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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Longitudinal Study of Battered Women in the 

System: The Victims' and Decision-Makers' 

Perceptions, Final Report 

Author(s): Joanne Belknap ; Cris M. Sullivan 

Document No.: 202946 

Date Received: 11/19/2003 

Award Number: 98-WT-VX-0024

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

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

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
( 

FINAL REPORT: 

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF BATTERED WOMEN IN THE SYSTEM: 

THE VICTIMS’ AND DECISION-MAKERS’ PERCEPTIONS 

October 22,2002 

Submitted to: 

The National Institute of Justice 

Research and Evaluation on Violence Against Women 

Research Team: 

Principal Investigator: 

Joanne Belknap, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Sociology 

University of Colorado 

Boulder, CO 80309-0327 

phone: 303/735-2182 

e-mail: belknap@sobek.colorado.edu 

Co-Principal Investigator: 

Cris M. Sullivan, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Psychology Department 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, MI 48824-1 117 

phone: 5 17/353-8867 

e-mail: cris.sullivan@ssc.msu.edu 

fax: 303/492-6924 

FINAL REPORT 

Approved By: / 4y &B 

Date: T/Y,/O -3 

fax: 5 17/432-2945 

Research Associates: 

Ruth Fleury-Steiner, Ph.D. Heather Melton, Ph.D. Amy Leisenring, M.A. 

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Doctoral Candidate 

University of Delaware Sociology Department Sociology Department 

Department of Individual University of Utah University of Colorado 

and Family Studies 

1 16 Alison Hall West 

Newark, DE 19716 

380 S. 1530 E., #301 

Salt Lake City, UT 841 12 

Boulder, CO 80309-0327 

NIJ Grant Number 1998-WT-VX-0024 

Note: The views are those of the authors and do not purport to represent the position of the National 

Institute of Justice or the United States Department of Justice. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements 

Abstract 

Introduction 

Overview of the Literature 

The Current Study Objectives 

Method 

Results 

Chapter One: Describing Abused Women’s Experiences 

Chapter Two: Battered Women’s Satisfaction with the System 

Chapter Three: The Impact of Prosecution on Subsequent Violence 

and Use of the System 

Chapter Four: Attorneys’ Self-Reported Experiences, Behaviors, 

and Attitudes Regarding Domestic Violence 

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 

References 

Page 

1 

2 

3 

5 

11 

11 

19 

19 

34 

51 

57 

67 

72 

Appendix 

Table 1.1: 

Table 1.2: 

Table 1.3: 

Table 1.4: 

Table 1.5: 

Table 1.6: 

Table 1.7: 

Table 1.8: 

Table 1.9: 

Table 1 .lo: 

Table 1.1 1 

Table 1.12 

Table 1.13: 

Table 2.1 

Table 3.1 

Table 4.1 

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 

Criminal Processing System Use and Response Characteristics 

Physical Violence Frequencies at Time 1, Time, 2 and Time 3 

Types of Injuries Received During Incident 

Types of Injuries Women Received After the Arrest 

Power and Control Tactics Perpetrated Against Women 

The Role of Threats in Women’s Reported Abuse 

Actions Taken by Police Officers 

Actions Taken by Court Advocates 

Actions Taken by Prosecuting Attorneys 

Participants’ Reports of Court Outcomes 

Reasons Women Went to Court and the Barriers They Faced 

Reasons Women Reported for Not Going to Court 

Final Cluster Centroids for Four Cluster Solution 

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Strength of Women’s 

Future Intention to Use the Legal System 

District Attomeys’Rrosecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence 

Cases 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgements 

The authors are grateful to the many agencies and individuals who made this 

study possible. It is with great appreciation that we thank the various district attorney, 

prosecutonal and victim services offices in Ingham County, Michigan; Boulder County, 

Colorado, and Denver, Colorado. Some of the individuals working in these offices who 

especially made our study possible include: Margaret Abrams, Linda Ferry, Dora-Lee 

Larson, Zoe Livingston-Pool, Martha Mitchell, John Poley, Susan Ransbottom, Bill 

Ritter, Ginger Sherlock, and Janet Strahan. 

I 

We thank the prosecutors and district attorneys who took the time to be 

interviewed and explain how they process domestic violence cases. We also thank 

Meghan Stroshine and the many undergraduates who helped with data collection. Many 

thanks to Deb Bybee, whose expertise with longitudinal data analysis was invaluable. 

Needless to say, this research could not be carried out without the women who 

were willing to take part in the study, telling their often painful experiences. We thank 

these women for telling us about their lives. 

1 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
ABSTRACT 

Although a growing body of research has focused on the law enforcement and 

criminal justice response to woman battering, relatively little scholarly work has 

attempted to understand the victims' experiences in the criminal processing system and, 

in particular, how the courts respond to battered women and their batterers. The major 

objectives of the current study were to (1) better understand the impact of prosecution, 

with and without survivor participation, on battered women's satisfaction with the 

'prosecutorial system (process and outcome); (2) better understand other factors that 

impact battered women's satisfaction with the criminal processing system; (3) examine 

the long-term impact of prosecution with and without survivor participation on 

subsequent violence and survivors' subsequent interactions with the criminal processing 

system; and (4) examine prosecutors' self-reported experiences, behaviors, and attitudes 

regarding woman battering cases. 

This study helps fill the knowledge gap about what happens with woman battering 

cases from the point of the final disposition in the courts through the ensuing year. 

Between March 1999 and December 2000,178 battered women from three sites (Boulder 

County, Colorado, Ingham County, Michigan and the city of Denver, Colorado) were 

interviewed three times: shortly after their final court dispositions, and six months and 

one year post-disposition. Moreover, we interviewed prosecutors in the three sites 

regarding their perceptions about experiences with these cases. Results suggest that the 

way women are treated by the various actors in the system is strongly related to their 

overall satisfaction and intent to use the system again. While most women faced a 

variety of personal and structural barriers to participating in prosecution, many women 

did still participate in this process. Research, policy and practice implications of the 

study are discussed. 

2 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTRODUCTION 

Up until the 1970s, most people considered intimate violence against womev in 

the United States to be a “family problem.’’ Social welfare agencies handled domestic 

violence situations for the most part, and the criminal processing system played a 

minimal role (Buzawa, & Buzawa, 1996). Woman battering first was constructed as a 

significant social concern deserving of legal attention in the late 1970s and early 1980s 

(Belknap, 1995; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; Ford et al., 1996; Pleck 1987). At this time, 

feminist groups, victim advocates and concerned criminal justice workers criticized the 

reluctance of police departments and the criminal processing system to provide protection 

to battered women and demanded reforms (Belknap, 1995; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; 

Hilton, 1993). As a result of this pressure, changes in the criminal processing system 

included: the removal of procedural barriers to official action (such as the elimination of 

a federal law in the 1970s mandating that battered women must initiate divorce 

proceedings before requesting a temporary restraining order); new substantive domestic 

violence laws (such as the legislation of “domestic violence statutes” by many states that 

created a separate domestic violence criminal offense); increased use of arrests and 

restraints on offenders; and court-sponsored mediation and counseling programs (Buzawa 

& Buzawa, 1996; Chauddhuri & Daly, 1992; Halsted, 1992). 

8 

Ford et al. (1 996) argue that during the past two decades the criminal processing 

system has moved away from its initial rehabilitative orientation in its attempt to stop 

domestic violence and has instead adopted a control perspective. They maintain that this 

change stems from two separate political movements that have called for a punitive 

stance towards domestic violence: (1) the “law and order” movement, which has 

3 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
advocated for harsher punishment toward crime in general; and (2) the feminist 

movement, which has called for the punishment of woman battering to assert the 

seriousness of it as a crime. Feminist groups also called for the implementation of policy 

mandating a uniform response to domestic violence. The reasons for this were twofold: 

(1) when left to their own discretion, many police officers and prosecutors had a tendency 

not to take domestic violence very seriously and therefore treated batterers leniently; and 

(2) problems with victim reluctance to participate in prosecution, as well as an 

overemphasis on victim participation over using other evidence to try cases, resulted in 

dropped charges and case dismissals (Belknap, 1995; Davis & Smith, 1995). 

These movements resulted in an increase in the legal responses to woman 

battering. Substantial policy changes took place in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1984, the 

U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence recommended that family 

violence be treated as a “criminal activity” (Ferraro & Pope, 1993). Additional changes 

included the removal of procedural barriers to official action, new substantive domestic 

violence laws, increased use of arrest of and restraints on offenders, and court-sponsored 

mediation and counseling programs (Belknap, 1995; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; Jones & 

Belknap, 1999). Police were also challenged to intervene in domestic violence situations 

more proactively. 

To date, the vast majority of criminal justice focused research on woman battering 

has focused on the police response, and the vast majority of data have been collected 

fi-om the “system” (e.g., police reports) rather than from the victims (see Erez & Bellcnap, 

1998). Official police reports, however, have been found to be minimally correlated with 

victim reports of the same incidents (Fleury, Sullivan, Bybee, & Davidson, 1998). For a 

4 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
number of reasons, the study described herein is a significant contribution to the current 

understanding of woman battering and the ways the system can improve responses to 

battered women. First, the data are largely womadvictim-centered. Rather than relying 

on system records to find out what happened to battered women, we asked the women 

about their experiences both with battering and with the formal criminal legal system 

(e.g., victim advocates, police, prosecutors, and judges). A second major contribution of 

the study is that, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine both the police and 

the court responses to domestic violence within the same study. The longitudinal data, 

collected by re-interviewing women 6 and 12 months after their court cases ended, 

allowed an unprecedented means of examining how women’s battering experiences and 

how their experiences with the criminal processing system (particularly the police and 

courts) were related to their subsequent experiences with violence and their subsequent 

choices in using the system. 

I 

OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

Police Response to Domestic Violence 

As a result of the women’s movement, changing laws and policies, the Violence 

Against Women Act of 1994, and empirical research, today most police departments’ 

policies favor arrest over other strategies when handling domestic violence incidents. 

Mandatory arrest laws, which require an officer to make an arrest when there is probable 

cause to believe that an assault has occurred regardless of whether the officer witnessed 

the event and regardless of the survivor’s desires or preferences, have been enacted in 

5 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
many states across the nation (Miller, 1998). Even more ubiquitous are preferred arrest 

policies that strongly encourage, but do not mandate, arrests in these situations. Despite 

the proliferation of laws and policies mandating police action, however, arrest continues 

to remain the exception rather than the rule in domestic violence cases-with only 20 to 

30% of domestic violence calls resulting in arrest (Feder, 1997). 

Victims’ attitudes about the police. Studies continue to find that police demeanor 

and behavior is strongly related to victim satisfaction with the law enforcement response 

(Buzawa & Austin, 1993; Shoham, 2000; Stephens & Sinden, 2000). One study based on 

victim perceptions classified police demeanor into four negative categories (minimizing 

the situation, disbelieving the victim, uncaring, and macho cop) as well as a fiositive 

category (Stephens & Sinden, 2000). Police who were viewed positively by victims were 

more likely to be empathic, nonjudgmental, and to listen to the victims’ side of the story. 

Understanding survivor satisfaction with the law enforcement response, as well as 

I 

the entire criminal legal system response, is extremely important, since survivors may 

change their future help-seeking strategies depending on their experiences with the 

system (Lewis, Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 2000; Rigakos, 1998). If the police 

response is not helpful, survivors may be less likely to contact them about any future 

assaults. Moreover, survivors who are not satisfied with the police response may be less 

likely to participate in the court system (Lerman, 1992). Conversely, if survivors find 

any component of the criminal legal system helpful, they may be more likely to contact 

the police again. 

6 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Court Response to Domestic Violence 

The widespread adoption of mandatory or preferred arrest policies in cases of 

domestic violence has produced a dramatic increase in cases referred for prosecution 

(Cahn, 1992). In a number of states and jurisdictions (Corsilles, 1994; Hanna, 1998), 

prosecutors have adopted mandatory (or “no-drop”) prosecution policies as a logical 

extension of mandatory or preferred arrest policies. These policies require that 

prosecutors pursue cases regardless of the wishes of the survivor. In other words, the 

prosecution of domestic violence cases is no longer dependent upon the willingness of 

the survivor to testify. Instead, many times these cases are treated as are murder cases 

(Hansen, 1995; Mills, 1999), with other evidence (e.g, testimony of police officers, 

witnesses, medical records, photographs) presented in lieu of the survivor’s testimony. 

Some researchers have also argued that no-drop policies are not always in 

victims’ best interests and may actually increase their risk of abuse (Davies et al., 1998; 

Ford, 1991; Hilton, 1993; Hoyle, 1998; Mills, 1996). Not only have courts sometimes 

punished women who refuse to testify against their batterers by charging them with 

contempt of court (Hilton, 1993), but many researchers and battered women advocates 

argue that no-drop and mandatory arrest policies disempower women because they limit 

women’s agency by ignoring their opinions and prohibiting their ability to make choices 

(Ferraro & Pope, 1993; Ford, 1991). There are many reasons a woman may not want her 

batterer to be jailed-she may depend on him for income, child support and/or housing, 

she may be afraid he will be even angrier when he gets out ofjail and his violence against 

her will escalate, she may not trust the system, or she may not want to end her 

relationship with him (Erez & Belknap, 1998; Hart, 1996; McLeod, 1983). 

7 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In one of the few studies to ask survivors about their decisions around 

prosecution, Ford (1991) found that many women used prosecution as a power resource. 

For instance, survivors would decide to pursue or to drop charges if the perpetrator did 

certain things, such as promising to get counseling. Based on the concept of the ability to 

pursue or prevent prosecution as a source of power for survivors, Ford cautioned against 

policies that may result in disempowering survivors by taking away their choice to pursue 

prosecution or not. I 

Moreover, Ford and Regoli (1992) found that those assailants who went through 

an initial hearing were less likely to commit later violent acts against the same survivor 

than those who did not. Women who had the opportunity to drop charges but did not 

were less likely to be assaulted six months later than those who did request charges be 

dropped. At the time of the study, survivors were only permitted to drop charges if they 

had initiated the complaint; if the assailant had been arrested, survivors were not able to 

drop charges. The authors argued that it may be that the “preventive policy impact 

derives from her power to drop rather than from judicial action’’ (p. 204). 

In contrast, some areas have experimented with prosecution even without survivor 

participation. Lerman (1 992; Cahn & Lerman, 199 1) argues that the best way to help 

survivors may be to pursue prosecution of assailants whether or not the survivors want 

prosecution. By prosecuting the assailant, the criminal legal system sends the message 

that the community will not tolerate violence. Shifting responsibility for prosecution 

from the survivors to the prosecutors also may give survivors a better opportunity to 

control the rest of their lives, to the extent that prosecution keeps them safer. 

8 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
For some women, then, having control over prosecution and deciding to prosecute 

may protect them, as Ford (1983; 1991; Ford & Regoli, 1992) has argued. For other 

women, deciding to participate in prosecution may put them in more danger. Women 

who have been battered are more likely to be killed when they are trying to end the 

relationship or when they are pursuing prosecution (Browne, 1987; Mahoney, 1991). In 

addition, assailants may threaten survivors specifically to keep them from participating in 

prosecution (Hart, 1993; Mahoney, 1991). In such cases, taking that power to decide 

about prosecution away from survivors may keep them safe and thus allow them more 

control over other aspects of their lives. 

Victim Participation in the Criminal Lena1 System 

Given the potency of the stereotype of battered women as "non-cooperative" with 

criminal processing officials, it is necessary to examine what is termed victidwitness 

cooperation-- the degree to which a victidwitness participates in the prosecution process 

- as applied to woman battering.' McLeod (1983, p. 400) offers a definition of this 

general phenomenon (not as it might be solely applied to woman battering): 

Victim noncooperation can be operationalized in several manners-failure 

to call the police, failure to cooperate at the time of the police intervention, 

failure to sign the formal complaint, failure to appear at the district 

attorney's office to formally document the charges, and failure to appear at 

the scheduled court hearing (McLeod, 1983, p. 400). 

'The authors are uneasy using the term "cooperation" in terms of the victidwitness 

response to the criminal processing system personnel, and prefer the less pejorative term 

"participation. It 

9 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Furthermore, McLeod argues that policies designed to change the criminal processing 

system's responses to woman battering "will be meaningless if the victim refbses to 

cooperate in the prosecution" (McLeod, 1983, p. 400). Victidwitness "cooperation," 

however, is complicated, particularly when applied to woman battering. Research 

findings on woman battering emphasize the keen role that "fear of reprisal" plays in 

battered women's reluctance to involve the criminal processing system personnel, 

particularly with more violent batterers (see Sherman & Berk, 1984; Ewing, 1987; 

Singer, 1988). Hart (1993) points out that battered women require all the information and 

I 

assistance other victims and witnesses need for informed participation, but that they also 

require increased advocacy and protection. Further, she states that the greatest 

commonality among the varied victims and their differences in experiencing battering "is 

that battered women confront significant barriers to safe and effective participation as 

victim-witnesses in the criminal justice process" (p. 625). 

Actions and assumptions of criminal justice oficials themselves have been found 

to inhibit battered women's participation in the system. For example, there is 

considerable documentation of disproportionate victim-blaming by the police, 

prosecutors, judges and other court staff in woman battering cases (Hart, 1993). 

There are many other barriers to women's participation in the criminal legal 

system if their perpetrators are arrested. Some women fear that they themselves will be, 

arrested if they have outstanding warrants or are in the country without documentation. 

Some women of Color are concerned that their perpetrators will be handled especially 

harshly by a traditionally racist system. Still other women do not believe that probation 

or jail time will rehabilitate the abuser. Structural barriers such as lack of transportation, 

10 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
inability to take time off work, or lack of childcare impede some women fiom 

participating in the criminal legal system. In short, there are a myriad of reasons women 

have for either wanting or not wanting their perpetrators arrested and/or prosecuted and 

there are numerous variables affecting women's abilities to testify. This study was 

designed to explore these issues in more detail. 

