suspect had returned. The 

detective units at the six sites generally focused on felony offenses, and could not devote special 

resources to domestic violence.46

A victim/survivor in Lozen County, which had a specialized domestic violence detective 

(grant funded), said, “I want to point out that the detective called me three to four weeks later, 

just to check on me and see how I was doing. I was surprised and thought it was dear and nice 

 

46 While in theory victims can go to court and seek arrest warrants against their abusers when police fail to arrest, 

this was rarely done. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 97

that he did so.” In Huerta City, one of two rural projects, comments from three different 

victims/survivors noted a change in police response:

Now the police come and check up on you—stop by the house. Not to be 

nosey, but to help. 

I see changes in the last year. Cops would check with a spotlight around 

the house. 

Things have gotten better. The police come to my house and check or call 

and let me know if they’ve picked him up or if they found him.

As the police in Huerta City noted, in rural areas, there are fewer places for suspects to 

flee and law enforcement is often familiar with the habits of repeat offenders. When the location 

of the domestic violence is also the suspect’s home, the suspect may return within a short period 

of time. Thus, follow-up by patrol or specialized unit officers can usually result in an arrest, 

unless there are time limitations on warrantless arrests.47

Enforcement of Protection Orders

Victims/survivors and service providers/advocates consistently reported that protection 

orders were not being consistently enforced by police agencies. Upon closer examination, the 

issue of protection orders was complex and two issues stood out:

• Police officers expressed reservations and frustrations with enforcing protection 

orders.

• The lack of enforcement led victims/survivors and service providers/advocates to 

believe that protection orders were not an effective safety measure.

Data on protection order violations was complicated at several sites. For instance, in 

Stanton County, a state code charge is “offenses related to judiciary,” wh ich also includes 

contempt and violations of various non-domestic violence court orders. The other sites were 

able to provide some data on protection order violations. Of those, Lozen County was the only 

project that reported a relatively high percentage of protection order violations (based on primary 

charges filed by the prosecutor)−17 percent of domestic violence cases in 1999. In contrast, 

Addams County police identified a protection order violation as a primary charge in 6 percent of 

 

47 Less than a dozen states establish time limitations upon the authority of a law enforcement officer to make a 

warrantless arrest based on probably cause. In the majority of states, therefore, law enforcement agencies have 

discretion to set their own policy on how long probable cause to arrest lasts. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 98

the cases; and in Jovita City, Huerta City, and Barnett County, charges on protection order 

violations accounted for less than 1 percent of domestic violence arrests. In these four 

jurisdictions, arrests are not often made where a violation of court orders is the primary charge, 

although it is possible that such arrests are made as a second charge along with a domestic 

violence assault charge.

Victims/survivors discussed their experiences in regard to protection orders, with typical 

comments as follows:

He would still call and harass me. I tried a restraining order, but when he 

would violate it, he would calm down and by the time the police came, he 

agreed to leave and promised police he wouldn’t bother me anymore. 

(Addams County victim/survivor)

Police should serve orders more quickly. I had an order issued in 1999 

and served in August 2000. (Lozen County victim/survivor)

We need a system set up so that police have immediate access to up-todate restraining order information. It can be difficult for a victim to 

understand the process or keep copies, so the system needs to be proactive. 

(Lozen County victim/survivor)

He pled guilty and I got a one-year order of protection. He’s not in a 

program anymore and he kept harassing me. I called the police and told 

them that he was violating the order of protection. They told me they 

couldn’t find him, although I knew and told them where he lived. (Stanton 

County victim/survivor)

Restraining orders do nothing. He can be right outside your door and you 

call the police and if they do come, my guy just says he was visiting 

someone nearby; or if they follow you to the grocery store, they have 

every right to be in the store, too. It don’t help. The abuser doesn’t have 

fear of a restraining order. (Addams County victim/survivor)

My experience with the women is calling the police and then the police 

not doing anything. A lot of the women, when I ask if they want a

restraining order will reply, ‘No, it’s a waste of time to even do one if it’s 

not going to be followed through on. Why even do it?’ (Addams County 

community advocate)

Police officers in their focus groups said they believed it is possible for victims to 

manipulate the integrity of the orders of protection, and that consequently, officers were 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 99

frustrated with what they perceive as “orders of convenience.” Candid remarks by police 

officers in their discussion of protection order laws were as follows:

It’s not fair to the defendant because it’s not right for the plaintiff to be 

harassing the defendant and the defendant to try his best to avoid this 

person. The wife gets mad on Monday, puts an order of protection on 

them on Tuesday, and by Friday she’s calling him because it’s pay day 

and bills need to be paid. Friday night she’s calling the police department 

because he’s now drunk or something, and that’s where the order of 

protection is frustrating. (Huerta City police officer)

It’s not okay for him to be around, but she can still keep calling and 

contacting the defendant without being in violation. Why even issue an 

order if it doesn’t apply to both parties? It’s only when it’s convenient for 

the plaintiff that there’s no contact between the parties. I don’t know why 

that changed in law, but that is really frustrating when an injunction is 

issued. (Addams County police officer)

Even in cases where police officers were enforcing protection order violations, many felt 

that police actions were not always being supported by prosecutors or judges. A police officer 

said, “I dare any judge in this county to say they would vig orously prosecute violations of 

restraining orders.” Some officers feared that protection orders were almost endangering victims 

by giving them a false sense of security.

There were signs of recent improvements in a number of jurisdictions. A victim/surv ivor 

in Lozen County commented, “The police got information faxed over from the courthouse 

regarding the terms of the order and gave me a copy of the new terms.” In Stanton County, a 

criminal court order of protection (“stay-away order”) is routinely issu ed at both pretrial release 

and sentencing hearings. In that county, the prosecutor can call upon a specialized domestic 

violence unit to make unannounced house calls to see if the order is being obeyed.

Prosecution Efforts 

Domestic violence batterers enter the criminal justice system by being arrested. 

Following arrest, there are several key prosecution issues that determine whether the accused 

will be prosecuted and convicted. First, prosecutors must weigh the case merits and quality of 

evidence to d etermine whether charges should be filed. Second, prosecutors determine the 

specific charges to be filed and what sanctions will be sought. These latter decisions are 

influenced by a number of factors, such as flexibility in state laws, availability of sentencing 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 100

options, mode of defense attorney participation (e.g., receptive to plea bargaining), and judicial 

sentencing preferences. Several findings stand out as a result of the evalu ation:

• Prosecutors file on a high percentage of domestic violence charg es.

• Prosecutors reduced dismissals of domestic violence case filings.

• Limited case screening was conducted by prosecutors’ offices. Most prosecutors’ 

offices filed charges on nearly all domestic violence arrests. 

• Charging practices were influenced by the flexibility of the state code and 

reflected agency philosophies and policies. 

Most of the results presented in this section on prosecution efforts were derived from the 

sampled data obtained at the six sites. As previously mentioned, the decision to obtain a sample 

of data was due to the fact that case processing statistics were not available at four of the sites. 

Even in obtaining a sample of data, some problems were encountered because certain data were 

simply unavailable in the case files. Nevertheless, the evaluation team was able to make several 

conclusions, as described below, which reflected the experiences of the sites.

Filing Decisions and Case Screening

While most prosecutors’ offices could supply information on domestic violence cases 

filed, they did not document the number of domestic violence referrals in which no charges were 

filed. Filing rates were not available in Stanton County at all;48 and the only site able to provide 

statistics for both referrals and filing was Lozen County. For the remaining four sites, the sample 

data was used to determine filing charges, and the resulting figures were validated by local 

project staff. Exhibit 5-5 shows the filing rates for five sites. 

Nearly all cases were filed as misdemeanors. However, the Addams County District 

Attorney’s Office had the option of filing charges on municipal ordinances, rather than state 

criminal code, and did so in 8 percent of the cases sampled in 1999. 

 

48 The Stanton County prosecutor used a different definition of domestic violence for purposes of assigning cases 

to the specialized domestic violence unit than was used by the police department in its reporting. Hence, the 

two statistics on domestic violence were not comparable.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 101

Exhibit 5-5: Prosecution Filing Rates by Site, 1999

Site

Cases

Referred

Cases

Filed

Filing

Percentage

Huerta City 50 50 100

Jovita City 100 91 91

Addams County 102 99 97

Barnett County 155 155 100

Stanton County N/A N/A N/A49

Lozen County 359* 274 76

* Data was readily available in Lozen County for all 1999 cases.

High filing rates by prosecutors may have been partly attributable to well-documented 

incident and arrest reports submitted by police. For example, in Addams County, 5 to 6 page 

police report narratives were the norm. However, we also considered to the extent to which 

cases were carefully screened and the effect of careful screening on filing rates. There appeared 

to be little effort devoted to screening cases as they were referred for prosecution in Barnett 

County and Huerta City, where filing rates were found to be over 98 percent; and the Jovita City 

prosecutor’s case screening unit dropped only 9 percent of all domestic violence cases brought 

by the police. 

Lozen County presents an interesting example of how a grant supported prosecutor 

provided feedback to police to ultimately improve evidence gathering and documentation to 

upgrade case quality. From 1996 to 1999, the number of domestic violence cases referred for 

prosecution increased 121 percent from 162 to 359 cases. In 1996, 60 percent of the referrals 

were accepted for prosecution. In 1999, after the assignment of a prosecutor dedicated to 

domestic violence cases, the filing rate rose to 76 percent. In Lozen County, the domestic 

violence prosecutor, who worked closely with law enforcement, created a checklist for officers 

and deputies to ensure proper documentation of domestic violence cases. While this improved 

the quality of cases, the prosecutor also diligently screened referrals, declining to file charges in 

nearly one of every four cases. 

We can draw only limited conclusions related to case screening based on the data 

collected and analyzed for this evaluation. For example, despite high filing rates overall, 

 

49 Stanton County prosecutors estimated the filing rates between 95 and 99 percent because misdemeanor cases 

receive only minimal screening to see that the police report and victim complaint allege a criminal offense.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 102

analysis of the sampled data shows that the percentage of cases resulting in dismissals was 31.3 

percent b efore the grant period, compared to 25.5 percent after the grant period. However, issues 

related to case screening and the quality of cases prosecuted were raised during interviews and 

focus groups by prosecutors, police, and v ictims/survivors (see Chapter 7, “Research 

Recommendations”). These included difficulties in determining probable cause for arrest and 

identifying primary aggressors. 

Charging Practices 

Prosecution charging practices are affected by state law differences in defining domestic 

violence crimes and the priorities and philosophy of the prosecutors’ offices. In states where 

physical injury is required under domestic violence statutes, there is little variation in charging. 

For example, in Jovita City and Barnett County, it appeared that over 98 percent of persons 

arrested for domestic violence were charged with assault.50 Other state domestic violence 

statutes, however, may allow more flexibility in charging under the state’s domestic violence 

crime law. Two of the six sites, where the prosecutor’s office was the lead agency on the grants, 

revised charging practices, primarily due to increased attention given domestic violence in the 

Arrest Policies Program.

• In Lozen County, there was a significant change in charging from the pre-grant 

period to the post-grant period. According to the sampled data, the percentage of 

domestic violence offenders charged with “general battery” rose from 2 to 24 

percent. The prosecutor explained that under this section of the criminal code, the 

crime was easier to prove, while still requiring the batterer to participate in 

batterer intervention programs and prohibiting possession of firearms. The 

criminal code does not require a cohabiting relationship and visible injury for 

general battery, whereas it would for the charge of injury on a spouse (or 

cohabitant).

• In Addams County, sampled data showed that prosecutors were less willing to 

lower charging levels in the post-grant period. In 1996, nearly 20 percent of 

domestic violence cases were reduced to a municipal violation or lesser 

misd emeanor compared to 3 percent in 1999.

