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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact 

Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat 

Victimization 

Author: Robert Brame, Ph.D.; Catherine Kaukinen, 

Ph.D.; Angela R. Gover, Ph.D.; Pamela 

Lattimore, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 228003 

Date Received: August 2009 

Award Number: 2004-WG-BX-0007 

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. 
 The Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on 

Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization 

Robert Brame, Ph.D.

University of North Carolina Charlotte

Catherine Kaukinen, Ph.D.

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Angela R. Gover, Ph.D.

University of Colorado Denver

Pamela Lattimore, Ph.D.

RTI International, Inc.

Final Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.

This project was supported by the National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice Grant # 2004-WG-BX-0007 to the University of 

South Carolina Research Foundation. The field portion of this research 

was completed at the University of South Carolina in the Department of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice. Final data collection and analysis 

activities were conducted at the authors' current institutional

affiliations.

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

ABSTRACT 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

INTRODUCTION 18

Two Types of Protection Orders 22

Relevant Historical Information for the Current Study 25

Current Study 28

REVIEW OF THE RECENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER LITERATURE 31

Protection Order Evaluations 34

Characteristics of Women Who Seek Protection Orders 44

Other Issues Regarding Obtaining Orders 47

Limitations of Prior Research 48

Section Summary 51

METHODOLOGY 56

RESULTS 70

Pretreatment Equivalence 75

Contacts by Designated Officer 54

Gateway Arrest Dispositions 80

Official Record Outcome Analysis 83

Overview of Victim Interview Analysis 87

Pretreatment Equivalence of Interviewed Cases 90

Unweighted Interview Outcomes 93

Summary of the Unweighted Interview Analysis 98

Differences Between Interviewed and Non-Interviewed Cases 100

Nonresponse Weights 103

Pretreatment Equivalence After Weighting for Nonresponse 106

Treatment Effects After Weighting for Nonresponse 107

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 110

The Stalking Effect 114

Nonresponse Problems 116

Research Limitations 117

Social and Criminal Justice Policy Implications 119

Directions for Future Research 122

APPENDICES

A. References 124

B. Deputy Sheriff Letter and Brochure 128

C. Tables 131

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

Research Goals and Objectives:

Our NIJ-funded research and collaboration with the Lexington 

County Sheriff’s Department examined the impact of proactive 

enforcement of court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) on offender

behavior and victim safety in cases of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The major research goals and objectives were to assess whether 

proactive enforcement: (1) increased victim knowledge about no-contact 

orders; (2) reduced contact between offenders and victims; and (3) 

increased victim safety and promoted well-being. 

We used a prospective experiment in which 466 cases of 

misdemeanor criminal domestic violence were randomly assigned to 

either systematic, proactive enforcement or to routine, reactive 

enforcement of the court-ordered no-contact conditions. Law 

enforcement contacts were directed at victims in the treatment group 

whose abusers had been arrested for domestic violence and released on

bond with the restriction that the offenders have no contact with

their victims.

Dedicated officer contacts were divided into two types. Those 

contacts prior to first appearance were designed to educate victims on 

NCOs, provide them information on CDV and NCOs, teach them how to

document offender contact, and conduct offender surveillance. These 

contacts included an initial mail contact and in-person or phone 

contacts. The personal contacts were scheduled to occur 72 hours

after the order’s imposition, one week after the imposition, and one 

week prior to first appearance. The second set of attempted contacts

was to occur after the offender’s first appearance. The goal of these 

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.
contacts was continued risk assessment, visits to check on victims,

and offender surveillance. The schedule for these contacts would vary 

according to the offender’s path through the criminal justice system.

For pretrial intervention cases attempts were made to contact once 

every three months, for bench trial cases contacts were schedule 

within 5 days of the bench trial, and for jury trial cases contact was 

scheduled once every three months and 48 hours before the jury trial.

These victim-directed contacts were designed to accomplish three 

objectives: (1) to ensure that victims understood the requirements of

the no-contact orders; (2) to advise the victim on how to collect

evidence and mobilize law enforcement in the event of a violation; and 

(3) to monitor compliance with the no-contact order. 

We assessed the effectiveness of the proactive enforcement of nocontact orders using analyses of official criminal records data and

victim survey data. With respect to the implementation of the 

treatment, there was in fact a measurable difference on this variable

in the average treatment of the two groups, although the effects of

the treatment on victim and offender outcomes were modest. 

While research limitations, with respect to ensuring the 

implementation of the treatment condition and contacting victims for 

interviews, may have limited our ability to identify strong treatment

effects, our research shows that “proactive enforcement” conceived as

enhanced contact between law enforcement and victims is not an 

effective means of increasing victim safety or reducing offender 

recidivism. And most importantly, these law enforcement contacts with 

victims in the treatment group did not place women at additional 

safety risks. Additionally, since both groups (treatment and control) 

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.
had NCOs issued at first appearance in a criminal domestic assault 

case, both groups had less than a 15 percent recidivism rate. Perhaps 

merely the presence of the no-contact order enhances victim safety.

Moreover, we believe the design for the contacts and intention to

implement the treatment constitutes a qualitatively new interaction

between victims and law enforcement and represents a type of 

“proactive enforcement” that might reasonably been expected to create

differences in the observed outcomes.

Research Design and Methodology:

Starting in the fall of 2005, we implemented a prospective field 

experiment in which 466 cases were randomly assigned to either the 

treatment or control condition; an additional 51 cases were enrolled 

as interim controls in the fall of 2006. Thus, a total of 517 cases

were enrolled in the study from 2005 to 2007. Randomization was 

accomplished using a database program. Once a domestic violence 

offender was released on bond, paperwork documenting the bond

restrictions would flow to the Lexington County Criminal Domestic

Violence Court (CDVC). The Court Administrator provided photocopies of 

the bond restrictions to the dedicated officer, who entered the case 

information into the database. Entering this data initiated the 

randomization and proactive enforcement schedule for the cases in the

treatment group. The dedicated officer then targeted cases in the 

treatment group for proactive, victim-directed contacts and maintained 

a log of those contact efforts using the database. The dedicated 

officer also provided a log of newly enrolled cases to the research

team on a regular basis throughout the study, thus enabling the

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.
research team to list the cases in the research database and contact 

victims for interviews. 

Efforts were made to contact and interview each of the 437 female

victims enrolled in the study. While male victim cases were enrolled

in the experiment and randomized to the treatment or control group and 

we have analyzed their offenders’ criminal history data, no efforts

were made to contact male victims for interviews. Interviews were 

targeted to occur at six weeks after the gateway incident and then 

again at six months after the gateway incident. Official criminal

history records and other official administrative data allowed us to 

examine recidivism for the treatment and control cases.

Research Results and Conclusions:

Our analyses identified few differences between the treatment

and control groups. When differences appeared, they were generally not 

statistically significant across the full range of our analyses. We

conclude that proactive enforcement of no-contact orders as

implemented in this experiment may yield some benefits in terms of 

reductions in arrests for subsequent domestic violence, but these

reductions are modest and not statistically significant. 

For example, the analyses consistently indicated higher rates of 

contact between sheriff's deputies, law enforcement victim advocates 

(LEVAs), and victims. Although the differences were not statistically 

significant across the full range of analyses, we believe this finding 

indicates some success in differentiating the experiences of the 

treatment and control cases. Although LEVA contacts were not part of

the intervention, it is possible that heightened levels of contact 

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.
between treatment victims and victim advocates may have been the 

result of their earlier contact with sheriff's deputies, resulting in

victims’ heightened awareness of the resources and services available

to domestic violence victims. 

The treatment and control group also exhibited differences with

respect to three types of offender behavior. First, at the Time 1 

interview, we found that the treatment group victims report

significantly higher scores on the physical aggression variety scale 

(this is a count of the number of different types of physical

aggression experienced since the gateway arrest) (see Table 32). We 

are cautious not to place a lot of weight on this finding given that 

this difference is based on very small numbers, with less than ten 

percent of treatment group victims and approximately three percent of

control group victims reporting to have experienced any physical 

aggression at all; the effect was not statistically significant at the 

Time 2 interview (see Table 34).

We also found that victims in the treatment group reported 

significantly higher levels of stalking and threats by the offender

since the gateway arrest compared with the levels of stalking and

threats reported by victims in the control group in the individual 

Time 1 and Time 2 analyses (see Tables 32 and 34). But this effect

was not statistically significant in the combined Time 1 - Time 2

analyses (see Table 36).

Additionally, our Time 1 interview data indicate that victims in 

the treatment group were more likely to report being separated or

divorced from their batterer than control group victims (see Table 

32). This finding may indicate that victims were attempting to end

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.
their violent relationships and begin transforming their lives. At the 

same time, victims in the treatment group noted higher levels of 

stalking by their batterer. And, at the Time 2 interview, victims in

the treatment group reported experiencing higher levels of 

psychological aggression (see Table 34). This is consistent with the 

nature of domestic violence and the underlying dynamic of power and

control in violent relationships. Violence often escalates when

victims make attempts to exert power and reduce their batterer’s 

control. However, the divorce difference was not statistically

significant at the Time 2 interview and the psychological aggression 

difference was not statistically significant at the Time 1 interview.

While the pattern of differences is consistent across the various

analyses, only some of the differences are statistically significant.

Our findings suggest a number of directions for researchers

examining the effectiveness of interventions in partner-perpetrated

violence and abuse. This would include the implementation of a wider

array of interventions that make use of both law enforcement and 

social service interventions. One strategy would be to implement risk 

assessment of battering relationships and make a clear distinction 

between Michael Johnson’s common couple violence and intimate

terrorism prior to the implementation of treatment. This would allow

for the development of more meaningful differences in a range of 

safety outcomes. With respect to no-contact orders this would include 

an examination of the nature of contact between victims and their

batterers. Contacts related to marital counseling, child care 

arrangements, and other family commitments are qualitatively different 

from aggressive behaviors that may be indicative of future violence. 

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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Domestic violence continues to challenge policy makers, social 

service providers, and criminal justice officials. Domestic violence

advocates, criminal justice personnel, and academic research 

consistently underscore the serial nature of violence between intimate 

partners. Increasingly, domestic violence researchers are 

highlighting the importance of social and criminal justice policies

that preemptively reduce the likelihood of offender recidivism and 

promote victim well-being. Moreover, given the long-term and

continuing nature of intimate partner violence, some research suggests 

that the most dangerous time for battered women may be after their 

initial contacts with the criminal justice system or subsequent to the 

arrest of their abuser (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter,

and Bushway, 1998). 

One policy measure courts are increasingly relying on is the use 

of protection or "no-contact" orders that prohibit offenders from

having any contact with their victims between the defendant’s

arraignment and sentencing. No-contact orders may offer swifter 

relief than criminal actions (Davis and Smith, 1995) by serving as an

immediate remedy to the continued threat of violence, prohibiting

contact by a woman’s abusive partner, and serving as a symbolic threat 

of the criminal justice system. Although the use of no-contact orders 

to disrupt the cycle of violence between bond hearings and judicial

proceedings is widespread, the level of compliance with these orders 

is not well understood; nor is it known whether proactive enforcement

of no-contact orders reduces harm to victims, is ineffective, or is

counterproductive. As a general rule, protection orders are more

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.
often reactively enforced only after victims notify the police that a

violation has taken place. Some criminal justice experts have 

suggested that enforcement of protection orders has the potential to 

offer a positive, crucial step toward increasing both victim safety

and offender accountability. No-contact orders are often used in

jurisdictions as a condition of release when bond is approved. It is

sometimes a tactic of pre-arraignment used with individuals who are

arrested for criminal domestic violence. The purposes of no-contact 

orders are prevent individuals who have been arrested for domestic 

violence from making contact with the individual they are accused of 

assaulting. They are commonly used as a restriction, placed on

defendants prior to case disposition.

This report discusses a randomized experiment in which active

criminal domestic violence cases were randomly assigned to proactive 

enforcement of court-ordered no-contact orders. Our research

represents a collaborative effort with officials in Lexington County,

South Carolina. The goal of the project was to assess whether 

proactive enforcement of no-contact orders promoted victim safety and

reduced offender recidivism. We used a prospective experimental 

design in which 466 cases were randomly assigned to the current or 

status-quo level of no-contact order enforcement (the control

condition) or to systematic, proactive enforcement (the treatment

condition). Data were collected from official records obtained from 

the Lexington County Sherriff’s Office, Lexington County Criminal

Domestic Violence Court, the 11th Judicial Circuit's Office of 

Diversion Programs records, and two sets of interviews with victims to 

measure victimization experiences and order compliance levels.

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.
Between fall 2005 and summer 2007, 466 misdemeanor domestic

violence cases processed by the Lexington County Criminal Domestic 

Violence Court were randomly assigned to either a treatment condition

that included proactive contacts with domestic violence victims by a 

dedicated Sherriff’s deputy, or the control condition (the previously

implemented status quo, or reactive enforcement). The cases that were 

assigned to the treatment group received proactive monitoring and

follow-up as well as information and education about the presence and

nature of no-contact orders.

Prior to the defendants’ first appearance, a dedicated officer 

attempted to make contact with victims in the treatment group via a

letter and information pamphlet that was geared towards educating

victims about no-contact orders, provide them information on the 

criminal domestic violence courts, teach them how to document offender 

contact, and conduct offender surveillance.

The initial schedule of proactive enforcement of the no-contact

orders included four planned attempts. This included a letter that

was sent to the victim by the research staff (but signed by the

dedicated officer) shortly after receipt of the victim’s contact 

information, a phone or in-person contact by the dedicated officer 

shortly after the order’s imposition, an in-person or phone contact

one week after the imposition, and a contact one week prior to the 

defendant’s first appearance. 

A second phase of enforcement was planned subsequent to the 

defendant’s first court appearance. This contact was primarily

focused on continued risk assessment, visits to check up on victims, 

and offender surveillance. For pre-trial intervention cases 

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.
(diversion eligible cases), contacts were scheduled for every three

months; for bench trial cases, contacts were scheduled for once every

three months and 5 days prior to the bench trial; for jury trials, 

contact was scheduled for once every three months and 48 hours before

the jury trial. 

The random assignment and enforcement schedule was determined by 

the computer database and the dedicated officer was provided with the

database for tracking contact attempts and recording monitoring

events. To fully examine the effectiveness of no-contact orders 

requires a thorough understanding of the level of enforcement of the 

order that actually occurs. 

Rigakos (1995) suggests that research on the effectiveness of nocontact and protection orders will depend to a large degree on whether 

these orders are actually enforced by the police (especially through 

arrest) and prosecuted by the courts. A key component to our research

was to measure the actual level of enforcement that occurred in the

treatment and control group. Our analyses of the dedicated officers’

contact data indicate a 68% contact effort in the treatment group

(contact effort was less than 8% in the control group). A closer

examination indicated that there were differences between the two

officers who implemented the proactive enforcement during the study

period-- approximately 84% contact effort for one officer and

approximately 50% enforcement effort for the other officer. This 

notwithstanding, both officers ended up with at least one successful 

contact in about 38% of the treatment group cases; in other words, 

while the two officers differed on counted contact efforts, they ended 

up with virtually identical successful contact rates with victims in 

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.
the treatment group. Thus, most offenders in the treatment group 

experienced at least some effort to contact but only 4 out of 10 of

these offenders were actually contacted successfully at least one

time. Overall, proactive law enforcement contact with victims proved 

to be a difficult task.