THE CURRENT STUDY OBJECTIVES 

The major objectives of the current study were to: (1) describe the experiences 

of battered women whose cases reach the courts (findings reported in Chapter 1); (2) 

examine battered women's satisfaction with the prosecutorial system and the factors 

associated with this (findings reported in Chapter 2); (3) examine the long-term impact of 

prosecution, with or without survivor participation, on subsequent violence and survivors' 

subsequent interactions with the criminal processing system (findings reported in Chapter 

3); and (4) examine prosecutors' self-reported experiences, behaviors, and attitudes 

regarding woman battering cases (findings reported in Chapter 4). 

METHOD 

Research Sites 

This longitudinal study utilized a multi-site sample and multi-source design. One 

hundred seventy eight victims of misdemeanor domestic violence whose cases had gone 

through the criminal processing system were interviewed three times after their final 

court dispositions in Ingham County, Michigan; Boulder County, Colorado; and Denver, 

11 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Colorado. The study included only female victims of domestic violence over the age of 

eighteen whose male intimate partners (husband, ex-husband, boyfhend, ex-bornend, 

lover, or ex-lover) had been arrested for violent or attempted violent crime against them. 

Using a naturalistic design, victims varied in both demographics (e.g., economic levels, 

race, relationship with the defendants, etc.) and in court outcomes (e.g., victims whose 

cases ended in dismissal, conviction, or original charge, conviction of lesser charges, 

etc.). 

The three sites were chosen to maximize sample size and to obtain a 

heterogeneous sample of battered women. The three sites differed in terms of their class 

and raciaVethnic make-up. The city of Lansing in Ingham County, Michigan is a 

medium-sized industrial city with 130,000 residents. Approximately 70 percent of the 

residents are white, 20 percent are African American, and 8 percent are Latino. The 

median income is just over $26,000 and 20 percent of residents live at or below the 

poverty line. Boulder County, Colorado has approximately 255,000 residents, with 

approximately 85 percent white, 7 percent Latino, 3 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 

and less than 1 percent each Afi-ican American and Native American and 3 percent other 

races. The median household income in Boulder County is $35,000, with 11 percent of 

the population living below the poverty line. It is a fairly rural county with the exception 

of the city of Boulder. Denver is an industrialized city with a population of almost half a 

million residents, with 62 percent white, 23 percent Latino/& 12 percent African 

American, 2 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent Native American. 

The median household income is about $25,000 and 17 percent of the population lives 

below the poverty line. 

12 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The sites also differed in their structures. For example, Boulder County has had a 

coordinated, multi-system response to domestic violence in place since 1986. Part of this 

involves law enforcement officers throughout the county charging domestic violence 

under the state statute rather than municipal ordinance. Boulder County has 17 

prosecuting attorneys, and approximately 3 of them deal with the 1,000 misdemeanor 

domestic violence cases Boulder County has per year. Denver has both a City’s 

Attorneys Office that has 10 prosecutors who process the majority of the 5,000 domestic I 

violence cases per year, as well as a district attorney’s office. In contrast, Ingham 

County, Michigan has 8 prosecutors that deal with the more than 1,000 domestic violence 

cases they get per year. Moreover, both Boulder County and Denver have daicated 

domestic violence units within the District Attorney’s and City Prosecutor’s offices, 

while Ingham County, MI does not. 

Data Collection 

Data collection began in March of 1999 and ended in December of 2000. The 

respondents were recruited from the Boulder County District Attorney, Denver 

ProsecutorDistrict Attorney, and the Lansing District Attorney’s offices after their final 

case disposition. After domestic violence cases closed, potential respondents were 

mailed a flyer briefly describing the research with a phone number to call for more 

information, as well as a stamped self-addressed return postcard. Only women who 

contacted the project by either calling or returning the postcard were included in the 

study. In addition, in Ingham County, Michigan due to a low response rate, staff 

members of the project went to the final disposition of domestic violence cases and 

13 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
handed out the flyers in person. In Denver, the victim advocates themselves also handed 

out flyers in addition to sending them. 

A total of 178 women who had been abused by their partners or ex-partners and 

whose cases had gone through the criminal justice system in any of the three sites were 

recruited and interviewed at Time 1. Ninety-two of these women were from Denver, 48 

from Boulder, and 38 from Ingham County. At Time 2, the retention rate was 90 percent, 

with 36 respondents from Lansing, 46 from Boulder County, and 78 from Denver. At 

Time 3, the retention rate remained high at 83 percent: 34 respondents from Ingham, 44 

from Boulder County, and 70 fi-om Denver. The drop in retention was most significant in 

Denver-the most populous of the three sites in the study. 

The participants were interviewed by extensively trained and supervised 

undergraduate student interviewers, along with four graduate students, just after their 

final disposition, six months later, and one year after their final disposition. Interviews 

were conducted in research participants’ homes or in locations they deemed to be safe. 

The participants were paid forty dollars for the first interview and fifty dollars for each of 

the subsequent interviews. 

In addition to the longitudinal interviews with abused women, this study also 

included qualitative interviews with district attomeys/prosecutors in the offices of the 

sites. In total, 2 1 district attorneys/prosecutors were interviewed. 

Measures 

Several major types of variables were measured in the face-to-face survivor 

interviews. The first type was indicators of the violence and resultant injuries. The 

second type was contextual variables that described the context of women’s lives, 

14 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
including race, relationship with the assailant, and economic dependence. The third type 

was variables that described survivors’ experiences with the legal system processes and 

outcome. The fourth described the survivors’ perceived control over and satisfaction 

with the different aspects of the criminal legal system. 

Two pilot tests were conducted in Boulder County, one in Denver, and two in 

Lansing, Michigan in order to examine the degree to which the interview questions were 

clear and comprehensive. In addition, feedback on the interview items was obtained 

fiom service providers in all three sites. 

I 

Violence Variables: 

Physical violence An extended version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) 

(Straw, 1979) was used to examine which of twenty two types of violence occurred 

during the incident that led to the court case. Two items were dropped from the scale: 

“shot” was dropped because no women had been shot and “drove recklessly in order to 

scare or hurt you” was dropped due to low reliability. A count of the number of types of 

violence women experienced during that assault was created (Cronbach’s alpha = 35). 

A severity scale for the incident that led to the court case was created (see 

Sullivan & Bybee, 1999), with 0 = No violence, 1 = Less severe violence (e.g., pushed, 

slapped), 2 = Severe violence (e.g., kicked, beat up) and 3 = Highly severe violence (e.g., 

choked, stabbed). This third category is consistent with Straus’s (1 979) factor analysis of 

the CTS. 

To examine the validity of this coding, a series of t-tests were conducted 

comparing women who experienced “severe” violence with women who experienced 

15 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
“highly severe” violence. Women who experienced highly severe violence during the 

assault that led to the court case had more injuries from that assault than women who 

experienced severe violence (1 (123) = -2.08, p < .05; severe &J = 3.08 (m = 2.24); 

highly severe M = 4.05 (SIJ = 2.95)). Women who experienced highly severe violence 

during the target assault were also threatened with death more often over the six months 

before the target assault (1 (123) = -3.90, p < .001; severe &J = .84 (SIJ = 1.19); highly 

severe M = 2.02 (SD = 2.08) where 0 = “never” and 7 = “every day”). , 

Iniuries Survivors were asked to indicate which of seventeen injuries, such as 

soreness without bruising, black eyes, and broken bones, resulted from the assault @at led 

to the court case. On average, women received 2.7 injuries from that assault (;SD = 2.63), 

though this ranged from no injuries to 13 different injuries. Cronbach’s alpha for this 

scale was .79. 

Contextual Variables: 

Relationship to assailant Survivors were asked what their relationship was with 

the assailant when the assailant was arrested (e.g., married, divorced, living together, 

dating). 

Economic dependence For some survivors, arrest and conviction of their assailant 

can lead to economic hardship. Because even a small loss of the total income can impact 

survivors’ lives, survivors were asked to rate how important the economic contribution of 

their assailant was on a four point Likert-type scale (0 = “not at all important” to 3 = 

“very important”). 

16 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
, 

Social support Survivors were asked if friends, family, and agencies or systems 

(e.g., domestic violence shelters, religious leaders, hospitals) knew about the violence, 

and if so, how supportive those people or agencies were of them (0 = “very unsupportive” 

to 4 = “very supportive”). A mean social support scale was created as the average 

supportiveness among those people who knew. On average, women reported that 5.9 

individuals or agencies (other than the police and prosecutor) knew about the violence 

(S& = 2.8). The mean supportiveness among those who knew was 3.1 (somewhat 

supportive; SD = .70). 

Criminal Legal System Variables: 

Police contact Survivors were asked how many officers responded to the incident 

that led to the court case, and how many were female. Survivors were asked to indicate 

on a five point scale how supportive the police were of them (0 = “very unsupportive” to 

4 = “very supportive”). Survivors were also asked to indicate on a five point scale how 

satisfied they were with the police response to that incident (1 = ‘‘very dissatisfied” to 5 = 

“very satisfied”). 

Court contact Survivors were asked multiple questions about what happened in 

the court process. All survivors were asked how much time (if any) they spent talking 

with the prosecutor. They were also asked to indicate on a five point scale how 

supportive the prosecutor was of them (0 = “not at all supportive” to 4 = “very 

supportive”). Survivors were asked to indicate on a five point scale how satisfied they 

were with the way the prosecutor handled the case (1 = ‘’very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very 

satisfied”). They were asked the final outcome of the case (e.g., assailant pled guilty, 

17 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
charges dismissed), how satisfied they were with the court process (the way things were 

done in the hearings andor trial), and how satisfied they were with the outcome of the 

case (1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”). 

Control and Satisfaction Variables 

8, 

For each of the four components of the criminal legal system (the police response, 

the prosecutor response, the court process, and the court outcome), participants were 

asked how much control they felt they had (0 = “no control” to 3 = “a lot of control”). 

Women also were asked to indicate on a five point scale how satisfied they were with 

each of these four aspects of the criminal legal system (1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = 

“very satisfied”). 

Oualitative Interviews with Prosecutors 

In-depth qualitative interviews were created to examine prosecutors’ 

experiences with and attitudes toward domestic violence cases. Questions pertained to 

prosecutors’ perceptions of (1) victims, (2) defendants, (3) how domestic violence cases 

differ from other cases, and (4) how the system could be improved. Interview questions 

were open-ended and encouraged the attorneys to formulate their own narratives of their 

experiences. 

18 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESULTS 

CHAPTER ONE 

Research Objective #I: 

Describing Abused Women 's Experiences 

Univariate and Bivariate Findings from the Interviews with Abused Women 

Demographic characteristics of the sample of abused women are presented in 

Table 1.1% the Appendix. More than half of the respondents were white (55.1%r2.2 

percent were Ahcan American, 16.3 percent were Latina, and 8.4 percent identified as 

bi-or multi-racial, Native American, Asian American, and European immigrant (noncitizen). The average age of the respondents was 32, with a range from 18 to 60 years 

old. The majority of the respondents either had a high school diploma or attended some 

college by the time of the first interview. Specifically, 25.3 percent graduated from high 

school, 30.3 percent attended some college, and 15.2 percent graduated from college. 

Furthermore, 15.3 percent of the respondents either attended trade school, received an 

associate's degree, or had a professional degree. Only 14.0 percent of the respondents 

received less than a high school education. The majority of the respondents (48.6%) 

reported a household income level between $1000.00 and $2999.99 per month at the first 

interview. One-eighth (12.4%) made less than $500.00, 19.2 percent between $500.00 

and $999.99 dollars, and 19.7 percent made $3000.00 a month or more. The income 

levels remained fairly constant throughout the three interviews. Most of the respondents 

had a least one child (72.5%), with a range from no children to six children (see Table 

1.1). 

19 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
With regard to relationship with the abuser, close to 70 percent of the respondents 

reported that they were no longer with the abuser at each of the three interviews. The 

respondents were most likely to refer to them as their ex-boyfriends (46.1 % at Time 1, 

46.3% at Time 2, and 47.3% at Time 3), second most likely as their husbands from whom 

they were separated (14.0% at Time 1, 10.6% at Time 2, and 11.5% at Time 3), and third 

most likely as their ex-husbands (10.1% at Time 1, 12.5% at Time 2, and 15.5% at Time 

3). A smaller percentage reported being in a relationship with the abusers at the time of 

the interviews-married (9.6% at Time 1, 10.6% at Time 2, and 8.8% at Time 3), 

.r.c. .- -- 

girlfriendhoyfriend (13.5% at Time 1, 12.5% at Time 2, and 10.1% at Time 3), or dating 

(I. 1 % at Time 1; 0.6% at Time 2; 2.7% at Time 3). Notably, an increasing number of 

respondents reported that they did not remain in a relationship with the abuser over the 

course of the three time periods. For example, the divorce rate went from 10.1 percent at 

Time 1 to 15.5 percent by Time 3. Finally, a number of respondents reported to be 

involved in some “other relationship”-5.6 percent at Time 1; 6.9 percent at Time 2; and 

4.1 percent at Time 3. This last category included common-law relationships and nonintimate relationships in which the respondents continued to live together as roommates 

(see Table 1.1). 

No significant differences in terms of race, age, income, education level, and 

number of children were found between the women who participated in all three 

interviews and the women who did not. However, significant differences were found in 

terms of the geographical location of the women. Compared to the respondents from 

Ingham County and Boulder, significantly more women from Denver dropped out of the 

study. This is likely because Denver is a much larger city than either Lansing or Boulder. 

20 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In other words, because a larger city offers more places to move, the population may 

necessarily be more mobile and more difficult to locate. Also, due to its size, Denver 

may be an easier place in which to “disappear,” making it more difficult to track 

respondents over time. 

Frequencies were also obtained for certain variables relating to the criminal 

processing system (refer to Table 1.2 in the appendix). Specifically, we examined the 

victim’s use of the system, her participation in the criminal processing system, and the 

case outcome and case sentence at all three time periods. The sample sizes for each of 

dcn .-.r .-- 

these variables are defined as follows: (1) the variable titled “victim contacted the police” 

represents the number of cases at each time period in which the police were contacted, 

regardless of whether the abuser was arrested; (2) the variable titled “did she go to court” 

is a measure of court attendance; and (3) the variables “case outcome” and “sentence” 

represent the number of cases that had gone through the system at the time of the 

interview. 

Across all three time periods, between eight- and nine-tenths of the women who 

needed police assistance initiated contact with the police. Almost two-thirds of the 

women went to court in Time 1, and almost half did at Time 2. However, as noted later 

in Table 1.13, some of the women did not know when the court date was (refer to Table 

1.2). The 170 respondents who knew the case outcome at Time 1 reported that almost 

one-quarter (22.4%) of the defendants were found “not guilty’’ or had the case dismissed, 

while the majority of the defendants (77.8%) were found guilty-either having pled 

guilty or “no contest,” or having been convicted after a trial (refer to Table 1.2). At Time 

2, of the 14 cases with new charges and in which there was a known outcome, two 

21 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
defendants (14.3%) were found not guilty or had the case dismissed, while 12 (85.7) were 

found guilty or pled guilty. At Time 3, of the 9 cases in which the outcome was known, 

one-fifth (22.2%) were found not guilty or had the case dismissed, while about four-fifths 

(77.8%) were found or pled guilty. Sentences were known in 116 cases at Time 1. Just 

over half of the defendants (53.1 %) received probation or some other “light” sentence 

(including paying restitution or attending domestic violence classes). Over one-third of 

the defendants (36.2%) received at least some jail time (often time served). At Time 2, 

sentences were known in 11 cases. One-third of the defendants (33.3%) received 

, 

e 4 -- 

probation or some other “light” sentence. More than half of the defendants (58.3%) 

received jail time. At Time 3, sentences were known in all 6 cases. One-third’(33.3%) of 

the defendants received probation or some other “light” sentence, while two-thirds 

received some jail time (refer to Table 1.2). 

Table 1.3 presents the rates of physical violence the women reported at Time 1, 

Time 2, and Time 3. The reported levels at Time 1 (six months before the abuser was 

arrested) indicates patterns of quite serious violence. Although the violence significantly 

decreased by Time 2 (between the court date and six months later), and held steady from 

Time 2 to Time 3 (six months after the court date to a year later) a sizable portion of 

respondents were still experiencing violence. At Time 1, the most common violent 

behavior experienced was “being grabbed” (87.1 YO). “Pushed/shoved” was close behind 

at 84.3 percent. Over half of the respondents reported having something thrown at them, 

being driven recklessly, being beaten up, hit with a fist, and/or slapped. Close to half 

reported their abusers trying to hit them with an object, choking them, and tying them up 

or .physically restraining them. Over forty percent reported having their arms or legs 

22 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
'I.*,/ 

8 

twisted, their hair pulled, and/or their clothes tom or glasses broken. Slightly less than 

two-fifths reported being kicked (37.1%) or hit with an object (35.4). A sizeable 

percentage of women (21.3%) reported being raped by their partners or ex-partners at 

Time 1. The same number reported being threatened with a knife. Almost one-fifth 

(1 8.0%) reported experiencing other violence not covered in this scale-behaviors such 

as being slammed into the wall, thrown down stairs, and so on. About one in seven 

(15.2%) respondents reported being threatened with a gun, 11.2 percent being bitten, 5.6 

percent being burned, and 3.4 percent being stabbed. Although the experiences with 

n - ..- 

violence decreased by Times 2 and 3, violence continued for a significant number of 

women. 

Paired-samples t-tests (refer to Table 1.3) indicated that the means for each 

physical violence variable (except for burned and shot) significantly decreased between 

Time 1 and Time 2, but not between Time 2 and Time 3. Notably, the violence 

significantly decreased between Time I and Time 2-the time period in which every 

domestic violence respondent e.xperienced criminal justice intervention. However, it is 

important to emphasize that while the violence decreased, some women still reported 

serious levels of victimization from their abusers after the target incident which drew the 

police and subsequent court filing (how the women qualified to participate in the study). 