Conviction and Sentencing 

Conviction and sentencing of batterers is not a simple, straightforward process. It 

involves a variety of alternative sanctions and conditional discharges that complicate matters. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 103

Sentencing tended to be based on local resources, judicial preferences, and prosecution requests, 

which varied considerably by jurisdiction. Key findings from this study include:

• Grant resources were focused on case screening at Lozen County where the 

conviction rate (80 percent) was considerably higher than at the other five sites.

• Sentencing patterns varied by the availability of alternative sanctions and 

resources to enforce those sanctions; sentencing philosophies were also a key 

influence.

Court Dispositions of Domestic Violence Cases 

Court disposition categories can generally be grouped into four types: (1) criminal 

convictions, including pleas, (2) diversion or deferred prosecution,51 (3) municip al violations, 

and (4) dismissals (or dropped charges). The analysis of the weighted sampled data for 1996 and 

1999 showed that: 

• The percentage of cases resulting in convictions remained constant from pre-grant 

to post-grant periods−61.4 percent in 1996; 60.0 percent in 1999.

• The percentage of cases resulting in some form of diversion increased from 7.2 

percent in 1996 to 14.5 percent in 1999. 52

The sampled data showed that in four of the six sites, there was no significant change in 

the percentage of cases resulting in convictions. In Addams County, the conviction rate actually 

declined over the grant period from 64.1 percent to 57.5 percent. However, there was an 

increase Addams County’s use of a deferred prosecution program, from 3.3 percent to 11.8 

percent. Thus, the combined rate for offender accountability actually rose slightly from 67.4 

percent to 69.3 percent. More importantly, Addams County prosecutors also gained convictions 

at a higher level than the pre-grant period. Prior to the grant, about 20 percent of cases resulted 

in convictions at a lower level than originally charged, as compared to only 3 percent during 

project implementation. Given the lack of case screening in Addams County, there is little 

 

50 It is unclear how cases involving other types of domestic violence were processed. It is possible that those cases 

were prosecuted by assistant district attorneys not assigned to specialized domestic violence units. 

51 There are two distinct types of programs that a defendant may attend, successful completion of which results in 

charges being dropped. These two programs differ primarily in whether a guilty plea is required before entry 

into the program. If no plea is required, the prosecutor will drop charges at program completion. If the program 

is not completed, the prosecutor retains discretion to reinstitute the suspended charges. If a plea is entered, upon 

successful program completion, the prosecutor will move to vacate the plea and droop charges. If the program 

is not completed, the case will be brought up on the court docket for sentencing.

52 Chi-square tests show that this is a significant change over time.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 104

likelihood that this reduction was due to changes in case filing standards rather than new policies 

against downgrading cases after filing.

Stanton was thus the only site to report a significant increase in the conviction rate, as it 

doubled over the grant period. This reflects a change in prosecution policies whereby fewer 

cases were subject to a special procedure allowing Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal 

(ACD); in practice although ACDs involve a conditional case dismissal, they were rarely 

revoked due to subsequent misbehavior by the defendant. Instead, prosecutors were aggressively 

pursuing convictions on misdemeanor charges.

Stanton was also able to provide comparative pre-grant and post-grant about the number

of convictions obtained. Convictions increased from 533 in the six mo nths prior to the grant to 

2,211 convictions during the year 1999 when the grant projects were fully in place, with only a 

slight increase in the number of cases filed.53 One other site, Lozen County, also reported a 

significant increase in the number of convictions obtained (142 percent increase), without any 

change in the conviction rate. And in two of the remaining sites (Barrett and Huerta City) that 

failed to show changes in conviction rates, problems with the quality of the prosecutors’ case 

information system may have obscured real gains in both the number of convictions and the 

conviction rates.

Using ILJ’s sampled data, Exhibit 5-6 shows case dispositions of domestic violence 

crimes charged as misdemeanors in 1999. 

Exhibit 5-6: Dispositions of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Cases, 1999

Impact Site Cases Conviction

Diversion 

or Deferred 

Prosecution

Municipal 

Violation

Dismissed 

or 

Dropped

Unknown 

Outcome

Huerta City 42 43% 17% N/A 4% 36%

Jovita City 78 41% 32% N/A 19% 8%

Addams County 78 60% 13% 6% 21% 0%

Barnett County 148 59% 10% N/A 29% 0%

Stanton County 1,873* 54% N/A N/A 46% 0%

Lozen County 251* 80% N/A N/A 20%** 0%

* Includes all cases for 1999. ** Includes 4 acquittals.

 

53 During the six months prior to the grant, 1,809 cases were filed compared to 3,687 cases filed during the year 

1999.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 105

The conviction rates in Jovita City and Huerta City, 41 and 43 percent respectively, may 

be underestimated because of many missing dispositions (more than one-third missing in Huerta 

City). In these cases, defendants were charged, the cases were listed as over, but no dispositions 

could be found.54 Three sites (Stanton, Barnett, and Addams counties) were found to have 

domestic violence case conviction rates between 54 and 60 percent. In Lozen County, the 

convictoin rate was 80 percent, due in part to its case screening procedures. 

Snapshot: Lozen County’s Conviction Rate

The prosecutor’s statistics in Lozen County showed that the county 

maintained its conviction rate over time during the Arrest Policies Program 

project. What is notable is that there was a dramatic increase in the domestic 

violence arrest filing rate and the number of cases disposed of in that same p eriod. 

Ninety-eight cases were filed in the 1996 pre-grant period (60 percent of those 

referred) and 274 were filed in 1999 during the project (76 percent of those 

referred). Of the 104 cases disposed of in 1996,* 79.8 percent resulted in 

conviction. In 1999, 251 cases were disposed of (142 percent increase in the 

number of dispositions), yet the conviction rate held steady at 80.0 percent. 

Lozen County’s experience illustrates that with a dedicated prosecutor and strong 

feedback to improve local law enforcement’s role, it is possible for a small 

prosecutor’s office to maintain a high level of convictions even when faced with 

considerably more domestic violence cases.

* Note: More cases were disposed in 1996 than were filed because of cases that were filed late 

 in 1995 and disposed in 1996. 

Conviction is not the only disposition with the potential to hold offenders accountable. 

Deferred and diversionary sentences sometimes allow for greater oversight and more stringent 

accountability than the judicial sentence after conviction. The complex nature of dispositions 

and local efforts to impose some form of accountability were demonstrated at two sites.

• In Barnett County, 27 percent of the sampled cases resulted in dismissal. But 

even in these cases, prosecutors made informal arrangements with some 

defendants, so that 40 percent of those who had their cases nol prossed by the 

prosecutor “agreed” to attend some type of treatment program. 55

• In Addams County, the deferred prosecution program, restricted to first-time 

offenders, was used in 13 percent of the domestic violence cases sampled in 1999. 

 

54 In both sites, the prosecutors’ offices were not very supportive of the evaluation.

55 Data were obtained on aggregate case records from the domestic violence unit within the Barnett County 

prosecutor’s office. Defendant compliance rates with treatment agreements is unknown and the legality and 

effectiveness of this practice is unclear.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 106

Local authorities preferred the oversight provided by the deferred prosecution 

program to probation because of the greater supervision it provided.56

Sentencing Patterns

Convicted domestic violence batterers should receive meaningful sentences. In the grant 

programs, and in most jurisdictions, since most domestic violence convictions are misdemeanors, 

the impact of the sentences depends on local resources and the availability of effective treatment. 

Probation is a common sentence for misdemeanants, but there is a significant difference between 

unsupervised probation and supervised probation. The extent to which offenders can be held 

accountable is determined by probation resources and priorities. Also, the quality of batterer 

intervention programs varies widely, so that in some sites, prosecutors and judges may be 

reluctant to assign convicted misdemean ants to the program. 

In Exhibit 5-7, three common types of sentences are compared across sites: jail, 

probation, and batterer intervention programs. Misdemeanants often received a combination of 

sentences, so the sum of the percentages will exceed 100 percent in most cases. The inability of 

prosecutors’ offices and courts to provide sentencing data on domestic violence cases required 

that ILJ rely on sampled data for the analysis portrayed in Exhibit 5-7. Consequently, the 

number of convicted offenders included in the sample was small, and caution should be used in 

interpreting the data. These data were shared with Arrest Policies Program grantee staff at all 

sites for their review. Local police, prosecutors, and court staff confirmed that the sentencing 

patterns were consistent with their experiences. 

Exhibit 5-7: Sentences of Convicted Batterer Misdemeanants for Impact 

Sites, 1999

Impact Site

Number of

Convictions Jail Probation

Batterer

Intervention

Huerta City 18 22% 83% 61%

Jovita 32 31% 38% 34%

Addams County 46 30% 46% 33%

Barnett County 88 100% 63% 48%

Stanton County 61 8% 2% 34%

Lozen County 170* 85% 89% 66%

* Total number of convictions in jurisdiction in 1999

 

56 As in many jurisdictions, probation in Addams County lacks adequate resources to supervise in any meaningful 

way domestic violence misdemeanor offenders. In one site, however, batterers placed on deferred prosecution 

were not supervised. Prosecutors used this legal solution to comply with speedy trial rules.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 107

Jail sentences are related to jail space; where jails are overcrowded, domestic violence 

misdemeanants are unlikely to receive a jail sentence. Two of the sites, Barnett and Lozen 

counties, had available jail space and sentenced nearly all misdemeanants to jail time. In Barnett 

County, median time served was six days; in Lozen County, 70 percent of offenders served 1-30 

days. Because of the caveats noted earlier, the statistics from Barnett County must be viewed 

cautiously. With this in mind, case tracking data indicate that jail sentences accompanied by 

other conditions such as probation or batterer intervention resulted, on average, in 10.7 jail days 

served. Case tracking data also indicate that up to 38 percent of jail sentences imposed consisted 

solely of this penalty and that time served in these cases averaged 59 days. According to the 

prosecutor, these cases involved recidivist offenders whose batterer intervention and/or probation 

had not succeeded and other ‘high risk’ defendants. These figures can be compared to the 1997 

pre-grant period when 3 percent of cases resulted in jail time served.

Jail sentences were used less than one-third of the time in the remaining sites, with 

Stanton County posting the lowest percentage of jail sentences (8 percent). While all of these 

other sites also focused on recidivists as candidates for jail sentencing, only Barnett County had a 

formal risk assessment process to help in making sentencing decisions.

Probation sentences were common at most sites, as shown in Exhibit 5-7. Typically, 

probation sentences did not include formal or intensive supervision because of a lack of 

probation staff. Those convicted of domestic violence and sentenced to probation almost always 

received unsupervised probation as a sentence. 

Sentences to batterer intervention programs were common across sites—at least one-third 

of convicted misdemeanants were assigned to batterer intervention at every site. Analysis of 

before and after sampled data found the following: 

• Sentencing that included requiring convicted batterers to attend treatment 

increased during the program period, from 34.6 pre-grant to 40.3 percent postgrant.57

 

The greatest use of batterer intervention programs occurred in the rural jurisdictions 

(about two-thirds of misdemeanants were sentenced to batterer intervention in Huerta City and

Lozen County). In Stanton County, according to statistics provided by the Court Administrator’s 

 

57 Chi-square tests show that this is a significant change over time.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 108

Office, 70 to 80 percent of domestic violence offenders were sentenced to batterer treatment, 

depending upon how one counts the various dispositions. Often, misdemeanants sentenced to 

batterer intervention programs were also sentenced to drug/alcohol treatment programs. The 

effectiveness of batterer intervention programs was not evaluated at any of the sites.