To examine the effect of proactive enforcement on victim and 

offender outcomes, we analyzed the survey and official administrative

data. The administrative data were analyzed to examine offender 

recidivism and no-contact order compliance levels. The interview data 

were used to assess the impact of proactive enforcement of no-contact

orders on victim reports of offender compliance with no-contact

orders, offender recidivism, and victim safety. Interviews were 

targeted to occur at six weeks after the arresting incident that 

brought the couple into the study (the gateway incident) and then

again at six months after the gateway incident.

Our analyses of both the survey and official criminal records

data suggest modest effects of proactive enforcement of no-contact 

orders for victim and offender outcomes. We therefore conclude that 

while proactive enforcement of no-contact orders in cases of 

misdemeanor domestic violence may yield some beneficial results in 

terms of changing the victim’s perceptions of their offender’s 

behavior, these orders are limited in their ability to change offender 

behaviors. Yet there may be wider social implications of maintaining

and enforcing no-contact orders as part of a continued effort to 

address violence against women. The continued utilization and 

proactive enforcement of these types of orders may serve an important

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.
symbolic role in promoting a very public stand against domestic

violence.

We used the administrative data to examine the rates at which

offenders were rearrested for any offense between the gateway arrest 

date and the record search date. Our analyses of the offenders’ 

criminal history records suggest modest (and non-significant) effects

of proactive enforcement over the follow-up period. The comparison

indicates that both the treatment and control groups were rearrested 

at about the same rate (treatment group = 38.8%; control group = 

40.6%). 

We also examined the number of post-gateway arrests for both 

groups. The first comparison excludes offenders who had zero arrests 

(treatment group = 1.685; control group = 1.624) during the follow-up

period and the second comparison includes the zero arrests (treatment

group = 0.654; control group = 0.659). The crime-specific differences 

between recidivism rates for the treatment and control groups are very 

small and none of them were statistically significant. A difference 

between the treatment and control group worth noting is the lower rate 

of rearrest for domestic violence in the treatment group (9.7%) than 

the control group (14.0%). While this difference is not statistically 

significant, it strikes us as substantively interesting given that it

is in the predicted and anticipated direction. Our overall conclusion 

from the official record analysis is that the treatment condition may

yield some beneficial results in terms of reductions in arrests for

subsequent domestic violence and other predatory offenses, but these 

reductions are relatively small and not statistically significant. 

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.
 Our analyses of the survey data point to several noteworthy 

differences between the treatment and control groups. First, we found

that the dedicated officers were able to create a meaningful 

difference in the average experience of treatment cases compared to

the average experience of control cases. Our Time 1 interview findings 

indicate that victims in the treatment group were more likely to 

report having been contacted by a Lexington County Sheriff’s deputy

than victims in the control group. We also found that the women in the 

treatment group were more likely to have experienced contacts by a law 

enforcement victim advocate (LEVA) from the Lexington County Sheriff’s 

Department. Although these differences were not statistically 

significant after nonresponse weighting and adjustments for

pretreatment group differences, the basic comparisons are illustrative 

of substantively important differences. Although the LEVAs were not

part of the planned treatment condition, it is possible that contacts

with the dedicated officer and knowledge about no-contact orders may 

have increased the likelihood that victims would seek out the

assistance of victim advocates and be willing to accept outreach 

services by advocates. This finding in particular may have

implications for future victim behavior in terms of whether a victim 

chooses to testify against her batterer and eventually leave the 

battering relationship. These are issues that future research will 

need to address.

The treatment group also differed from the control group with

respect to two types of offender behavior. First, victims in the 

treatment group were more likely to report higher scores on the

physical aggression variety scale (a count of the number of different

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.
types of physical aggression experienced since the gateway arrest).

Yet this difference is based on very small numbers with less than 10%

of treatment group victims and approximately 3% of control group 

victims reporting any instances of physical aggression. Moreover, the

effect does not appear clearly in all of our analyses. 

Second, our separate analyses of each of the two interview data

sets showed that victims in the treatment group were more likely to

perceive their batterer to have stalked and threatened them since the

gateway arrest, compared with the levels of stalking and threats 

reported by victims in the control group. This finding, although

counter to predictions for the effect of the treatment on offender 

behavior, is not all that surprising. It suggests that the

perceptions and attitudes of victims toward their batterer and his 

behavior are likely to change with information on the cause, nature, 

and consequences of intimate partner violence. Moreover, the goal of

the treatment (proactive enforcement) was to offer women information 

about no-contact orders and behavior that signals a breach of the

order. An alternative explanation for the stalking effect might be

that the receipt of information from the Lexington County Sheriff’s

Department and the presence of the officer at the victim’s home might

have aroused suspicion in the offender and led to changes in his 

behavior, including a reduction in threatening and stalking behaviors. 

While this finding is potentially quite interesting, we note that it 

does not reach statistical significance in our analysis of the 

combined Time 1 - Time 2 interview data. 

Finally, our analyses of the Time 1 interview data point to

treatment differences with respect to marital status, in that women in 

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.
the treatment group were more likely to be separated or divorced from

their batterer than those women in the control group. This finding

may reflect victims’ attempts to end their violent relationships.

However, this effect was not statistically significant in the Time 2 

interview data. 

With respect to our analyses of the survey data, one of our

principal concerns was whether interview response rates varied for 

treatment and control cases. Our examinations of the differences

between the two groups indicate that victim interview response rates 

were slightly but not significantly higher for treatment cases than

for victims whose offender was assigned to the control group.

Our findings offer a number of contributions to social and 

criminal justice policy. With respect to limitations, it is important 

to note that our intervention may be viewed as an effort by the

dedicated officer to implement treatment via contact and communication 

with domestic violence victims. While we did have significant 

differences in contact attempts and criminal justice contacts between

the treatment and control groups, overall contact was still

disappointingly low. Yet our data indicate that the levels of contact 

between the dedicated officer and victims are substantially higher in

the treatment group than in the control group. Thus, on average, the 

treatment and control groups had different contact experiences with

the dedicated officer.

It is important to note that attempts to contact victims are 

impacted by the officer’s ability to locate the victim and the 

victim’s right to refuse to accept law enforcement’s attempt to notify 

them of the presence and nature of no-contact orders. In short,

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.
victims have no legal duty to cooperate with or participate in 

conversations with law enforcement officers about no-contact orders. 

In fact, the orders are written to control offender behavior and are 

often put into place over the objections of victims.

Based on our own experiences in attempting to contact and

interview victims for this study, we are not surprised that efforts to 

contact victims were often unsuccessful. Among victims with whom we 

were able to establish contact for Time 1 recruitment, 28 refused to 

participate in our study, 48 who scheduled a Time 1 interview failed 

to show up to complete the interview (in some instances, multiple

appointments were missed), and an additional 10 cases were not 

recruited because they could not speak English. Ultimately, out of 227 

established contacts, we interviewed only 141 female victims. In a 

total of 210 cases, no contact with the victim was made by the 

dedicated officer. Future researchers will need to take this 

difficulty into account in research projects that rely on victimdirected interventions and interview data from victims.

Our findings point to the importance of domestic violence

interventions directed at educating women and offering victims 

information on the criminal justice system and social services. With

respect to stalking in particular, our analyses indicate the 

importance of empowering women by ensuring they understand their 

rights as victims, which may in turn help to shape their decisionmaking in regard to leaving violent and abusive relationships. It is

crucial to continue providing victims with information on the nature 

of intimate partner violence and the resources available to assist 

them in terminating violent relationships. Through the provision of 

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.
information on the presence and nature of no-contact orders (via 

proactive enforcement by a dedicated domestic violence officer or a

victim advocate), victims have access to a tool (and legal right) that 

may be used to prevent their batterer from continuing contact, thereby 

potentially reducing the risk of re-victimization. Future long-term 

follow-up of victims under proactive enforcement would allow for an

examination of this hypothesis. As Meloy, Yim Cowett, Parker, 

Hofland, and Friedland’s (1997) meta-analysis suggests, the

effectiveness of protection orders is dependent on the severity of 

violence experienced by the victim (Keilitz, Nannaford and Efkeman,

1998). The laxity of enforcement of the protection order itself is

likely to reduce the deterrent effects of these orders. Our findings

therefore point to the importance of continued efforts to increase the 

enforcement of criminal justice interventions in general, and nocontact and protection orders in particular. 

While our research shows that “proactive enforcement” conceived

as enhanced contact between law enforcement and victims is not an

effective means of increasing victim safety or reducing offender 

recidivism, this is an important finding in and of itself. This 

finding indicates what doesn’t work in reducing domestic violence

recidivism. Additionally, law enforcement contacts with victims in

the treatment group did not place women at additional safety risks.

Moreover, we believe the design for the contacts and intention to

implement the treatment constitutes a qualitatively new interaction

between victims and law enforcement and represents a type of 

“proactive enforcement” that might reasonably have been expected to

create differences in the observed outcomes.

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.
INTRODUCTION

In 1965 if a woman called 911 for help because her husband 

punched her in the face and then left the home for the corner bar, the 

dispatcher would most likely attempt to talk the woman out of

requesting a patrol car to respond to her residence for help (Parnas,

1967). The dispatcher instead would talk to the victim about the

negative situation she might find herself in financially should her

husband be arrested. The dispatcher may go so far as to suggest that

she spend the night at her Mother’s house (Parnas, 1967). During

these times "domestic violence" wasn’t even a term that was used,

because violence against a spouse was not against the law. Even so, 

domestic violence was and still is a phenomenon found within all 

demographics in the population. 

Battery by a spouse or lover is the single most common reason for

women entering hospital emergency rooms, exceeding childbirth, 

automobile accidents, muggings, and all other medical emergencies

(Mills, 1996). American women are certainly not alone in this regard. 

Levinson’s cross-cultural study of family violence illustrated that

domestic abuse occurred in over 84 percent of the 90 societies 

examined (Mills, 1996). 

Every year in America, approximately 1.5 million women and 

800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted—some repeatedly—by an

intimate partner. According to the 2000 National Violence Against 

Women Survey, nearly one of four women will be raped or physically 

assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date 

during her lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1999). One study reported 

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.
that 44 percent of women who were murdered by their intimate partners

had sought medical care at an emergency room within two years prior to 

their death; 93 percent of these murdered women had previously visited 

an emergency room for an injury at least once (Crandall, Nathens,

Kernic, Hold, & Rivara, 2004).

Due to the diligent work of the women’s rights, civil rights and 

domestic violence movements from the 1960’s to today, domestic 

violence has come to be recognized as a public health concern that 

continues to affect every social and economic group in the population. 

When domestic violence was first acknowledged, it was not considered 

to be a matter for the criminal justice system because it was only 

considered to be a ‘domestic disturbance’ (Parnas, 1967). During the 

1980’s, domestic violence was still thought of as “one of those issues 

that no one talks about.” It was certainly not a common topic of 

conversation, and it if the topic did warrant a conversation it

remained at a whisper.

As a society, we respond to domestic violence in a drastically 

different way today than the typical law enforcement response of the 

1960’s. However, because we haven’t yet mastered how to re-program an 

individual so that they don’t need to use coercion to obtain power and 

control over another person, we must continue to improve our response

to domestic violence in the best way possible. Though domestic 

violence certainly occurred well before social movements broached the

issue in 1960’s, it is still in line for the ultimate cure.

In assessing the current response to domestic violence in

comparison to that of forty years ago, one may make a giant leap and 

consider this an indicator that society has evolved; or not. The main 

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.
reason that the criminal justice system responds differently to 

domestic violence now is because abuse of one’s partner has since been 

criminalized in all states either by statute or sentencing 

enhancements. Today, domestic violence may be statutorily referred to 

as domestic violence, spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, wife 

assault, or criminal domestic violence. The actual term varies by 

state, as do all domestic violence related statutes.

As domestic violence became more widely criminalized, more 

resources became available for victims of this type of abuse. Along 

with the adoption of mandatory arrest laws and no-drop prosecution 

policies, the implementation of personal protection orders was one of

the most important advances for the legal treatment of domestic

violence cases. 

The issue of domestic violence raises difficult problems for 

policy makers, social service providers, and criminal justice

officials. As the criminal justice system continues to progress in

terms of reform for victim safety, it is important to evaluate and 

measure the outcomes of these interventions. Armed with data on what

works and what does not, we can work to improve victim safety and

increase offender accountability. 

Studies consistently demonstrate the serial nature of violence 

between intimate partners (Fleury et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes

2000). While a host of literature has evaluated civil protection and

restraining orders in general, it is interesting that the social 

science literature is void of studies that specifically focus on 

criminal no-contact orders - an increasingly used tool to disrupt

dangerous patterns of contact between offenders and victims. These

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.
are criminal orders that are primarily used as conditions of release 

for defendants. Used to reduce the cycle of violence between bond 

hearings and judicial proceedings, a no-contact order typically

prohibits an offender from contacting a victim during the period 

between his arraignment and case disposition.

Given the long-term and continued nature of intimate partner 

violence, the most dangerous time for battered women may be after her

initial contact with the criminal justice system or subsequent to the

arrest of their abuser (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter,

& Bushway, 1998). Protective orders, therefore, may offer swifter 

relief than other criminal actions (Davis & Smith, 1995), by providing 

an immediate remedy to the continued threat of violence and serving as 

a deterrent for potential offenders. Although some researchers have 

suggested that protective orders are rarely treated seriously by the 

police or the courts (Rigakos, 1995), there is some evidence to

suggest that the police and the criminal justice system may be more

responsive to womens’ calls for help after they have received a

protective order (Chauduri & Daly, 1992). This responsiveness 

includes a greater likelihood of arrest in cases where the police are

subsequently called to a domestic violence incident and the increased

completion of the prosecution process for those cases in which there 

was a protective order in place (Weisz, Tolman, & Bennett, 1998).

Domestic violence is a complicated cycle that results in one 

person maintaining power and control over another individual. It

involves a cyclical pattern where victims become accustomed to living

like they are walking on eggshells one day, enduring a physical

beating the next, and receiving flowers the next day. Clearly 

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.
domestic violence involves unique dynamics that are different from all 

other forms of violence. This study focuses on criminal no-contact

orders that are put in place by the court in cases of domestic 

violence. Before discussing the methodology of the current project we 

present the literature in terms of civil protection orders since the 

purpose for both types of orders is similar and the literature on

criminal protection orders is sadly bleak. 

Two Types of Protection Orders: Civil and Criminal 

A protection order (PO) is a court-ordered injunction designed to

restrain an individual’s use of physical violence, threats, or 

intimidation against another person. The main purpose of a PO is to 

protect victims by prohibiting their abuser from: “committing acts of

family violence, directly communicating with a member of the family or 

household in a threatening or harassing manner, and going to or near 

the residence or place of employment of a member of the family or

household” (Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999, p. 206). Many states 

differ as to what types of relationships are included in POs. In some 

states, individuals who share an intimate relationship without 

residing together or members of same-sex relationships are excluded

(DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). States also differ in their 

procedures of issuance and enforcement of protection orders. 