Indeed, these findings confirm the importance of advocating for battered women well 

after the initial incident to which the police responded that resulted in the court case 

tagged through our research method: 

0 44% of the women were stalked after the target arrest and before the case 

closed 

23 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

19% of the women were assaulted after the target arrest, and before the 

case closed 

36% of women were assaulted within the first six months after their court 

case closed 

32% of women were assaulted between six months and one yeq after their 

court case closed 

Table 1.4 presents a summary of the injuries sustained in the “target” event, the 

abuse incident that led to the court case from which the woman was recruited into the 

study. TE two most commonly reported injuries, reported by about three-fifths (S%> of 

the sample were “soreness without bruising” and “cuts, scrapes, bruises.” The next 

mostly commonly reported injury, reported by over a quarter (27%) was 

nausedvorniting, followed by about a fifth who reported “strains/sprains” (21 %) and 

“concussion or head injury” (1 8%). Approximately one in six women reported “bald 

spots or hair loss (1 6%) and “black eyes” (1 5%). About one-eighth (1 3%) reported 

“permanent scarring,” and one-in-nine women (1 1 YO) reported “burns, including rug 

burns.” Six percent of the women reported broken bones, 5 percent reported internal 

injuries, and 3 percent reported each of the following injuries: bite wounds, dislocated 

joints, and pregnancy complications/miscarriage. Two percent reported knife or gunshot 

wounds and 1 percent reported broken teeth. It is important to remember that these are . . 

injuries solely from the target incident, and yet they include a wide range of injuries, 

including some very serious ones. 

In an attempt to measure the abuse batterers perpetrated between the arrest and 

the court case, women were asked to report injuries from their abusive partners or expartners during this time period (see Table 1.5). While these data suggest that injuries are 

24 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
fewer post-arrest in many cases, they also suggest a serious amount of abuse that 

continues between arrest and the court date for a subsample of women. 

In addition to physical abuse and injuries, the survey included questions to 

examine power, control, and threats reported by women abused by their intimate partners 

in the 6 months prior to the target arrest. Table 1.6 reports rates of power and control 

tactics and Table 1.7 reports rates of threats. These tables indicate the importance of 

I including Lon-physical abuses when studying intimate partner violence. Almost thz - 

entire sample reported being “called names,” and about nine-tenths reported being 

“ridiculed/criticized,” “lied to,” and “accused of being crazy.” Over four-fifths reported 

the abuser “acting like he owned her” and “trying to control her activities.” Over threequarters reported the abusers “accusing her of wantinghaving other relationships,” 

“checking up on her,” and “trying to humiliate her.” Of the 35 women reporting a new 

partner (boyfriend or husband), 7 1 percent reported that the new partner was harmed or 

threatened. Over three-fi fths of the women reported abusers “breaking/destroying 

something important to her,” “refusing to talk to her,” “joking about or pretending to hurt 

her,” “making unwanted calls to her,” and “discouraging her contact with family and 

friends.” About three-fifths of the women reported abusers “trying to control her 

money,’’ “following/watching her,” “telling her she was an unfit mother,’’ “coming 

unwanted to home/work/school,” and “threatening to end the relationship when she didn’t 

want to.”2 About half the women reported the abuser “forbidding her from leaving 

home,” “telling her she wasn’t lovable,’’ “leaving unwanted phone messages,” “harassing 

These rates on these abuses control for whether the variable applies to a particular woman’s situation. For 

example, if he threatened to end the relationship was only used for women reporting being in the 

relationship, for questions about her children, she had to have children, and to get her fired, we controlled 

for whether the woman was employed. 

25 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
family or friends,” and “threatening to commit suicide.” Over two-fifths of the women 

reported the abuser “forcing her to leave home,” “stealing or reading her mail,” and 

‘‘threatening to take her children away.” Over one-third of the women reported abusers 

“breaking into their cars or homes” and “punishing or depriving her children when he 

was mad at her.” About one quarter of the women reported abusers “sending unwanted 

gifts/photos/letters” and “abusing pets.” Approximately one-fifth of the women reported 

abusers “trying to get her fired” and “leaving her with no way to get home.” iQ -- -- 

Notably, the vast majority of the women (84%) reported being threatened over the 

six month period prior to the target arrest. Three-Jifths of the women (61 %) reported 

abusers threatening to kill them in the previous 6 months. Ten percent of the women 

described this as a weekly event, and 3 percent described death threats as a daily event. 

Sixty percent also believed their abusers had access to a gun. Almost half (48%) reported 

that the abuser had threatened someone in their family or one of their friends. One-fifth 

of the women reported that the frequency of the threats had stayed the same or increased 

since the arrest. Three-fourths of the women reported being afraid that these were not 

simply idle threats, but rather, something the abuser could follow through with. 

Frequency-severity scales of violence during the six months before the arrest and 

for violence after the arrest were also created (described previously in the Method 

section). For this scale, O=No violence, 1 = Less severe violence only (e.g., pushed, 

slapped), 2 = Lower frequency (once a month or less) severe violence (e.g., kicked, beat 

up, threatened with a knife), and 3 = Frequent severe violence (more than once a month) 

26 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
(Sullivan & Bybee, 1999).3 For the six months prior to the target incident, the average 

violence score was 2.2 (SD = .78). The six months after the case closed showed a drop in 

the average violence score to .74 (1 .OS) and remained low for the time between six and 

twelve months after the case closed (M = .63, = .99). However, some of this decline 

may be due to the decrease in the number of women who were assaulted. Among those 

women who were assaulted at Time 2 (n=57), the mean was 2.07 (m = .73). Among 

those women assaulted at Time 3 (n=47), the mean was 1.96 (m = -66) iu .- -- 

In addition to questions about the frequency of violence during the six months 

before the arrest, and the six months and 12 months after the arrest, survivors were asked 

to indicate (yes-no) which of these twenty types of violence ,occurred during the incident 

that led to the court case. A scale of the number of types of violence women experienced 

during that assault was created which had a Cronbach’s alpha of 35, with corrected itemtotal correlations ranging from to .71 (grabbed) to .02 (burned). Despite the low 

corrected item-total correlations for several items, the decision was made to keep them in 

the scale. With a yes-no scale, corrected item-total correlations can be expected to be 

lower than in continuous scales. Moreover, there is no theoretical reason to expect that 

being burned, for instance, should correlate with being grabbed. 

Tables 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10 report on the actions taken by police officers, court 

advocates, and prosecuting attorneys, respectively. Regarding police officers, responses 

Less severe violence included these items from the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale for the past 6 months: 

Break your glasses or tear your clothing?, Push or shove you?, Grab you?, Slap you with an open hand?, 

Pull your hair?, and Throw something at you? Severe violence included these items from the Modified 

Conflict Tactics Scale for the past 6 months: Bite you?, Hit you with a fist?, Kick you?, Hit you with an 

object?, Try to hit you with an object?, Twist your arm or leg‘?, Burn you?, Tie you up or physically restrain 

you in some way?, Beat you up?, Force sexual activity?, Choke you or try to smother you?, Threaten you 

with a knife?, Threaten you with a gun?, and Stab you? Two items were dropped. “Drove recklessly in 

order to scare or hurt you” was dropped due to low reliability. “Shot” was dropped because none of the 

participants had been shot. 

27 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
were relatively positive. Almost all women (94%) reported that the police “listened to 

her,” four-fifths reported that the police “believed her,” and almost three-quarters 

reported that the police “supported her decisions.” About three-fifths of the women 

reported that the police “told her what would happen next” and “did something to make 

her feel safer.” Two-fifths of the women reported that the police “gave them written 

information on community resources,” and about one-third reported the police “gave 

them written information on legal resources.” 195 

Not all responses were positive, however. Among the women with visible 

injuries, only 30% reported that the police took photographs of the injury at the scene. 

About a quarter of the women reported the police “acted bored” and “tried to pressure her 

into pressing charges.” One-fifth of the women reported that the officer did something 

that made her feel more afraid. One-eighth of the women reported that “the police said 

there was nothing they could do” and the police “took photos at a later time” (after the 

incident). One-tenth of the women reported that the police blamed her for the violence 

used against them. About one-in-twenty women reported that the police “told her to 

patch things up” with the abuser and “discouraged her from continuing with the case.” 

Two percent reported that the police officer threatened her, arrested her for the violence, 

or arrested her on other charges. Thus, although Table 1.8 reports on many positive 

aspects of police actions, there are serious shortcomings that a number of these abused 

women reported at the hands of the “gateway” to the system: the police. 

Turning to abused women’s reports on court advocates, similar to the police, over 

ninety percent of the woken report that the advocates “believed” and “listened” to them 

(see Table 1.9). The vast majority also reported that the court advocates “supported her 

28 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
,I 

decision” (85%) and “told her what was going on” (84%). Almost half of the women 

reported the advocates did “something that made her feel safer,” and over a quarter stated 

the advocate “tried to persuade her to testify against the assailant.” About one-seventh of 

the total sample reported that the advocates said “there was nothing they could do,” and 

one-seventh of those women with prior police or court contact reported being blamed by 

the court advocate for not following through on previous charges. Seven percent of the 

women said the court advocate did something that made her feel “more endangered” and 

5 percent reported that the advocate discouraged them from continuing with the case. 

I 

.Rn -4 - 

Three percent of the women claimed the advocates blamed them for the violence agaipst 

them and 1 percent of the women reported the advocate said to “patch up the 

relationship .” 

Table 1.10 presents women’s reports of the prosecuting attorneys’ actions. About 

four-fifths of the women reported the prosecuting attorneys “listened,” “believed her,” 

and “told her what was going on.” About 70% of the women reported that the 

prosecuting attorneys “supported her decisions.” Thirty percent reported the attorneys 

did “something to make them feel safer.” Over one-quarter of the women reported these 

attorneys “tried to convince them to testify against their abusers” and over one-fifth of the 

women said the attorneys told them “there was nothing they could do.” Among those 

women with prior contact with the police and courts for domestic violence, 16 percent 

were blamed or scolded for not following through with prior charges. Fifteen percent of 

the women reported that the attorney “acted bored.” Ten percent of the women reported 

that the attorneys “discouraged them from continuing with the case” and “did something 

, 

-_ 

to make the women feel in greater danger.” Four percent reported that the attorney 

29 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
blamed her for the violence and 2 percent claimed the attorney said to “patch things up” 

with their abusers. Overall, these findings on the women’s reports of police, court 

advocates, and attorneys, suggests that while there are some things many of these 

officials are doing “right,” such as listening to and believing the women, there is still a 

fair amount of reports of self-reported “helplessness” [among officials, not the victims’, 

inability to do anything about the cases] and victim-blaming by these officials assigned to 

advocate for, represent, or protect victims. 

Table 1.1 1 includes women’s reports on the court outcomes. In about 70 percent 

of the cases the abuser was released on bail for the target incident, and the same rate of 

women reported being subpoenaed. Women reported going to court a range of from 0 to 

8 times, with an average of 1.6 times reported per woman. The most likely court 

outcomes of the target incident were the defendant pleading guilty to the original charges 

(25%) or pleading guilty to a lesser charge (24%). Charges were dropped in about onefifth of the cases, and in one-tenth of the cases the defendant pled guilty and received a 

deferred sentence. Six percent were convicted after the trial, of the original charges. In a 

number of the cases, the victim was not sure what the case outcome was. 

Table 1.12 reports on women’s reasons for going to court and the barriers they 

had to overcome to attend court (in those cases where they went to court). At Time 1, 

11 1 or 62 percent of the women went to court. In Time 2,17 women went to court, and 

in Time 3, 12 women went to court. (In all cases these were court cases involving 

domestic violence). It is useful to examine the reasons women reported both for going 

and that made it difficult to go, and how these changed over the three time periods. 

Abbut ninety percent of the women in Time 1 went because they “felt like they ought to” 

30 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
and “to get the abuser to stop hurting her.” Notably, the percent who went because they 

felt like they should decreased over Times 2 and 3. Three-quarters of the women went in 

Time 1 because they were subpoenaed, and almost as many went to get the assailant help. 

About two-thirds of the women went in Time 1 to “teach the abuser a lesson” and 

“because they were afraid of the abuser.” Over half went in Time 1 because they thought 

they legally had no choice or to send the abuser to jail. Over one-quarter went to court in 

Time 1 because they wanted the charges dropped, and almost one-fifth went in Time 1 

because there was pressure from family and hends. 

I 

rQ 4 -- 

The most frequently reported barrier that women reported having to overc,ome to , 

get to court wasfear of the assailant, reported by 5 1% of the sample (Table 1.12). The 

next most common barriers, reported by about one-quarter of the sample were “the desire 

to work things out with the abuser” and “prior bad experiences with the courts.” Over 

one-fifth of the women reported problems getting time off of work to get to court, and 

almost one-fifth reported pressure from family and fbends to go. About one-in-eight 

women reported having to overcome the barrier of transportation in order to get to court, 

and almost one-tenth of the women reported “problems getting childcare,” “pressure from 

family/f?iends,” and “fear of being arrested herself’ as other barriers that had to be 

overcome to attend court. Notably in this section, the rate of reporting “prior bad 

experiences with the courts” doubled as a barrier to going to court in Times 2 and 3. 

In summarizing the findings of Tables 1.12 it is useful to note that two-thirds of 

the women reported “fear of the abuser” as a reason for going to court, and over half 

report “fear of the abuser”, as a barrier to getting to court in Time 1. Thus, the fear of the 

31 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
abuser is both a motivator and a deterrent, and the complexity of this issue needs to be 

understood by court officials, including court advocates. 

Table 1.13 describes the reasons women did not go to court. In analyses not \ 

reported in tables, it was established that women, on average, gave four reasons for not 

4 

I, 

going to court, and the worse the abuse, the more reasons she gavefor going to court (M 

= 4.21 , SD = 1.43). Thirty-eight percent of the sample did not go to court. Notably, 

almost one-third of 67 women who did not attend cod reported that they did not know I 

a -I 

about the hearindtrial in advance. Of those 45 women who reported knowing about the 

court date but not attending, the most frequently given reason for not attending in ,all )I 

three time periods (Times 1,2, and 3) was because she did not want to go. The second 

most common reason in all three time periods was because she wanted to work things out 

with the abuser. The next most common reason in Time 1 was that she did not think 

prosecution would help. About one third of the women reported that they did not attend 

court because they wanted the charges dropped. About a quarter reported that they did 

not go to court because they “didn’t want the abuser to go to jail,” “had prior bad 

experiences with the court,” “were afraid of the abuser,” or “couldn’t get time off work.” 

About one-fifth of the women reported they did not attend court because they “felt 

pressure from his family/friends,” “depended on the abuser for money/housing,” and 

“didn’t know she couZd go.” Almost one-tenth of the women reported that they did not 

go because they did not know where to go, and 7 percent reported they had trouble 

getting childcare. Fewer than 5 percent reported that they did not go to court in Time I 

because they “felt pressure from her family/friends” or had “trouble getting 

transportation.” 

32 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Further bivariate analyses, not reported in the tables, were conducted to enhance 

our understanding of women’s decisions to go to court. Because of the small number of 

women who experienced court involvement at Times 2 and 3, these analyses were 

conducted only at Time 1. The following are some of the patterns found in these 

analyses. Of women who knew about a trial or hearing in advance: 

Women who went experienced more different types of violence at the target incident than 

women who did not go (Mann-Whitney U (157) = 1907.00, p < .05). 

%en who went experienced more injuries at the target incident than women whodid 

not go (Mann-Whitney U (157) = 1892.5, p < .OS). 

Women who said that they went to court to hold the abuser accountable experienced 

more types of violence and more injuries at the target incident than women who did not 

give this reason in advance (Mann-Whitney U (1 1 1) = 882.5, p < .05; injuries - MannWhitney U (1 11) = 830.5, p < .05). 

Women who went because they believed they legally had no choice or had been 

subpoenaed experienced more psychological abuse during the six months before the 

target assault, and they experienced more types of violence at the target assault and had 

more injuries from the target assault (Psychological abuse: Mann-Whitney U (1 10) = 

719.5, p < .05; Violence: Mann-Whitney U (1 11) = 809.5, p < .05; injuries - MannWhitney U (1 11) = 750.5,~ < .OS). 

Not surprisingly, women who were subpoenaed experienced more types of violence at 

the target incident than women who were not subpoenaed (Mann-Whitney U (157) = 

1505,~ < .01). Women who were subpoenaed also experienced more injuries at the 

target assault than did women who were not subpoenaed (Mann-Whitney U (157) = 

1602.5, p < .01). 

Women who said that they had trouble getting time off from work experienced more 

violence at the target incident and more violence over the six months before the incident, 

than did women who did not have trouble getting time off work. (Violence at target 

assault: Mann-Whitney U (90) = 579.5, p5,.05; violence over prior 6 months: MannWhitney U (90) = 601, ps .OS.) 

Women who said fear of the assailant made it harder to go to court experienced more 

psychological abuse in the six months before the assault, and more fkequentkevere 

violence in the six months before the target assault (power and control: Mann-Whitney U 

(109) = 722.5, ps .0001; violence over 6 months: Mann-Whitney U (1 10) = 1148, p< 

.05). 

33 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER TWO 

Research Objective #2: 

Examination of Battered Women ’s Satisfaction with the System‘ 

A major objective of this study was to examine survivors’ satisfaction with the 

criminal legal system response. Two questions comprised this objective. The first was: 

How satisfied are survivors with each of the multiple components of the criminal legal 

system process and outcome? These components included the police response, the way 

the prosecutor handled the case, the court system process, and the court outcome. The 

second question addressed was: What factors about the survivor’s situation and about the 

I 

criminal legal system impacted that satisfaction? Simply describing patterns of survivor 

satisfaction is not enough; we need to understand the situations and experiences within 

the system that relate to satisfaction. 

Consistent with ecological theories of intimate partner violence (e.g., Carlson, 

1984; Dutton, 1996) contextual and system factors both were expected to impact survivor 

satisfaction with the criminal legal system. Contextual factors included those factors that 

described women and their situations, such as the violence against them, their 

relationship with the assailant, and the social support available to them. Criminal legal 

system factors, such as the degree to which the police and prosecutors were supportive, 

and the amount of control that survivors perceived they had over the criminal legal 

system were also expected to partially explain women’s satisfaction with the system. 

These findings can also be found in the published article: Fleury, R. (2001). Missing Voices: Patterns of 

Battered Women’s Satisfaction with the Criminal Legal System. Violence Against Women, 8, 181-205. 