A variety of other sentences were used at the sites. For instance, fines were not used in 

Lozen or Barnett counties; but in Stanton County, 97 percent of those convicted of domestic 

violence misdemeanors were required to pay court costs. The only other site that included high 

levels of fines as domestic violence sentences was Huerta City (89 percent of convicted 

misd emeanants).58 

Lozen County was able to provide statistics on restitution and work program sentences, 

as well as sentences to jail, probation, and batterer treatment. Neither the statistics nor the 

sampled data indicated a substantial change in sentencing from pre-grant to post-grant. In 

Exhibit 5-8, the statistics show that for those convicted of a misdemeanor, there were minimal 

drops in the use of jail and probation, and a similarly slight increase in the use of the batterer 

treatment program. There was a more substantial increase in the imposition of restitution. By 

far the most notable change is in the use of the county’s work program, which the statistics show 

increased in use from 36 percent of the time to 64 percent of the time.

The increased use of the work program could not be readily explained and was a surprise 

to the prosecutor. Prosecutorial policy prefers jail time to the work program in hopes of 

communicating to batterers that domestic violence is a crime taken seriously by the criminal 

justice system. 

 

58 The use of fines is rather controversial, as community advocates and victims/survivors indicate that fines and 

court costs are sometimes paid by victims. Also see the Huerta City case study, where victims critiqued the 

city’s practice of fining defendants.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 109

Exhibit 5-8: Misdemeanor Sentences, Lozen County, 1996 and 1999

Source: Sampled Data

It was the consensus of all those involved in the Lozen County Arrest Project that the

introduction of a dedicated Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) to supervise all domestic violence 

probationers greatly increased offender accountability, but the means by which to quantify this 

success remained largely elusive. Exhibit 5-9 demonstrates a dramatic increase in the number of 

violation of probation cases filed however, and this change can no doubt be attributed to the 

increase in field supervision. An increase in violations of probation (but not more law 

violations) can be considered a measure of success in intensive supervision programs.

In Stanton County, many domestic violence misdemeanants were allowed to offer a 

conditional guilty plea to domestic violence assault (and unconditionally plead guilty to a lesser 

charge of harassment). After a period of “good behavior” and attendance at treatment, the 

domestic violence assault conviction was erased with the prosecutor’s approval. Also in Stanton 

County, a special “treatment court” held sessions three days a week to review offender 

compliance with permanent protection orders.

There were clear sentencing preferences across sites: 

• Lozen County took domestic violence very seriously and imposed a combination 

of jail, probation, and batterer intervention in most cases. Firm sentencing was 

reportedly influenced by the high quality of cases presented to the judge. 

90% 88%

61% 64%

36%

85% 87% 83%

66% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jail Probation Restitution Batterer

Treatment

Work Program

1996 1999
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 110

• Barnett County sentenced all misdemeanants to jail and nearly two -thirds to 

probation. Since this site did not have the same careful case screening and quality 

control of police reporting as Lozen County, the firm sentencing was more likely 

an outcome of prosecution preferences and the domestic violence court judge’s 

propensity to assign sentences recommended by the assessment center. 

• While Lozen and Barnett counties regularly assigned jail and probation, Stanton 

County fell on the other end of the spectrum, where fines and conditional pleas 

with orders of protection were widely favored over jail and probation. This 

reflected, in part, a recognition of limited local resources (jail space was a scarce 

resource) and a philosophical decision to rely on criminal orders of protection to 

deter future domestic violence (violation of the order may at the discretion of the 

prosecutor be treated as a felony).

Oversight of Offenders 

To ensure offender accountability, domestic violence offenders who are convicted and 

sentenced should be monitored for compliance. However, few probation departments actively 

monitored domestic violence probationers. Even in those sites that offered judicial oversight, 

there were few statistics that indicated probation levels, violations, and revocations. However, 

two sites could provide statistics on violations, Barnett County and Lozen County. In Barnett 

County, 67 percent of probationers violated the terms of their conditions. 

ILJ’s analysis of sample data showed high rates of probation violations at three sites, 

Addams, Barnett, and Lozen counties; but the data is not reliable because of the small sample 

sizes. In Addams County, 5 of the 21 probationers had vio lated the terms of their probation, with 

1 revocation noted. In Barnett County, in 1999, violation of probation charges were made 

against half of the 55 probationers. About 60 percent of the charges were filed because the 

offender was rearrested on a new charge.

The only one of the six sites to include a specialized probation component was Lozen 

County, which funded a full-time probation officer to supervise domestic violence cases. While 

the probation officer supervised those on formal probation, he also informally monitored many 

on “summary” probation, i.e., no active supervision ordered. Furthermore, judges required those 

on summary probation to appear in court and document their compliance with court-ordered 

conditions. As a result of this close sup ervision, there was a steady increase in cases filed as 

probation violations from 1996 to 1999. In 1996, Lozen County reported nine domestic violence 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 111

cases filed with probation violations. As shown in Exhibit 5-9, this figure increased steadily to 

99 cas es in 1999. 

It was the consensus of all those involved in the Lozen County Arrest Program project 

that the introduction of a dedicated Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) to supervise all domestic 

violence probationers greatly increased offender accountability, but the means by which to 

quantify this success remained largely elusive. Exhibit 5-9 shows a dramatic increase in the 

number of violation of probation cases filed however, and this change can no doubt be attributed 

to the increase in field supervision. An increase in violations of probation (but not more law 

violations) can be considered a measure of success in supervised probation programs.

Exhibit 5-9: Violation of Probation Cases Filed, Lozen County, 1996-1999

Summary

The Arrest Policies Program process evaluations at 20 sites were the starting point for 

selecting sites for the impact portion of the evaluation. Final selection of six sites took into 

consideration program diversity, data availability, access to victims/survivors, geographic 

distribution, and program environments (e.g., opportunities to interview victims who were 

members of racial and ethnic minority groups). Since control groups could not be established, 

other methods had to be developed to determine, to the extent possible, the effects of the Arrest 

Policies Program grants on offender accountability and victim safety and well being. 

9

54

85

99

1996 1997 1998 1999
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 112

Arrest Policies and Trends

Adoption of preferred or mandatory domestic violence arrest policies, or new domestic 

violence law enforcement initiativ es, corresponded with an increase in law enforcement arrests 

or referrals to prosecutors across all sites. These increases eventually stabilized. The increases 

in arrest were likely due to the new or u rgent management emphasis on domestic violence. 

The proportion of warrant arrests of domestic violence suspects increased from an 

average across all sites of 4.1 percent of all arrests prior to the Arrest Policies Program grants to 

15.5 percent during the grant period. This suggests a change on the part of law enforcement in 

procedures for arresting batterers.

Trends identified included gaps in the law enforcement response existed respect to cases 

where the suspect fled the scene and in the enforcement of protection orders. In general, where 

police departments did not have specialized domestic violence resources (e.g., detective units), 

there was little likelihood that efforts would be made to locate and apprehend suspects who fled. 

Police officers in their focus groups expressed reservations and frustrations with enforcing 

protection orders; many felt that police actions were not supported by prosecutors or judges. The 

lack of enforcement led victims/survivors and service providers/advocates to believe that 

protection orders were not an effective safety measure. 

Prosecution Efforts 

Several findings stand out as a result of the evalu ation:

• Prosecutors file on a high percentage of domestic violence charges with only 

limited case screening.

• Prosecutors reduced dismissals of domestic violence case filings.

• Charging practices were influenced by the flexibility of the state code and 

reflected agency philosophies. 

• For the three sites for which conviction data were available, all three showed 

improvements in either conviction rates, number of convictions, or level of 

convictions.

Grant resources were focused on case screening at two sites; at one of those sites, the 

conviction rate doubled over the grant period; at the other, the conviction rate (80 percent) was 

considerably higher than at the other six sites. We cannot draw conclusions about that 

observation from this evaluation. However, our findings do support a recommendation for 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 113

further exploration of prosecutor case screening practices and related issues (see Chapter 7). For 

example, we also found significant improvements in police documentation of domestic violence 

incidents where grant-supported prosecutor units worked closely with police toward that end. 

Conviction, Sentencing, and Supervision 

Key findings in these areas included the following:

• Sentencing patterns varied by the availability of alternative sanctions and 

resources to enforce those sanctions.

• The percentage of cases resulting in convictions remained constant from pre-grant 

to post-grant periods (61.4 percent in 1996 and 60.0 percent in 1999).

• The percentage of cases resulting in some form of deferred prosecution (usually 

including some form of supervision) increased from 7.2 percent in 1996 to 14.5 

percent in 1999

Probation sentences were common at most sites. Typically, probation sentences did not 

include formal or intensive supervision because of a lack of probation staff. Those convicted of 

domestic violence and sentenced to probation almost always received unsupervised probation as 

a sentence. Few probation departments actively monitored domestic violence probationers.

System Approach

The Lozen County project was as close to a systems model as possible. First, the project 

added domestic violence specialists, both to the Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s 

Office, to follow up on domestic violence cases. Second, the domestic violence prosecutors 

screened cases, providing valuable feedback to police toward improving the quality of police 

reports submitted. Third, the project had a full-time probation officer to provide active 

supervision of probationers. The data from Lozen County indicate that increased arrests were 

made, cases were screened, defendants were convicted, those convicted were sanctioned, and 

probationers were supervised. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 114

Chapter 6 

Victims/Survivors Experiences

This chapter focuses on victims/survivors’ experiences at the six sites with services 

provided by local criminal justice agencies and community based organizations participating in 

the Arrest Policies Program projects. Information on research participants and issues is 

presented, followed by an overview of victim services at the six sites. The rest of the chapter 

explores areas where victims/survivors’ reported satisfaction and unmet needs with respect to the 

responses of victim services providers, police, and prosecutors/courts. Findings related to 

victims/survivors’ participation in arrest and prosecution decisions are also presented.

Participants 

A total of 229 domestic violence victims/survivors participated in ILJ’s impact evaluation 

of the Arrest Policies Program; 81 victims were personally interviewed and another 148 victims 

shared their experiences in focus groups. Several focus groups consisted primarily of women of 

color, shown below: 

• 7 groups of African American women (Addams, Stanton, and Barnett counties)

• 5 groups of Spanish-speaking women (Huerta City, Jovita, Stanton, and Addams 

counties)

• 1 group of American Indian women (Lozen County)

• 1 group of immigrant women (Stanton County)

Recruitment methods varied for the interviews and focus groups and may have resulted in 

differences in these two groups of participants. The prerequisite for interview participation was 

that victims/survivors experienced a domestic violence incident that led to arrest of the batterer. 

Since interview candidates were drawn from prosecutors’ files, the majority of women 

interviewed had experiences with prosecution. 

In the personal interviews, background information was obtained from victims/survivors. 

Nearly half of the women were Caucasian. Approximately 40 percent were married and 78 

percent indicated that they had minor children living at home. Median age was 32. Nearly half 

of the victims indicated that they had been harmed at least two or three times per month. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 115

Victims/survivors who were interviewed were asked about the levels of violence they had 

experienced in the incidents that led to the batterers’arrests.59 Building on the work of Sullivan 

and Bybee (1999), the victims were classified into four groups ranging from no physical violence 

to severe/potentially severe physical violence (defined as choking, threatened with a knife or 

gun, etc.). Statistical analysis was then performed on the two categories that reflected the highest 

levels of violence reported. These two categories contained 24 and 26 victims, respectively, 

accounting for 82 percent of the total sample. Results of the statistical tests on the two groups

were as follows:

• There was no significant difference between the two groups on the average 

number of injuries from the target incident.

• Victims in the severe/potentially severe category reported more incidents in which 

the offender harmed or attempted to harm the victim in the 6 months prior to the 

target incident.

• Victims in the severe/potentially severe category were more likely to think that 

the offender was capable of killing her.

• However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups on fearing 

that the offender would, in fact, attempt to kill her in the future.