Most protection orders issued in the United States are civil -

not criminal - protection orders. Since only about 20% of women who 

experience intimate partner violence obtain a civil protective order 

(Holt, Kernic, Lumley, Wolf, & Rivara, 2002), it is important to keep

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.
in mind that those who seek such orders may be systematically

different from the general population of domestic violence victims.

The criminal no-contact order is similar to a civil protection 

order – it prohibits the defendant from calling, writing, or having a

third party contact the victim. The main difference between criminal

protection orders and civil protection orders is that criminal 

protection orders are ordered by the court and are often a condition 

of a defendant’s release. To obtain a civil, restraining, or

temporary protection order it is the victim’s responsibility to

petition the court and request the protection order that she hopes 

will make her safer. Court-ordered, criminal protection orders are

not victim initiated; instead, the order is initiated by the court.

These orders are increasingly seen as an appropriate criminal justice

response to domestic violence, either in lieu of or in addition to a 

civil action brought by the victim. No-contact orders are usually 

used to disrupt the cycle of violence between bond hearings and

judicial proceedings by prohibiting an offender from contacting a

victim during that period. The use of no-contact orders also sends a

message to the public that the criminal justice system doesn’t take

the crime of domestic violence lightly. Violations of no-contact

orders may include fines and/or jail time.

Although the use of no-contact orders to disrupt the cycle of

violence between the bond hearings and judicial proceedings is 

widespread, the level of compliance with these orders is not well

understood, nor is it known whether proactive enforcement (or any kind 

of enforcement whatsoever) reduces harm to victims, is ineffective, or 

is counterproductive (Burgess-Proctor, 2003; Capshew & McNeece, 2000;

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.
Sherman et al., 1992). Nevertheless, proactive enforcement is often 

suggested as a way to produce higher levels of victim safety and 

offender accountability (Violence Against Women Act of 2000, P.L. 106-

386; Klein & Orloff, 1996; Violence Against Women Act of 1994, P.L.

103-322). To date, an experimental design has not been utilized to

examine the effectiveness of no-contact order enforcement on 

subsequent violence.

While criminal and civil protection orders are similar in theory,

the major difference between the two types often creates a practical 

issue for law enforcement to recognize when putting these policies 

into practice. Since civil protection orders are requested by 

victims, these cases typically involve situations where victims do not 

want further contact with defendants, as evidenced by the fact that

victims are taking steps to have the behavior stopped. However, there 

are many cases where a victim (or a third party) calls 911 because she 

wants the immediate abuse to stop; yet, she does not realize that her

call to the police will result in her partner's arrest if she has very 

clear physical injuries.

 In cases involving criminal no-contact orders, victims’ wishes

are not considered because in a majority of the cases the no-contact 

order is automatically ordered by the court, at the recommendation of

the prosecutor, as a condition of the defendant’s release. The

practical issue here is that among these cases there are many victims

who do not want a no-contact order in place. In some circumstances, 

victims may not want the order in place because they fear more 

violence and blame. Other victims may not want to be apart from their 

batterer, or might feel like they are not able to survive without the

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.
offender, despite the abuse, because of emotional and/or economic

dependency. 

Relevant Historical Information for the Current Study

The location for the current research is Lexington County, South 

Carolina. Lexington County consists of a mixture of rural and urban 

areas and there are approximately 235,000 residents. The average

income per capita is approximately $25,000. The Criminal Domestic 

Violence Court is operated by the Lexington County Sheriff’s 

Department, which is a unique aspect of this court’s structure. The 

domestic violence prosecutor derives prosecutorial authority from the

State of S.C. Eleventh Circuit Solictor but is employed by the 

Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff has been in his elected position since

1972 and obtained his Ed.D. from the University of South Carolina. 

Sheriff Metts has a long history of research collaborations with the 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at USC. In addition, 

many of his employees have graduated from USC’s Master’s Program in

Criminal Justice. Given that Sheriff Metts is supportive of 

innovative interventions for public safety purposes and has had a

long-standing relationship with the Department of Criminology and

Criminal Justice at USC, a natural collaborative partnership was 

formed for the project: ‘The Lexington County Domestic Violence Court: 

A Partnership and Evaluation,’ funded by the National Institute of 

Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. The Sheriff’s Department 

implemented a Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC) in 1999 with a 

grant from the Office on Violence Against Women. Between January 2001 

and January 2003, researchers from the Department of Criminology and 

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.
Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina conducted a 

process and impact evaluation of the Lexington County CDVC (Gover, 

MacDonald, & Alpert 2003). The results from the outcome evaluation

indicated that processing domestic violence offenders in the 

specialized CDVC significantly reduced re-arrests by 40% compared to a 

historical control group of offenders processed in one of eight

magistrate level courts throughout the county (traditional court). 

Offenders were followed for eighteen months for recidivism. While 

recidivism in Lexington County was declining, the average number of

arrests for first time offenders was increasing. Therefore, when

looking at the big picture, it appears that the judicial response to 

domestic violence changed in Lexington County after the establishment

of the CDVC, since recidivism was declining and first-time offenders 

were not recidivating, yet the criminal justice system was 

intervening.

In addition to these positive outcome evaluation findings, three 

forms of data were collected for a process evaluation of the CDVC

(Gover, Brank, & MacDonald, 2007). These included courtroom 

observations, in-depth interviews with key courtroom players (judge, 

prosecutor, court administrator, victim advocate, etc), and brief

interviews with 50 victims and 50 defendants as they were leaving

court. Every outcome measure assessed from these sources of data was

positive. Of particular interest are the brief surveys that were

conducted with victims and defendants. After signing a consent form,

a respondent would either have the interviewer read the questions to 

them or complete the survey on their own. There were 10 questions,

with only 2 being open-ended. Most questions measured procedural

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.
justice concepts. Nearly all individuals approached for the interview 

participated.

The major theme that evolved from these surveys was that the 

majority of both defendants and victims felt that their experience in

the CDVC was fair, that they were treated with respect and dignity,

and that they had the opportunity to tell their side of the story

(i.e., have voice in the process). Even if victims and defendants did 

not agree with the outcome of their case they still felt treated 

fairly. 

Despite these positive quantitative findings, there are two ways 

that the research team and the prosecutor became concerned that nocontact orders were often violated. First, the researchers routinely

noticed victims and defendants leaving court together after completing 

an interview. Additionally, the prosecutor would briefly talk with

victims before court and ask, “So what’s the situation with him now... 

are you together or broken up or did you get things worked out....” In

some cases the research team wondered if victims’ thought they were

supposed to say they worked things out. In any event, after the 

prosecutor talked with each victim, defendants were called into court

and were instructed to remain facing forward, so as not to intimidate

victims - who would be seated at the back of the courtroom. The 

prosecutor would first let the judge know which defendants were in 

violation of their release by having contact with the victim, and

appropriate sanctions (fine or jail time) were then imposed. 

Interviews with court personnel during the process evaluation

identified an important gap in the Lexington County’s response to

criminal domestic violence cases. Specifically, victim safety was 

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.
identified as a serious problem in Lexington County during the period

between an offender’s initial appearance in bond court and trial 

(Gover et al., 2007). At arraignment during bond court, the 

prosecutor estimated that approximately 80% of defendants are placed 

on a no-contact order as a condition of their release. Offenders

violate their no-contact orders if they attempt to contact victims by

telephone or in person or in any way. During the prior CDVC 

evaluation (Gover et al., 2003), court observations, interviews with 

court personnel, and interviews with victims and defendants indicated

that a significant proportion of defendants were violating their NCOs—

with some offenders even arriving at court with their victims. The

current study was designed to address this breakdown in the system.

Based on the previous successful research collaboration between USC

researchers and the LCSD/CDVC, we were able to come to a working 

agreement to start a second research project, which is the topic of

this report. For the current project, we measured various outcomes

related to the enforcement of no-contact orders. This research

addressed gaps in the current knowledge base by providing important

findings on the prevalence of violation of NCOs and the impact of a

proactive enforcement intervention on offender and victim outcomes.

Current Study

The current study focused on domestic violence victims whose 

alleged batterers were free on bond with a NCO as a condition of their 

release. NCO restrictions typically remain in place while defendants

await further judicial proceedings. The treatment condition involved 

the following intervention: (1) a special domestic violence

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.
investigator assigned by the jurisdiction’s sheriff proactively

"checked in" with the “treatment” group of victims to verify that they 

understood the NCO and to monitor compliance; (2) the investigator 

provided advice on mobilizing law enforcement and collecting evidence

to help sanction the offender if the order was violated. 

Additionally, the officer reminded victims of NCO requirements for 

suspects, inquired about violations and the victim’s safety, and 

encouraged the victim to call for assistance if a violation occurred.

Meanwhile, a control group of victims experienced the "status

quo" response to NCO cases. Under the status quo control condition, a

variety of different types of enforcement are possible. Even though

the proactive contacts by the designated officer did not occur in this 

group, other officers in the department as well as law enforcement 

victim advocates and the prosecutor might interact with either the 

victim or the offender. These types of contacts depended on the

individual circumstances of each case and could be expected to occur 

in both the treatment and control groups. Proactive contact efforts

for the purposes described above only occurred systematically in the 

treatment group.

The project involved a prospective, randomized experimental study

in which we randomly assigned 466 NCO cases either to the current

level of NCO enforcement (the control condition; N = 229) or to

proactive enforcement (the treatment condition; N = 237). An

additional 51 interim control cases were enrolled in the study during

a coverage gap between the two officers that implemented the treatment 

condition over the course of the study. Data were collected from 

official LCSD, CDVC, and diversion records. Efforts were made to

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.
interview victims to measure background characteristics, life

experiences, circumstances surrounding the "gateway incident" which

resulted in the case being enrolled in the study, and subsequent 

victimization experiences and no-contact order compliance levels.

These interviews were targeted to occur six weeks and six months after 

the gateway arrest. 

Subsequent chapters use both the interview and official record 

data to assess the impact of proactive enforcement of NCOs on both 

offender and victim outcomes. The offender outcomes for the study 

include official records and victim reports of offender compliance 

with the NCO and offender recidivism. The victim outcomes include 

perceptions of the effectiveness of the NCO, victim safety, and victim 

physical and mental well-being.

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.
REVIEW OF THE RECENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER LITERATURE

Although the focus of this project is not on civil protection

orders, we hope it will be beneficial to the reader of this report to

have a clear understanding of the similarities and differences between 

criminal and civil orders. There is actually quite a bit of overlap 

in their procedural use so a review of the civil protection literature 

is necessary. Additionally, it is a good idea to include relevant 

information regarding civil protection orders for several other

reasons. First, since we have found several jurisdictions that do use 

criminal no-contact orders, we should be aware of the state of the 

literature on civil orders so that we can compare outcomes of criminal 

orders to civil orders. This makes sense because the orders are 

actually doing the same thing, in theory. Two main inquires here have 

to do with whether victims are safer when they are not the ones

requesting the orders, and to see what happens in cases when victims 

do not initiate no-contact orders.

DeJong and Burgess-Proctor (2006) conducted a comprehensive

review of protective order statutes throughout all of the states 

including the District of Columbia. This research was complicated 

since each state uses its own terms for domestic violence and

battering. The authors identified “victim-friendly” states based on 

three specific parts of the statutes: the type of relationship that

was included in the statute domestic violence, the feasibility of the

administrative process (i.e., required fees), and the punishment for 

protection order violations. All states received a score reflecting 

how progressive their protection order statutes were. DeJong and

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.
Burgess-Proctor (2006) found that the top-scoring progressive state

was Missouri, followed second by Massachusetts. Florida, Indiana, 

Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wyoming were tied for 

third place in terms of scores. 

In addition to the problem of statutes differing across states,

there are also differences in procedures for and enforcement of

protection orders within states. Interestingly, Logan, Shannon, and 

Walker (2005) looked at differences in protection order processes and

effectiveness between urban and rural counties in Kentucky and found 

that victims were treated differently depending on whether they

resided in a rural or urban county. 

As mentioned previously, most types of protection orders are 

civil remedies, yet violation of the order’s conditions may merit a

transition to the criminal domain. The resulting civil contempt,

misdemeanor, or felony offense charges have penalties ranging from 

verbal reprimand or monetary fines to incarceration (Holt et al.,

2003). For several reasons, the juncture between civil and criminal 

justice systems makes protection orders a versatile resource for women 

who experience domestic violence. According to DeJong and BurgessProctor (2006), they provide a lifetime alternative when there is no 

criminal case in which to pursue prosecution. Thus, protection orders 

provide state protection for women who otherwise might not be able to

secure protection on their own. Also, the criminal sanctions that 

accompany violation of a PO have a potentially deterrent effect on 

batterers, forcing them to consider the consequences of violating the

protection order. Finally, the enactment of protection order

legislation in small communities sends the message that violence 

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.
against women will no longer be tolerated and will bring about public

intervention (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; McFarlane, Malecha,

Gist, Watson, Batten, Hall, & Smith, 2004).

The implementation of personal protection orders was one of the

most important advances in the legal treatment of domestic violence

cases since the movement began. Sometimes referred to as “no-contact

orders” or “restraining orders,” these orders prohibit an individual 

accused of domestic abuse from contacting the alleged victim.

However, this can sometimes be confusing for victims. Often times the

meaning of ‘no-contact’ is not sufficiently explained to victims, and

they are not told what constitutes a violation or what to do if a

violation occurs. Worse yet, many victims leave court feeling as if 

the order has been imposed on them and that they are somehow in legal

trouble (Gover et al., 2007). In some states, no-contact orders are 

reserved for criminal cases only. According to Holt, Kernic, Wolf,

and Rivara (2003), a shift in policy and practice occurred recently so 

that the issuance of criminal protective orders is now seen as an

appropriate criminal justice system response to domestic violence

instead of, or in addition to, civil action brought by the victim. 

Nonetheless, civil protection orders are obtained by only

approximately 20% of the 2 million U.S. women who are physically 

abused, raped, or stalked by partners annually (Tjaden & Thoennes, 

2000).

Overall, the fact that PO’s are an increasingly popular form of

criminal justice system response allows the problem of domestic

violence to remove its private façade and come to light as the 

important social problem that it truly is. So we must ask ourselves:

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.
Do protection orders actually help reduce further violence? Do they 

make women feel safer? What drives some women to obtain protection

orders? The review of the literature below will attempt to answer

these questions.

Protection Order Evaluations

The effect of civil protective orders on offender recidivism and 

subsequent victim safety has been explored in a number of studies, 

with mixed results. Findings on the effectiveness of protection 

orders tend to lack consistency throughout recent literature (Carlson

et al., 1999; Holt et al., 2003; McFarlane et al., 2004). Generally 

speaking, efforts to assess how well POs work typically gauge efficacy 

in one of three ways: victims’ perceptions of protection orders and

the PO process, enforcement of POs by the police, and the success of 

POs in preventing future re-abuse (Burgess-Proctor, 2003). As 

previously mentioned, we do not have research to guide our exploration 

into the relationship between criminal no-contact order enforcement

and victim safety. Hence, we provide a review of civil protection 

order studies that examine desired outcomes; the reader may or may not 

draw inferences from this literature in terms of criminal no-contact 

orders. 