34 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Findings 

Women’s Experiences 

The target incident. For 85% of the women, a physical assault against them led to 

the court case. Among these women, 82% (n = 125) had severe violence perpetrated 

against them; for 40% (n = 61), the assault included at least one act of highly severe 

violence. Not surprisingly, most of the women who were assaulted during the target 

incident were injured by the assault (86%; n = 130). More than half of women (58%; n = 

102) had cuts, scrapes, or bruises and the same number (58%; n = 102) had soreness 

without bruising. -Nearly one in five women (17%; n = 32) had a concussion or other 

head injury, and one in ten (1 0%; n = 19) had lost consciousness. 

The remaining women (1 5%; n = 26) were not assaulted during the incident that 

led to the court case. Most of these cases were about harassment (50%; n = 13) or a 

protection order violation (3 1%; n = 8). A handful of cases were about property damage 

(8%; n = 2) and three participants insisted that no crime was committed and that the 

assailant was wrongly arrested (1 2%; n = 3). 

Police response. All but one woman had contact with the police about the target 

incident; the remaining woman contacted her assailant’s probation officer. In most cases, 

two or three officers responded (M = 2.83, SD = 2.08). In over a third of the cases (34%) 

at least one female officer responded. In general, women thought the police were 

between neutral and somewhat supportive when they handled the case (M = 2.79, SD = 

1.32). 

35 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Court Drocess. Just over half of the women talked directly to the prosecutor 

(55%). On average, women spent about half an hour with the prosecutor before the case 

went to court, but this varied from no time to four hours (M = 32.7, SD = 44.1). Overall, 

women who talked to the prosecutor thought that she or he was somewhat supportive of 

her (M = 2.92, SD = 1.46). Most assailants pled guilty (62%) or the charges were 

dropped (1 9%). A smaller number were convicted after trial (7%). A handhl of women 

(5%) did not know what the final outcome was. Only 3% of the assailants were tried and 

found not guilty. 

Women’s Satisfaction with the Criminal LePal System 

Overall, women were between neutral and somewhat satisfied with the police 

response (M = 3.47, SD = 1 S2). Similarly, on average women were neutral about the 

way the prosecutor handled the case (M = 3.11, SD = 1.57), the court process (M = 2.93, 

- SD = 1.40), and the court outcome (M = 3.23, SD = 1 S7). 

Women did not differ across site on three of the four satisfaction variables. 

However, a site difference was found for satisfaction with the court outcome @ (2, 162) 

= 4.15, E < .05). Post hoc testing (Tukey’s HSD) revealed that women in Boulder county 

were less satisfied with the court outcome (M = 2.66, SD = 1.61) than women in Denver 

(M = 3.47, SD = 1.49). One seemingly obvious explanation for this difference would be 

a difference in actual outcome; however, there was no site difference in conviction rates 

(2 (1) = .24, NS). 

Cluster analysis was used to explore participants’ satisfaction with different 

aspects of the criminal legal system rather than creating a linear satisfaction score in 

36 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
order to capture (1) individual women’s different levels of satisfaction with the different 

components of the system and (2) differences in these patterns. A woman who was very 

satisfied with the police response and very dissatisfied with the court outcome would 

appear to be neutral overall if her answers were averaged (see Table 2.1). Moreover, a 

second woman with the opposite pattern of responses (very dissatisfied with the police 

and very satisfied with the outcome) would appear identical to the first woman, when 

using a linear scale. 

Cluster analysis was conducted on the four items measuring survivors’ 

satisfaction with different aspects of the criminal legal system response. First, an 

agglomerative clustering method was used to determine initial groupings since there was 

no theoretical or empirical basis to determine the initial cluster centers (Aldenderfer & 

Blashfield, 1984). Ward’s Method was chosen to minimize within-cluster differences 

and maximize between-cluster differences (Rapkin & Luke, 1993). Second, the resulting 

cluster centroids were used as the starting point for an iterative clustering procedure (Kmeans). This step was done in order to minimize the misassignment of cases common 

with agglomerative methods (Mowbray, Bybee, & Cohen, 1993). 

The number of clusters was decided upon using four techniques. First, the 

resulting plot.of fusion coefficients showed a marked flattening between four and three 

clusters. The resulting dendogram also showed that a four cluster solution fit the data. In 

addition, the four cluster solution yielded the most even distribution of cases across 

clusters (39%, 24%, 21%, and 17%). Finally, the four cluster solution yielded 

interpretable clusters. 

37 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Cluster descriptions. Table 2.1 presents the cluster centroids for each of the 

clusters. The first and largest cluster was called “Somewhat Satisfied” because it was 

characterized by the highest levels of satisfaction across all four components of the 

criminal legal system. This cluster was the largest, containing 39% of the sample. 

Women in this cluster overall were somewhat satisfied with the police and the court 

process and were between somewhat and very satisfied with the prosecutor and the case 

outcome. The second largest cluster, containing 24% of the women, was called “Let 

Down.” The women in this cluster were satisfied with the police response, were neutral 

about the prosecutor and the process, and were dissatisfied with the final court outcome. 

The third cluster was called “Satisfactory Outcomes” because the women in this cluster 

were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied with the police, were somewhat dissatisfied with 

the prosecutor and the court process, but were somewhat satisfied with the court 

outcome. About 20% of the sample was in this cluster. The final cluster was called 

“Somewhat Dissatisfied” because it was characterized by the lowest levels of satisfaction 

across all four aspects of the system. This was the smallest cluster, comprising 17% of 

the sample. Women in this cluster were between somewhat dissatisfied and very 

dissatisfied with the police response, the prosecutor, the court process, and the court 

outcome. 

Predicting: Survivor Satisfaction 

Four types of variables were selected to predict cluster membership: 

characteristics of the incident (severity of the violence, number of injuries), demographic 

characteristics (site, survivor and assailant race, relationship involvement at arrest, social 

38 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
support, economic dependence), system Characteristics (supportiveness of the police, 

whether any of the responding officers were female, time with the prosecutor, and case 

outcome), and women’s perceived control over three components of the criminal legal 

system (the police response, the court process, and the court outcome). Since the 

dependent variable was cluster membership, multinomial logistic regression was used to 

test the predictive utility of these four types of variables. 

Because the outcome variable had four levels (cluster membership), six sets of , 

contrasts were performed (one for each pair of clusters), as well as an overall test for each 

predictor variable. Because this research was exploratory, trends as well as statistically 

significant relationships were examined, at the risk of being overly inclusive rather than 

prematurely discounting potentially important relationships. Five variables did not 

exhibit any significant or trend relationships for any of the contrasts in this model: 

number of injuries, site, assailant race, time spent with the advocate, and control over the 

police response. Hosmer and Lemshow (1 99 1) recommend dropping variables with no 

predictive value and running a smaller model, assuming that dropping those variables 

does not significantly impact the coefficients of the remaining variables. The decision 

was made to retain site in the model as a control, especially given the site difference in 

satisfaction with court outcome. 

Thus, the four remaining variables which neither exhibited a significant 

relationship with cluster membership nor exhibited a significant relationship or trend in 

any contrast were examined as potential suppressor variables. Neither time spent with 

the advocate nor control over the police response appeared to act as suppressors. Injuries 

was found to be a suppressor for violence; once the impact of injuries fkom the incident 

39 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
was accounted for, women who experienced more violence were more likely to be in 

“Somewhat Satisfied” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” Thus, the decision was made to 

leave both injuries and violence in the model. 

A confounding effect was found for assailant race. Without assailant race in the 

model, women in the Ingham County site were less likely to be in “Somewhat Satisfied” 

than in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” relative to women in Denver. When assailant race was 

added to the model, this site effect disappeared. Univariate analyses suggested that 

assailant race was related to site &2) = 36.09, p < .001). Moreover, the criminal legal 

system has been criticized for treating White assailants and assailants of Color differently 

(e.g., Ferraro, 1993; Richie, 1996; Richie & Kahuna, 1997). This difference in treatment, 

in turn, could be expected to be related to women’s satisfaction with the system. Once 

the variance shared between assailant race and site was accounted for, however, neither 

showed a relationship with satisfaction. Thus, the decision was made to retain assailant 

race in the model due to its relationship with the control variable site. 

Overall Model Fit 

The model showed a good fit to the data, as indicated by the likelihood ratio 

statistic for the goodness of fit test for the overall model: LR? (48, N = 130) = 132.42, p 

< .001. McFadden’s rho squared was equal to .38, which also indicated that the model 

resulted in a significant increase in fit relative to the null model; values between .2 and .4 

are generally considered acceptable (Hensher & Johnson, 198 1). 

40 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Utility of Individual Predictors 

Next, the utility of individual predictors to explain differences in patterns of 

satisfaction was examined. Two demographic variables, three system response variables, 

and one control variable showed a relationship overall with cluster membership. 

Whether the assailant had a substance abuse problem distinguished the clusters (LR? (3) 

= 11.30, p c .05). Whether the assailant was a man of Color or White showed a trend 

with cluster membership (LR? (3) = 7.63, p .lo). Variables about the system response 

distinguished between the clusters: the supportiveness of the police (LR? (3) = 37.48, p 

< .001), time with the prosecutor (LR? (3) = 10.51, p < .05), and whether the assailant 

was convicted (LR? (3) = 11.32, p 

believed they had over the court process distinguished the clusters (LR? (3) = 10.3 1, p < 

.05). 

.05). Finally, the amount of control women 

Because of the exploratory nature of this study, predictors which differentiated 

individual clusters were also explored, even if those predictors were not significant 

overall. The amount of violence women experienced and several variables about the 

legal system response and about the amount of control women perceived they had 

distinguished the first cluster - “Somewhat Satisfied” - from the other clusters. Women 

who experienced more severe violence during the target incident were more likely to be 

in “Somewhat Satisfied” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 2.1 1). Women 

who felt supported by the police were 4.47 times more likely to be in “Somewhat 

Satisfied” than in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” and were somewhat (but not significantly) 

more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisfied” than “Satisfactory Outcomes’’ (odds ratio = 

1.75, p < .lo). Women whose assailants were convicted were 9.18 times more likely to 

41 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
be in “Somewhat Satisfied” than in “Let Down.” Women who felt they had control over 

the court system and over the outcome also were more likely to be in the “Somewhat 

Satisfied’’ cluster than in the other clusters. Women who perceived themselves to have 

more control over the court process were more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisfied” than 

in “Let Down” (odds ratio = 2.74) or in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 3.32). 

Finally, women who perceived themselves to have more control over the court outcome 

were more likely to be in the “Somewhat Satisfied” cluster than in “Somewhat 

Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = 3.39). 

Perhaps not surprisingly, the second cluster - “Let Down” - was distinguished 

from the others mainly by the police response and the court outcome. Women who 

reported feeling supported by the police were more likely to be in “Let Down” than in 

“Somewhat Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = 6.45) or “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 

2.64). Women who spent more time with the prosecutor were somewhat (but not 

significantly, E < .lo) more likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” 

However, women whose assailants pled guilty or were convicted were .l 1 times less 

likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Somewhat Satisfied” and were . 10 times less likely to 

be in “Let Down” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” Women whose assailants had a drug 

and/or alcohol problem were more likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Somewhat 

Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = 17.57) or “Somewhat Satisfied” (odds ratio = 7.75). 

The third cluster - “Satisfactory Outcomes” - was distinguished from the other 

clusters by demographic variables, as well as by incident and system response variables. 

Women who were involved with their assailant at the time of the arrest were somewhat 

(but not significantly) more likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Let Down” 

42 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
(odds ratio = 4.18, p < .lo) or in “Somewhat Satisfied” (odds ratio = 3.95, E < .lo). 

White women were 7.09 times more likely to be in this cluster than in “Somewhat 

Satisfied” and 4.12 times more likely to be in this cluster than in “Let Down.” Women 

whose assailants had a substance abuse problem were more likely to be in “Satisfactory 

Outcomes” than in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = 10.75) or “Somewhat 

Satisfied” (odds ratio = 4.74, p < .lo). A trend for economic dependence was also found; 

women who said that the assailant’s income was important were somewhat more likely to 

be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = 2.16, p < 

.lo). Additionally, women who had a female officer respond were .16 times less likely to 

be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Somewhat Satisfied” and somewhat (but not 

significantly) less likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Somewhat 

Dissatisfied” (odds ratio = .19, p < .lo). 

The final cluster, “Somewhat Dissatisfied,” was distinguished fiom the other 

clusters mainly by system variables and by control variables. Women who felt the police 

were supportive were less likely to be in this cluster than in the other clusters 

(“Somewhat Satisfied” odds ratio = .22; “Let Down” odds ratio = .15; “Satisfactory 

Outcomes” odds ratio = .39). In addition, women who reported less social support in 

general were somewhat more likely to be in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” than in 

“Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = .32, E < .lo) or “Let Down” (odds ratio = .34, p < 

.lo). Women who spent more time with the prosecutor were more likely to be in 

“Somewhat Dissatisfied” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 1.06) or 

“Somewhat Satisfied” (odds ratio = 1.03). Women who felt they had more control over 

the outcome were less likely to be in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” than in the other three 

43 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
clusters (“Somewhat Satisfied” odds ratio = .29; “Let Down” odds ratio = .35, p < .lo; 

“Satisfactory Outcomes’’ odds ratio = -32, p < .lo). 

Utility of Each Type of Variable 

In addition to examining the utility of each individual variable in predicting 

cluster membership, the utility of each type of variable was examined as well in order to 

more hlly explore the ecological model. An ecological perspective suggests that factors 

about the incident, the individual survivors and assailants, and about the system response 

should all be usehl in predicting women’s satisfaction. The first block of variables, 

entered into the regression were about the target incident: the severity of the violence at 

the incident that led to the court case and the number of injuries that resulted from that 

incident. The target incident block was not related to cluster membership (2 (6) = 6.80, 

NS) . 

I 

The second group of variables entered into the equation was demographic 

characteristics about the survivor and the assailant (site, whether she was White or a 

woman of Color, whether the assailant was White or a man of Color, assailant drug use, 

relationship to the assailant, social support, and economic dependence). The addition of 

this block improved prediction somewhat, but not significantly (2 (24) = 34.78, E < .lo). 

The third group of variables examined was characteristics of the legal system 

response (whether a female officer responded, supportiveness of the police, time with the 

prosecutor, whether the assailant was convicted). This block significantly improved 

prediction of cluster membership (2 (12) = 66.66, p < .001). 

44 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The final group of variables entered was about the amount of control the survivor 

believed she had over the court process and the court outcome. The addition of this block 

to the model also improved prediction of women’s patterns of satisfaction (2 (6) = 24.18, 

p < .001). 

Women had a wide variety of experiences related to violence as well as to the 

I, 

police and courts. The majority of the women in this sample experienced severe violence 

during the incident that led to the court case. As expected, there were distinct patterns of 

satisfaction with the different components of the system. Two of the four clusters 

(“Somewhat Satisfied” and “Somewhat Dissatisfied”) were each made up of women who 

were either relatively satisfied or relatively dissatisfied with all the components of the 

legal system. The two remaining clusters (“Satisfactory Outcomes” and “Let Down”) 

each included women who were satisfied with some aspects of the system and 

dissatisfied with other aspects. Clearly, women can and do differentiate between the 

different aspects of the criminal legal system. 

Only 38% of women were in a cluster that was satisfied with all aspects of the 

system (“Somewhat Satisfied”). Over half were less than satisfied with at least one 

aspect of the system. Consistent with an ecological perspective of intimate partner 

violence (Carlson, 1984; Dutton, 1996), it was expected that these patterns of satisfaction 

could be explained by four different types of variables: the incident, demographics, the 

system response, and perceived control over the system. The system response and 

demographics were each marginally related, while perceived control was found to be 

strongly related to satisfaction. 

45 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Both the supportiveness of the police and whether any of the responding police 

officers was female were related to women’s satisfaction with the police response. 

Consistent with Ptacek’s (1 999) findings, women who felt the police were supportive of 

them were more likely to be in clusters that were somewhat satisfied with the police 

response (“Somewhat Satisfied” or “Let Down”). 

In addition, women who had a female officer respond were more likely to be in 

“Somewhat Satisfied” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” This effect for female police 

officers may be related to gender differences among police officers in attitudes toward 

intimate partner violence (Belknap, 1995). However, having a female officer respond in 

and of itself is not enough to guarantee satisfaction with the police response, as illustrated 

by the contrast between “Somewhat Dissatisfied” and “Satisfactory Outcomes.’’ Women 

in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” were somewhat less satisfied with the police response, but 

were more likely to have had a female officer respond. Clearly, in order for women to be 

satisfied with the police response to intimate partner violence, they need to feel supported 

by the police. However, as Ptacek (1 999) points out, “recognition and empathy alone do 

not stop the violence and abuse. But they are essential for any meaningful provision of 

protection” (p. 153). 

The actual court outcome was also related to satisfaction. Women whose 

assailants were not convicted were more likely to be in the “Let Down” cluster. In 

addition, women whose assailants were convicted were more likely to be satisfied with 

the court outcome (“Somewhat Satisfied” or “Satisfactory Endings”). Contrary to the 

stereotype of battered women as wanting their assailants released, many women in this 

study wanted their assailants convicted. This finding is consistent with Ferraro and 

46 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Boychuk’s (1 992) findings that appearing in court and wanting prosecution is still no 

guarantee of conviction. Thus, changes focusing on the criminal legal system, such as 

use of additional evidence in court (e.g., photographs, medical reports) are more likely to 

increase conviction rates than simple interventions to increase the number of women who 

appear in court. 

Surprisingly, those women who spent more time with the prosecutor were more 

likely to be in the cluster “Somewhat Dissatisfied,” which included women who were 

dissatisfied with the way the prosecutor handled the case, the court process, and the court 

outcome. Perhaps these women spent additional time with the prosecutor as a way to 

change the way the prosecutor handled the case or in order to communicate their 

dissatisfaction. Alternatively, those women who spent more time with the prosecutor 

may have had the chance to see the criminal justice system process up close. To the 

extent that these “real life” experiences with the prosecution process did not match 

women’s popular (mis)conceptions of the legal system, women may have been less 

satisfied. Clearly, simply increasing the time women and prosecutors spend together will 

not automatically lead to increased satisfaction for survivors; the quality of that 

interaction must also be addressed. 

I 

Consistent with an ecological perspective of partner violence, characteristics of 

the survivor and the assailant were also related to survivors’ satisfaction. Women who 

were involved with the assailant at the time of the arrest and White women were more 

likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than “Let Down” or “Somewhat Satisfied.” 