Approximately 68 percent of victims/survivors in the sample reported such injuries as 

cuts, scrapes, bruises, and soreness without bruises (many victims reported more than one of 

these types of injuries); 30 percent sought medical treatment for their injuries.

Focus group participants were recruited through local domestic violence shelters, ethnicbased organizations, and a variety of service providers. The focus groups reflected a variety of 

experiences; some of those victims/survivors had limited contact with the criminal justice 

system. 

Research Issues

As designed, the evaluation intended to explore the impact of Arrest Policies Program 

interventions on victim safety and well-being. However, interviews and focus groups were held 

after grant implementation, and information about pre-grant experiences were dependent on 

 

59 Most of the batterers of the victims/survivors in the sample had been charged with misdemeanors; because of 

sample recruitment methods, some batterers may have been charged with felonies.

Formatted: Bulletsand Numbering
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 116

victims’ recollections. As a result, the evaluation was not able to address questions of grant 

impact on victim safety and well being as originally proposed. 

Even with these caveats, the interviews and focus group data provided a rich source of 

material on victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system and the effect of such 

experiences. As the research developed and data were analyzed, it became clear that the focus 

groups and interviews could also provide insights into policy-oriented issues, such as victim 

participation in the criminal justice process. For example, many victims expressed views about 

the effects of mandatory arrest laws and prosecution policies (e.g., evidence based, “no drop”) 

with respect to reducing their influence on the way certain domestic violence incidents were 

handled. .

Several key research questions guided this portion of the research:

• Are victims/survivors receiving services? If so, what kinds of services are they 

receiving?

• Are victims/survivors satisfied with their interaction with victim witness 

specialists and community advocates?

• Are victims/survivors reporting unmet needs? If so, what are the unmet needs?

• What are victims/survivors experiences with law enforcement? With prosecution?

• Are victims/survivors satisfied with the police response? With prosecution’s 

response? What influences satisfaction levels?

• How do victims’ experiences with police and prosecutors/courts affect their 

likelihood of involving the justice system in the future?

• Are there differences in victim history that might explain participation in the 

justice system? What are the reasons given for victim requests to drop criminal 

charges?

Victim Services and Satisfaction with Services

The Arrest Policies Program encouraged the enhancement of victim services by requiring 

lead agencies to partner with local victim services providers. This section provides an overview 

of victim services arrangements at the six sites. This is followed by a discussion of the provision 

of services, victim levels of satisfaction, and unmet needs.

Deleted: ,
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 117

Victim Assistance Arrangements 

The arrangements for victims/survivors services varied across the six sites. All but the 

most rural jurisdiction, Huerta City, had victim witness staff who primarily worked out of the 

prosecutors’ offices. These victim witness specialists provided a range of services pertaining to 

the criminal justice process, including crisis intervention, referrals to counseling and other 

resources, assistance with victim compensation claims, and court assistance. Independent 

community service organizations (CSOs) usually provided a broader range of services, such as 

24-hour crisis hotlines, support groups, emergency shelters, and legal advocacy.

There were differences in the roles and confidentiality privileges between victim witness 

staff, who were employed by the criminal justice agencies, and victim service providers and 

advocates who worked for community based organizations. Community advocates, under most 

state laws, are not required to dis close statements made in confidence. Furthermore, victim 

witness staff often serve dual roles−they help victims who enter the criminal justice system, but 

they also work for agencies that have specific objectives for case processing.. For example, 

victims witness staff who work in prosecutors’ offices encourage victims to cooperate with 

prosecution, while community advocates may sometimes support domestic violence victims’ 

decisions not to pursue prosecution. .

At three sites (Huerta City, Lozen County, and Addams County) criminal justice staff 

referred victims to community victim assistance organizations whose staff worked in separate 

facilities and had only limited contact with criminal justice staff. In the other three sites, the 

roles and relationships were more intertwined. In Jovita City, community advocates shared 

office space with victim witness staff, law enforcement officers, legal assistance providers, and 

social services staff. In Barnett County, community advocates shared the court caseload with 

victim witness staff. Pre-trial services randomly assigned victims to either service provider. In 

Stanton County, the community advocates essentially were used in lieu of the prosecutor’s 

victim assistance unit. 

The Arrest Policies Program grants funded victim assistance staff and services at each of 

the six sites. Most often, this included staff from both the victim witness unit and a community 

service organization. Exhibit 6-1 shows staff hired through the Arrest Policies Program grants at 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 118

each site, as well as project partners that provided outreach to historically underserved 

populations.

Exhibit 6-1: Grant Staffing for Victim Assistance at Impact Sites

Arrest Project

Victim 

Witness Unit

Community Services 

Organization (CSO)

Outreach 

Component

Huerta City None Part-time counselor

Part-time case manager

Partnership with 

Hispanic CSO

Jovita City 2 specialists 

(police dept.) 2 victim advocates

Lozen County 2 specialists None Partnership with Native 

American CSO

Addams County 2 specialists

Training coordinator

Legal advocate

Barnett County 2 specialists 2 victim advocates

Stanton County* None

3 coordinators

1 supervisor

6 counselors

* The CSO was the District Attorney’s victim witness unit

Under the Arrest Policies Program, victim witness units were expanded and community 

victim services organizations were provided resources to increase services to domestic violence 

victims/survivors. In addition, the Arrest Policies Program enabled Stanton County to provide 

services to victims of misdemeanor crimes for the first time. Two of the projects directly 

addressed outreach to underserved populations. In Lozen County, the project included a 

partnership with a Native American CSO, and in Huerta City, the project supported a counselor 

from the partnering Hispanic CSO.

Victim Services Provided

Victim witness specialists in police departments, such as Jovita City, work to contact 

victims who report domestic violence incidents. Victim witness specialists in prosecutors’ 

offices often have a n arrower scope—they contact only victims in cases where the prosecutor has 

filed charges. Due to victim witness resource limitations, referrals are made to community 

advocates to also serve victims through prior arrangements with the victim witness staff. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 119

The different types of relationships between community service organizations and victim 

witness units in the six sites made the interpretation of data extremely challenging. In particular, 

community advocates essentially functioned as agency victim witness staff at several sites, not 

allowing for comparisons between the two types of staff. Furthermore, victims could not always 

identify the agency offering the services. For these reasons, victim assistance in this chapter is 

sometimes discussed in general terms. 

Data from the interviews with victims/survivors and focus groups suggested the 

following:60

• The vast majority of victims/survivors were contacted by victim assistance staff 

and were provided a variety services

• Most victims/survivors were satisfied with victim assistance; however, gaps 

existed in the communication of case outcome information to victims

• More victim/survivor services are needed, especially for traditionally underserved 

communities, including timely translation services. Many victims/survivors also 

discussed needs for assistance with childcare, shelter or other affordable housing 

options, employment, and other matters that affected their safety and well being.

Victim Services 

Of the 81 domestic violence victims interviewed, 71 percent reported that they had been 

contacted by either a victim witness specialist or community based service provider/advocate. 

Most of the contact was through form letters or telephone calls. Forty-one percent of those 

contacted by a victim witness specialist had also been contacted by a community advocate. As 

noted earlier, victims/survivors could not always distinguish between victim assistance staff from 

the two types of organizations. In fact, a number of women were confused by the role of the 

community advocate, feeling they had already been offered such services through victim witness 

staff. This was most apparent in Jovita City, where duplication of services was an issue of 

contention among service providers. A few related victims’ comments from Jovita City are 

noted below: 

[The community advocate] pretty much told me the same as the advocate 

from [the police department]. She did not give me any new information.

 

60 The limited sample size of interviews at each site does not allow for cross-site comparisons. Differences among 

sites are noted only where variations were obvious and issues raised in interviews were also discussed in focus 

groups. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 120

[The community advocate] basically told me what I already knew from the 

police advocate. 

Considering that the victim interview sample was drawn from prosecutors’ case files 

(with most cases resulting in prosecution), it seemed significant that 25 percent of victims 

reported that they had not been contacted by victim assistance staff. This may have been due in 

part to the chronic understaffing of victim services agencies, even with the addition of staff 

funded through the Arrest Policies Program. For example, five victim witness specialists 

handled over 3,000 victims’ cases in Addams County. A community advocate in Jovita City, 

noting similar staff shortages, said, “There’s a need for more advocates for family violence. 

There is only one [advocate] in district court for family violence.” Typically, victim services in 

Jovita City would make one attempt to contact victims; with little time for follow up. 

Victims/survivors who were contacted by either victim witness staff or community 

advocates reported they had received an array of services. Exhibit 6-2 shows the types of 

services received.

Exhibit 6-2: Types of Victim Services Provided* 

Types of Services Percent Receiving Service

Discussed protection orders 63

Discussed safety planning 62

Provided counseling 57

Referred to a shelter 47

Discussed victim compensation 42

Discussed other matters 37

Court accompaniment 28

Referred to welfare 12

Provided a cell phone 10

* Data from 60 victims participating in personal interviews who reported contact from either victim witness staff or 

community advocates.

The most common types o f services provided included discussion of protection orders, 

safety planning, and counseling. More than half of those interviewed who had contact with 

victim assistance staff reported receiving these services. For the most part, the services provided 

appeared to be matched to individual needs of the victims. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 121

Victim Satisfaction with Services

Overall, victims reported high levels of satisfaction with both victim assistance staff and 

community advocates. For instance, 88 percent of those who had contact with a victim witness 

specialist were satisfied with their experience; 89 percent were satisfied with community 

advocates. Women participating in the focus groups also expressed appreciation for victim 

assistance staff. A sampling of comments from victims/survivors follows:

I felt very supported, safer knowing [the victim witness specialist] was 

with me. It’s scary if you’ve never been through testifying. I would not 

have been able to go through it; couldn’t have done it without the [victim 

witness specialist]. (Addams County)

The [Hispanic CSO] has always been responsive. (Huerta City)

[The victim witness specialist] made me feel safer and like I was not 

battling this alone. (Lozen County)

[The community advocate] came every time I called the police. She was 

very calm. Every time I spoke with [the advocate] she got back to me 

with information. (Jovita City)

In my own experience, I was pretty clueless as to what was going on until 

the [community advocates] explained it to me. I felt lost until then . 

(Addams County)

Although about 89 percent of domestic violence victims were satisfied with victim 

assistance staff, many reported that the staff were not always efficient in keeping them informed 

of their case status. Consequently, some domestic violence victims were frustrated that they had 

not been kept apprised of case developments. In Barnett County, several victims reported that 

the service provider was unable to convey information regarding the criminal case. In Stanton 

County, a victim had requested her batterer be assigned to an intervention program but was not 

informed whether this had happened. A number of victims/survivors interviewed in Addams 

County also noted a lack of follow-through on case outcome: 

I never found out directly that the case was dropped. They should have 

contacted me before this happened. I still don’t know the final outcome.

I don’t feel like I know anything now about what happened. If he was sent 

to counseling, he’s probably not going, but I don’t know what is

happening.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 122

Need for Additional Victim Services

In focus groups of domestic violence victims composed of traditionally underserved 

women, there was strong consensus that assistance in several key areas were lacking. Women 

discussed cultural and language differences that affected their participation in the criminal justice 

system, and they also spoke about social and economic needs that were not being met.

Criminal Justice Services—Cultural and Language Proficiency 

For immigrant and Native American women in particular, there was considerable 

reluctance to involve the criminal justice system in a “family matter.” Cultural and language 

barriers were commonly reported when women did seek domestic violence victim assistance. In 

addition, some said immigration status often limited participation in the justice system. 

Language barriers and criminal justice agencies’ inability to provide timely translation services 

were noted by a number of women, especially in Stanton County, which had a large immigrant 

population.