Grau, Fagan and Wexler (1984) conducted one of the first 

evaluations of the effectiveness of restraining orders. Their 

research found no significant differences in subsequent abuse or 

violence for those with protective orders compared with those without, 

although they found lower rates of abuse among women with an order 

when they had lower initial levels in the severity of violence and 

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.
injury. While this research is often cited in the literature on the 

effects of protective orders on offender recidivism, it is important 

to note that the analysis is limited since it relied on data from a

family violence demonstration program in which the women without 

protective orders received some form of intervention. Similarly,

Klein’s (1996) analysis of restraining order cases in Quincy,

Massachusetts in 1990 found that half of all batterers re-abused their 

victim within two years of the issuance of the order and that the rate 

of recidivism did not differ between those who maintained the order

and those who dropped it. Klein suggests that the optimal use of

protective orders may be in conjunction with vigorous prosecution and

significant sanctioning of batterers.

Based on the earlier research, Davis and Smith (1995) provided a 

bleak picture of the effectiveness of restraining and protective 

orders, especially for those women with lengthy prior histories of 

abuse at the hands of their intimate partner (Klein, 1996), suggesting 

that these orders may not be effective in reducing revictimization.

However, before we accept such a conclusion, it is important to

remember that much of the past research on the effectiveness of

protective orders (restraining orders) on offender recidivism is based 

on small, purposive samples that examined short follow-up periods, 

failed to include controls for potentially important confounders 

(Holt, Kernic, Wolf, and Rivara, 2003), and focused on the 

effectiveness of victim-initiated civil protective/restraining orders. 

Low response rates may also limit the credibility of earlier findings

(Holt et al., 2003). Given the limitations of previous research,

Capshew and McNeece (2000) argued that it may be too soon to draw any

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.
firm conclusions on the effectiveness of protective orders as intimate 

partner violence interventions. 

 Meloy, Cowett, Parker, Hofland, and Friedland’s (1997) metaanalysis of eleven previous studies on the effectiveness of protective 

orders suggests that the severity of violence experienced by the 

victim (Keilitz, Nannaford and Efkeman, 1998) and the laxity of

enforcement of the protective order are likely to reduce the deterrent 

effects of these orders. Yet, Klein and Orloff (1996: 215) have 

argued that “civil protective orders that are properly drafted and 

consistently enforced can offer effective protection for victims of

domestic violence” and research by Weisz, Tolman, and Bennett (1998) 

suggests that the level of police intervention prior to the issuance 

of the order was associated with the level of subsequent intervention. 

Some research has identified important deterrent effects of court

and criminal justice-based protective orders (Sherman, Gottfredson,

MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, and Bushway, 1998), suggesting that protective 

orders may reduce the risk of re-victimization (Carlson, Harris, and 

Holden, 1999; Holt, Kernic, Wolf, and Rivara, 2003; McFarlane et al.,

2004)and improve victim well-being (Johnson, Luna and Stein, 2003; 

Keilitz, Nannaford and Efkeman, 1998; Keilitz, Davis, Efkeman, Flango

and Hannaford, 1998). Using police-reported violence and interviews 

with women measuring psychological and physical violence on the

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), research by Holt and colleagues 

(2002; 2003) examined the effects of protective orders on offender 

recidivism. Their analyses were based on data from two groups of

women—one group had obtained a temporary or permanent civil protective 

order and the other group had contacted the police after being abused

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.
but had not obtained an order. Findings indicated that protective 

orders decreased the risk of contact by the abuser and resulted in 

fewer injuries and violent threats with weapons. They also found that 

the greatest effect of protective orders on reducing the risk of revictimization was for those cases in which the order was kept in 

place. Their findings suggest that permanent orders reduce the risk 

of re-victimization by 80%. Similarly, in a two-year follow-up of 

court and police records of women who had received a protective order, 

Carlson et al. (1999) found a decline in the probability of abuse

(66%) following the issuance of the protective order compared to 

women’s experiences with violence prior to the issuance of the order.

At the same time, their findings indicated no differences in 

recidivism outcomes for those women who had received a permanent as

compared to a temporary order. Their research also indicated that low 

income and African American women reported higher rates of re-abuse. 

Consistent with research on the effects of mandatory arrest policies 

and the “stake in conformity” thesis, protective orders may be a 

particularly effective deterrent for some offenders--principally those 

who have had no prior arrests and have had limited contact with the

criminal justice system (Adhikari, Reinhard, & Johnson, 1993).

Holt et al. (2003) found that women who obtained protection

orders were significantly more likely to be working full-time, 

pregnant, and depressed at the time of the incident, and were less 

likely to have an alcohol or drug problem. Women who obtained 

protection orders were also less likely to be living with the

perpetrator at the time of the index incident. Wolf, Holt, Kernic,

and Rivara’s (2000) study compared domestic violence victims who 

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.
obtained protection orders to those who did not, in order to determine 

characteristics that might alert clinicians to a woman’s readiness to

obtain such an order. This study produced results similar to that of

Holt et al.’s (2003) research. Their sample consisted of 448 adult

women who were abused or threatened by male intimate partners in an

incident reported to the police and who obtained domestic violence 

related civil protection orders. They found that women who obtained 

protection orders were more likely to be employed full-time and to 

have health insurance. Women who obtained protection orders were also 

more likely to be married or previously married to the abuser, and 

were less likely to be currently involved or living with the 

perpetrator. In addition to this, Wolf et al. (2000) found that women 

seeking protection orders were more likely to be older, pregnant, have 

experienced threats of violence against themselves or their families,

have had family members or friends abused on the index date, have

severe depressive symptoms, and have been forced to have sex in the

prior year, than were women who did not seek protection orders (Wolf 

et al., 2000). Zoellner et al. (2000) also noted that women who were

employed and could be financially stable on their own were more likely 

to follow through with the complete process of obtaining a protection

order. This research also produced interesting results, namely that 

assault characteristics such as severity of abuse, seeking medical 

attention, and history of weapon involvement were unrelated to 

victims’ completion of the protection order process (Zoellner et al.,

2000).

In outlining a change in the enforcement and provision of

protective orders, Holt et al. (2003) have argued that protective

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.
orders have become more effective since the shift from being a civil,

victim-initiated action to a criminal justice system response that 

includes enforcement by the police. The next several examples will

give more in-depth details of the study. In Carlson et al.’s (1999) 

study, the researchers evaluated the effectiveness of protection 

orders in a sample of 210 couples in Texas. This study used both

court records and police reports, yet they excluded several cases

where the order was filed by a same-sex couple, a man against a woman, 

or a family member against another family member (i.e., not spouse 

against spouse). They looked at the effectiveness of protective 

orders by estimating the relative risk of re-abuse for women who 

procured these orders over a two year period. Carlson et al. (1999) 

found that 68% of the women in the sample reported some form of

physical violence in the two year period preceding the PO. During the 

two year period after the PO, only 23% of the women reported being 

subjected to re-abuse. Even though findings showed that the PO

affected whether a perpetrator chose to be violent or not, the results 

also showed that for men who continued to be violent, the rate of

violence did not change (Carlson et al., 1999). This study also 

looked at differences in re-abuse based on socio-economic status 

(SES). Carlson et al. (1999) found that very low SES women

experienced a 53% decline in re-abuse, while low and medium SES women

experienced a 71% decrease. This finding suggests that future 

research should tease out the relationship between SES and the 

efficacy of POs.

Holt et al. (2003) found that in addition to obtaining a 

protection order, maintaining the order reduces subsequent violence. 

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.
Their qualitative study of almost 400 women included a control group,

an important factor that many similar studies often omit. They

obtained extensive information through interviews and determined the 

occurrence of all post-index-incident domestic violence among

participants, regardless of whether it was reported to the police. 

The non-PO group (control group) consisted of a random sample of women 

who had police contact for domestic violence during the study period 

but did not obtain a PO following the reported incident. The PO group 

included women who obtained protection orders during the study period, 

whether or not the precipitating incident was reported to the police.

Women who obtained and maintained POs were significantly less likely 

to be contacted by the perpetrator, threatened by him, or sustain

psychological or physical abuse from him between the index incident

and the first follow-up interview (Holt et al., 2003). This effect

was strengthened during the time between the first and second

interview. During this period, women with POs were significantly less 

likely than those without POs to be contacted by the perpetrator,

threatened by him with a weapon, psychologically abused, sexually

abused, physically abused, injured from abuse, or to receive medical 

care after abuse (Holt et al., 2003). Overall findings showed a 70% 

decrease in physical abuse among women who obtained and maintained 

their PO’s throughout their follow-up period.

McFarlane et al.’s (2004) study presents slightly different

perspective regarding the maintenance of POs. This study looked at

differences in the effectiveness of POs based on whether or not the

women who applied for these orders were granted them by the courts.

The 149 women who took part in this study reported significantly lower 

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.
levels of abuse, including worksite harassment, up to 18 months

following their application for a PO. Whether the women were granted

or were not granted the PO made no significant difference in terms of

the amount of violence they reported at the time of application or 

during the follow up periods. McFarlane et al. (2004) show that 

regardless of the outcome from the criminal justice system, applying 

for an order of protection reduces subsequent abuse in domestic

violence relationships. They explain that some women use protection 

orders as a way to regain some control in the relationship and to

notify the abuser that the law knows about his behavior. The women in 

this study viewed the legal system as a force larger than themselves,

with power over the abuser that they themselves had lost as a

consequence of the abuse (McFarlane et al., 2004). 

Burgess-Proctor’s (2003) research used a previously collected

sample of 277 women who received either a temporary or a permanent 

protection order. She determined efficacy of protection orders by 

looking at whether abusers violated their partners’ protection orders; 

she also addressed efficacy differences based on victims’ demographic

factors. This data came from victim self-reports, not official court

records. In this study, Burgess-Proctor found that unemployed victims 

had a higher percentage of protection order violations than employed 

women. Women who resided with their partners at the time of the 

protection order had a lower percentage of protection order violations 

(Burgess-Proctor, 2003). One result that Burgess-Proctor (2003) 

addressed specifically was that black victims had a lower percentage 

of protection order violations. She explained this finding by 

suggesting that “Black women in this sample may have been less 

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.
inclined to report a violation of their protection orders, or they 

simply have experienced fewer violations as the data suggest. It is 

clear that court personnel and advocates working with victims must 

acknowledge that race is an important factor in battered women’s 

experiences with their protection orders” (Burgess-Proctor, 2003, p. 

50).

Fischer (1992) suggests that it is important to think about the

effectiveness of protective orders in a broad fashion. He points to 

the need to examine whether protective orders empower the victim in

her decision-making and in actions intended to end a violent intimate

relationship. Mills (1998) suggests that research needs to develop

questionnaire measures that tap empowerment in terms of a woman’s

perceived ability to assert her own will. This is consistent with 

research suggesting that the perceived effectiveness of the order may

be independent of whether there was a violation or breach of the order 

or subsequent violence, reflecting to a greater extent the impact of 

the order on victim well-being more generally including the woman’s

self-esteem and efficacy (Johnson et al., 2003; Keilitz et al., 1998;

Keilitz, Davis, Efkeman, Flango, & Hannaford, 1998). 

Another way to “think outside the box” in considering ways to

measure PO effectiveness is evaluating women’s perceptions of, 

response to, and adherence to the conditions of the order. These

factors have a direct effect on the data collected and the conclusions 

drawn from research. While many researchers have examined the impact

of domestic violence interventions on offender recidivism, Capshew and 

McNeece (2000) also note that the effectiveness of protective orders 

may be operationalized in several ways.

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.
Mills (1996) points out that even civil protection orders, which 

enjoin a batterer from further violence or threats, have limited value 

as a means to curtail violence in many women’s lives. However, in 

most states, civil protection orders can be used either in conjunction 

with criminal proceedings or on their own in civil court; thus 

protection orders potentially give women the means to fashion remedies 

according to their needs (Mills, 1996). When the protection order is

a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, a woman may be more willing 

to take action on the belief that her abusive mate will be less likely 

to retaliate than with criminal proceedings (Carlson et al., 1999).

So, what separates the women who obtain protection orders from 

the ones that do not? Studies addressing this issue are discussed in

the section below. As we discuss in the following section, the

usefulness of conclusions from these studies has been affected by

evaluation design problems, including small, purposive samples;

selection bias, due to exclusion of cases and sample attrition; short

follow-up periods; and lack of statistical controls for potentially

important confounders. Additionally, much of this research has

focused on the effectiveness of victim-initiated civil protective

orders, with relatively little work on the effectiveness of orders 

initiated by the courts. As victims who initiate a civil protective 

order are more often the victims of severe, repeated abuse, the

findings from these studies are not easily generalized to the wider

population of domestic violence victims. Finally, one of the most 

significant limitations of previous work may be that the efficacy of 

protective orders has been examined without careful consideration of 

the effects of variation in the enforcement of these orders.

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.
Characteristics of Women Who Seek Protection Orders

Common sense tells us that there must be individual reasons

behind each woman’s choice whether or not to obtain a protection 

order, because each case is so unique. Yet the dynamics of domestic 

violence suggest that victims do share certain characteristics, and

the behavior among victims is often similar. Researchers attempt to 

identify certain characteristics that serve as predictors or risk

factors to aid in identifying which women are more or less likely to 

begin, complete, and follow through on the protection order process. 

In addition to physical and situational factors, research has

explored emotional factors that affect women’s decisions regarding 

obtaining a protection order. Fischer and Rose’s (1995) study used

qualitative data from women who were in court to obtain a protection 

order against their abuser, in order to address this question. One of 

the main themes found in this study was that nearly all women

acknowledged that they had had “enough,” stating that they were tired

of the abuse and that was why they were obtaining the protection order 

(Fischer & Rose, 1995). Other reasons for obtaining a protection

order included using it as a last resort and stating that they were

ready to make a change in their lives. Other women also said that 

friends and family had a significant role in encouraging them to 

obtain these orders. The distinguishing factor about these women was

the confidence in their ability to provide for themselves and their

family, despite a nagging belief that the abuser would violate the 

order and intrude in their lives (Fischer & Rose, 1995). These women

had to overcome the fear of leaving the relationship permanently,

because they knew that obtaining the order would signal the

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.
potentially undesirable end of their relationship (Fischer & Rose, 

1995). The women also had to admit to themselves that they could not 

stop the abuse alone. “They chose the law as an attempt to enhance

the resources they needed, the most pressing of which was to 

communicate the basic message that he is not allowed to abuse her” 

(Fischer & Rose, 1995, p. 421). 

Fischer and Rose (1995) also explored the barriers that women

faced in the process of obtaining a protection order. They found that 

the most salient barriers were the emotional costs of being forced to

call the police to have the abuser arrested, fear of retaliation for 

seeking legal protection, fear of ending the relationship permanently, 

and perceptions of the intimidating environment of the courthouse. 

They also noted that some women needed to renew their trust in a 

reinvigorated legal system, despite prior negative experiences (Fisher 

& Rose, 1995).