Perhaps women who were involved with their assailants at the time of the arrest were 

perceived by police to be more “responsible” for the violence by not leaving the 

47 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
relationship (e.g., Erez & Belknap, 1998). Thus, the police may have treated these 

women more negatively, leading to their decreased satisfaction. 

The role of race is more challenging to interpret. Prior research suggests that 

police and courts are less likely to support women of Color than White women (Ferraro, 

1989). Moreover, women of Color report that they may not call the police because of 

fear that their assailants (men of Color) will be treated harshly by a racist judicial system 

(Fbchie, 1996; Richie & Kanuha, 1997). Thus, the finding that women of Color were less 

likely than White women to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” is somewhat inconsistent with 

prior research. This cluster was marked by dissatisfaction with the police response, the 

prosecutor, and the court process. Perhaps White women had higher expectations of the 

system than women of Color, leading to their greater dissatisfaction with their actual 

treatment. All of the assailants in this study had been arrested; thus this study cannot 

address possible race differences in arrest rates. Contrary to expectations, assailant race 

was not related to women’s satisfaction with the system. Again, this null finding may be 

due to race differences in expectations of the system. Additional research needs to 

explore in more detail the relationship between survivors’ expectations of the criminal 

legal system, race, and survivor satisfaction. 

Economic dependence and social support were both only marginally related to 

survivor satisfaction. Women who were “Somewhat Dissatisfied” were somewhat less 

likely to report that their assailants’ income was important than women in “Satisfactory 

Outcomes.’’ The measure of economic dependence used, however, was economic 

dependence at the time of the interview, not the time of the incident that led to the court 

case nor the time of the court outcome. Measuring economic dependence at a different 

48 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
time may have yielded different results. Alternatively, women who are economically 

dependent on their assailants may be less likely to have police contact about assaults 

because they know that their income will be affected. Since women who had not had any 

system contact were not eligible for the current study, it is not known how generalizable 

these findings are. 

Women who were “Somewhat Dissatisfied” were also slightly more likely to 

report that they had more social support than women in “Satisfactory Outcomes’’ and in 

“Let Down.” It was expected that women who had more social support might be more 

satisfied with the system because of the extra support in decision-making and navigating 

the system. However, this does not appear to be the case; those women who reported 

,- 

slightly more social support were in two clusters that did not have positive experiences 

with the prosecutor and the court process. Given the exploratory nature of this research 

and that this difference on social support was a trend, it is possible that this finding may 

be a statistical artifact, rather than a true difference. Alternatively, women with more 

social support may have had higher expectations that they would be supported by the 

system than women without other sources of social support. Additional research asking 

women directly about how their social support network affected their decisions about 

using the criminal legal system and their experiences within the system is necessary to 

explore this finding in more detail. 

The last demographic variable related to women’s satisfaction with the system 

was drug and/or alcohol abuse by the assailants. Women whose assailants had a 

substance abuse problem were more likely to be in “Let Down.” Perhaps the court 

personnel took the violence less seriously because of the assailant’s substance abuse 

49 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
problem. If they attributed the violence to the substance abuse, rather than to the 

assailant, they may have been less likely to take the survivor seriously or to vigorously 

pursue prosecution. Since substance abuse does not cause intimate partner violence 

(Limandri & Sheridan, 1995; Miller & Wellford, 1998), court personnel may need 

additional education on the role of substance abuse in intimate partner violence. 

These demographic characteristics that are related to women’s satisfaction may 

not cause satisfaction. Rather, each of these variables either impacts the actions of legal 

system personnel (survivor and assailant race, relationship, assailant drug use), or at least 

impacts what survivors want fiom the system (economic dependence, social support). 

The actions by system personnel, in turn, impact women’s satisfaction. These actions are 

discussed further in Chapter Five of this report. 

50 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER THREE 

Research Objective #3: 

Impact of Prosecution on Subsequent Violence and Use of the System 

The third objective of this study was to examine the impact of the criminal legal 

system on women’s safety over time, and their use of the system. 

Effects of iustice system experiences on physical or psvcholo~cal abuse over time. 

Compared to the pre-arrest level of abuse (M = 0.91), physical abuse declined 

significantly by Time 2 (M = 0.20), and levels remained essentially stable to Time 3 

(0.24). By Time 2,64.4% of the women reported no physical abuse at all in the previous 

6 months. Psychological abuse also declined significantly over time, going fi-om M = 

1.69 before the target arrest to M = 1.11 at Time 2 and M = .99 at Time 3. 

No aspect of women’s experiences with the justice system accounted for 

variability in these change trajectories over time, with the possible exception of having 

been treated with respect (being listened to, believed, and having one’s decisions 

respected) by police, prosecutors and victim advocates. After controlling for abuse at 

Time 1, women’s report of respectful treatment in their interactions with the justice 

system was a significant predictor of reduced physical abuse at Time 2 (partial r = -.25) 

and reduced psychological abuse at Times 2 and 3 (partial r = -. 19 and -. 14, respectively). 

51 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Effects of justice system experiences on actual use of justice system to deal with future 

intimate partner violence 

We had originally intended to explore whether survivors’ experiences with the 

criminal legal system predicted their hture use of the system should violence recur. 

However, relatively few women were assaulted across time, and women’s experiences 

differed by time period (with, for example, some women assaulted at Time 2 but not at 

Time 3 and others assaulted at Time 3 but not Time 2). A regression analysis indicated 

that none of the variables descriptive ofjustice system experiences during prosecution of 

the index charges was predictive of women’s responses to later incidents. However, a 

larger sample is needed to adequately examine this question. 

Effects of iustice system experiences on future intention to involve the justice system 

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to explore the 

prediction of change over time on intention to involve specific aspects of the justice 

system (i.e., police and court) should violence recur. It was hypothesized that intention to 

use the system again would be predicted by (1) background and relationship variables 

such as number of previous separations fiom the assailant and the importance of his 

income to the household; (2) level of abuse experienced; (3) case disposition the woman 

wanted as well as actual case disposition; and (4) women’s prior experiences with the 

police and courts. The variables used for this analyses are below. 

Background variables 

Living with assailant at time of arrest (dichotomous yesho). 

Importance of assailant’s contribution to household income (1 = not important to 

4 = very important). 

52 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
,I 

Number of previous separations fiom assailant (original range = 0 to 308; this 

variable was first log-transformed to reduce skew and kurtosis). 

Woman employed at time of initial interview (dichotomous yesho). 

Perceived communitv support renardinn abuse. At the initial interview, women 

were asked to rate how supportive various types of individuals and agencies were with 

regard to the abuse. Women rated the supportiveness of each of thirteen types of 

individuals or agencies (e.g., relatives, neighbors, doctor, police) who knew about the 

abuse. Perceived supportiveness spanned the possible range of responses fiom 0 (v~ry 

unsupportive) to 4 (very supportive), with a mean of 2.79, between neutral and somewhat 

supportive (sd = 1.07). 

Abuse variables 

Severity of violence leading to arrest (severity index of modified CTS). 

Assailant Power and control over woman (Index of Psychological Abuse). 

Assailant violent after arrest (dichotomous yesho) 

Case disposition and disposition woman wanted 

Charges against assailant were dropped (dichotomous yesho) 

Extent to which the woman wanted charges dropped (0 = not at all to 4 = very 

much; centered in analysis due to interaction term) 

Interaction: Dropped charges x Woman wanted charges dropped 

Experience with legal system (index case) 

Woman called or asked someone to call police for incident precipitating arrest 

(dichotomous yesho). 

53 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Woman was given information about legal system by police (dichotomous 

yesho). 

To what extent woman felt pressured to pursue charges against assailant (0 = no 

pressure to 1 = pressure from all justice system representatives with whom 

woman had contact). 

Women were asked whether they felt pressured to file charges or to testify against 

the assailant. Averaged across those elements of the legal system with which the woman 

had contact (police, prosecutor, victim advocate), the average response to the 

dichotomous questions (1 = yes; 0 = no) was .26 (sd = .36); 60.7% reported no pressure 

to pursue charges. Alpha = .64 

Number of times women went to court but proceedinas had been canceled (range 

= 0 to 8). Forty one women (23%) had the experience of going to court only to find the 

proceedings had been canceled; the number of times ranged from 1 to 8. 

Respectful treatment - extent to which woman felt listened to, believed, and that 

her decisions were respected by justice system representatives (0 = no respect to 1 = full 

respect from all justice system representatives with whom woman had contact) - 9-item 

scale of parallel items in regard to police, prosecutor, and victim advocate; alpha = .75 

Woman’s satisfaction with the legal process and outcome (1 = very dissatisfied to 

5 = very satisfied) - 7-item scale (satisfaction with process, outcome, police, way the 

prosecutor handled the case, control over the police, control over the process, control 

over the outcome); mean on 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) scale = 3.06; sd = 

1.10. Alpha= 35. 

54 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Dependent variable 

Intention to use legal system in future. Two sets of questions were asked at 6- 

and 12-month follow-up interviews. “If the assailant were violent again in future, would 

you call police again?” “Would you want court involved again?” (0 = definitely not to 3 

= definitely will). “How likely are you to contact the police/courts again given your 

experience with the police?” “Given you experience with the courts?” (1 = much less 

’ likely to 5 = much more likely). Responses to questions at 6- and 12- month interviews 

were highly correlated, and all 8 items were combined into a single score, after 

standardizing to equate response scales. Alpha = .89. Higher scores equaled greater 

intention of involving the justice system. 

The final regression model (see Table 3.1) looked at predictors of this composite 

indicator of intention to involve the justice system in the event of future need, as reported 

at 6- and 12-months post-case closure. Variables for the regression model were entered 

in four blocks. In the first block, background and relationships variables were entered. 

The second block included the abuse variables, and the third block included the 

interaction between case disposition and what women wanted to have had happen in 

court. The fourth block included women’s experiences with the system. As can be seen 

in Table 3.1, the final model accounted for 20% of the variance in predicting intent to use 

the system again. Women’s intentions to use the system were influenced by whether they 

were living with the assailant at the time of the abuse, whether they were employed, and 

the severity of the violence. Even after accounting for all of these variables, women’s 

intentions were also influenced by how they were treated by both the police and legal 

system, with their overall satisfaction with the process and outcome as the best 

55 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
predictors. When women felt believed and respected, and were given information about 

the system, they were more likely to intend to use the system again in the future. 

However, when women felt pressured to pursue charges and/or if they went to court only 

to have it cancelled, they were less likely to want to involve the system again. These 

findings speak to the importance of treating victims of domestic violence with respect 

and providing them with information and choices if they are to feel comfortable turning 

to the system in the future. 

56 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER FOUR 

Research Objective ##4: 

Attorneys ’ Self-Reported Experiences, Behaviors, and Attitudes: 

Qualitative Findings from Interviews with District A ttorneyflrosecutors 

Another aspect of data collection was to examine district attorneys’ and 

prosecutors’ reports on domestic violence cases. Therefore we interviewed 21 such 

attorneys in the three sites (3 from Boulder, 8 from the Denver City Prosecutor’s Office, 

4 fiom the Denver D.A.’s Office, and 8 from Lansing). The interviews were typically 

carried out in person in the attorneys’ offices, scheduled at their convenience. The 

interviews ranged in time between 35 and 90 minutes, with an average of 65 minutes in 

length. (One interview was conducted over the phone due to the attorney’s busy schedule 

and at his request.) All of the attorneys who encountered domestic violence cases during 

the time of data collection were included in the sample, and all took part in interviews. 

The analyses of these qualitative data involved two of the researchers examining 

the interviews for patterns. We did this individually, and then we met to compare finding 

patterns. Table 4.1 in the Appendix provides an overview of the findings. 

Given that this was largely exploratory research, we identified “main themes” as the most 

obvious patterns, or those responses most typically reported by the district 

attorneys/prosecutors. However, given that so little research has been conducted on how 

attorneys try these cases and how they view them, we also included “less common 

themes” that might be included as variables in future quantitative research on prosecutors 

trying domestic violence cases. 

57 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The overwhelming statements of attorneys’ overall views of domestic violence 

cases related to how difficult they were to handle. They frequently used words like 

“challenging,” ‘‘frustrating, and “no-win.” Regarding their perceptions of domestic 

violence victims, the two main themes in responses were: (1) most victims recant/do not 

cooperate; and (2) there are large variations across race and class, as well as in terms of 

angry and cooperative victims. Less common themes regarding perceptions of victims 

included feeling sorry for them, recognizing that women are distrustful of the system, 

believing that some women “abuse” the system, and perceiving that it is not always clear 

, 

who the “true” victim” is. 

The attorneys’ reports on their perceptions of the defendants in domestic violence 

cases included three main themes: (1) abusers deny their abuse; (2) abusers are from 

every walk of life; and (3) abusers are very controlling and manipulative people. Less 

common themes in attorneys’ perceptions of defendants was that their abuse was due to 

drinking or mental health problems. Some attorneys also reported that these defendants 

are “good people who blow it” or are “chronic recidivists.’’ 

When asked how domestic violence differs from other cases, the main themes 

were that domestic violence (1) has a no-drop policy; (2) has a mandatory arrest policy; 

(3) has a specialized @V) unit to deal with it; (4) has victims who recant; (5) uses the 

best resources in the D.A. offices; and (6) is more dificult and challenging than other 

cases. Less common reports included that the violence is on-going, it impacts the whole 

family when the offender is jailed, and that these cases are more time-consuming. 

There were three main themes from the interviews with attorneys about their 

training to handle domestic violence cases (and no less common themes). The first main 

58 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
theme was that the attorneys reported very different levels of training they had available 

to them and that they attended, and this variation held even within the offices. Second, 

many attorneys reported that much of the training is “on the job” where they need to find 

a mentor or organize a training themselves. Finally, most of the attorneys reported that 

they received at least “some” training on domestic violence. 

Next, the attorneys were asked to report on what impacts processing, and five 

main themes emerged: (1) defendant’s offense history, especially for domestic violence; 

(2) the seventy of the violence; (3) the qualityhntensity of the police investigation; (4) 

victim cooperatiodreluctance; and (5) victim injury level. Less common themes on what 

impacts processing included the victim ’s criminal history, the availability of witnesses, 

whether the case appeared to be potentially lethal, and how savvy the defendant was 

(e.g.., could he convince the victim to recant?). It is interesting to examine these in terms 

of whether these main and less common themes would fall in “legal” or “extra-legal” 

means of deciding cases. Certainly, most would agree that the defendant’s prior history, 

severity of the violence, and severity of the injury are legal factors. Less agreement 

would be on whether the victim’s cooperation level should “count” as a legal variable. 

Information that the victim’s criminal history and the savvyness of the defendant 

certainIy place undue burden on victims calling the police and depending on the courts to 

process their victimizations. It is also clear that police officers’ evidence-gathering is 

crucial to the court processing. 

, 

When asked how to best separate victims and defendants, the attorneys reported 

the best two means were restraining orders and no contact orders. Less common means 

included bond conditions, conditions of probation, sending defendants to jaillprison, and 

59 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
moving them to different places in the court room, but some attorneys said it was 

impossible to separate them. 

Attorneys were also asked their opinions of “cross complaints,” where both 

parties in a couple were charged with domestic violence. Four main (and no lesser) 

themes emerged from the interviews. First, the attorneys were not in agreement as to 

whether the police, prosecutors/district attorneys, or judges and juries should decide 

whether there was a primary aggressor and throw the other case out, or both cases out. 

Second, the attorneys disagreed on who actually made this decision. Some claimed the 

district attorney had to, and others stated that this was rare. They were more likely to say 

the police than the judge made this decision on cross complaints. Third, some of the 

attorneys reported that they had to intuit or decide who was primary aggressor, and they 

reported varying degrees of how easy/difficult this was. Some said you had to treat cross 

complaints as separate cases, but handle them the same way. The final theme in the 

attorneys’ responses about cross complaints was that the police officers should know who 

the real aggressor is, but they are too “lazy” to decide so just arrest both parties. 

When asked about the victim’s role in the prosecution there were three main 

themes. First, the attorneys were divided on how big of a role the victim needed to play, 

but most agreed they need the victim to keep from having the case dismissed (despite nodrop policies). Second, attorneys were divided as to whether the victims’ requests should 

be taken into account. Some believed they should, and others said it was the attorney’s 

responsibility to try the case as s/he saw fit. Third, many attorneys highlighted how the 

victim needs to feel comfortable, heard, and understood by the system. A less common 

theme was attorneys who said it was important to look at the victim ’s criminal history. 

60 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
When asked about the ideal amount of time an attorney should spend with an 

abused woman, the only “theme” was that there was huge variation among the attorneys 

and that many seemed uncomfortable with this question. Many would not report an 

actual time. Most talked about it being individualized, depended on the case and whether 

it was going to trial. One talked about how by only meeting 5-10 minutes before the 

preliminary hearing, you could avoid having the victim forced to testify. Some said the 

first meeting was 15 minutes, others said 30 to 60 minutes. Some said fit went to trial, it , 

required 10 to 30 minutes, another said 1 to 2 hours, and still others said “days” or 15-20 

hours. 

There were three major themes regarding attorneys’ assessments of victims’ 

input. First, most respondents highlighted the importance of getting victim inpdt fiom 

the beginning of the case. Second, most said it was important to get it at all stages of the 

case and as often as possible. The third main theme was that this required much more 

time for cases that go to trial. Less common themes included the importance of asking 

directly for victim input (what she wants), how it is very individualized depending on the 

woman (“some women don’t need to see me at all”), and one attorney claimed this should 

only be from the victim advocate (it was not the attorney’s responsibility to get the victim 

input). 

When asked how they best support victims, there were four main themes. First, 

the most overwhelming response was that attorneys needed to listen to the victims. 