The first barrier is that I’m an illegal alien and I don’t have a social 

security number. The second barrier is language. (Jovita City)

There are no interpreters for Chinese people and I don’t know what to do. 

One time I had to wait from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. for an interpreter, 

and at 3:30 p.m. they told me there wasn’t going to be any interpreter that 

day and I should come back another day. You don’t get any business 

done. (Stanton County)

I had problems with the translator. I [asked] for [a] translator because his 

lawyer spoke very, very quickly. When the translator came, he was not 

well-prepared; he just bothered me. He didn’t talk better English than I 

did and he didn’t talk Romanian properly. (Stanton County)

Social and Economic Needs 

Many of the issues that prevent domestic violence victims from seeking assistance fall 

outside the domain of the criminal justice system. For instance, victims often spoke of the need 

for more services for mothers with young children. Others stressed the importance of job 

training opportunities, or the lack of transitional housing or shelter space. A domestic violence 

victim/survivor in Lozen County summarized the sentiment of many women with her statement, 

“To leave is to become poor.” Comments related to these issues included the following:

It was hard to find shelter with children. (Jovita City)
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 123

I felt discriminated against because I am not a legal resident and cannot 

receive any type of assistance. The shelter cannot help illegal aliens 

unless they have children who are U.S. citizens. (Jovita City)61

The shelter should have its own daycare. Our kids have different needs 

because of domestic violence. Also, if they go to regular daycare, their 

fathers have access to them. (Jovita City)

I feel stuck; can’t afford to get divorced. There’s no place to go to feel 

safe and get a new start. Most women don’t want to go to shelter; it’s 

crowded with no privacy. We need resources for women to get out. 

(Addams County)

When this [is] finished, I don’t know, I feel like after so many years 

raising my kids, being at home ... and he [doesn’t] let me work. I want to 

go out and work, and I’m [not] prepared for it. (Stanton County)

Victim/Survivor Perceptions of the Criminal Justice Response

The victims participating in the interviews and focus groups provided important 

perspectives on how the criminal justice system handles domestic violence victims. This section 

explores victims/survivors experiences with both law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ 

offices. The evaluation found the following two trends: 

• The majority of victims/survivors reported being satisfied with the law 

enforcement first response. Most victims cited the behavior and demeanor of 

officers as crucial to their perception of the justice system. 

• Fewer than half of victims/survivors who had contact with prosecutors’ offices 

were satisfied with their experience. Victims/survivors expressed reservations 

about the court process itself.

Law Enforcement Response

Law enforcement officers are usually victims’ first contact with the rest of the criminal 

justice system. The urgency and quality of law enforcement’s response affects victims’ sense of 

safety and their willingness to become further involved in the criminal justice system. Across 

the sites, nearly two of three (63 percent) victims interviewed reported satisfaction with law 

enforcement’s response to their domestic violence incident. Victims’ experiences and levels of 

satisfaction were directly related to their perceptions of the responding officers’ demeanor and 

behavior. Simply stated, women were satisfied with the law enforcement response when officers 

 

61 It should be noted that HUD funding for homeless people does not preclude sheltering undocumented workers.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 124

arrived quickly, were respectful, and made a concerted effort to investigate the domestic violence 

incident.

Among victims who were dissatisfied with police, some noted slow response times, but 

more often they discussed what they perceived as a poor demeanor and attitude of the officers. 

Many domestic violence victims reported positive experiences with police officers who they felt 

treated them respectfully, noting that they were satisfied when the police tried to locate the 

offender if he fled, listened to and believed their story, and periodically checked on them. 

The police were very helpful. [The officer] kept me informed. [The 

offender] took flight and [evaded] arrest for four hours. The officer kept 

me informed. (Addams County)

Even after the incident, they still had the same officer drive by the school 

and house and just wave. (Jovita City)

The police come to my house and check, or call and let me know if they 

have picked him up or found him. (Addams County)

The police believed my story and helped me out with everything possible. 

I stayed with my friend and kept in constant contact with the police. 

(Addams County)

Women who reported unsatisfactory experiences with law enforcement stated that the 

responding officers acted disinterested, appeared to blame them for their victimization, or did not 

listen to or believe them. 

The officer acted like it was a waste of time for him to be there. (Barnett 

County)

The police did not believe me the first time they came. (Jovita City)

The police make it the victim’s fault. The officers asked why I just don’t 

leave. (Jovita City)

Women do not have credibility with the police. (Barnett County)

I look at all of us [in this room] as a small percentage of those who have 

said, “enough is enough.” But the police are not seeing us. They are 

seeing all those who aren’t like us and call all the time. They look at us, 

not as victims, but as volunteers of domestic violence. (Barnett County)

The police came and arrested him, but they wouldn’t believe my story. 

He’s a good talker and it seemed like they turned more towards me like I 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 125

had done something wrong. Thank God my son was there to verify my 

story b ecause they totally believed what he [abuser] was saying. (Addams 

County)

Prosecution/Court Response

Of 58 victims/survivors in the interview sample who had contact with prosecutors,62 59 

percent were dissatisfied with the way the prosecutor handled their case. Unlike victim 

satisfaction with law enforcement, which was often based on the demeanor of individual officers, 

victim satisfaction with prosecution was related to perceptions of the court “system,” lumping 

prosecutors and courts together in the system. Victims/survivors made several comments that 

indicated reluctance to participate in the prosecution and court proceedings. 

I’m afraid that they’ll [prosecutors] turn things around and that they are 

going to take away custody of my children. (Jovita City)

So his attorney is going to drag you through the mud and here you are the 

victim. The attorney makes you feel like trash and like you’ve got no self 

worth. (Addams County)

You are fighting for your life and for your children’s life an d then you 

have to fight the judicial system. You only have so much energy to fight. 

(Barnett County)

Some victims also reported they did not understand the court process, or that they were being 

treated, in the words of one Jovita City domestic violence victim, like “numbers, not human 

beings.”

On the other hand, many victims believed the prosecutor was helpful in securing their 

safety. In these cases, there was a relationship between victim satisfaction and the personal and 

respectful way prosecutors treated victims/survivors. Victims/survivors were generally pleased 

when they were included in the court process and informed of court procedures and case status.

The prosecutor’s office asked me if I wanted an order of protection and for 

how long. They helped me a lot. (Stanton County)

The prosecutor’s office treated me very well; they returned my calls. I 

knew which DA to telephone in the case and she is a very nice lady. 

(Stanton County)

 

62 A total of 62 victims/survivors in the sample reported that their cases proceeded through prosecution, but 4 of 

those victims/survivors reported that they did not have contact with the prosecutor.

Deleted: 78 

Deleted: 60 percent 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 126

Participation in the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system has become less dependent on domestic violence victim 

participation to ensure both arrest and prosecution of batterers. However, there are diverse views 

about the practice of proceeding with domestic violence cases when victims are opposed to such 

actions. This section presents findings from a sample of victims whose cases were prosecuted. 

The section discusses their views about the effects of participating in the justice system and the 

likelihood that they would engaging the justice system for fu ture domestic violence. Three 

findings are highlighted:

• The majority of victims/survivors were supportive of arrest and prosecution, yet 

more than one-third of victims/survivors wanted criminal charges dropped. As 

reasons given for wanting charges dropped, women most often cited issues that 

affected their well being (e.g., safety, family concerns, and others).

• A strong relationship existed between violence levels and support of prosecution. 

Those victims who experienced “highly severe” incidents were more likely to

support prosecution efforts than were victims experiencing lesser levels of 

violence.

• Victims’ likelihood of engaging the criminal justice system in the future was 

influenced by their perceptions of the court system’s effectiveness in deterring

domestic violence.

Victim Participation 

The findings in this discussion were based on detailed interviews with 62 domestic 

violence victims who had their cases proceed through prosecution. When the police first 

responded to the domestic violence, 65 percent of victims asked officers to make the batterers 

leave the premises. Others specifically requested that officers arrest their partner. Most women, 

regardless of whether they requested an arrest, expected their partner to be prosecuted and 

convicted.

The majority of women interviewed were supportive of prosecution, but 38 percent 

wanted the charges dropped. Of those victims who wanted the charges dropped, 88 percent cited 

one or more of the following as having influenced their decision: 

• Wanted the process to be over

• Cared about or loved their partner 

• Did not want to upset the children. 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 127

Many women who wanted the charges dropped also feared that they would be required to 

testify; of those women who wanted to drop charges, 67 percent did not want to t estify. 

Financial reasons for wanting charges dropped were also common; about half of the women who 

wanted charges dropped cited their dependence on the batterer’s income as a reason. A strong 

relationship existed between the most severe/potentially severe violence level reported by 

victims/survivors and support of prosecution. Victims who reported severe/potentially severe 

domestic violence (e.g., choked, smothered, threatened with knife) were far less inclined to drop 

charges than victims who experienced violence that was coded as somewhat less severe (e.g., 

physically restrained, hit with fist, forced sexual activity, bitten burned). Exhibit 6-3 shows the 

charging preferences for sample victims by level of violence experienced during the incident that

led to arrest. Because of small sample sizes, no conclusions can be drawn with respect to victims 

reporting no violence (6 victims) or other types of violence (5 victims).

Exhibit 6-3: Victim Prosecution Preferences by Level of Violence

Level of Violence During Incident

Prosecution Preference No Violence

Severe/Potentially 

Severe

Wanted charges dropped 33% 40% 54% 23%

Did not want charges dropped 67% 60% 46% 77%

Sample Size 6 5 24 26

While a number of victims wanted the charges dropped, only 49 percent of that group 

actually took actions to have them dropped, and most went directly to the prosecutor to pursue 

this. Sometimes, victims actively seeking to have the charges dropped consulted their partner’s 

attorney. After considering victim d emographics, levels of violence, fear, threats, and physical 

assaults after arrest, there does not appear to be any differences that might explain why some 

victims actively sought to have charges dropped while others did not. 

Effects of Participation Decisions: Satisfaction with Care

As expected in jurisdictions that operate under domestic violence pro -prosecution 

policies, the majority of domestic violence offenders were convicted despite some victims 

wanting charges dropped. Of those victims interviewed, 54 percent reported the offender had 

been convicted, 8 percent indicated charges had been dismissed or the defendant acquitted, 13 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 128

percent reported “other,” and 25 percent not know the case outcome. Overall, victims who 

wanted charges dropped were no more satisfied, or dissatisfied, with case outcome or the court 

process than victims who did not want charges dropped. 

Like satisfaction with police and prosecution, satisfaction with case outcome depended 

on how victims were treated. Victims were satisfied when the case was handled quickly, they 

were treated with compassion, and they believed the offender received a fair sentence. They 

were dissatisfied when they felt they had been treated disrespectfully or felt the offender had not 

been held accountab le for his crime. In general, victims wanted the batterers to receive some 

type of monitored sentence, like jail or supervised probation, in addition to treatment or 

counseling. 

Communication was also a key to understanding victim satisfaction with case outcome. 

For example, some victims/survivors were pleased with the prosecution, but dissatisfied with 

case outcome because they were never contacted and informed of case status or disposition. 

It does not appear that the prosecution of offenders, despite victims’ wishes to have 

charges dropped, had any impact on the likelihood that victims would engage criminal justice 

system services in the future. In fact, 87 percent of victims interviewed reported they would 

contact the police if they were assaulted by their partner again, and 74 percent said they would 

want the prosecutor and court involved if they were assaulted again. Domestic violence victims 

who did not want the batterer prosecuted were no exception. Despite their reservations, the 

majority of victims who wanted the charges dropped said they would seek help from the criminal 

justice system if assaulted again.