Another study that focused on women who obtained and maintained

protection orders found that less than half of the women who initiated 

the restraining order process actually obtained final orders of

protection (Zoellner et al., 2000). Addressing these results, the 

researchers stressed that “if such orders are conceptualized as a

primary intervention aimed at facilitating a battered woman’s ability

to end partner violence, the low number of women who persist is of 

utmost concern” (Zoellner et al., 2000, p. 1092). This study also 

mentioned that the process of obtaining such an order is rather

difficult and time-consuming. Regarding emotional and psychological 

factors pertaining to obtaining protection orders, perception of 

threat and attachment to the offender were two aspects that

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.
significantly influenced a woman’s likelihood of obtaining a 

protection order (Zoellner et al., 2000). Attachment to the batterer

referred to women who reported loving their partner or believing the 

partner was able to change; these women were less likely to obtain an

order. Perception of threat referred to women whose partner 

threatened to kill them; these women were more likely to complete the

protection order process. On the other hand, those women whose

abusive partners made threats to their children were less likely to

complete the PO process. It was assumed that fear for the children

influenced this decision (Zoellner et al., 2000).

The reasons presented above for obtaining or not obtaining a 

protection order apply to women in rural as well as urban communities. 

Logan et al.’s (2005) study of urban and rural counties found that in

both regions the top reasons women didn’t obtain an order of 

protection were: the victim’s desire to reconcile with the offender; 

the victim being coerced, intimidated, or pressured by the abuser to 

drop the protection order; and the victim being dependent on the 

abuser. Logan et al. (2005) also found that the biggest barrier for 

women to file a protective order was the lack of resources necessary 

to leave the abuser, while the second biggest barrier was general

fear. This study also pointed out that there is a need for women to

know and understand the resources and rights that are available to 

them. Some women mentioned stories reported by the media in which a 

victim ended up dead even though she had a protective order, therefore 

it is important to inform women that, in many cases, violence does not 

decrease when protective orders are obtained (Logan et al., 2005).

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.
Other Issues Regarding Obtaining Protection Orders 

In addition to dealing with their own fears, women who obtain

protection orders have to deal with systemic barriers placed in front

of them by the criminal justice system. Yearwood (2005) addresses 

this issue by looking at the concordance between the plaintiff’s 

request and what type of relief the court actually granted.

Yearwood’s (2005) research included a North Carolina sample of 240 

court cases which pertained to obtaining ex-parte and domestic 

violence protection orders. The difference between an ex-parte

protection order and a regular domestic violence protection order is 

the length of the order. An ex-parte order, sometimes referred to as

an emergency order, is valid for 72 hours, with a full hearing to be 

scheduled during this time. This type of order can be renewed 

periodically until a permanent one is in effect. Understandably, this 

can become rather inconvenient for victims. A regular domestic

violence order of protection is issued after a hearing has taken place 

and is renewable annually.

Regarding ex-parte requests, Yearwood (2005) found little

concordance between what the plaintiff requested and what the court

granted. The top four court ordered services or relief requests which 

were awarded included: the plaintiff claiming possession of the

residence, the defendant having no contact with the plaintiff, the 

plaintiff being given possession of a vehicle, and the defendant being 

evicted from the shared place of residency. The greatest discordance

occurred between the percent of plaintiffs requesting that the 

defendant not interfere with the minor children and the courts 

granting this request (Yearwood, 2005). This finding was especially 

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.
disturbing because the court was not only interfering with the safety

of the direct victim, but also with the safety of minor children.

This type of discordance was also found when examining the regular 

protection order cases. 

Yearwood (2005) notably addressed how North Carolina judges and

magistrates are unwilling, during domestic violence protection order 

proceedings, to address financial support, such as child support 

and/or temporary support for the victim, nor do they regularly address 

issues involving minor children, such as child custody, visitation and 

the stipulation that the defendant not interfere with the children.

This is a frightening finding that deserves further exploration.

Limitations of Prior Research

As noted by Fagan (1996) and Capshew and McNeece (2000), there 

has been limited research on the effects of criminal justice 

interventions in general that focus on reducing the incidence and

prevalence of intimate partner violence. Fagan (1996) suggested that

the failure to find support for the positive effects of criminal 

justice-oriented domestic violence interventions may be due to a 

number of analytic and measurement issues. Most studies have been 

primarily qualitative or have used non-experimental and quasiexperimental designs relying on purposive sampling. Selection bias, 

in the form of sample attrition and the exclusion of some cases, also

plagues much of the research. In viewing protective orders as a 

promising solution in combating domestic violence, Sherman et al., 

(1998) suggested that an important area for future research is the use 

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.
of randomized trials to provide a strong test of the effectiveness of

orders of protection.

Research on efficacy of protective orders is limited in a number 

of ways. The three main limitations include measures used, samples

used, and the generalizability of the findings. Measures used to

appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of these orders often include 

women’s perceptions of, response to, and adherence to the conditions 

of the protective orders. Future research should focus on using more

concrete measures of effectiveness, rather than relying on the 

victim’s perceptions. Although perceptions are important, they are

hard to quantify and it is difficult to formulate concrete policy

implications based on them. Measures used to address effectiveness of 

protection orders should include amount of re-abuse and violations of

the stipulations of the protection order.

Another important limitation of the research on protection orders

concerns the samples that are used, especially when focusing on what 

types of women are more or less likely to obtain an order of 

protection. Usually samples include women that are already in the 

process or are about to begin the process of obtaining a protection

order. Most of the samples used in this research are guilty of selfselection bias. Only a few studies actually include a control group,

which is a crucial factor; the absence of a control group presents 

difficulties when generalizations are attempted. Also, external 

validity becomes a problem due to the fact that protection order 

statutes vary among the states. If a study is conducted in one state, 

it may be problematic to use the results for policy in another state 

with different statutes.

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.
As with any research that includes obtaining victimization data, 

researchers encounter the problem of underreporting and having to

decide what type of source is best to use, i.e., official statistics 

versus self-report data. In the case of protection orders, and

especially the violation of them, it is extremely beneficial to

combine and compare these sources, since many times women are hesitant 

to report re-abuse to the police after a protection order has taken

effect. Researchers may even take this opportunity to compare the 

actual amount of re-victimization that takes place as reported by

victim surveys and the amount that is reported to the police after a 

protection has been obtained. 

In trying to determine what characteristics make a difference

among those that do and do not obtain protection orders, it is of

utmost importance to include all possible factors in research. Wolf 

et al. (2000) found that men whose partners obtained protection orders 

against them were older than the men against whom orders were not

obtained. Compared to their female partners, perpetrators against whom 

protection orders were obtained were less educated and often from a

different racial or ethnic group. But this was the only finding 

regarding perpetrator characteristics that was presented in all of the 

research reviewed. This area of research clearly deserves a more indepth examination that would allow advocates and other key players in

the criminal justice and social services systems to not only take

victim risk characteristics into account, but also the characteristics 

of the abuser, as this may influence victim safety.

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.
Section Summary

Recent research on protective orders does show that they can be

effective tools in reducing subsequent domestic violence (Murphy,

Musser, and Maton, 1998). Fischer and Rose (1995) note that certain 

women feel empowered after obtaining a protection order, saying that:

“...it makes you feel as if you ate a can of spinach, like Popeye” and 

“...it’s just like you’re spreading your wings all over again” (p. 424). 

But, in addition to issuing a protective order, the system must take 

action against further domestic violence by initiating stronger

prosecution and tougher sentencing guidelines against first time and 

repeat domestic violence offenders. The effectiveness of protection 

orders does depend, in part, on mandated sanctions for violations and

on police response to violations (Holt et al., 2003). DeJong and

Burgess-Proctor (2006) also stress that the successful use of

protection orders hinges on enforcement by police officers, and that 

both petitioners and respondents must take them seriously. Research 

also shows that the criminal justice system should take into account 

demographic factors of victims and offenders in its quest for

effective domestic violence intervention (Carlson et al., 1999). 

Although there are individual differences that determine whether 

or not a woman will file and maintain a protection order, it is import 

to minimize the institutional barriers that some women face when 

attempting to obtain a protection order. Individual states should 

work toward making these processes more universal and victim-friendly. 

Although the modern protection order system is much more responsive to 

the needs and desires of individual women, in many states it still 

relies far more heavily on batterer treatment programs than on victim

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.
support to prevent future violence (Goodman & Epstein, 2005). States

also need to include all types of relationships in their protection

order statutes, including same-sex couples, never married couples, and 

couples that do not live together.

While obtaining a protection order is no guarantee that further

abuse will be prevented for any individual, health and criminal

justice providers should provide information about the availability of 

protection orders to all individuals affected by intimate partner

violence (Holt et al., 2003). There is no perfect guarantee that the

violence will stop unless the perpetrator is incarcerated

indefinitely. Because this is an unrealistic expectation for every

case, we should focus on making the lives of these women “safer,”

since there is a high probability that they will never be completely 

“safe.” Based on Carlson et al.’s (1999) findings, we not only need 

to focus on the amount of re-abuse, but also on the rate of this 

abuse. Rather than condemning women’s decisions to drop protection

orders or return to the abuser as a step backward or a willingness to

be abused, police and court officers should conceptualize this event 

as a necessary step in the process of leaving (Fisher & Rose, 1995). 

Awareness of victims’ rights and the availability of legal 

options like protection orders should be heightened not only among 

victims and potential victims, but also among workers in the criminal

justice and social services systems. In order to make a real and

lasting difference in their clients’ lives, these key players need to

be aware of the complex dynamics of domestic violence and how to 

properly deal with victims at the key point when they make the 

decision to put an end to their abuse. 

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.
Finally, to fully examine the effectiveness any type of

protection order requires a thorough understanding of the level of 

enforcement that occurs. Rigakos (1997) suggests that research on the 

effectiveness of protective orders will depend to a large degree on

whether these orders are enforced by the police (especially through

arrest) and prosecuted by the courts. Since one of the first

evaluations of protective orders pointed to their failure in 

protecting those victims at risk for the most severe physical violence 

(Grau et al., 1984), a number of researchers in recent years have

attempted to more thoroughly examine their effectiveness.

Researchers have attempted to identify the factors that are

associated with a woman’s decision to seek a civil protective order. 

In examining the effectiveness of protective orders on subsequent

victim safety it is therefore important that these factors be

identified and treated as confounding variables in any empirical 

evaluation. For example, as with research on the factors that 

influence women’s decisions to call the police and invoke a criminal 

justice response (Kaukinen, 2004), the women who seek orders of

protection suffer the highest rates of severe injury prior to the

issuance of the order. The effectiveness of these orders may

therefore reflect the characteristics of the batterers for whom the

orders were issued against. Other factors that have been identified 

as associated with the decision to seek an order of protection include 

financial independence, symptoms of depression (Wolf et al., 2000),

and prior police intervention (Weisz, Tolman, and Bennett, 1998).

As noted earlier, much of the previous research has focused on 

victim-initiated protective orders, reflecting the preponderance of 

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.
victim-initiated protective orders over those that are court ordered.

Recently, Holt and colleagues (2003) have noted a shift in policy and

practice so that issuance of protective orders is now seen as an 

appropriate criminal justice system response to intimate partner 

violence instead of or in addition to civil action brought by the

victim. Our research focuses on court orders of protection.

The U.S. Department of Justice (1996) identified a number of 

historical characteristics of protective orders that may have limited

their effectiveness in ensuring victim safety and reducing offender

recidivism. These limitations include the requirement that victims be 

separated from their abuser and initiate divorce proceedings, the need 

to enforce orders across state boundaries, and the difficulty, expense 

and time required for victims to obtain an order. While the federal 

Violence Against Women Act of 1994 has helped to eliminate a number of 

these obstacles to obtaining and maintaining the conditions and

prohibitions of a protective order, serious limitations still persist. 

These include the qualifying criteria required for obtaining an order

(Gist, McFarlane, Malecha, Fredland, Schultz, & Willson, 2001), a lack 

of enforcement on the part of the police even though such orders allow 

for expansion of police powers to arrest and increased ability to

monitor repeat offenders (Finn & Colson, 1998, Rigakos, 1995), and a 

reluctance by prosecutors to prosecute those who breech a protective 

order (Kinports & Fischer, 1993). 

To increase the effectiveness of protective orders Keilitz (1994)

suggests that the criminal justice system needs to take affirmative

steps to increase their power to provide safety to the victims while 

enforcing the order. Gondolf, McWilliams, Hart, & Stuehling (1994)

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.
have argued that the systems in place for the enforcement of 

protective orders are lacking and Grau et al., (1984) have suggested 

the need for comprehensive legislation that coordinates civil and

criminal remedies. Finn (1991) suggests that formal policies

regarding the violation of protective orders be developed and enforced 

that encourage respect for the court's order thereby increasing

compliance. The issuance and enforcement of protective orders,

therefore, need elaborate safety plans that include systematic 

investigation and stringent law enforcement of breaches of protective

orders that simultaneously link victims to appropriate health and

social services (Finn, 1991; Keilitz, 1991). To accomplish these

steps may require changes in legislation to rectify problems with

enforcement, to provide police officers with up-to-date electronic 

information on protective orders to alleviate confusion (Rigakos,

1997), to expand community policing, and to compile location histories 

that record all responses to a given residence or victim (U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1996). 

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.
METHODOLOGY

The overall goal of this study was to estimate the effect of 

proactive law enforcement contact with victims on their safety and 

well-being. Law enforcement contacts were directed at victims whose

abusers had been arrested for committing domestic violence and were

placed on a criminal no-contact order by the court as a condition of 

their release. The no-contact order restricted the offender from 

having any kind of contact with the victim until the time of case

disposition. Victims did have the option of petitioning the court to 

request that the no-contact order be dropped for various reasons, but

this typically occurred in relatively few cases. Therefore, the

treatment examined in this study was victim-focused. The victimdirected intervention consisted of contacts by law enforcement that

were designed to accomplish three objectives: (1) to ensure that 

victims understood the purpose and offender requirements of no-contact 

orders; (2) to advise victims on how to collect evidence and mobilize

law enforcement in the event that a violation occurred; and (3) to 

monitor no-contact order compliance. Contacts were scheduled to occur

before first appearance; for offenders whose cases continued after 

first appearance, additional contacts were scheduled.

In order to implement the treatment, the Lexington County

Sheriff's Department (LCSD) assigned a deputy sheriff (referred to 

hereafter as the "dedicated officer" or "DO") to receive paperwork 

identifying cases where an offender was released from bond court with

a no-contact order as a condition of their release. Victims of 

offenders who were randomly assigned to the treatment group received 

the proactive victim intervention (contact). The DO contacts did not 

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.
preclude or substitute for any "business as usual" contact between the 

victims or offenders and other deputy sheriff’s or law enforcement 

personnel. In fact, some officers are quite diligent at monitoring 

cases in which they have been involved. It is important to note that 

the DO had other law enforcement responsibilities outside of those 

related to this project and the Sheriff’s Department donated the 

officer’s time to serve as the DO for this study. The focus of this 

study is to examine the impact of the proactive enforcement condition

on victim safety and well-being.

To ensure that cases which received proactive DO contacts were 

comparable to cases without the contacts, we worked with the LCSD to 

implement a randomized experiment. Once the offender was released on 

bond, paperwork documenting the bond restrictions would flow from the

bond court to the Lexington County Criminal Domestic Violence Court

(CDVC). The CDVC provided photocopies of the bond restrictions to the

DO, who entered the case information into a database program.