Second, attorneys reported the importance of making contact with victims. One attorney 

said it would help to do it in the victim’s own home, but that you can’t do this. Third, 

attorneys understood that victims needed access to resources and information. Many 

61 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
stated that it was important to offer alternatives to their current living situation, 

community resources, and education about domestic violence. Fourth, attorneys brought 

up the importance of establishing trust with the victim, which included not being openly 

critical. The next interview question, related to supporting the victim, was victim 

satisfaction. The “main theme” of this was that the attorneys varied considerably in how 

often their clients felt satisfied. Some stated that victim satisfaction was “rare,” some 

said “half,” some said “most” or 75 to 80 percent of victims were satisfied, and some said 

they “didn’t know.” Some attorneys reported that victim satisfaction with the case 

depended on the victims themselves. If they were cooperative victims, they were happy, 

and if they were uncooperative they were unhappy. Some stated that victims were happy 

if the case went their way, and unhappy if it did not. Still others claimed victim 

satisfaction depended on the case; for example, victims were more likely to be happy if 

the case did not drag out. 

The attorneys were also asked their impressions of the victim advocates’ role. 

There were six main themes in their responses. First, and predominantly, the attorneys 

reported that the advocates were liaisons between the victim and the attorney. The other 

themes in the roles of the advocate were that the advocate was to support victims 

emotionally, get the victims talking, provide them with resources, inform them on what is 

happening with the case, and to spend time with the victims. Some attorneys reported that 

they did not have training in the emotional aspect of this work so that it was important to 

have victim advocates in the office who had this “emotional” training. Some attorneys 

also reported that they themselves could not “coddle,” “handhold,” and even keep victims 

informed on the cases, so it was important to have the advocates play these roles. 

62 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
A less common theme was informing the victim to get restitution or compensation (by 

filling out claims). 

When asked how victim advocates influence the cases, the main theme was very 

positive reports on the advocates’ influence. The words that were often used by the 

attorneys to describe the advocates’ influence were “very helpful,” wonderful,” 

“unbelievable,” and so on. A less common theme was attorneys who stated that the 

victim advocates could be “too pushy” or “not good.” 

The interview format also included questions about case dismissals. Some 

attorneys said it was “no problem,” while others reported cases being dismissed “way too 

often.” One respondent claimed the judge allows one continuance if the victim cannot be 

found, and if still not found the second time, then the case is dismissed. But they are 

usually able to find the victim by the second time. Many said, if there is no victim to be 

found, “it’s hard not to dismiss.” When specifically asked why these cases are dismissed 

or dropped, all of the main themes (as well as the less common theme) involved actions 

or behaviors of the victim: she asks to have it dropped, she says the offense did not 

happen, she changes her mind, she needs the offender’s income, she is afraid of the 

offender, and she still loves him. A less common theme was the victim’s “mental 

health.” 

When asked how to encourage victims’ cooperation, there was only one main 

theme and that was to get the victim more involved and informed so that she has a greater 

stake in the case. Less common themes included that getting the victim involved “was 

not a good idea,’’ to offer victim referrals, and not knowing what to do to increase victim 

involvement. 

63 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
We also asked the attorneys whether they believed they can help stop the abuse. 

Most of the attorneys attributed their inability to stop the violence to the problem being 

so huge, common, and pervasive. “No better than with stopping drug use,” one attorney 

stated. Many claimed that the criminal processing system is such a small part of the huge 

problem of domestic violence. A less common theme was stating that they could stop it 

by putting the abuser in prison. When asked what restrictions they faced in stopping 

domestic partner abuse, the main limitations reported by these attorneys were the victims’ 

reluctance to cooperate and that the problem is too prevalent. One attorney said in 

exasperation, that domestic violence solutions “need a magic wand.” (There were no 

“less common” themes in restrictions to stopping this abuse.) 

, 

Next, we asked the attorneys about the appropriateness of the current response. 

Most reported that it is always improving, but most also stated that there still is not 

enough done. Many indicated that the current practices are too lenient or not harsh 

enough. Some speculated that there is still too little funding; they need more resources. 

Most attorneys seemed to believe that their offices were doing something “more,” or even 

on the cutting edge, but that even in these cases, they still needed to improve their 

responses to domestic violence. This is particularly interesting given their earlier 

responses that domestic violence is unique from other offenses in that it receives far more 

resources than other offenses, and yet, this is still insufficient. 

When asked how best to improve the efficiency of attorneys’ responses to 

domestic violence, the main themes in responses were (1) the need for “fast tracking” 

with victims and defendants so that there were not so many delays; (2) to increase 

resources and personnel (e.g., judges, prosecutors, etc.) to respond to these cases; and (3) 

64 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
to improve thepoZice training in terms of evidence collection and responding better to 

victims. Less common themes included that judges need to see the victims, they needed 

more court times for the individual cases (judges are overwhelmed), day care must be 

provided for victims’ children, the need to be more proactive than reactive, and to screen 

cases better. 

Next, the attorneys were asked how to make the system more user fiiendly. The 

main themes in these responses were that victims needed more contact with the court 

personnel and that the system is confusing, and even “emotionally blinding” to victims. 

Thus, the court process needs to be demystified and improved. When asked how to 

change the system, the overwhelming response by the attorneys was that they need more 

finding and resources. Less common themes in changing the system included 

subpoenaing victims to see victim advocates, not arresting women who do not show up to 

court, providing a full-time specialized domestic violence judge, improving the treatment 

available for offenders, increasing the number of victim advocates, improving police 

responses, and allowing more time before the case goes to court so that they have enough 

time to spend with victims. 

Clearly, not all of the attorneys agreed on the root of the problems or the 

solutions. Sometimes, their answers appeared contradictory, for example, asking for 

more and less time before the cases come to court. The four interviewers discussed the 

range of emotions and understanding among these lawyers, concerning domestic 

violence. Thus, it is not surprising that although we found patterns, we also found wide 

ranges of variations in perceptions about the problem of domestic violence and the 

solutions to it. One of the most common findings in these interviews is that although 

65 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
resources for domestic violence have improved drastically, there are still not enough 

resources. Secondly, although most of the attorneys showed at least some compassion 

for battered women, there still appeared to be a small number who blamed victims, 

consciously or unconsciously, andor who did not appear to understand the dynamics 

behind battering. 

66 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER FIVE 

DISCUSSION 

The overall purpose of this study was to examine battered women’s experiences 

with both abuse and the criminal legal system over time, and to better understand their 

decision-making within an ecological context. Information was also gathered fkom 

prosecutors as a means of creating a more complete picture of the formal response to 

domestic violence. 

Overall, women’s satisfaction with the criminal legal system was related to their 

treatment by and their perceived control over it. Referring back to the cluster analysis, 

women who were in the “Somewhat Satisfied” cluster felt like they had more control 

over the court process than did women in the other clusters. Women in “Somewhat 

Dissatisfied” felt like they had somewhat less control over the outcome than did women 

in the other three clusters. Control also mediated the site difference in satisfaction with 

the outcome; this site difference appears to be due to a difference in perceived control. 

Women who felt like they had control, then, were more satisfied with the criminal legal 

system response. This effect for control is consistent with Ford’s (1983; 1991; Ford & 

Regoli, 1992) work, which suggests that women who have the option to drop charges but 

decide not to are safer over time, relative to women who decide to drop charges and 

women who are not given this choice. 

The distinction between perceived control and actual control in this study is 

crucial. The current study simply asked women how much control they believed they 

had over the system, because measuring women’s actual control was not possible. 

Changes within the system that increase women’s perceived control but do not increase 

67 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
their actual control ultimately would be misleading and disempowering (Riger, 1993). A 

great deal of future work will be needed to disentangle the complex relationship between 

perceived control, actual control, and satisfaction. 

Contrary to expectations, the effects of incident characteristics on women’s 

satisfaction with the system were weak. Severity of the violence and the resultant 

injuries were expected to be related to satisfaction because the system may take cases of 

severe violence more seriously. This did appear to be the case; women who experienced 

more severe violence were more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisfied” than in 

“Satisfactory Outcomes” (once the impact of injuries was controlled for). However, it 

should be noted that women who had experienced life threatening assaults and women 

who had not been physically assaulted at all were represented in all four clusters. 

At first glance, there seems to be a conflict between women having some control 

within the criminal legal system (which is related to increased satisfaction) and evidencebased prosecution policies, which remove the responsibility for prosecution fiom 

survivors. Evidence-based prosecution policies will not affect control over or 

participation in the system among women who believe the system can help end the 

violence. The dilemma remains, however, for women who want control over the system 

because they want charges dismissed. Additional community supports for survivors 

(e.g., financial support) and protection fiom assailants could decrease women’s reliance 

on control over the system to stay safe. Evidence-based prosecution as part of a larger, 

coordinated community response could decrease women’s perceived control over the 

system without decreasing her satisfaction with the criminal legal system. 

68 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
One of the original intentions of this research was to examine how prior 

experiences with the criminal legal system influenced women’s decisions to re-use the 

system in the future. However, the relatively low numbers of women assaulted over time 

limited the analyses whkh could be done. Future research needs to use larger sample 

sizes in order to examine this question. 

In lieu of examining actual fbture use, women’s intentions to re-use the system in 

the event of future violence were explored. Overall, the findings showed that prior I 

experiences do indeed impact future intentions to use the criminal legal system. 

Demographic information about women was somewhat useful in prediction. Not 

surprisingly, however, those women who were treated with respect (listened40, believed) 

by the police and prosecutors during the target incident were more likely to indicate that 

they would re-use the criminal legal system. Additionally, women who were satisfied 

with the system response were more likely to say they would re-use the system. 

While these findings are not surprising, they do suggest the importance of police 

and prosecutor behavior. Moreover, they illustrate that women’s use of the criminal legal 

system is a complex choice affected by both her experiences of violence and extra-legal 

factors. The interviews with prosecuting attorneys also illustrate the complexity and 

variation that women face. While certain factors emerged as main themes, there was 

little uniformity in prosecutors’ perceptions of survivors, assailants, and the system itself. 

While many prosecuting attorneys indicated attitudes and behaviors that were supportive 

of survivors, others still held women responsible for ending the violence by 

“cooperating” with the system. Women’s experiences then, vary by which particular 

prosecutors (and police and judges) with whom they interact. 

69 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Certain limitations were present in this study that need to be addressed. The 

sample selection relied on self-selection-women who responded to the flyers. Thus, this 

method did not capture differences that may exist between the women who did and did 

not respond to this sampling scheme. That is, it is doubtful that this sample is 

representative of all female victims of domestic violence in our three sites. Indeed, 

women who were unhappy with their criminal justice system experiences (who wanted to 

report their frustration) and or poorer women (who were more in need of money) were 

probably more likely to participate. A related limitation of this study is that although we 

had a high retention rate for a study of this type, we are concerned about the women who 

we could no longer contact for Times 2 andor 3. We know that one of these women 

died. After repeated attempts to contact her for her third interview, one of the contacts 

she had given us, her sister, sadly informed us that she had died of a drug overdose. The 

sister was convinced it was related to her batterer, and that he had overdosed her on 

purpose. Given the lives of battered women, it is likely that the women whom we did not 

retain in our study were the most marginalized, thus the most dificult to find, and 

possibly disproportionately abused. On the other hand, perhaps the women who had 

“moved on from the abuse” were less willing to be reminded of it by additional 

interviews. 

Another limitation of this study is that the cities and counties chosen for the study 

do not reflect all U.S. jurisdictions. Finally, although the follow-up time-period of one 

year is longer than most previous studies on this topic, an even longer follow-up period, 

although financially prohibitive for the current study, would be ideal for a study of this 

type. Moreover, future research needs to examine how assailants experience the criminal 

70 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
legal system. Assailants’ violent behaviors need to stop if we are to end violence against 

women. 

Despite these limitations, this study offers a unique and unprecedented 

examination of domestic violence victims and the courts. Overall, this study 

demonstrates the complexity of women’s experiences with the criminal legal system. 

This system is only one of multiple systems with the potential to assist women with 

abusive partners and to hold assailants accountable for their actions. Appropriate, 

coordinated responses by multiple systems are necessary to adequately address violence 

against women. Nonetheless, understanding survivor satisfaction with the criminal legal 

I 

system as well as the factors influencing their participation in it, is a crucial ‘first step to 

improving the way this system addresses intimate partner violence. 

71 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
References 

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing And Interpreting 

Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1 984). Cluster Analysis. Newbury Park, NJ: 

Sage. ! 

Bellcnap, J. (1995). Law Enforcement Officers’ Attitudes about the Appropriate 

Responses to Woman Battering. International Review of Victimology, 4, 47-62. 

Browne, A. (1987). when Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press. 

Buzawa, E.S., & Buzawa, C.G. (1990). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice System 

Response. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Buzawa, E.S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining Police Response to Domestic Violence 

Victims. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 6 10-623. 

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1993). Opening the doors: The changing police 

response to domestic violence, pp. 551-567 in Critical Issues in Policing, edited 

by R. G. Dunham and G. P. Alpert. Prospect Heights: IL: Waveland. 

Buzawa, E. & Buzawa, C. (1996). Introduction. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa 

(Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 1 - 13). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Cahn, N. (1 992). Innovative Approaches To The Prosecution Of Domestic Violence 

Crimes. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing ’ 

Criminal Justice Response (pp. 161 - 1 80). Westport, CT: Greenwood. 

Cahn, N. R., & Lennan, L. G. (1991). Prosecuting Woman Abuse. In M. Steinman 

(Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. 

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes And Maintenance Of Domestic Violence: An Ecological 

Analysis. Social Service Review (December), 569-587. 

Chaudhuri, M. & Daly, K. (1 992). Do Restraining Orders Help? Battered Women’s 

Experience With Male Violence And Legal Process. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa 

(Eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response (pp. 227- 

252). Westport, CT: Greenwood. 

Corsilles, A. (1 994). Note: No-Drop Policies In The Prosecution Of Domestic Violence 

Cases: Guarantee To Action Or Dangerous Solution? Fordham Law Review, 63: 

853-88 1. 

72 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
, c-ll 

I 

Davies, J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (1998). Safety Planning with Battered Women: 

Complex Lives / Dzficult Choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Davis, R. C. (1 983). Victiflitness Noncooperation: A Second Look At A Persistent 

Phenomenon. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1 I , 287-299. 

Davis, R., & Smith, B. (1 995). Domestic Violence Reforms: Empty Promises or Fulfilled 

Expectations? Crime and Delinquency, 41 (4), 541 -552. 

Dutton, M. A. (1 996). Battered Women’s Strategic Response To Violence: The Role Of 

Context. In J. L. Edleson & Z. C. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with 

battered women and their families (pp.105-124). 

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). “In Their Own Words: Battered Women’s Assessment of 

the Criminal Processing System’s Responses.” Violence and Victims 13(3), 25 1- 

68. 

Ewing, C.P. (1 987). Battered Women Wzo Kill. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 

Feder, L. (1 997). Domestic Violence And Police Response In A Pro-Arrest Jurisdiction. 

Women & Criminal Justice, 8: 79-98. 

Ferraro, K.J. (1993). Cops, Courts, And Woman Battering. In P.B. Bart & E.G. Moran 

(Eds.), Violence against women (pp. 165-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Ferraro, K.J., & Pope, L. (1993). Irreconcilable Differences: Battered Women, Police 

and the Law. In Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal Responses to Wie Assault: Current Trends 

and Evaluations (pp. 96-123). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 

Fleury, R. E. (2001). Missing Voices: Patterns of Battered Women’s Satisfaction with 

the Criminal Legal System. Violence Against Women, 8, 181-205. 

Fleury, R.E., Sullivan, C.M., Bybee, D.I., & Davidson, W.S. (1998). What Happened 

Depends On Whom You Ask: A Comparison Of Police Records And Victim 

Reports Regarding Arrests For Woman Battering. Journal of Criminal Justice, 

26( l), 53-59. 

Ford, D. A. (1991). Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource: A Note on Empowering 

Women in Violent Conjugal Relationships. Law and Society Review, 25(2), 3 13- 

334. 

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1 992). The Preventive Impacts Of Policies For 

Prosecuting Wife Batterers. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic 

violence: The changing criminal justice response. Wesport, CN: Auburn House. 

73 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ford, D. A., Reichard, R., Goldsmith, S., & Regoli, M. J. (1996). Future Directions for 

Criminal Justice Policy on Domestic Violence. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa 

(Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 243-265). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Gelles, R. J. (1996). Constraints Against Family Violence: How Well Do They Work? In 

E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4 

Goodman, L., Bennett, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Obstacles to Victims' Cooperation 

With the Criminal Prosecution of Their Abusers: The Role of Social Support. 

Violence and Victims, 14, 427-444. 

Halsted, J. B. (1992). Domestic violence: Its legal definitions. In E. Buzawa & C. 

Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response (pp. 

143-160). Westport, CT: Greenwood. 

Hanna, C. (1998). The Paradox Of Hope: The Crime And Punishment Of Doniestic 

Violence. William and Mary Law Review, 52, 1505-1 520. 

Hart, B. (1993). Battered Women And The Criminal Justice System. American 

Behavioral Scientist, 36,624-638. 

Hart, B. (1996). Battered Women and the Criminal Justice System. In E. S. Buzawa & C. 

G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 98-1 14). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Hilton, N. Z. (1993). Introduction. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: 

Current trends and evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Hirschel, J. D., Hutchinson, I. W., & Dean, C. W. (1992). The Failure of Arrest to Deter 

Spouse Abuse. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 7-33. 

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1 989). Applied logistic regression. New York: 

Wiley. 

Hoyle, C. (1 998). Negotiating Domestic Violence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Jones, D. A., & J. Belknap. (1999). Police Responses to Battering in a Pro-Arrest 

Jurisdiction. Justice Quarterly, 16,249-273. 

Leman, L. (1 992). The Decontextualization Of Domestic Violence. Journal of Criminal 

Law dl Criminology, 83, 2 17-240. 

Lewis, R., Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (2000). Protection, 

Prevention, Rehabilitation, Or Justice?: Women's Use of the Law To Challenge 

74 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Domestic Violence. In E. Erez & K. Laster (Eds.) Domestic Violence: Global 

Perspectives (pp. 179-205). Bicester, England: AB Academic Publishers. 

Limandri, B. J., & Sheridan, D. J. (1995). Prediction of interpersonal violence: An 

introduction. In J. Campbell (Ed.) Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual 

offenders, batterers, and child abusers. (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Mahoney, M. A. (1991). Legal Images Of Battered Women: Redefining The Issue Of 

Separation. Michigan Law Review, PO, 1-94. 