It appears that the reason these victims were willing to re-engage the criminal justice 

system was very simple—without the criminal justice system, many victims said, they were left 

with no alternatives for dealing with domestic violence. For instance, a victim/survivor in Jovita 

City said she would call the police again “because it stops the beating.” She added, “It gives you 

time to cool down and think about your options.” Many victims/survivors felt that calling the 

police and prosecuting through the courts offered hope of protection from future assaults and 

threats. Of 40 victims/survivors who felt that prosecution would keep the offender from 

threatening or assaulting them again, 34 (85 percent) said they wanted the prosecutor and courts 

involved in the future. Of 16 victims/survivors who felt that prosecution would not keep the 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 129

offender from threatening or assaulting them again, 7 (44 percent) wanted the prosecutor and 

courts involved in the future. Thus, decisions to support prosecution efforts were influenced by 

victims’ assessments of the justice system’s effectiveness in protecting them.

A number of comments also suggested that an increased feeling of empowerment had 

resulted from victims’ actions calling the police. In Addams County, a victim/survivor indicted 

she would call the police in any future acts of domestic violence because she was “not letting 

anyone get away with it again.” And in Barnett County, a victim/survivor reported that she 

would involve the courts again because “she’s not going to put up with it.” 

Others also felt that involving the police and courts could result in permanent changes in 

offender behavior. For example, a victim/survivor in Jovita City felt that jail time would give the 

offender “time to think that he should not hit or hurt people.” 

Summary

A total of 229 domestic violence victims/survivors participated in ILJ’s impact evaluation 

of the Arrest Policies Program−81 victims were personally interviewed and another 148 victims 

shared their experiences in focus groups. 

Several findings were reported relative to victim services. First, the majority of 

victims/survivors were contacted by victim assistance staff and were provided a variety of 

services, including help with protection orders and safety planning. Second, most 

victims/survivors were satisfied with victim assistance services; when they were not satisfied, it 

was usually because they had not been updated on the status of the court case. Third, 

victims/survivors, especially non -English speaking women, had a strong need for additional 

services, such as translators in the criminal justice agencies and services to help with such needs 

as affordable housing or job skills.

Victim/survivor perceptions of the criminal justice response were gauged with respect to 

law enforcement and prosecution/court responses. The majority of victims/survivors reported 

being satisfied with the law enforcement response. The key factor that influenced victim 

satisfaction was positive and respectful behavior and demeanor from individual officers who 

responded to the scene. Victim satisfaction was lower regarding the prosecution/court response 

because of victims’ reluctance, fear, and uncertainty about the prosecution and court process 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 130

itself. Those who were satisfied tended to point to personal efforts made by particular 

prosecutors as reasons for satisfaction.

Three findings were highlighted in terms of domestic violence victims/survivors 

participation in the criminal justice system. First, the majority of domestic violence 

victims/survivors were supportive of arrest and prosecution of batterers. However, 38 percent of 

victims/survivors wanted charges dropped, with most citing psychological well-being as the 

reason. Second, there was a strong relationship between violence levels and victim support of 

prosecution. Those d omestic violence victims who experienced “highly severe” violence were 

more likely to support prosecution than were victims who experienced lesser levels of violence. 

Third, victims’ likel ihood to engage the criminal justice system in future acts of domestic 

violence was influenced by their perceptions of system effectiveness. Domestic violence victims 

who felt that prosecution would deter offenders from engaging in future violent acts were more 

likely to involve the prosecution and courts again than were victims/survivors who indicated that 

court action would not deter batterers from future v iolence.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 131

Chapter 7

Evaluation Summary and Recommendations

Introduction

This chapter presents an executive summary of the findings of ILJ’s national evaluation 

of the VAWA-funded Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program. The chapter reviews key 

findings from Chapters 3 through 6 and includes policy and research recommendations suggested 

to improve future funding efforts in this field.

Grant Program Implementation Issues 

Chapter 3 presented results from a national survey of 130 Arrest Policies Program 

grantees and an overview of project implementation at 20 sites selected to participate the process 

evaluation phase of this study. We identified several issues common to other major, national 

OJP-funded programs over the years. These issues persist despit e the efforts of OJP staff to 

enhance the federal programs with detailed program instructions, technical assistance and 

training, site visits by federal staff, guideline documents, and more. Some grant-related 

problems are endemic to the nature of federal funding in general. Others can be anticipated and 

avoided through careful planning and monitoring. 

Turnover in the project director’s position has always plagued federally-funded grant 

programs. It is one of the greatest causes of project management problems. Turnover of key 

project staff, which affected implementation of several of the Arrest Policies Program grants, can 

be avoided in many instances. A local law enforcement agency, for example, can require a term 

of commitment of the program staff, with provisions for phasing in a trained replacement if 

necessary (e.g., a staff member is promoted in rank). 

Leadership issues are also important in VAWA-funded programs like the Arrest Policies 

Program. Strong leadership can provide stability, promote positive morale, and ensure 

coord inated, effective project interventions. On the other hand, we found several examples 

where strong leadership made the project potentially too dependent on one individual. When 

that individual leaves, the project may falter. This points out the necessity of project directors 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 132

not only training their replacements, but also ensuring that new staff fully understand and are 

committed to achieving the core project goals and objectives.

Some Arrest Policies Program projects also struggled with certain federal requirements. 

The issues varied from site to site; they included limits on the types of projects or activities 

eligible for funding, special conditions delineated at the time of grant award, and restrictions on 

the use of g rant funds that were imposed in response to unforeseen situations. In all cases, the 

issues were dealt with quickly and efficiently by federal staff. 

One of the inevitable problems with federally funded programs is the acquisition of 

technology. ILJ has studied this issue extensively under a research effort for NIJ entitled 

Information Technology (IT) Acquisition project. In the Arrest Policies projects, some of the 

technology acquisitions were complicated because city/county IT specialists were distracted by 

Y2K matters. Many local governments also have procurement rules that apply to technology 

purchases, but local agencies do not always understand these rules. When technology 

acquisition is part of the federal grant proposal, the funding agency should require written 

involvement by the local jurisdiction’s head of procurement related to the specific hardware or 

software being planned. Delays in technology acquisition and implementation are often due to 

lengthy request for proposal (RFP) processes, protracted contract negotiations, and other 

implementation problems (e.g., vendor non-performance, lack of training in how to use the 

technology, and more).

When a federal grant program involves inter-agency and community cooperation, as in 

the Arrest Policies Program, the federal agency should require detailed memoranda of 

understanding signed by agency chief executives. This was an expectation for the Arrest 

Policies Program grants; however, we would recommend taking such a requirement even further. 

Local agencies and community groups should attest in writing that they have actually held a 

face-to-face meeting and addressed issues of cooperation, communication, and resource sharing. 

This might help alleviate problems where agencies agree to participate d uring the process of 

quickly preparing responsive grant proposals but do not fully understand the commitments 

expected u nder grant projects.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 133

Criminal Justice Process Changes 

Chapter 4 described in detail changes in criminal justice processes and in agencies’ 

organizational structures that occurred as a result of the Arrest Policies Program grants. These 

changes affected criminal justice system handling of domestic violence cases, as well as the way 

criminal justice agencies coordinated with community-based providers of services to domestic 

violence victims. 

All but two of the 20 grantees participating in the process evaluation established 

specialized law enforcement or prosecution units (or both, in three sites). The remaining two 

projects established specialized probation units (as did three other sites). Most law enforcement 

specialized units were investigative units that handled follow up of serious domestic violence or 

cases where suspects fled to avoid arrest. Sixteen jurisdictions established new or enhanced 

existing domestic violence victim assistance units. Four of the projects established multi-agency 

teams, including two projects where team members shared a facility. 

In addition, new court structures or specialized criminal dockets were created to hear 

domestic violence cases. Five projects modified the way the courts assigned domestic violence 

cases for hearings: in three sites, prosecutor-led projects operated in environments where a 

sp ecialized domestic violence court, or part, was established that heard only domestic violence 

cases. In two smaller sites, specialized domestic violence dockets (supporting “fast track” 

prosecution) were established to hear only domestic violence cases.

Of the 20 projects included in the process evaluation, only two were led by probation 

departments; a total of five projects included funding for probation staff to specialize in domestic 

violence cases. 

Training was part of nearly every Arrest Policies Program grant. Most grantees reported 

that the amount of training devoted to domestic violence had increased. The establishment of 

specialized units also allowed grantees to target intensive domestic violence training to staff with 

a variety of professional backgrounds who worked together. In addition, the role of specialized 

personnel often included informal mentoring and tutoring of less experienced staff. The 

prosecutor’s role in training was also helpful in many projects. At a number of sites, domestic 

violence prosecutors provided law enforcement officers with feedback on the quality and content 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 134

of incident reports. Previously, the officers rarely received feedback on reports and were seldom 

informed of case disposition. 

Most of the 20 grant projects we examined resulted in improved case handling 

procedures, including improved evidence collection. Among prosecutors, the creation of 

specialized units enabled vertical prosecution wherein one attorney was responsible for all facets 

of the domestic violence case. This resulted in greater consistency in case handling. New court 

units also provided for enhanced monitoring of defendants to ensure attendance at court-ordered 

batterer intervention programs. Police also improved handling of domestic violence evidence, 

including increased use of photographs to document injuries and better case documentation 

through interviewing victims, suspects, and witnesses. Other changes at various sites included 

the following: 

• Improvements in prosecution’s ability to handle cases based primarily on the 

evidence rather than victim testimony

• Innovations in charging practices and sentencing recommendations

• Enforcement of release and probation conditions by the court

The capacity of the sites to provide victim services also increased as a result of the Arrest 

Policies Program grants. These included services provided by professional victim witness staff 

working in criminal justice agencies and staff employed by community-based victim assistance 

organizations. For example, we documented the following types of changes at various sites: 

• Victims/survivors were contacted at earlier stages in the criminal justice process

• The addition of victim witness specialists and community advocates resulted in an 

increase in the number of victims who were offered services

• The types of serv ices were expanded, with civil legal assistance becoming a 

component of victim services 

• Outreach efforts were undertaken and bilingual victim assistance specialists were 

hired, with the goal of improving access for victims/survivors from underserved 

commu nities

• Referrals increased and the provision of services to victims was more efficient 

when agencies were co -located.

Arrest Policies Program grantees studied as part of the process evaluation showed 

increased coordination among criminal justice agencies and between justice agencies and 

community -based victim service providers. Most grantees had some level of increased 

coordination among the criminal justice agencies, most commonly between law enforcement and 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 135

prosecution. Nearly two -thirds of grantees had extensive partnership relationships between the 

leading criminal justice agencies and community -based victim service provider agencies. 

In general, effective working partnerships were more likely to occur at sites where 

planning and proposal development had been a joint effort. At most of those sites, key personnel 

from the partnering agencies and organizations knew each other and had worked together prior to 

the grant.. Moreover, strong, consistent leadership was important for implementing collaborative 

approaches; projects that appeared most promising in this regard were led by individuals who 

actively sought input from other agencies and incorporated their views and needs into project 

goals and operations. The most common barrier to interagency collaboration was a lack of 

“organizational empathy”−one agency fails to understand or accept another agency’s defined 

role. 

Impact Evaluation

Six grantees were selected from among the 20 process evaluation sites to participate in 

the impact portion of this evaluation. Our evaluation design, data collection and analysis 

procedures, and findings are discussed in detail in Chapter 5; information about other issues 

affecting the evaluation design are provided in Chapter 1. Key findings are summarized in the 

sections that follow.

Arrest Policies and Trends

Adoption of preferred or mandatory domestic violence arrest policies, or new domestic 

violence law enforcement initiatives, corresponded with an increase in law enforcement arrests 

or referrals to prosecutors across all sites. These increases eventually stabilized. Some gaps in 

the law enforcement response existed with respect to cases where the suspect fled the scene and 

in the enforcement of protection orders.