The database program randomly assigned each newly enrolled case

to a treatment group or control group and - for treatment cases -

printed out a proactive contact schedule. The DO then targeted cases 

in the treatment group for proactive victim-directed contacts. All 

contacts and contact efforts were documented by the DO in a contact

log. The DO also provided a log of newly enrolled cases to the 

research team so that cases could be listed in the research database 

and victims could be contacted to solicit their participation in a 

sequence of interviews.

The DO began enrolling cases in November 2005, and enrollment

progressed continuously until September 2006. At that time, the DO 

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.
notified us that he would be leaving his position at the LCSD. In late 

December 2006, a new DO began work on the project and she resumed the

prior DO’s responsibilities of case enrollment and proactive contacts

until July 2007 when the study ended. During the period between the

departure of the first DO and the arrival of the second DO, the court

administrator provided information about new cases on several of the 

dockets directly to us. Because these cases did not receive the

treatment we wanted to explore the idea of studying them as de facto 

control cases. These cases are referred to as "interim controls."

Also, beginning in late June 2006, letters with a brochure introducing 

the DO as a LCSD point of contact and an explanation of the no-contact 

order on LCSD letterhead under the DO's signature were mailed to each

victim in the treatment group.

At the conclusion of study enrollment during summer 2007, we 

began the process of organizing the DO case enrollment database and

seeking access to case booking information for the cases enrolled in 

our study. At this stage, we sought specific information about the 

incident that led to each case's inclusion in the study (hereafter 

referred to as the "gateway" arrest or incident). After obtaining this 

information, our goal was to secure follow-up arrest records (both 

before and after the gateway incident), and court dispositions for the 

cases in our study. We contacted the LCSD, the CDVC, and the Office of 

Diversion Programs (ODP) for assistance in this endeavor. The

Sheriff's Department and the Office of Diversion Programs worked very

closely with us to help provide the information needed for the study.

Although the CDVC donated the administrator's time through its 

distribution of case information to the DO, the Court was unwilling to 

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.
meet with us or work with us for purposes of obtaining detailed

information on court dispositions for the cases in our study. Thus,

the information about court dispositions for the cases in our study

comes entirely from information that is publicly available on the

South Carolina Judicial Department's website.

The second DO continued efforts on the project in the fall of

2007 and January of 2008 by acquiring official Lexington County

Detention Center booking sheets for each of the offenders in our 

study. An initial effort was also made during this period to acquire 

all of the criminal history information for all of the offenders in

our study. During the fall of 2007 and first two months of 2008, all 

of this information was entered into our analysis databases. Cases 

with missing or discrepant information (i.e., information on the 

booking sheet did not correspond with information in the criminal

history) were flagged for discussion with the DO. In March 2008, a 

final criminal history check was conducted on each of the randomized 

cases (all on the same day) and in early April 2008 a final criminal 

history check was conducted on the interim control cases (all on the 

same day). All of this information was entered into our analysis 

databases from March-May 2008.

Some of the offenders in our study were also eligible for a

pretrial diversion program for first-time offenders. One of the

outcomes we wanted to consider was whether offenders in the treatment

group made better progress through the diversion program than

offenders in the control group. Since the Sheriff's Department does

not maintain this information, we approached the Office of Diversion 

Programs (ODP) Director for the 11th Judicial Circuit to see whether 

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.
they would be willing to work with us to obtain this information. The

director agreed to assist us in this effort. The procurement of the

ODP data proved to be more difficult than we had initially expected. 

To obtain data from the LCSD, we did not have to provide them with any 

data because all of our data originated with them. But the ODP 

databases did not permit that office to provide us with a "dump" of

all people who had participated in pretrial diversion programs.

Instead, they required that we provide them with identifying 

information (specifically, the name and state identification numbers)

for all of the individuals in our study so the PTI status of each

individual could be determined. By providing them with this

information, we would be transferring identifiable information to

individuals not directly involved in the study which would be a

violation of our protocols that protect human beings as research 

subjects (which had previously been approved by the Institutional

Review Board) and our Privacy Certificate (28 Code of Federal

Regulations Part 22). To address this issue, we amended our protocol 

and the privacy certificate so that we could procure the ODP data and

maintain compliance. We obtained the data in May 2008 and entered the

cases into our analysis databases at that time.

Finally, we sought information on case dispositions for the

gateway incident for all cases in our study. Because we were unable to 

obtain this information directly from the CDVC, we were confined to

case searches on the South Carolina Judicial Department website. These 

searches were conducted from April 2008 to June 2008. Some of the

cases in the study were still not disposed of at that time. It is also 

possible that some of them were actually disposed of at that time, but 

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.
this information had not yet been updated on the website. Fortunately, 

the vast majority of the cases in our study appeared to have been

disposed as of July 1, 2008.

Over the course of the study, 466 cases were randomly assigned to

either the treatment or control condition and an additional 51 cases 

were enrolled as interim controls during the time period when a DO was 

not in place to implement the treatment condition beginning fall of

2006. Thus, a total of 517 cases were enrolled in the study. A small 

number of cases (9) actually were enrolled in the study two times. 

Five of these cases were enrolled as a treatment cases on two

occasions, one case was enrolled as a randomized control case on two 

occasions, and two cases were enrolled as a control case and an

interim control case. A final dual-entry case was enrolled as a

treatment case before the departure of the first DO and then as an 

interim control case. In each of these cases, we treated the first 

entry into the study as the gateway incident and any subsequent

domestic violence activity was regarded as recidivism. In addition,

there were five dual arrest cases (both parties arrested) included in

the study. Thus, a total of ten cases are dual arrest cases and, by

coincidence, they are evenly split with five in the randomized 

treatment group and five in the randomized control group.

Interviews with victims commenced in January 2006; efforts were

made to contact each of the 437 female victims enrolled in the study 

(victims of the defendants who were randomly assigned to the treatment 

or control group). Although there were 80 female offenders, only 

female victim cases were enrolled in the experiment. Therefore, no

efforts were made to contact male victims for interviews. Interviews

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.
were targeted to occur at six weeks after the gateway incident (Time 

1) and then again at six months after the gateway incident (Time 2). 

The vast majority of our interviews were face-to-face meetings at a

local hospital. In some instances when it was not possible for the 

victim to participate in a face-to-face interview, we attempted to 

conduct interviews over the telephone (e.g., she missed multiple 

appointments to conduct the interview at the hospital, lived in

another city, or told us that there was no other way she could 

participate). We developed a telephone interviewing protocol for 

determining whether it was safe to conduct the interview and received

approval for this protocol in the spring of 2006 (please see Appendix

Protocol Manual for details). By the end of the study, we conducted 11 

Time 1 telephone interviews and 10 Time 2 telephone interviews.

Our standard interview protocol involved an initial effort to

contact the victim with a letter introducing the University of South 

Carolina "Women's Health and Well-Being Study." These letters included 

a $1 bill and invited the victims to contact the study office for

information about how to participate in the health and well-being

study. Generic letters notifying potential study participants about

the study were also provided to victims who sought help at the only

domestic violence women's shelter in the county. The letters did not 

mention domestic violence and only referred to the study as research 

related to "Women's Health and Well-Being." Once phone contact was 

established with victims (initiated either by the victim or by 

ourselves), we described the study in vague terms that made no mention 

of domestic violence. We were concerned that description of the

study's true focus on domestic violence would increase risks to the

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.
victims. Victims were told that they would receive $50 compensation

for their time and effort if they agreed to participate in the study.

Victim and interviewer safety was the primary concern in the 

scheduling and location of interviews. If we were not able to contact

victims at the telephone number provided for them, we never tried to 

contact them at the number provided by the offender. We also decided 

not to approach victims at the court because the offenders were always 

present at court proceedings and we did not want to create confusion 

about whether we worked for the LCSD or the court. Finally, we 

conducted all of our interviews at a local hospital in public but in 

quiet areas where privacy could be assured but help could be summoned

quickly if needed.

Once our interviewers had their initial meeting with the victim a

determination was made about whether it was safe to do the interview 

(according to our training and protocols). An example of a situation

that might be deemed as unsafe included one where the interviewer

determined that there was a possibility that the victim’s batterer had 

brought her to the interview. If the interviewer believed it was 

unsafe to do the interview, then we conducted a diversionary informed

consent process and a diversionary interview which did not contain any 

references to domestic violence. The purpose of the diversionary 

interview was to avoid putting victims in situations where they may

have to lie to their batterer about the types of questions asked 

during the interview. We felt that this procedure would minimize

risks to the victim and our staff if interference were to occur. We

conducted eleven diversionary initial interviews over the course of

the study. In two cases, we were able to schedule another initial

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.
interview where the real informed consent form and survey were 

administered. We treated the remaining nine cases with a diversionary

initial interview as non-responses for purposes of this report.

If the interviewer believed it was safe to proceed with the

initial interview, then the informed consent form was given to the 

victim and read to her. The informed consent form revealed the 

domestic violence focus of the study and asked women whether they

wished to participate. The informed consent form also encouraged 

victims to destroy the form or to put it where the offender would not

be able to find it. At the point of being told about the true focus of 

the study, some victims seemed surprised, but most did not and none

refused to participate in the initial interview. Victims were told 

they would be paid regardless of whether they agreed to participate

and that they would be free to terminate the interview early and not 

answer any questions that made them uncomfortable. Victims were also

told that we would be contacting them for a subsequent interview and 

asked whether they would be willing to participate in that interview.

Throughout the course of the project only one victim indicated that

she did not want to participate in the second interview. Victims were

also told they would be paid $50 to participate in the second

interview and that we would pay them an additional $5 if they

proactively called our office to schedule that interview. All payments 

were made in cash or cash equivalents.

Even after the first interview was completed, calls to the 

research office did not mention domestic violence; the study was 

always referred to as the "Women's Health and Well-Being Study." 

Protocols for scheduling and conducting the follow-up interviews were

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.
the same as those for the initial interview. In two cases 

diversionary follow-up interviews were conducted out of safety 

concerns. Questions on both interviews asked about a wide range of

demographic characteristics, life experiences, questions about the 

gateway arrest, the offender, both past and subsequent abuse, and

experience and contacts with law enforcement and court officials. A

constant concern over the course of the study revolved around the

issue of whether victims would convey information to us that needed to 

be reported to authorities. However, the need to report any

information provided to us by the victims never arose. 

It is necessary to emphasize that the interview consent process

did not seek the victim's consent to be in the experiment. Rather, we

sought victims' consent to participate in the interviews. In addition,

we obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board for a waiver

of informed consent for the information we collected about the 

offenders in our study. 

Although the methods involved in our study are based on a strong 

research design and extensive data collection effort, we think it is 

important to note some limitations:

1. The target population for our study includes all cases where the 

offender is arrested by the LCSD and where the case falls under the

original jurisdiction of the Lexington County CDVC. Prior to January 

1, 2006 the CDVC had jurisdiction over individuals charged with a

first or second offense of criminal domestic violence (CDV1 or CDV2).

After January 1, 2006 the CDVC only had original jurisdiction of CDV1

cases. Thus, our study will tend to focus overwhelmingly on cases that 

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.
are charged with a CDV1 and are processed in the CDVC, which does not

represent the entire population of domestic violence cases committed 

in Lexington County.

2. While we believe that most of the cases that should have entered 

our study actually were enrolled, we have no way to verify this. Case

enrollment depended on the efforts of the CDVC administrator to

photocopy the relevant paperwork and provide it to the DO. During the

summer of 2006, we convened a meeting between the DO, the CDVC 

prosecutor, and the CDVC administrator to check on whether all cases 

that should be enrolled were actually being enrolled. We singled out a 

specific docket for one first appearance session in late spring 2006.

This session included 21 cases on the docket. Out of these 21 cases, 3 

had been charged with a CDV2 which removed them from eligibility for 

our study. Out of the remaining 18 cases, 2 had been in jail prior to

first appearance which meant that they had not been free in the

community on bond restrictions and 2 had been free in the community on 

bond but did not have no-contact order restrictions as a condition of

their release. Among the remaining 14 cases, 12 had been enrolled in 

the study and 2 mistakenly had not. 

Over the remainder of the study we checked in periodically with

the CDVC administrator to try to minimize the number of mistaken 

omissions but ultimately she was very busy with her many 

administrative responsibilities. It was suggested to us that there was 

a need to "tread lightly" with respect to the administrator's time 

because all of her effort was donated to the project and could be

withheld if our demands became too great.

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.
All indications are that the CDVC administrator worked in good 

faith to relay the appropriate information to the DO and we do not 

have any reason to believe that large numbers of cases were

inadvertently omitted or that there was any effort to divert cases 

away from the study. The most likely scenario is that the vast 

majority of cases that were eligible for study inclusion were enrolled 

and that there are no important systematic differences between those 

who were enrolled and those who were not enrolled but should have

been.

3. The DO made efforts to proactively contact victims in the

treatment group in order to convey information about no-contact orders 

and monitor compliance. It is important to note that victims may

experience contact with the LCSD in a variety of ways including the

CDVC prosecutor, law enforcement victim advocates (LEVAs), and 

officers involved in the gateway incident. Our official record 

information includes DO contacts but does not include any of these 

other contacts. We do ask victims in the interviews about their

contacts with a LCSD deputy sheriff(s) and LEVAs but this information

is only available for the interviewed victims. So, it is important to

recognize that some aspects of "the treatment" could have been 

delivered to victims by other people in addition to the DO. But, those 

efforts should be occurring approximately equally between the two

randomized groups unless victims in the treatment group become more

proactive in seeking contact with other LCSD or court officials.

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.
4. The DO's goal was to proactively contact each victim in the

treatment group following a schedule printed out by the database 

program. Although the LCSD generously donated the DO time for this 

project, the DO had other responsibilities in addition to proactively

contacting victims for our study. Depending on a range of factors from 

the quality of victim contact information to the status of the case

when they received the paperwork from the CDVC administrator to the

on-duty time available to make contacts, the DO may or may not have

actually contacted victims in the treatment group. We do have measures 

of how often contact was attempted in each case, and how often 

successful contacts were actually made. All indications are that most

contact efforts were normally limited to the letter and brochure 

(after June 2006) and one or two phone calls by the DO to the victim.

Another issue is the timeliness with which the necessary information 

was received by the DO from the CDVC administrator. According to one 

DO this information did not arrive in some cases until after the case

had already been disposed. While the lack of complete contact can be 

viewed as a limitation of our study (and it is), it can also be viewed 

as an issue that is likely to arise if law enforcement agencies try to 

implement proactive contact policies with domestic violence victims. 

Of course, an important counterweight to this point is that contact

efforts were made and contact was achieved in enough cases to ensure 

that the average experience of the treatment group was, in fact, 

meaningfully different than the average experience of the control

group.

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.
5. Normally, the LCSD and court officials try to maintain no-contact

orders throughout the period between the gateway arrest and case 

disposition. The bond restrictions typically expire when the case is

officially disposed - either by a verdict, dismissal, or decision not

to prosecute. Often these orders are maintained even against the 

victim's wishes. But sometimes, offenders are successful in getting

no-contact orders lifted early. Unfortunately, this information is 

systematically housed only in the CDVC and is not available on the 

SCJD public website. Because the CDVC would not work with us to obtain 

information on the disposal of the cases in our study, we are not

currently able to access this information. We remain open to the 

possibility of acquiring it and if that becomes possible we will seek

that information. But a current limitation of our study is that we 

will not be able to distinguish between cases that had the no contact

orders lifted early and those that did not.