McLeod, M. (1 983). Victim Noncooperation in the Prosecution of Domestic Assault. 

Criminology, 21(3), 395-416. 

Miller, N. (1998). Domestic Violence: A Review of State Legislation De$ning Police 

and Prosecution Duties and Powers. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and 

Justice. 

Mills, L. (1 996). Empowering Battered Women Transnationally: The Case for ' 

Postmodern Interventions. Social Work, 41(3), 261 -268. 

Mills, L. G. (1999). Killing Her Softly: Intimate Abuse And The Violence Of State 

Intervention. Haward Law Review, 113(2): 551-613. 

Mowbray, C. T., Bybee, D., & Cohen, E. (1 993). Describing The Homeless Mentally 111: 

Cluster Analysis Results. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 67-93. 

Pleck, E. H. (1 987). Domestic Tyranny: The Making of a Social Policy Against Family 

violence From Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women In The Courtroom: The Power Of Judicial 

Responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 

Rapkin, B. D., & Luke, D. A. (1993). Cluster Analysis In Community Research: 

Epistemology And Practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 

247-277. 

Rebovich, D. J. (1 996). Prosecution Response to Domestic Violence: Results of a Survey 

of Large Jurisdictions. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and 

Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ' 

Richie, B. (1996). Compelled To Crime. New York: Routledge. 

Richie, B. E., & Kanuha, V. (1997). Battered Women Of Color In Public Health Care 

Systems. In M. BacaZinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Ed.), Through 

the prism of difference: Readings on sex and gender. Boston, MA: Allyn & 

Bacon. 

75 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Rigakos, G. S. (1997). Situational Determinants Of Police Responses To Civil And 

Criminal Injunctions For Battered Women. Violence Against Women, 3,204-216. 

Riger, S. (1993). What's Wrong With Empowerment. American JournaI of Community 

PsychoIogy, 21,279-292. 

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The Specific Deterrent Effects Of &est For 

Domestic Assault. American So,ciological Review, 49,261 -272. 

Schmidt, J. D., & Sherman, L. W. (1996). Does Arrest Deter Domestic Violence? In E. S. 

Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (pp. 

43-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Shoham, E. (2000). The Battered Wife's Perception of the Characteristics of Her 

Encounter with the Police. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 44(2), 242-257. 

Singer, S.I. (1988). The Fear Of Reprisal And The Failure Of Victims To Report A 

Personal Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 4 (3), 289-302. 

Stephens, B.J. & Sinden, P.G. (2000). Victims' Voices: Domestic Assault Victims' 

Perceptions of Police Demeanor. JournaZ of Interpersonal Violence, I5(5), 534- 

547. 

Stets, Jan E. (1991). Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:669-80. 

Straus, M. A. (1 979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics 

(CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75-88. 

Sullivan, C.M., & Bybee, D.I. (1 999). Reducing violence using community-based 

advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of ConsultinE and Clinical 

psycho lo^, 67(1), 43-53. 

76 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.1: Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 

Variables Time 1 (N-178) Time 2 (N=l60) Time 3 (N=148)’ 

Site 

Ingham County, MI 

Boulder County, CO 

Denver, CO 

Race 

White 

African American 

Latina 

Other 

Ageb 

18-29 

’ 30-44 

45+ 

Education 

Less than High School 

High School Graduate 

Trade School 

Some College 

Associate’s Degree 

College Graduate 

Professional Degree 

Income‘ 

0.00-499.99 

500.00-999.99 

1000.00-2999.99 

3 000. 00+ 

Number of Children 

0 

1-3 

4+ 

Relationship wlAssailant 

Married 

Separated 

Divorced 

Girlfriend, Boyfiiend 

Dating 

Ex-Girlfriend Boyfriend 

Other 

21.4 (38) 

27.0 (48) 

5 1.7 (92) 

55.1 (98) 

20.2 (36) 

16.3 (29) 

8.4 (15) 

44.4 (79) 

39.3 (70) 

13.5 (24) 

14.0 (25) 

25.3 (45) 

5.1 (9) 

30.3 (54) 

15.2 (27) 

5.1 (9) 

5.1 (9) 

12.4 (22) 

19.2 (34) 

48.6 (86) 

19.7 (35) 

27.5 (49) 

60.1 (107) 

12.4 (22) 

9.6 (17) 

14.0 (25) 

10.1 (18) 

13.5 (24) 

46.1 (82) 

5.6 (10) 

1.1 (2) 

22.5 (36) 

28.8 (46) 

48.8 (78) 

57.5 (92) 

18.1 (29) 

15.6 (25) 

8.8 (14) 

43.1 (69) 

43.8 (70) 

13.1 (21) 

13.8 (22) 

23.8 (38) 

5.6 (9) 

31.8 (50) 

3.8 (6) 

16.3 (26) 

5.6 (9) 

10.6 (17) 

18.8 (30) 

15.6 (25) 

52.5 (84) 

25.0 (40) 

64.4 (103) 

10.6 (17) 

10.6 (17) 

10.6 (17) 

12.5 (20) 

0.6 (1) 

46.3 (74) 

6.9 (1 1) 

12.5 (20) 

23.0 (34) 

29.7 (44) 

47.3 (70) 

57.4 (85) ’ 

18.2 (27) 

16.9 (25) 

7.4 (1 1) 

41.9 (62) 

43.9 (65) 

14.2 (21) 

12.9 (19) 

23.8 (35) 

6.1 (9) 

30.6 (45) 

4.1 (6) 

16.3 (24) 

6.1 (9) 

11.5 (17) 

17.6 (26) 

20.9 (3 1) 

49.3 (73) 

23.6 (35) 

12.2 (18) 

64.2 (95) 

8.8 (13) 

11.5 (17) 

15.5 (23) 

10.1 (15) 

2.7 (4) 

47.3 (70) 

4.1 (6) 

Significant demographic differences between women who participated in the study at all three time 

periods and women who dropped out were only found for the variable “site’-women were significantly 

more likely to drop out fiom Denver than from Boulder or Lansing. 

The mean age for Time 1 was 32.8, with a range from 18 to 60 years old; the mean age for Time 2 was 

33.1 with a range fiom 18 to 60 years old; and the mean age for Time 3 was 33.4, with a range fiom 18 to 

60 years old. 

at Time 2 was $1813.00, with a range fiom $0.00 to $8000.00; the mean income at Time 3 was $1956.00, 

with a range fiom $0.00 to $10,000. 

The mean income at Time 1 was $2042.00, with a range from $0.00 to $20,000 a month, the mean income 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.2: Criminal Processing System Use and Response Characteristics at Time 1, Time 2, and 

Time 3 

Variables N’ Time1 N Time2 N Time3 

Did She Initiate Police Contact?b 177 43 32 

No 

Yes 

Did She Go To Court?’ 

No 

Yes 

Case Outcome 

Not GuiltyAIismissed 

Guilty 

Sentence 

No Sentence 

Probation or Light Sentence 

Jail Time 

14.1 (25) 

85.9 (152) 

178 

37.6 (67) 

62.4 (1 11) 

170 

22.4 (38) 

77.6 (132) 

155 

25.2 (39) 

44.5 (69) 

30.3 (47) 

9.3 (4) 

90.7 (39) 

35 

48.6 (17) 

51.4 (18) 

14 

14.3 (2) 

85.7 (12) 

13 

15.4 (2) 

30.8 (4) 

53.8 (7) 

18.8 (6) 

81.3 (26) 

23 

47.8 (1 1) 

52.2 (12) 

9 

22.2 (2) 

77.8 (7) 

8 

25.0 (2) 

25.0 (2) 

50.0 (4) 

The sample size for “Did She Use the System Herself’ represents the number of cases at each time period 

in which the police were contacted (the abuser was not necessarily arrested). The sample size for “Did she 

go to court?” was out of cases that resulted in court case. Finally, the sample size for “Case Outcome” and 

“Sentence” represents the number of cases that had gone through the system at the time of the interview, 

and that the respondent knew the answer. 

someone to call the police for her (thus the no in these cases indicates that someone else called the police 

without her asking them to). 

‘uGo to Court” is operationalized as simply whether she went to court, including going at a time when the 

hearing or trial was cancelled or re-scheduled. Reasons women did not go to court, including not knowing 

court date, are in Table 1.13. 

“Did She Initiate Police Contact” is operationaked as either calling the police herself or asking or telling 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 13: Physical Violence Frequencies Reported at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 ,I 

Variables Time 1 (N=l78) Time 2 (N= 160) Time 3 (N=148) 

Meanb Percent" Meanb T-Test Percent' Meanb 

Grabbed 

Push or Shoved, 

Threw Something At 

Drove Recklessly 

Beat Up 

Hit w/Fist 

Slapped 

Tried to Hit w/Object 

StrangledChoked 

Tied UpRestrained 

Twisted Arm/Leg 

Pulled Hair 

Tore Clothes/Broke 

Glasses 

Kicked 

Hit w/Object 

Raped 

Threatened w/ a Knife 

Other Violence 

Threatened w/ a Gun 

Bit 

Burned 

Stabbed 

Shot 

Composite of Violence' 

Experienced Any 

Violence 

Percent" 

87.1 (155) 

84.3 (150) 

. 58.4 (104) 

52.3 (93) 

51.7 (92) 

5 1.7 (92j 

50.6 (90) 

47.8 (85) 

' 45.5 (81) 

44.9 (80) 

42.7 (76) 

42.1 (75) 

41.6 (74) 

37.1 (66) 

35.4 (63) 

21.3 (38) 

21.3 (38) 

18.0 (32) 

15.2 (27) 

5.6 (10) 

3.4 (6) 

11.2 (20) 

0.0 (0) 

96.6 (172) 

2.32 28.1 (45) 

2.07 25.6 (41) 

1.28 16.9 (27) 

1.30 15.0 (24) 

1.09 10.0 (16) 

0.91 6.9 (11) 

1.00 10.0 (16) 

1.01 13.1 (21) 

0.95 , 13.1 (21) 

0.92 10.6 (17) 

0.94 13.8 (22) 

0.73 13.1 (21) 

0.81 ii.3 (18) 

0.77 7.5 (12) 

0.63 8.8 (14) 

0.51 7.5(12) 

0.33 5.0(8) 

0.32 3.8(6) 

0.31 4.4(7) 

0.16 1.9(3) 

0.07 2.5 (4) 

0.03 O.O(O) 

0.00 O.O(O) 

18.45 

0.97 38.1 (61) 

0.59 

0.53 

0.36 

0.26 

0.18 

0.13 

0.18 

0.26 

0.22 

0.2 1 

0.23 

0.20 

0.14 

0.20 

0.1 1 

0.06 

0.08 

0.07 

0.02 

0.04 

0.00 

0.00 

4.27 

0.38 

I 0.21 

5.30*** 

10.82*** 

7.51*** 

7.74*** 

7.85*** 

7.42*** 

7.03*** 

6.04*** 

6.39*** 

6.01*** 

6.16*** 

5.10*** 

5.30*** 

6.04*** 

4.63*** 

3.96*** 

4.48*** 

2.98** 

3.03 ** 

0.89 

2.02* 

0.00 

3.75,*** ,~ 

27.7 (41) 

21.6 (32) 

15.5 (23) 

12.2 (18) 

10.1 (15) 

6.1 (9) 

11.5(17) 

13.5 (20) 

7.4 (1 1) 

7.4 (1 1) 

10.1 (15) 

8.8 (13) 

8.1 (12) 

7.4 (11) 

4.7 (7) 

2.7 (41, 

2.7 (4)' 

2.0 (3) 

3.4 (5) 

0.0 (0) 

0.0 (0) 

9.5 (14) 

1.4 (2) 

10.61 *** 

14.68*** 34.9 (51) 

0.65 

0.53 

0.32 

0.29 

0.24 

0.14 

0.26 

0.26 

0.16 

0.16 

0.19 

0.22 

0.18 

0.15 

0.20 

0.18 

0.10 

0.03 

0.02 

0.05 

0.07 

0.00 

0.00 

4.45 

0.35 

1 

T-Test 

-0.5: 

0.N 

0.4.' 

-0.35 

-0.75 

-0.2t 

-0.9: , 

0.0t 

0.85 

0.75 

0.2; 

0.1f 

0.2t 

-0.2; 

O.O( 

-0.7: 

-0.61 

1.2; 

1 St 

-1.05 

-0.5t 

O.O( 

O.O( 

-0.1 : 

0.6; 

95.05 

**p5 .01 

***ps.oo 1 

" This represents the percentage of the respondents who experienced any of the physical violence behaviors 

at least once in the time period presented. 

frequency measure ranged from never (0) to everyday (7). The means presented are the means for only the 

148 respondents who participated in every interview. 

' This composite was created by adding up all of the responses to the individual physical violence variables. 

It ranged from 0 to 109 at Time 1; from 0 to 47 at Time 2; and from 0 to 70 at Time 3. 

The respondents were asked how frequently they experienced each type of physical violence. The 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.4: Types of Injuries Received During Incident That Led To Court Case 

Type of Injury % of total sample 

(N= 178) 

Soreness without bruising 

Cuts, scrapes, bruises 

Nausedvomiting 

Stmindsprains 

Concussion or head injury 

Bald spots or hair loss 

Black eye 

Permanent scarring 

Loss of consciousness 

Bums, incl. rug burns 

Broken bones 

Internal injuries 

Bite wounds 

Dislocated joints 

Pregnancy complications/ 

miscarriage* 

Knife or gunshot wound 

Loose or broken teeth 

58% 

58% 

27% 

21% 

18% 

16% 

15% 

13% 

11% 

9% 

6% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

*Percent of total sample. Items are listed by rate of reported frequency, not listing in survey. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.5: Types of Injuries Women Received After The Arrest But Before The 

Case Closed 

Type of injury % of total sample 

(N= 174) 

Cuts, scrapes, or bruises 

Soreness without bruises 

Nausedvomiting 

Concussionhead injury 

Loss of consciousness 

Black eye 

Broken bones 

Permanent scarring 

Bald spots or hair loss 

Strains/sprains 

Bite wounds 

Burns, incl. rug burns 

Dislocated joints 

Pregnancy complications/ 

miscarriage* 

Internal injuries 

Knife or gunshot wound 

10% 

10% 

7% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

3 yo 

1% 

1% 

Items are listed by rate of reported frequency, not listing in survey. 

*Percent of total sample. 33% (n = 1) of the pregnant women had complications or a 

miscarriage. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.6: Power And Control Tactics Perpetrated Against Women During The Six Months 

Before The Arrest (N=178) 

Type of control % reporting this 

happened in prior 

6 monthsa 

% reporting this 

happened "often" 

Called her names 

Ridiculed or criticized her 

Lied to her 

Accused her of being irrationallcrazy 

Acted like he owned her 

Tried to control her activities 

Tried to humiliate her 

Checked up on her 

Accused her of having/ 

wanting other relationships 

Threatened or harmed her new partnerb 

Broke or destroyed something 

Refused to talk to her 

Joked aboutlpretended to hurt her 

Made unwanted calls to her 

Discouraged her contact w/family/i?iends 

Tried to control her money 

Followed or watched her 

Told her she was a bad or unfit mother' 

Came unwanted to home/work/school 

Threatened to end relationship 

if she didn't do what he wantedd 

Forbid her fiom leaving her home' 

Told her she was not lovable 

Left unwanted phonelpager messages 

Harassed her family/fiiends 

Threatened to commit suicide 

Forced her to leave her home 

Stole or read her mail 

Threatened to take children awaf 

Punished or deprived children 

Broke into her home or car 

when he was angry at here 

Sent her unwanted gi&/photos/ letters 

Abused pets 

Tried to get her fired' 

Left her somewhere with no 

way to get home 

important to her 

97% 

90% 

88% 

88% 

86% 

81% 

79% 

77% 

76% 

71% 

66% 

64% 

64% 

61% 

61% 

60% 

60% 

58% 

5 8% 

57% 

54% 

53% 

53% 

48% 

47% 

45% 

44% 

41% 

38% 

36% 

27% 

24% 

22% 

18% 

50% 

5 1% 

63% 

54% 

55% 

48% I 

37% 

44% 

43% 

29% I ' 

26% 

25% 

24% 

13% 

26% 

31% 

24% 

25% 

27% 

23% 

19% 

20% 

29% 

14% 

11% 

13% 

18% 

14% 

9% 

11% 

8% 

5% 

8% 

5% 

a Items are listed in order of reported frequency, not the order in the survey. Among women who had a 

new partner (N=35); ' Among 127 women question applicable; dAmon women who were in a relationship 

applicable; gAmong 104 women question applicable; 'Among employed women (N = 147). 

with the assailant (N = 135); 'Among 140 women question applicable; B Among 108 women question 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.7: The Role of Threats in Women's Reported Abuse (N=178) 

Threatened 6 Months Before Arrest? 

Never 16% 

Once 10% 

Once a month or less 14% 

Once or twice a week 19% 

3-4 times a week 16% 

5-6 times a week 8% 

Every day 8% 

Threatened to Kill? 

Never 

Once 

Once a month or less 

Once or twice a week 

3-4 times a week 

5-6 times a week 

Every day 

I, , 

Capable of Killing? 

Definitely Yes 

Probably Yes 

Don't Know 

Probably No 

Definitely No 

Easy Access to a Gun? 

No 

Yes, not in house 

Yes, in house 

Don't know 

39% 

19% 

10% 

9% 

6% 

4% 

3% 

33% I 

24% 

3% 

17% 

22% 

40% 

25% 

23% 

12% 

Threatened Family/Friends in Last 6 Months 

Never 52% 

Once 12% 

.Once a month or less 12% 

Once or twice a week 10% 

3-4 times a week 6% 

5-6 times a week 3% 

Every day 3% 

Frequency of Threats Since Arrest" 

Less frequent 33% 

More frequent 11% 

As frequent 8% 

None Since Arrest 48% 

Afraid of Following Through on Threatsb 

Not at all afiaid 26% 

A little bit afraid 19% 

Somewhat afraid 39% 

Very afraid 16% 

"N=143; N= 139 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.8: Actions Taken By Police Officers Regarding the Incident That Led To the Court 

Case 

Action taken 

~ 

% of incidents 

Listened to her 

Believed her 

Supported her decisions 

Told her what was going to happen next 

Did something that made her feel safer 

Gave written info about community resources 

Gave written info about the legal system 

Took pictures of her injuries at the time* 

Acted bored 

Tried to pressure her into pressing charges 

Blamedkcolded her for not following through on prior charges** 

Did something that made her feel more in danger 

Said there was nothing they could do 

Took pictures of her injuries at a later date* 

Took pictures of the assailant’s injuries* 

Blamed her for the violence 

Told her to “patch things up” with the assailant 

Discouraged her from continuing with the case 

Threatened her 

Arrested her for the violence 

Arrested her for other charges 

94% 

82% 

73% 

60% 

58% 

40% 

34% 

30% 

27% 

24% 

21% 

19% ’ 

13% 4’ 

12% 

11% 

10% 

6% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

-Items are listed by rate of reported frequency, not order listed in survey. 