The evaluation findings suggest that interventions supported by Arrest Policies Program 

funding resulted in an initial increase in arrests, with the number of arrests peaking during the 

grant period and then leveling off. The increases in arrest were likely due to the new or urgent 

management emphasis on domestic violence. 

We also found that the proportion of warrant arrests of domestic violence suspects (e.g., 

individuals who fled the scene) increased from 4.1 percent of all arrests prior to the Arrest 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 136

Policies Program grants to 15.5 percent during the grant period. This suggests a change on the 

part of law enforcement in procedures for arresting batterers. Generally, however, it appeared 

that unless law enforcement agencies had specialized domestic violence resources (detectives or 

patrol officers), little effort was made to apprehend batterers who had fled the scene.

Although data on enforcement of protection orders were limited, victims/survivors and 

victim service providers reported that protection orders were not consistently enforced by police 

agencies; they also expressed concern that protection orders were not an effective safety 

measure. In addition, a number of police officers expressed frustration related to enforcing 

protection orders, including a perceived lack of support from prosecutors or judges.

Prosecution Efforts 

Several findings stand out as a result of the evalu ation:

• Limited case screening was conducted by prosecutors’ offices. Most prosecutors’ 

offices filed charges on nearly all domestic violence arrests. 

• Prosecutors reduced dismissals of domestic violence case filings.

• Charging practices were influenced by the flexibility of the state code and 

reflected agency philosophies. 

Conviction, Sentencing, and Supervision 

Findings in these areas included the following:

• Grant reso urces were focused on case screening at two sites; at one of those sites, 

the conviction rate doubled over the grant period; at the other, the conviction rate 

(80 percent) was considerably higher than at the other six sites.

• Sentencing patterns varied by the availability of alternative sanctions and 

resources to enforce those sanctions.

• The percentage of cases resulting in convictions remained constant from pre-grant 

to post-grant periods−61.4 percent in 1996; 60.0 percent in 1999.

• The percentage of cases resulting in some form of diversion increased from 7.2 

percent in 1996 to 14.5 percent in 1999

Probation sentences were common at most sites. Those convicted of domestic violence 

and sentenced to probation almost always received unsupervised probation as a sentence. Few 

probation departments actively monitored domestic violence probationers. Evidence from a 

jurisdiction with a specialized probation component indicated that active supervision of 

probatio ners may lead to greater levels of accountability.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 137

Jail sentences were apparently related to the availability of jail space. Where jails were 

not overcrowded, it appeared that domestic violence misdemeanants were more likely to receive 

jail sentences. Sentences to batterer intervention programs were common across sites—at least 

one-third of convicted misdemeanants were assigned to batterer intervention at each of the six 

sites, with as high as 80 percent assigned to batterer intervention at one site. 

Victims/Survivors Experiences

Chapter 6 explored victim experiences with victim service provider responses, police and 

prosecutor/court responses, and victim participation in the justice system. Victim/survivor views 

were obtained through interviews (81 victims/survivors) and focus groups (144 

victims/survivors). For several reasons (sample selection, recruitment process, sample size) the 

findings cannot be generalized, but victim participation in this evaluation provided rich detail 

and valuable insights into experiences and needs.

Most victims/survivors were satisfied with victim assistance services. The main service 

gap identified was a lack of follow-up communication with respect to case status or disposition. 

Non-English speaking women discussed the need for translators in criminal justice agencies; 

these women and others also identified needs related to safe, affordable housing; job skills; 

childcare; and other matters that affected their safety and well being over the long- and shortterm.

The majority of victims/survivors reported being satisfied with the law enforcement 

response. The key factor that influenced victim satisfaction was respectful behavior and 

demeanor from individual officers who responded to the scene. Victim satisfaction levels were 

lower with respect to prosecution, but the tendency for victims to consider prosecution and court 

experiences together may have accounted for this. Also, victims/survivors who experienced 

higher levels of violence tended to be more supportive of prosecution.

Conclusions

Some of the key factors that characterized the most promising projects are listed below:

• Comprehensive planning prior to the grant application that accommodated 

differing inter-agency interests and needs, including developing sound publicprivate agency partnerships.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 138

• Emphasis on a coordinated, system-wide response to domestic violence, both 

within the justice system and in the community.

• Selecting and retaining project directors and staff with experience in domestic 

violence and a commitment to reducing domestic violence (or selecting 

experienced personnel and providing them with extensive domestic violence 

training).

• Developing project staff with specialized domestic violence roles: law 

enforcement to find and arrest batterers who fled the scene and enforce protection 

orders; prosecutors to screen and vertically prosecute domestic violence cases; 

specialized court services to expedite domestic violence cases, victim services 

staff to provide a variety of care to domestic violence victims/survivors, and 

probation staff to monitor batterers while in treatment and in the community.

• Providing specialized domestic violence training for staff responsible for 

domestic violence cases 

• Using the Arrest Policies Program grant as a focal point for broader system-wide 

reform, especially in case handling procedures.

• Co-locating criminal justice and victim services staff, including staff from 

community -based organizations.

Administrative Recommendations

The following recommendations relate to the administration of the Grants to Encourage 

Arrest Policies Program. 

1. The national program should be continued. 

2. The emphasis on coordination among criminal justice agencies and community -based 

victim services organizations should be strengthened. In addition to requiring detailed 

memoranda of understanding signed by agency chief executives, the local agencies and 

community o rganizations should attest in writing that they have actually held a face-to-face 

meeting and addressed issues such as the sharing of resources. 

3. VAWO should publicize the most promising Arrest Policies Program projects by 

putting detailed case studies on its web site, along with key contact information. Projects that 

feature collaborative decision making and resource sharing among criminal justice agencies and 

with community based victim services should be highlighted. These sites should become “host 

sites,” inviting other sites to visit and learn their successful practices. Sites should be 

encouraged to use funding to visit other promising sites. Another approach might be that taken 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 139

by the Colorado Springs DVRT program which, aided by a separate grant from the COPS Office, 

has been able to widely distribute program information nationwide at a relatively low cost on CD 

ROM, as well as hosting visitors from other agencies. 

4. Prior to issuing new solicitations for grant applications, VAWO should hold a one-day 

workshop to educate potential grantees about how to manage federal grants, how to develop 

effective programs, and more. VAWO does not need to pay travel for attendees but might 

consider “scholarships” for needy applications (especially those from low income areas whose 

projects would assist underserved populations).

5. VAWO should explore the concept of creating “binding funding commitments” to 

agencies submitting requests for continuation grant funding. Many agencies used grant funds to 

hire staff for these projects. While VAWO processes supplemental continuation grant awards as 

quickly as other OJP agencies, sometimes administrative delays occur. When these happen, 

local agencies may not have funds to continue paying the salaries of grant staff if they are not 

reimbursed by grant funding. Assuming Congress has appropriated program funding, it might be 

possible to quickly decide that the continuation grant meets funding criteria and immediately 

send the site a binding funding commitment. This would guarantee that the site would receive 

the grant funds, while also allowing more time for VAWO to administratively process the grants.

6. One of the most inevitable problems with federally-funded programs is the acquisition 

of technology. When technology acquisition is part of the federal grant proposal, VAWO should 

require written involvement by the local jurisdiction’s head of procurement related to the specific 

hardware or software being planned. In this way, VAWO would be assured that the grantee 

agency (e.g., police department) was talking to the procurement staff early on about technology 

acquisition issues.

7. VAWO domestic violence grant programs should express a strong preference, that 

staff assigned to work on the grant programs have experience in domestic violence. 

Domestic Violence Practitioner Recommendations

Many important activities and services were performed well by grantees across the 

country. Some of the most important issues for Arrest Policies Program grantees to focus on in 

the future include the following.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 140

1. Criminal justice agency management should set policy and provide training, and 

retraining if necessary, to encourage staff who come in contact with victims/survivors to 

demo nstrate behavior that is respectful, empathetic, and patient. Victims/survivors’ perceptions 

of the entire criminal justice system are heavily influenced by the demeanor of agency staff.

2. Law enforcement should focus more attention on immediately arresting domestic 

violence batterers who have fled the scene. Law enforcement should also develop policies and 

practices that stress awareness of domestic violence protection orders and emphasize the 

importance of enforcing them. 

3. Prosecutors should provide feedback and guidelines to law enforcement to improve 

the quality of evidence collection and report preparation.

4. Prosecutors, courts, and probation services should ensure that a mechanism is in place 

for monitoring convicted (or released in lieu of conviction) batterers who are required to attend 

treatment intervention programs. As the evaluation showed, few probation departments actively 

monitored domestic violence probationers. There was some evidence from this evalu ation to 

suggest that active supervision may lead to increased levels of offender accountability and 

enhanced victim safety, at least short term.

5. Prosecutors and police should make better use of technological innovations to 

communicate with each other, including use of digital cameras and e-mail, to more quickly 

inform each other of case initiation, progress, and need for additional investigation.

6. Prosecutors and victim service agencies should emphasize early contact with victims 

to better provide services and reduce their dependency upon the abuser for immediate needs.

7. In terms of enhanced victim services, future grantees should consider the following:

• Address victims’ needs for follow-up information on case status and case 

disposition.

• Ensure that translators are accessible to help victims from different cultures and 

nationalities communicate with criminal justice personnel and victim services 

providers.

• Enlist support from groups that serve special populations (e.g., immigrants) to 

help with victim services and batterer treatment intervention programs.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 141

8. Criminal justice agencies receiving VAWO grants should make significant 

commitments to reduce turnover in key project staff, especially the project directors. 

Research Recommendations

One of the trends observed in this evaluation was a lack of enforcement of protection 

orders. Focus groups of officers suggested several reasons for this, including a perceived lack of 

support for protection order enforcement from prosecutors and the judiciary. VAWO’s concerns 

related to this are evident (this program has been recast as the Grants to Encourage Arrest 

Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program). An important research question to 

consider, then, is, What impact does aggressive police enforcement of domestic violence 

protection orders have on domestic violence recidivism?

This evaluation closely examined only a few projects with a strong focus on probation 

monitoring of domestic violence offenders, but one of these projects stands out as a systems 

approach that appears to be successful in holding domestic violence offenders more accountable 

for probation violations. Related research questions to be considered are, What is the impact on 

domestic violence recidivism of close monitoring and aggressive enforcement of batterers’ 

conditions of release and conditions of probation? What is the impact of this monitoring and 

enforcement on victim safety?

The evaluation also produced several interesting findings with respect to prosecutor case 

screening of domestic violence cases. As noted in Chapter 5, prosecutor filing rates for domestic 

violence cases were high. This can be viewed as an intended, desirable, and necessary outcome 

when the number of arrests for domestic violence increase. At the same time, prosecutor case 

screening efforts were limited (as they are throughout the country with respect to other types of 

misdemeanors). This raises such questions as: What is the quality of cases going forward? Are 

dual arrests or a high percentage of female arrests an issue in this regard? 

Grant resources were focused on case screening at two sites; at one of those sites, the 

conviction rate doubled over the grant period; at the other, the conviction rate (80 percent) was 

considerably higher than at the other six sites. We also found significant improvements in police 

documentation of domestic violence incidents where grant-supported prosecutor case screening 
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 142

units worked closely with police toward that end. We cannot draw conclusions about those 

observations from this evaluation, but they do suggest research areas to consider.

Finally, another Arrest Policies Program project demonstrated an innovative approach to 

early intervention in domestic violence cases that should be explored further. Police take digital 

photographs of the crime scene, which are available to the arraignment judge; victims are 

contacted by victim witness staff within a matter of hours; and the prosecutor’s domestic 

violence unit has been elevated to bureau status under the prosecutor’s Major Crimes section.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 143

References

Avakame, E.F. 2001. Differential Police Treatment of Male-on-Female Spousal Violence. 