Overall, our study has both important strengths and limitations. 

But, we believe the information provided by this analysis will be

relevant and useful for policy discussions about proactive contact 

with victims, victim follow-up, and no-contact order enforcement for

cases awaiting disposition. We also hope it will be useful in helping

other researchers designing field studies with other agencies to learn 

and benefit from our experiences.

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.
RESULTS

Pretreatment Equivalence

Because the treatment condition was randomly assigned to 

offenders, some of the difficulties of establishing equivalent 

comparison groups do not create major problems for this study. 

Nevertheless, randomized assignment to groups only ensures equivalence 

in expectation (that is to say, as the sample size grows infinitely

large). It is possible in any given sample that random assignment to 

treatment and control groups will not lead to entirely comparable

groups. If this happens, we know why the groups are not equivalent (it 

occurred by chance) but the problem of nonequivalence itself would 

remain.1 Thus, we devoted considerable effort to verifying that the 

offender treatment and control groups were, in fact, equivalent to 

each other on a large number of "pretreatment" characteristics.

Table 1 relies on data from the enrollment database, the 

Lexington County Detention Center (LCDC) jail booking sheets, and the

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) arrest histories to list a

wide range of characteristics on which offenders in the treatment and

control groups can be compared to each other. All of the comparisons 

in Table 1 are based on information about each individual that are 

measured prior to the process of random assignment to groups.

Variables with a (d) are dichotomous and the mean is actually the

proportion of individuals in the group with that characteristic. 

Variables with a (c) are continuous or counted variables and the mean

for these variables is the sum of the scores divided by the number of

people in the group. The Z-tests in this table are differences in

We acknowledge Dr. Amelia Haviland of the RAND Corporation for this insight.

70

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.
proportions or differences in average characteristics between victims

whose offender was randomized to the treatment and control groups. The 

interim control group is not included in these tests.

Our first impression of this table is that the interim control 

group looks somewhat different from the randomized groups in several 

respects. For example, there appear to be more males, whites,

Hispanics, and fewer blacks in the interim control group compared to 

the randomized groups. There also appears to be a greater prevalence 

of prior military service in the interim control group than in the 

randomized groups. Additionally, the interim controls appear to be 

somewhat more likely to have been born in South Carolina and to have 

been booked on a non-domestic violence charge at the gateway arrest

than domestic violence offenders in the randomized groups. Finally,

the interim controls appear to have been less likely to have a prior 

arrest record in South Carolina or Lexington County or to have 

experienced prior arrests for various violent, property, and drug

offenses compared to offenders in the randomized treatment and control 

groups. 

Overall, our impression is that the interim controls appear to 

differ from the randomized groups in some important ways. Since the

interim controls were all enrolled in the fall of 2006, it is possible 

that there are some seasonality issues that affect the comparability 

of the interim controls. Perhaps domestic violence cases appearing in

October, November, and December differ in important ways from cases

that appear at other times of the year. Because of these differences,

we chose not to combine the interim and randomized control groups. 

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.
Thus, all of the tests reported in Table 1 focus on differences

between cases in the randomized treatment and control groups.

The large majority of the cases in the randomized trial were male

offender, female victim cases. In addition, a little over two-thirds 

of the sample was white while only about one-fourth of the sample was

black or another race. About three-fourths of the offenders reported 

to LCDC officials that they had at least one child and less than 10% 

reported any prior history of military service. As expected, virtually 

all of the offenders in the study were booked on a formal domestic 

violence charge while only about 13% were booked on at least one nondomestic violence charge. On average, the offenders in our study were

about 35 years old at the time of the gateway arrest. Among these 

offenders, the average age at the time of the first arrest in the NCIC 

arrest history was 24 years. Also, according to the NCIC arrest

histories, a little over three-fourths of the offenders in this study

had been arrested at least one time prior to the gateway arrest. Among 

those who had been arrested at least once in the past, a little over 

4.5 years had elapsed on average since the date of the last arrest.

Over 70% of the offenders in this study had been arrested at least 

once before the gateway arrest in South Carolina and over 45% of the 

offenders had been arrested at least once before the gateway arrest by 

the LCSD. Based on these findings, it is fair to say that our sample 

of offenders is not - at least on average - a group of novice or 

first-time offenders. In fact, first-time arrestees appear to be the 

exception rather than the rule among the offenders in our study.

After reviewing the list of charges associated with each arrest

on the offender's arrest history, we created a series of variables to

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.
indicate the types of crimes that offenders had been charged with at 

arrests occurring before the gateway arrest. The most common prior 

arrest charges appearing in our sample included traffic-related

offenses, drug offenses, assaults, alcohol violations, driving while 

impaired, disorderly conduct, fraud, theft, and domestic violence. 

Although the rates of involvement in other offenses were lower, some 

of the offenders in our sample had been charged in the past with a 

wide range of serious crimes including homicide, kidnapping, child 

abuse, various sex offenses, robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle

theft. We also combined charges for assault, child abuse, domestic 

violence, harassment, homicide, kidnapping, robbery, and sex offenses

to create an overall measure indicating whether each offender had been 

arrested and charged with a violent offense. Similarly, for property 

offending, we combined burglary, theft, fraud, motor vehicle theft,

vandalism, and other property crimes into a single measure that

represents an overall measure indicating whether each offender had 

been arrested and charged with a property offense. 

Based on the results in Table 1, there appears to be a good deal 

of similarity between demographic and case characteristics among those 

in the randomized treatment and control groups. According to a search

of the NCIC criminal history database, in terms of demographic 

characteristics, the existence of a prior arrest record, the number of 

prior arrests, and arrests prevalence rates for most offenses

(including overall violent and overall property offending), and the

length of time between the gateway arrest and the date, the groups are 

quite comparable to each other. 

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.
This similarity notwithstanding, there are a few noteworthy

differences between the groups. First, even though offenders in both 

groups were comparable in terms of whether they reported having any

children, the mean number of children appears to be somewhat higher

for offenders in the control group (1.8899) than for offenders in the

treatment group (1.6624). Additionally, within the treatment group,

57.8% of the offenders reported having been born in South Carolina 

while 64.8% of the offenders in the control group reported being born

in South Carolina. Offenders in the control group appear to have been

somewhat more likely to have been arrested for kidnapping (3.1%) than

offenders in the treatment group (0.8%). This difference should be 

interpreted with caution since the prevalence rates for both groups

are so close to zero. Traffic offenses also appear to have been more 

prevalent for offenders in the control group (41.9%) than for

offenders in the treatment group (34.6%). Finally, offenders in the

treatment group were somewhat less likely to have been arrested for

domestic violence in the past (19.4%) than offenders in the control

group (26.2%). Since our study is about domestic violence, this

difference in the prevalence of prior arrests for domestic violence is 

particularly noteworthy and suggests that offenders in the control 

group are more prone to engage in domestic violence that leads to an 

arrest compared to offenders in the treatment group. 

Overall, the comparability of the groups appears to be very good 

but our efforts to document whether any differences exist have 

resulted in some evidence that the groups do differ in a few respects. 

While we do not think these between-group differences are sufficiently 

large to fundamentally alter our analysis approach, we nevertheless we 

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.
think it is important to supplement our group comparisons with 

adjustments for the differences we have noted. 

Contacts by Designated Officer

The primary emphasis of the intervention was to establish contact

between the DO and the victim for purposes of notifying the victim 

about the existence of the no-contact order, explaining the

requirements of the no-contact order, instructing the victim what to 

do if a violation occurs, and monitoring compliance with and enforcing 

the no-contact order. Through June 2006, contacts with victims were

exclusively based on proactive efforts by the officer to make voice

contact with the victim and to have a discussion. After June 2006, 

these efforts were supplemented with a letter from the DO (on LCSD 

letterhead) to the victim at the address on file and a brochure

(please see Appendix C for copies of the letter and the brochure).

Once the DO received notification from the CDVC that an offender 

had been released on bond with no-contact restrictions, the DO would 

enter information about that case into the project enrollment

database. The enrollment database program would randomly assign each 

case to the treatment or control group (thus, the DO had no control

over the randomization process). Among cases randomly assigned to the

treatment group, the DO was charged with the responsibility of making

proactive, direct contact with the victims in the treatment group. It

was left to the DO's discretion to determine what type of contact with 

the victim would be most appropriate and effective (in-person, 

telephone, at court, etc.). Based on guidance from the CDVC

prosecutor, the DO was asked to try to make contact both before the

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.
defendant’s first appearance in court and after the defendant’s first

appearance in court (among cases where the no-contact restrictions 

remained active after first appearance); ideally, these contacts would 

have occurred on a schedule printed out by the computer database 

program used to enroll the cases. 

The DO was also asked to enter information into the enrollment 

database program to document contacts with both treatment and control

cases (which was linked to the enrollment database). Thus, for each

contact, we can identify cases receiving contact efforts, cases where

the contact effort was successful, and the type of contact (i.e.,

personal contact, contact at court, or telephone contact). We do not 

have any way of knowing systematically whether victims actually

received and read the letters and brochures (after we began this 

procedure in June 2006). However, we are confident that letters were 

sent to all randomized treatment cases because those letters were

mailed directly from our research office at the university.

The overall goal of the experiment was to ensure that the level

of contact between the LCSD and victims was elevated during the period 

the no-contact order was in place and to ensure that victims in the

treatment group had a meaningfully higher probability of being 

contacted and provided information about the no-contact orders,

understanding those orders, and could assist the DO in detecting 

noncompliance. Since victims ultimately had the choice to cooperate

with law enforcement in detecting violations of the no-contact order,

the intervention could not be expected to directly increase the

likelihood of detecting violations. However, if victims in the 

treatment and control groups were equally willing to cooperate and 

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.
attempts by offenders to violate no-contact orders were equivalent 

between the two groups, the provision of information to victims about

exactly what the order required and efforts by the police to monitor 

noncompliance in the treatment group could be expected to produce

higher rates of contempt for bond violations for offenders in the

treatment group. A prerequisite to the existence of such an effect 

would be a meaningful difference in the actual contact experiences for 

the two groups.

The contact database was maintained by the DO throughout the 

study. Each record in the database represents a documented attempt to

contact a victim. To analyze this database, we aggregated the data to

the date level. So, the database contained a separate record for each

unique date that contact was attempted for each individual. Thus, on 

some dates there could be multiple efforts at contact (by both the 

victim and the DO). We then aggregated this database up to the level 

of each victim to construct Table 2.

Table 2 presents a summary of the contact levels for the 

treatment and control groups. Overall, we see that the DO expended 

virtually all proactive contact effort to victims in the treatment 

group and that very little proactive contact effort occurred with

victims in the control group. We reiterate that the DO contact 

occurred independently of other contact the victim may have had with 

the LCSD including contacts with other officers and the Law

Enforcement Victim Advocates (LEVAs). The information in Table 2 does 

not account for contact with the victims via the letter and brochure 

that were sent out to all victims in the treatment group after June

2006.

77

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2

The information in Table 2 also indicates that establishing law

enforcement contact with this population (domestic violence victims) 

is difficult. As noted above, the DO's goal was to proactively contact 

each victim in the treatment group. But this was not possible in all 

cases. In addition to proactively contacting victims for our study,

the DO had a variety of responsibilities related to domestic violence

cases under LCSD jurisdiction. DO efforts were contingent on the 

quality of victim contact information, the status of the case at the 

time or receiving paperwork from the CDVC administrator, and the onduty time available to make contacts. Depending on these factors, the

DO may or may not have actually contacted or attempted to contact

victims in the treatment group. But, we think the conditions 

encountered by the DOs involved in this study are probably quite 

typical of the conditions that officers involved in victim-directed

activities would encounter in other jurisdictions.

Overall, contact efforts were made in about two-thirds of the

treatment cases while contact was actually achieved in 37.1% of the

cases and contact prior to first appearance was achieved in 25.9% of 

the cases.2 Most contact occurred either by telephone (45.2% of the 

The two DOs in our study reported different levels of effort to contact 

victims in the treatment group. One DO reported effort to contact in over 80% 

of the treatment group cases while the other reported effort in slightly over 

50% of the cases. Despite this difference the two DOs achieved remarkably 

similar successful contact rates of about 38%. The DO with less contact 

effort said that some of the cases actually reached her after the case had 

already been disposed. We do have case disposition dates for the cases that 

have been disposed and dates that cases were enrolled in the study (although 

we don't have the dates the CDVC administrator forwarded information to the 

DO) and since this problem occurred in both the treatment and control groups 

we may be able to identify the affected cases in both groups and estimate the 

treatment effect without those cases. It may also be useful for us to 

identify individuals who clearly received the treatment and match them with 

people in the control group with similar characteristics to estimate the 

treatment effect as well. But the treatment group described in this report is 

78

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.
treatment cases) or in a courtroom setting (40.5%). In addition, the 

vast majority of contact that occurred was initiated by the DO. In

fact, relatively little contact was initiated by the victim. Also, 

there was very little effort to contact victims in the control group 

(3.1% of the cases).

This intervention is best viewed as intention and effort by the

DO to contact and communicate with domestic violence victims whose 

offenders were under no-contact orders as a condition of their 

release. Sometimes, the effort to contact was successful and sometimes 

it was not. But, it is worth reminding readers that victims were under 

no legal obligation to cooperate with or even make themselves

available to law enforcement for the purpose of this intervention. 

Based on our own experiences in interviewing victims for this study, 

we are not surprised that efforts to contact victims were often

unsuccessful. In our view, this difficulty will need to be taken into

consideration whenever efforts to plan victim-directed domestic

violence interventions are undertaken. Even so, it is clear that the 

threshold levels of contact between the DO and victims were

substantially higher in the treatment group than in the control group. 

Thus, on average, the treatment and control groups had different 

contact experiences with the DO.

broadly construed to include everyone who was randomly assigned to treatment. 

Thus, our analysis is best viewed as an "intent to treat" estimate of the 

treatment effect (Horvitz-Lennon et al., 2005). Overall, these sorts of 

problems add up to the general problem of treatment noncompliance - a problem 

that exists in many field experiments in both the medical and social 

sciences. Going forward, we will be closely examining how to address 

treatment noncompliance problems in our data to develop alternative estimates 

of our treatment effects.

79

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.
Gateway Arrest Dispositions 

Since no-contact orders typically remain active until a

disposition is reached in the case, one of the issues we wanted to 

explore was whether case disposition patterns would vary in important

ways between offenders in the treatment and control groups. To examine 

this issue, we compared the treatment and control groups on several

different disposition-related outcomes. Table 3 presents the results 

of these comparisons.

The first comparison reported in Table 3 examines the length of

time offenders spent in jail prior to being released on bond. This is

really a pretreatment characteristic since cases cannot be assigned to 

the treatment or control groups until after they are released on bond. 