*Among those with visible injuries. 

**Among those with prior police or court contact 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.9: Actions Taken By Court Advocates Regarding the Incident That Led To the 

Court Case (N=127) 

Action taken % of incidents 

Believed her 

Listened to her 

Supported her decisions 

Told her what was going on 

Did something that made her feel safer 

Tried to persuade her to testify against the assailant 

Acted bored . 

Said there was nothing she (advocate) could do 

Blamed or scolded her for not following through on prior 

Did something that made her feel more in danger 

Discouraged her from continuing with the case 

Blamed her for the violence 

Told her to “patch things up” with the assailant 

charges* 

93% 

91% 

85% 

84% 

47% 

28% 

16% 

14% 

14% 

7% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

*Among women with prior police or court contact 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.10: Actions Taken By Prosecuting Attorneys Regarding the Incident That 

Led To the Court Case (N = 95) 

Action taken % of incidents 

Listened to her 

Believed her 

Told her what was going on 

Supported her decisions 

Did something that made her feel safer 

Tried to persuade her to testify against the assailant 

Said there was nothing she/he(prosecutor) could do 

Blamedscolded her for not following through w/prior charges* 

Acted bored 

Discouraged her fiom continuing with the case 

Did something that made her feel more in danger 

Blamed her for the violence 

Told her to “patch things up” with the assailant 

82% 

82% 

81% 

69% 

30% 

27% 

22% 

16% 

15% 

10% 

10% 

4% 

2% 

~ ~ ~~ 

*Among women with prior police or court contact 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.11 : Participants’ Reports of Court Outcomes 

Percentage of assailants released 

on bail at target incident 

Percentage of participants who 

received a subpoena regarding target 

incident 

Times went to court 

regarding target incident* 

(SD) 

69% 

71% 

1.34 

(1.50) 

Mean times went to court 

regarding target incident 1.59 

when it was re-scheduled* 

(SD) 

Court outcome of 

target incident 

Pled guilty to original charges 

Pled guilty to lesser charges 

Charges dropped 

Pled guilty, received deferred sentence 

Convicted after trial-original charges 

Other outcome 

Participant doesn’t know outcome 

Pled guilty - don’t know charges 

Pled no contest 

Convicted after trial - don’t know charges 

25% 

24% 

19% 

10% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

*Includes only the 157 women who knew about a hearing or trial in advance. N = 20 

(1 1 %) were never aware of a hearing or trial in advance. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.12. Reasons Women Went To Court and The Barriers They Faced’ 8 

Variable N Time1 N Time2 N Time3 

Reasons for Going to Courtb lllD 17‘ 12‘ 

Felt like she ought to go 

To get assailant to stop hurting her 

Went b/c of subpoena 

To get assailant help 

To teach assailant a lesson 

Fear of the assailant 

Thought legally she had no choice 

To send assailant to jail 

Wanted charges dropped 

Pressure from family/friends 

Barriers to Going to Courtb 

Fear of assailant 

Want to work things out w/assailant 

Prior bad experiences w/courts 

Problems getting time off work 

Pressure from his family/fiiends 

Problems getting transportation 

Problems getting childcare 

Pressure from her family/fiiends 

Fear of being arrested herself 

9 1.9( 102) 

8 8.3 (98) 

76.6(85) 

72.1 (80) 

65.8(73) 

64.9(72) 

54.1(60) 

53.1(59) 

27.9(72) 

18.0(20) 

5 1.4(57) 

26.1(29) 

26.1(29) 

22.5(25) 

18.0(20) 

11.7(13) 

9.0(10) 

8.1(9) 

8.1(9) 

76.q 13) 

88.2(15) 

58.8( 10) 

58.8( 10) 

47.1(8) 

52.9( 9) 

64.7( 1 1) 

64.7(11) 

17.7(3) 

5.9(1) 

64.7( 1 1) 

29.4(5) 

52.9(9) 

23.5(4) 

23.5(4) 

1 1.8(2) 

11.8(2) 

5.9( 1) 

11.8(2) 

66.7( 8) 

75.0(9) 

83.3 ( 1 0) 

66.7(8) 

50.0(6). 

5 8.3(7) 

41.7(5) 

5 O.O( 6) 

25.0(3) 

16.7(2) 

3 3.3 (4) 

3 3.3 (4) 

50:0(6) 

16.7(2) 

O.O(O) 

O.O(O) 

8.3(1) 

O.O(O) 

O.O(O) 

a Results are listed in order of frequency for Time 1, not the order on the survey. 

Repondents could report “yes” to any number (including none or all) of these. 

These questions were only asked of those women who went to court. Thus, the Ns represent the number of 

women who went to court at each time period. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 1.13. Reasons Women Reported for Not Going to Court ,I 

Variable N Time1 N Time2 N Time3 

Knew About Hearinflrial in 67” 1 llPb 

Advance 

Yes 

No I 

Reasons for Not Going to Court if 

Knew About Ite \ 

Did not want to go 

Wanted to work things out w/assailant 

Didn’t think prosecution would help 

Wanted charges dropped 

Didn’t want assailant to go to jail 

Had prior bad experiences w/court 

Fear of assailant 

Couldn’t get time off work 

Felt pressure from his family/fiiends 

Depend on assailant for moneyhouse 

Didn’t know she could go 

Didn’t know where to go 

Had trouble getting childcare 

Felt pressure from her family/fiiends 

Had trouble getting transportation 

67.2(45) 

29.9(20) 

4Sd 

68.9(3 i j 

40.0( 18) 

3 7.8( 1 7) 

3 1.1( 14) 

26.7( 12) 

26.7( 12) 

24.461 1) 

24.4( 1 1) 

20.0(9) 

17.8(8) 

17.8(8) 

8.9(4) 

6.7(3) 

4.4(2) 

4.4(2) 

52.9(9) 54.4(6) 

29.4(5) 27.3(3) 

gd 6d 

8 8.9( 8) 33.3(2) 

66.7(6) 33.3(2) 

22.2(2) 

44.4(4) 

55.6(5) 

55.6( 5) 

5 5.6(5) 

11.1(1) 

22.2(2) 

33.3(3) 

22.2(2) 

33.3(2) 

33.3(2) 

, 33.3(2) 

16.7( 1) 

33.3(2) 

O.O(O) 

50.0(3) 

33.3(3) 

16.7(1) 

O.O(O) O*O(O) 

11.1(1) 16.7( 1) 

O.O(O) . 16.7(1) 

22.2(2) 16.7( 1) 

a These Ns represent the respondents who did not go to court. 

The missing numbers are respondents who reported that the trialhearing had not happened yet. 

Respondents could report “yes” to any number (including none or all) of these. Items are listed in order of 

This question was only asked of those women who did not go to court, but knew about it in advance. . fiequency at Time 1, not the order in the survey. 

Thus, these Ns represent the women who did not go to court, but knew about it in advance. 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 2.1: Final Cluster Centroids For Four Cluster Solution 

Cluster Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction 

w/police w/prosecutor w/process , w/outcome 

Somewhat Satisfied 3.92 4.62 3.91 4.60 

Let Down 4.46 2.93 2.69 1.66 

Satisfactory Outcomes 3.1 1 1.91 2.69 4.03 

Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.48 1.38 1.31 1.45 

a 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied” 

9 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 3.1 : Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Strength of Woman's Future Intention to Use the Legal System 

Independent variables, by block Standardized coefficients, by block 

Background -- Woman's situation and relationship with assailant 

Woman living with assailant at time of arrest (1 = yes; 0 = no) 

Importance of assailant's contribution to household income (0 = not at all to 4 = very important) 

Number of previous separations from assailant 

Woman employed at time of case closure (1 = yes; 0 = no) 

Woman's perceived community support re abuse (0 = very unsupportive to 4 = very supportive) 

Severity of violence leading to arrest (0 = none to 17 = most severe) 

Assailant power and control over woman (0 = none to 4 = highest) 

Assailant violent against woman after arrest (1 = yes; 0 = no) 

Charges against assailant were dropped (1 = yes; 0 = no) 

Woman wanted charges against assailant dropped (0 = not at all to 3 = very much) 

Interaction: Charges dropped X Woman wanted charges dropped a 

Woman initiated call to police for incident precipitating arrest (1 = yes; 0 = no) 

Police gave woman information about the legal system (0 = none to 2 = written & verbal) 

Woman felt pressured to pursue charges against assailant (0 = not at all to 1 = very much) 

Number of times woman went to court but proceedings had been canceled 

Woman's perception of her treatment -- felt listened to, believed, & respected (0 = not at all to 1 = very much) 

Abuse 

Case disposition and disposition woman wanted 

Experience with legal system 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 

-0.24 *** -0.23 ** -0.22 ** -0.21 *** 

-0.25 ** -0.20 -0.11 -0.18 ** 

-0.02 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 

0.19 ** 0.21 ** 0.18 ** 0.15 ** 

0.20 ** 0.18 0.13 ' -0.06 

0.12 0.06 0.21 ** 

0.1 1 0.04 0.02 

-0.15 -0.08 -0.05 

0.03 0.06 

-0.39 *** -0.20 * 

0.19 0.12' 

0.11 

0.11 * 

-0.15 

-0.13 

0.16 * 

Woman's satisfaction with legal process and outcome (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied) 0.29 *** 

Model Fit 

AF 

A R square 

Model F 

R square 

11.49 *** 2.62 * 6.26 ** 11.40 *** 

0.27 0.04 0.08 0.20 

1.49 *** 8.39. *** 8.46 *** 11.85 *** 

0.27 0.31 0.39 0.59 

For ease of presentation, the interaction and main effects are presented in the same block. When entered in a separate block, following the component main 

p < .IO. *p -C .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 

effects, the interaction made a significant unique contribution to prediction (R2 = .02, A F = 5.73, p = .02). 

t 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.1 : District Attorneys’lProsecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases (N=21) ’ 

What they Think about Domestic Violence Cases 

Overwhelming statements about how difficult, challenging, and fi-ustrating. 

Percations of Victims 

Main themes: 

1. Manylmost victims want to recantldon’t cooperate 

2. Victims highly varied in terms of demographics (race, class, etc.) and behaviors (angry, 

cooperative, etc.) 

Less common themes: 

3. SympathetidFeel sorry for them 

4. Victims don’t understand that D.A.s are trying to help hem (and their kids) 

5. They either hate us (because they don’t understand what we’re doing) or love us and want to help 

6. We think of safety, they think of survival 

7. Distrustful of system 

8. May not speak to D.A. 

9. Victims are exhausting to deal with 

10. Use calling police as a “learned” way to deal with the problem (perjorative) 

11. Some victims “abuse” the system (esp. for divorce or custody cases) 

12. Not always clear who’s a true victim 

Perceptions of Defendants 

Main Themes: 

1. Denial of their actiondabuse 

2. 

3. 

From every walk of life (huge variation across demographics, including more women arrested) 

Very controlling and manipulative people 

Less common: 

1. Abuse is due to drinking 

2. Abusers have mental health problems 

3. Abusers are either good people who blow it or chronic recidivists 

How is DV different from Other Cases (Combined with “Uniaueness of these Cases”)? 

Main Themes: 

1. 

2. Has Specialized DV Units 

3. Victimsrecant 

4. 

5. More difficultkhallenging 

Has No-Drop Policy Mandatory Arrest Policy 

Uses best resources in D.A. offices 

Less common: 

1. Violence is on-going 

2. 

3. More time-consuming 

Impacts whole family when offender is jailed 

1 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I“*,, 

Table 4.1: District Attorneys’E’rosecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases (N=21) 1 

(cont ’d) 

Main Themes: 

1. Extreme variations in reported access to trainings 

2. Much of the training is on the job, through finding a mentor, or organizing a training themselves 

3. Most report “some,’ DV trahing. 

(No “Less Common” Themes) 

What Impacts Processing 

’ Main Themes: 

1. 

2. Severity of the violence 

3. 

4. Victim cooperatiodreluctance 

5. Injury level 

Defendant’s history, esp. DV history 

Qualityhtensity of Police investigation (EvidenceProof) 

Less common: 

1. Victim’s criminal history 

2. Witnesses 

3. Is the cases potentially a lethal one 

4. Sawyness of defendant, can he convince victim to recant? 

How to SeDarate Victim and Defendant 

Main Themes: 

1. Restraining orders 

2. No contact orders 

Less common: 

1. Bond conditions 

2. Conditions of probation 

3. Sending defendant to jaiVprison 

4. Can’t be done 

5. Move them to different places in the court room 

Cross-comulaints 

Main Themes: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Varied reports as to who should decide (police, D.A.’s, or judgedjuries) whether there was a 

primary aggressor and throw one case out, both cases out, or try both cases out 

Varied reports as to who does decide (whether it is mutually combatant or a true victim and true 

offender) (More likely to say that police than judge make the decision) 

Vaned reports as to how to decide or inhit the “real” victim and offender, 

Some said police officers should know but too lazy to decide and just arrest both. 

2 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.1: District Attorneys’h’rosecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases (N=21) I 

(cont’d) 

Victim’s Role in Prosecution 

Main Themes: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Variation on whether victim should play big or smallho role, but most agreed they needed the 

victim to keep from having the case dismissed (despite no drop policy) 

Variation in how much input the victim should have in deciding direction of case 

Reports on how the victim needed to feel comfortable, be heard, understand the system. 

Less common: 

1. Some said it was important to look at the victim’s criminal history 

,Time SDent With Victims 

Major Theme: 

There were dramatic differences in what was reported and prosecutors were sometimes 

uncomfortable with this question 

(No otha major theme, and no less common theme) 

Victim Inuut 

Main Themes: 

1. Acquire victim input from the very beginning 

2. Assure victim input at all stages, as often as possible 

3. Cases that go to trial require more time with victim 

Less common: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Ask the victim what she wants 

Victims vary, “some women don’t need to see me at all” 

Getting victim input is the victim advocate’s, not the D.A.’s responsibility 

How D.A. Sumorts Victim 

Main themes: 

1. 

2. Make contact with victim 

3. 

4. 

Listening to the victim (by far the most common response) 

Offer alternatives, resources, educate (e.g., about dynamics of DV, cycle of violence, etc.) 

Establish trust with victim (e.g., by giving voice mail or direct phone number, not being openly 

critical, etc.) 

Victim Satisfaction 

Main fieme: 

Considerable variation in rates reported of satisfied clients 

(No other major theme, and no less common themes) 

3 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.1: District Attorneys’mrosecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases Oy=21) 1 

(cont’d) 

Victim Advocate Role 

Main Themes: 

1. 

2. 

3. Get victims talking 

4. Provide Victim with resources 

5. Tell victims what’s going on 

6. Spend time with victim 

They are a liaison between the victim and the D.A. (overwhelming response) 

Support victim emotionally, person for victim to call have contact with 

Less common: 

1. Tell victim how to get restitution or compensation (fill out claims) 

How Victim Advocates Influence Cases 

Main Theme: 

1. Overwhelmingly, very high evaluations of advocates’ influence 

Less common: 

1. Advocates can be “too pushy” or “not good“ 

Case Dismissals 

Large range of rates of dismissal reported, but most saw it as a problem 

How Often Victims Want Case Dismissals 

Huge range reported here, ranging from 30 to 70 percent. No clear pattern. 

Whv dropDed/dismissed? 

Main themes: 

1. Victimasks 

2. Victim said it didn’t happen 

3. Victim changes mind 

4. Victim needs offender’s income 

5. Victim is afraid 

6. Victim still loves him 

Less common: 

1. Victim’s mental health 

How to encourage Victim Cooperation? 

Main Themes: 

1. Get victim more involved and informed so greater stake in it 

Less common: 

1. 

2. 

3. Doesn’t know 

Victim involvement not a good idea. 

Offer victim referrals (e.g., safe houses) 

4 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.1: District Attorneys’lProsecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases (N-21) 

(cont ’d) 

Can D.A. stop abuse? 

Main Theme: 

1. The problem is too huge to have much impact, but range of responses. 

Less common: 

1. Can only stop by putting him in jaillprison. 

Restrictions to stovping Abuse 

Main themes: 

1. Victim reluctance to cooperate 

2. The problem’s too prevalent (“need a magic wand) 

(No less common themes) 

Amrouriateness of DV Responses 

Main theme: 

1. Most said it was improving, but still not enough can be done. 

What can be done to Imrove Efficiency? 

Main Themes: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Decrease delays in responding to victims (and offenders) 

Acquire more staff (judges, lawyers etc.) and resources 

Improve police training in collecting evidence and dealing with victims 

Less common: 

1. 

2. 

3. Day care for children 

4. 

5. Screen cases better 

Judges need to see victims 

More court time, too overwhelmed judges 

Need to be more proactive than reactive 

How to make system more User Friendly 

Main Themes: 

1. Victims need more contact 

2. System is confusing to victims and emotionally blinding experience 

(No less common theme) 

5 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.1: District Attorneys’IProsecutors’ Reports on Domestic Violence Cases (N=21) 

(cont’d) 

How to Change Svstem 

Main Theme: 

1. More funding/ resources 

Less common: i 

I 

1. 

2. 

3. Full-time specialized DV judge 

4. Better treatment for offenders 

5. More victim advocates 

6. Better police response 

7. 90 day turn around is too fast, not enough time to spend with victim 

Subpoena victims to see victim advocate 

Don’t arrest women who don’t show up at court (it destroys trust) 

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

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.