Violence Against Women , 7: 22.

Bassett, S. 1980. Battered Rich. Port Washington, NY: Ashley Books.

Booth, C.A. 1999. No-Drop Policies: Effective Legislation or Protectionist Attitude? University 

of Toledo Law Review, 30: 634-635.

Bowman, C.G. 1992. The Arrest Experiments: A Feminist Critique. The Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology, 1.

Bracher, P.B. 1996. Mandatory Arrest for Domestic Violence: The City of Cincinnati’s Simple 

Solution to a Complex Problem. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 65: 155-182.

Buzawa, E.S. and C.G. Buzawa. 1996. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

California Criminal Justice Statistics Center. 1999. Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in 

California, 1998. 

Carlson, C., and F. Nidey. 1995. Mandatory Penalties, Victim Cooperation, and the Judicial 

Processing of Domestic Abuse Assault Cases, Crime & Delinquency ,41: 132-149.

Ciraco, V.N. 2001. Fighting Domestic Violence With Mandatory Arrest, Are We Winning? An 

Analysis in New Jersey. Women’s Law Reporter, 22: 169-191.

Clark, S.J., M.R. Burt, M.M. Schulte, and K. Maguire. 1996. Coordinated Community 

Responses to Domestic Violence in Six Communities: Beyond the Justice System. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Connecticut Department of Public Safety. 1997. Crime in Connecticut, 1996. 

Corsilles, A. 1994. No-Drop Policies in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases: 

Guarantee to Action or Dangerous Solution? Fordham Law Review, 63: 858.

Costas, J. ed. 1983. Abuse of Women: Legislation, Reporting and Prevention. Lexington, MA: 

Lexington Books. 

Davis, R.C., and B. Smith. 1995. Domestic Violence Reforms: Empty Promises or Fulfilled 

Expectations. Crime & Delinquency, 41.

Davis, R.C., B. Smith, and L.B. Nickles. 1998. The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic 

Violence Misdemeanors. Crime & Delinquency, 44: 434.

Davis, R.C., B. Smith, and C. Rabbitt. 2001. Increasing Convictions in Domestic Violence: A 

Field Test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22: 61-72. 

DCJS in conjunction with the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. 1998. Family 

Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: Evaluation of the Mandatory 

Arrest Provisions, Second Interim Report to the Governor and the Legislature. New York.

Dunford, F.W., and D.S. Elliott. 1990. The Role of Arrest in Domestic Assault: The Omaha 

Police Experiment. Criminology, 28: 183-206.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 144

Epstein, J., and S. Langenbahn .1994. The Criminal Justice and Community Response to Rape. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Fagan, J. , E. Friedman, S. Wexler, and V. L. Lewis. 1984. National Family Violence 

Evaluation: Final Report: Vol. 1, Analytical Findings. San Francisco: URSA Institute.

Fagan, J. 1996. The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits. Washington, 

D.C., National Institute of Justice. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1999. Crime in the United States, 1998. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice.

Ford, D.A., and M.J. Regoli. 1993. The Criminal Prosecution of Wife Assaulters: Process, 

Problems, and Effects. In Legal Responses to Wife Assault: Current Trends and Evaluation, 

ed. N. Zoe Hilton. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Frisch, L.A. 1992. Research That Succeeds, Policies That Fail. The Journal of Criminal Law 

and Criminology, 83.

Fritzler, R., and L. Simon. 2000. The Development of a Specialized Domestic Violence Court 

in Vancouver, Washington Utilizing Innovative Judicial Paradigms, University of Missouri 

at Kansas City Law Review, 69: 139-177.

Greenleaf, R. 1993. Policing Domestic Disputes in the South: A Study of Turk’s Norm 

Resistance Theory . Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida:.

Hanna, C. 1996. No Right to Chose: Mandated Victim Participation in Domestic Violence 

Prosecutions. Harvard Law Review, 109: 1852.

Hart, B.J. 1995. Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence: Paper Presented at 

the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women . Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice.

Hirschel, D., and I. Hutchinson. 1992. Female Spouse Abuse and the Police Response: The 

Charlotte, North Carolina Experiment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83: 

73-119.

Hofford and Harrel. 1993. Family Violence: Interventions for the Justice System. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Holmes, W., S. Mignon, and T. Headley. 1993. Mandatory Arrest and Domestic Violence in 

Massachusetts.

Jones, D.A., and J. Belknap. 1999. Police Responses to Battering in a Progressive Pro -Arrest 

Jurisdiction. Justice Quarterly, 16: 249-273.

Klinger, D.A. 1995. Policing Spousal Assault. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

32, 308-324.

Lanza-Kaduce, L., R. Greenleaf, and M, Donahue. 1995. Trickle-Up Report Writing: The 

Impact of A Pro-arrest Policy for Domestic Disturbances. Justice Quarterly, 12: 525-542.

Lerman, L. 1992. The Decontextualization of Domestic Violence. The Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology, 83: 217-240.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 145

Lerman, L., L. Landis, and S. Goldzweig. 1983. State Legislation on Domestic Violence. In 

Abuse of Women: Legislation, Reporting and Prevention, ed. Joseph Costas, 39-70.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Litsky, M. 1990. Explaining the Legal System’s Inadequate Response to the Abuse of Women: 

A Lack of Coordination. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 8: 149-181.

Loving, N. 1980. Responding to Spouse Abuse and Wife Beating: A Guide for Police. Police 

Executive Research Forum.

Lyon, A. 1999. Be Careful What You Wish For: An Examination of Arrest and Prosecution 

Patterns of Domestic Violence Cases in Two Cities in Michigan. Michigan Journal of 

Gender and the Law, 5: 253.

Martin, M.E. 1997. Double Your Trouble: Dual Arrest in Family Violence. Journal of Family 

Violence. 

Maxwell, C., J. Garner, and J. Fagan. 2001. The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: 

New Evidence from Spouse Ass ault Replication Program. National Institute of Justice 

Research Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

McCord, J. 1992. Deterrence of Domestic Violence: A Critical View of Research. Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency. 29: 229-239.

Miller, Neal M. 2000. “Domestic Violence Legislation Affecting Police and Prosecutor 

Responsibilities.” Alexandria, Virginia: Institute for Law and Justice. 

Mills, L. G. 1998. Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for Domestic Violence. Criminal 

Justice & Behavior, 25: 306.

North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission Violence Against Women Committee. 1998. 

Domestic Violence: Best Practices for Law Enforcement Response, A Model Policy Manual 

Prepared Under the Violence Against Women Act.

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. 1999. Domestic Violence in North Dakota, 

1997.

Owens-Manley, J. 1999. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work , 14: 439.

Paulozzi, L., L. Saltzman, M. Thompson, and P. Holmgreen. 2001. Surveillance for Homicide 

Among Intimate PartnersUnited States, 1981-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report, 50(SS-3). 

Peterson, W., and S. Thunberg. 2000. Evaluation Report for the San Diego County Domestic 

Violence Courts. Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute.

Pleck, E. 1987. Domestic Tyranny: The Making of Social Policy Against Family Violence from 

Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rand, M. 1987. Violence Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Rooms. Special 

Report. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Reiss, A.J., and J.A. Roth. 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: 

National Academy.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 146

Rennison, C.M. 2001. Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim 1993-99. Special Report. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Rennison, C.M., and S. Welchans. 2000. Intimate Partner Violence. Special Report 3. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Schechter, S. 1982. Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Strategies of the Battered 

Women’s Movement . Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Schneider, E. 2000. Battered Women, Feminist Lawmaking and the Struggle for Equality. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sherman, L.W. 1992. Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. New York, NY: 

The Free Press.

Sherman, L.W., and R. Berk. 1984. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. Police 

Foundation Reports, 1.

Sherman, L.W., and E. Cohn. 1989. The Impact of Research on Legal Policy: The Minneapolis 

Domestic Violence Experiment. Law and Society Review, 23: 117-144.

Sherman, L.W., et al. 1992. The Variable Effects of Arrest on Criminal Careers: The Milwaukee 

Domestic Violence Experiment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83: 137-

169.

Smith, B. 1983. Non-Stranger Violence: The Criminal Court’s Response. Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice.

Stark, E., et al. N.D. Battering in Medical Context. Washington, DC: Office on Domestic 

Violence, Department of Health and Human Services.

Steinman, M. 1988. Evaluating a System-Wide Response to Domestic Violence: Some Initial 

Findings. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 4: 172-86. 

Steinman, M. 1990. Lowering Recidivism Among Men Who Batter Women, Journal of Police 

Science and Administration , 17: 124-32.

Stephens, B. J. and P.G. Sinden. 2000. Victims’ Voices. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15: 

534.

Sullivan, C.M., and Bybee, D. 1999. Promising Findings of a Community-Based Advocacy 

Project for Women with Abusive Partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

67(1): 43-5r3.

Syers M., and J. Edelson. 1992. The Combined Effects of Coordinated Criminal Justice 

Intervention in Woman Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7: 490-502.

Tauchen, H., and A.Dryden Witte. 1994. The Dynamics of Domestic Violence: Does Arrest 

Matter? Working Paper No 4939. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. and D. Gibbs. 1998. Severity of Dispositions and Domestic 

Violence Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 44: 388-398.

Tjaden, P., and N. Theonnes. 2000. Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner 

Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice.
Arrest Policies Program Evaluation · 147

Tolman, R.M., and A. Weisz. 1995. Coordinated Community Intervention for Domestic 

Violence: The Effects of Arrest and Prosecution on Recidivism of Woman Abuse 

Perpetrators. Crime and Delinquency, 41(4): 481. 

Tsai, B. 2000. The Trend Toward Specialized Domestic Violence Courts: Improvements on an 

Effective Innovation. Fordham Law Review, 68: 1285-1327.

U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence. 1984. Final Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

United States House of Representatives. 1979. Hearings on Domestic Violence, Prevention and 

Services: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on 

Education and Labor, Ninety-Sixth Congress, first session, July 10, 11. 

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1981. Domestic Violence: Hearings Held in 

Phoenix, Arizona, February 12-13. 

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 1982. Domestic Violence: Hearings Held in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, June 17-18.

United States House of Representatives. 1994. Conference Report 103-694, Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, August 10. 

United States House of Representatives. 1995. Domestic Violence as a Public Health Issue: 

Hearings before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of 

the Committee on Government Operations, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, 

October 5.

United States House of Representatives. 1994. Hearings on Domestic Violence: Not Just a 

Family Matter: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the 

Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, June 30.

United States Senate. 1985. Domestic Violence and Public Health: Hearings before the 

Subcommittee on Children, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Committee on Labor and Human 

Resources, Ninety-Ninth Congress, first session, October 30. 

United States Senate. 1978. Domestic Violence, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Child 

and Human Development of the Committee on Human Resources, Ninety-Fifth Congress, 

Second Session. 

United States Senate. 1990. Domestic Violence: terrorism in the home: Hearings before the 

Subcommittee on Children, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Committee on Labor and Human 

Resources, One Hundred First Congress, second session, April 19.

Walsh, K. 1995. The Mandatory Arrest Law: Police Reaction. Pace Law Review, 16: 105.

Yanich, D. 1999. Dealing With Domestic Violence: A Comparative Look at Case Processing in 

Family Court of the State of Delaware, 1989-90 v. 1995 -96.

Zorza, J. 1992. The Criminal Law of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence, 1970-1990. The 

Jou rnal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83: 240-279.

Zorza, J. 1994. Must We Stop Arresting Batterers? Analysis and Policy Implications of New 

Police Domestic Violence Studies. New England Law Review 28, 929-990.

Zorza, J. 1995. Mandatory Arrest for Domestic Violence. Criminal Justice, 10: 2-54.