Thus, it would be unusual if the groups experienced different lengths

of time in jail. In fact, for both groups, the average amount of time

spent in jail was similar (1.63 days for offenders in the treatment

group and 1.68 days for offenders in the control group); 495 of the

517 offenders in our study spent seven days or less in jail prior to 

being released on bond. Overall, then, it appears quite typical for

offenders in our study to be released on bond fairly quickly and this

tendency was evident for offenders in both the treatment and control 

groups.

Next, we examined the mean number of days between the gateway

arrest and the offenders’ first appearance date. The first appearance

date is a critical time because that date represents the offender's

opportunity to enter a guilty or no-contest plea (both of which result 

in a conviction) or request a bench trial or jury trial. Under some

circumstances, at first appearance, the prosecutor will offer the

80

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.
offender an opportunity to enter a Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI)

program.

The PTI program is only available to a comparatively small group 

of offenders who meet the eligibility requirements for the program.

Eligibility requirements include never previously being convicted of a 

felony, no prior CDV convictions, consent of the prosecutor, payment 

of fees, and are not currently on probation. Approximately 10% of the

cases that are processed in the CDVC are referred to PTI. If an

offender successfully completes PTI program requirements (i.e.,

session attendance for 26 weeks, satisfactory program participation, 

payment of program fees, no new criminal activities, passing drug

tests, and keeping program administrators updated with a current 

address and telephone number), then the prosecutor drops the charges 

against the offender. Offenders also have the option to have their 

record expunged at the successful conclusion of their PTI program by 

paying appropriate fees and filing appropriate paperwork with the

court and solicitor's offices. Overall, 85 of the 517 offenders

(16.4%) in our study had the opportunity to participate in one of the

PTI programs. 

Oversight of this programming and the custody of records 

documenting the progress being made or not made by each offender in

the treatment program are managed by ODP. Thus, the first appearance

date is a key point in the processing of CDV1 cases in Lexington 

County. The analysis of time to first appearance indicates that on 

average, about 30 days passed between the gateway arrest date and the

first appearance date for offenders in both the treatment and control

groups.

81

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.
Most of the cases in our study were disposed before July 1, 2008 

but some were not. Table 3 indicates that 81.4% of the treatment group 

cases had a disposition (193 cases out of 237 cases) by the end of 

June while 79.5% of the control group cases had been disposed (182 

cases out of 229 cases) by the end of June. Therefore, the rate at 

which cases were disposed appears to be about the same for both

groups. Among the cases that were disposed, we calculated the number 

of days between the gateway arrest date and the final disposition

date. Overall, this average length of time to disposition was just 

over 180 days and the difference between the groups (186.5 days for

offenders in the treatment group and 176.5 days for offenders in the 

control group) was small.

In terms of the actual disposition of the cases, there does not

appear to be substantive or important differences between the groups.

In both the treatment and control groups, 59% of the cases were

disposed with a conviction while less than 10% were disposed with an 

acquittal. For both groups, the prosecutor declined to prosecute 

(nolle pros) about 15% of the cases.

Table 3 compares the dispositions of these cases between the 

treatment and control groups. The comparisons reveal no important

differences in the disposition of these cases. For both groups,

approximately 55% of the offenders who had the opportunity to

participate actually completed their treatment program successfully. 

Another similarity between offenders in the two groups is that 

approximately 20% of the offenders who participated were terminated

from the program before completing. Overall, about 5% of the

offenders who were given the opportunity to participate were not able

82

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 enroll successfully while the remaining 20% of the cases were still 

pending at the time the official records were searched in June 2008. 

In sum, the analyses of processing time, disposition of the case,

and pretrial diversion programming presented in Table 3 provide us 

with no indication that the offenders in the treatment group were

processed or had their cases disposed any differently than the 

offenders in the treatment group. In fact, all of the comparisons

suggest that the processing patterns for the two groups were quite 

similar to each other.

Official Record Outcome Analysis

We now turn to a comparison of officially recorded criminal

activities that occurred after the gateway arrest for offenders in 

both groups. These comparisons are based on criminal histories 

obtained through NCIC record searches conducted at the LCSD. Our first 

set of comparisons is based on the assumption that the random

assignment to treatment and control groups is sufficient to ensure 

comparability. An important issue that arises in any recidivism study

is the length of the follow-up period. Since individual cases entered

our study between fall 2005 and summer 2007 and we searched all

criminal histories at the same time, there is considerable variation 

in the length of the follow-up period in our sample. A key issue,

then, is whether the length of the follow-up period was about the same 

for the two groups. Based on the first line of Table 4, the answer to

this question appears to be "yes." In other words, the length in the

variation in follow-up time that was used to assess offender 

83

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
recidivism was comparable for offenders in both the treatment and

control groups. 

The next comparison in Table 4 examines the proportion of

offenders who were rearrested for any offense between the gateway

arrest date and the record search date. The comparison indicates that

both groups were rearrested at about the same rate (treatment group =

38.8%; control group = 40.6%). We then examined the number of postgateway arrests for both groups. The first comparison excludes 

offenders who had zero arrests (treatment group = 1.685; control group 

= 1.624) during the follow-up period and the second comparison 

includes the zero arrests (treatment group = 0.654; control group =

0.659). Neither comparison suggests any important difference in the

rearrest frequencies for offenders in the treatment and control

groups.

We also examined new arrests occurring in South Carolina, new

arrests processed by the LCSD, and arrests processed by the LCSD 

involving predatory crimes (i.e., crimes where there is a logical

victim) against the same victim. We were only able to identify crime 

victims for LCSD arrests.3 For each of these outcomes the rearrest rate 

for offenders in the treatment group is slightly lower than the rearrest rate for offenders in the control group. But the differences

are not large and they are not statistically significant at a twotailed p < .05 significance level.

Two cases in the treatment group, one case in the control group and two 

cases in the interim control group were rearrested by the LCSD for a crime 

where the victim could have been the gateway incident victim. In these 

instances, however, we could not determine the victim's identity so we don't 

know whether the victim was the gateway victim.

84

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.
Most of the crime-specific differences between recidivism rates

for the treatment and control groups presented in Table 4 are very 

small. None of them are statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05

significance level). Still, two of the differences in particular seem

noteworthy. First, there are two types of contempt charges: (1)

FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt; and (2) All Other Contempt. The first type

of contempt includes failure to appear, failure to pay, and contempt 

by an attorney while the second captures all other types of contempt.

We would expect that the treatment group might have higher rates of

all other contempt because that category would include no-contact

order violations that resulted in an arrest.4 In fact, the treatment 

group does have a higher rearrest rate for contempt but the difference 

is not large and it is not statistically significant.

A second difference worth noting is the lower rate of rearrest 

for domestic violence in the treatment group (9.7%) than the control 

group (14.0%). While this difference is not statistically significant, 

it strikes us as with substantive interest. We also note that the rate 

of subsequent charges for violent and property offenses is lower for 

offenders in the treatment group than for offenders in the control 

group although, once again, neither difference is statistically

significant at the two-tailed p < .05 significance level. While this 

pattern of results is certainly consistent with a beneficial treatment 

effect, the differences are relatively small and, as discussed 

previously, there is ambiguity about the comparability of the groups.

Some no-contact order violations are detected at the court and do not result 

in an arrest because the prosecutor sometimes uses these violations as 

leverage to solicit a guilty plea. These types of violations are not 

systematically recorded in either the arrest records or the court records 

because they are handled informally.

85

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.
To address this ambiguity, we estimated a set of logistic

regression equations reported in Table 5. These regression equations 

were estimated among the randomized treatment and control cases and

were designed to adjust for the differences between the treatment and

control groups noted in Table 1. In each of these regressions, we

included an indicator variable for the randomized treatment condition, 

a count of the number of children reported by the offender at the jail 

booking, an indicator variable for whether the offender was born in

South Carolina, an indicator variable for whether the offender had 

ever been previously arrested (prior to the gateway arrest) for

domestic violence and an indicator variable for whether the offender 

had ever been previously arrested (prior to the gateway arrest) for a

traffic offense. Some of these models could not be estimated because 

of very low recidivism rates for some offense categories. But the

models could be estimated for contempt, domestic violence, and any 

subsequent violent and property offending. Although the direction of 

the effect continues to support the idea that treatment effects are

beneficial none of the treatment effect estimates are statistically

significant at the two-tailed p < .05 significance level.

Our overall conclusion from the official record analysis is that 

the treatment condition may yield some beneficial results in terms of

reductions in arrests for subsequent domestic violence and other 

predatory offenses but these reductions are relatively small and not 

statistically significant.

86

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.
Overview of Victim Interview Analysis

To complement the official record analysis, we attempted to

conduct two interviews with all female victims of the offenders who

were enrolled in our study. In other words, victims of all cases being 

prosecuted in the CDVC whose case was under a no-contact order were

targeted for two interviews, regardless of their offender’s group

membership. The initial or Time 1 interview was targeted for six weeks 

after the gateway arrest while the follow-up or Time 2 interview was 

targeted for six months after the gateway arrest. Beginning with

cases enrolled in the spring of 2007, Time 2 interviews were conducted 

with victims whose offenders were in both the treatment and control

groups on an accelerated basis. The goal of the victim interviews was

to measure victim demographic characteristics, living circumstances, 

life experiences, interactions with the offender, interactions with

the LCSD and the CDVC, an understanding of the no-contact order, 

safety, and well-being.

One of our principal concerns was whether interview response 

rates varied for treatment and control cases. Table 6 presents an

overview of our interview response rates for the Time 1 interview, the 

Time 2 interview, and the Time 1 and Time 2 interviews combined. Three 

individuals completed a diversionary Time 1 interview followed by a

normal Time 2 interview. These individuals are counted as responders 

for the Time 2 interview but are treated as missing for the Time 1 

interview. So, while there are 100 completed Time 2 interviews there 

are only 97 combined sets of Time 1-Time 2 interviews.5

The two co-principal investigators on this project received funds from 

another source to conduct additional interviews of these victims in the 

87

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.
Among victims with whom we were able to establish contact for

Time 1 recruitment, 28 actually refused to participate in our study. 

An additional 10 cases were not recruited because they could not speak 

English. In 48 cases, we successfully scheduled a Time 1 interview but 

the victim did not show up to complete the interview (in some

instances, multiple appointments were missed). We consider these 

victims to be "passive refusers." Combined with the 141 female victims 

we were able to interview, this leaves a total of 210 cases where no 

contact with the victim was made. For Time 2 recruitment, no effort

was made to contact victims unless they had successfully completed a 

Time 1 interview. There were no overt refusals to participate during 

Time 2 interview recruitment. One victim did refuse to participate in

a Time 2 interview but she expressed her refusal at the conclusion of

the Time 1 interview.

The results in Table 6 indicate that victim interview response 

rates were slightly higher for treatment cases than for victims whose

offender was in the control group. But the differences between the 

groups were relatively small and no differences were statistically 

significant. Response rates for the interim control group were 

substantially lower than those for the other two groups, and we

therefore do not include this group in our interview outcome analyses. 

summer of 2007 while the field phase of the study was wrapping up. The goal 

of this effort was to create a database of pilot interviews which could be 

used as the basis for requesting future funding to continue following the 

victims in our study prospectively. Some victims who completed a Time 1 

interview and did not complete a Time 2 interview did receive a pilot 

interview. But we note that this only occurred when the length of time 

between the Time 1 interview and the pilot interview would have been too 

short for meaningful follow-up between the two interviews. For example, in 

most of these instances a Time 1 interview was followed by a pilot interview 

within two-three weeks. We considered using these pilot interviews as Time 2 

interviews but rejected this possibility because of the short time period and 

differences in the format and objectives of the interviews. 

88

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 lower quality of victim contact information received during the

interim period had an adverse effect on our ability to contact these 

victims of offenders who were arrested for CDV during this time

period. Even with the randomized groups, our response rate was lower 

than we would have liked. Nevertheless, given our avoidance of the 

court as a forum to contact victims combined with the difficulties of

locating individuals who primarily use unlisted cell phones to 

communicate and who are in comparatively less stable living situations 

because they move around quite often for safety reasons, we think we 

are fortunate to have achieved the response rates we actually

attained.

The interviews were extensive and covered a wide range of issues 

with each victim - more issues than we could examine within the

framework of a single report. Still, we have conducted a large number

of analyses with the victim interview data which we will briefly 

outline here. First, we examine the differences between the treatment

and control groups on pretreatment characteristics for the cases that

were actually interviewed. Although treatment group victims and

control group victims were quite comparable to each other as a whole,

we need to determine whether this relatively high degree of

comparability applies to the subset of individuals that were 

interviewed, out of the total population of all victims that could 

have been interviewed.

Second, we conduct analyses where victims in the treatment and 

control groups are compared on outcomes measured by the interviews.

These analyses parallel those of the official record study insofar as

we conduct direct group comparisons and we then estimate regression

89

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.
models where variables whose levels appear to differ between the 

groups are held constant.

Third, we conduct a detailed set of analyses where we examine

differences between victims who were interviewed and victims who were

not on characteristics that are observed for everyone. A study of

these differences allows us to determine how victims that were not 

able to be contacted (the missing cases) might be different in 

important ways from victims that we were able to successfully

interview. Based on these analyses, we construct weights that can be 

applied to the observed cases. The goal of the weighting exercise is 

to estimate treatment effects that generalize to the entire population 

of interest - not just the individuals who were interviewed.

Last, we conduct an analysis with the weighted sample of victims 

who completed interviews where we compare the treatment and control

groups on pretreatment characteristics and interview outcomes. The 

weighted interview outcome analysis involves both direct comparisons 

between the treatment and control groups and weighted regressions

which include adjustments for differences between the groups on

pretreatment characteristics.

Pretreatment Equivalence of Interviewed Cases

The randomized treatment and control cases appear to be quite

similar to each other on many pretreatment characteristics. Moreover,

the randomized treatment and control cases appear to have similar

response rates. It does not follow, however, that the interviewed

treatment and control groups are similar to each other on pretreatment 

characteristics. The analysis reported in this section attempts to 

90

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.
establish the equivalence or comparability of the treatment and

control victims who were actually interviewed.

Table 7 presents a comparison of the treatment and control 

victims who completed a Time 1 interview on a wide range of

pretreatment characteristics measured in the official records. 

Although there are many similarities between the groups, two 

differences are noteworthy. First, control group victims were more 

likely to have been born in South Carolina (71.0%) than treatment

victims (52.6%) and treatment group victims were more likely to have 

been arrested for an assault (36.8%) compared to control victims 

(17.7%) Table 8 presents additional comparisons based on pretreatment

characteristics measured in the Time 1 victim interviews. Again, while 

there are many similarities there also appear to be two substantively

important differences. First, the control group had a higher 

prevalence of black victims (25.8%) than the treatment group (13.2%).

Additionally, the treatment group victims were more likely to report 

that the offender was an ex-boyfriend at the time of the gateway 

incident (10.7%) than the control group victims (3.2%).

Tables 9 and 10 present a similar analysis for the Time 2

interview data. The official record analysis presented in Table 9

indicates substantively important differences between treatment and

control groups on the following characteristics: (1) offender born in

South Carolina (79.6% in control group vs. 58.5% in the treatment

group); (2) any prior assault charges (35.9% in the treatment group

vs. 20.5% in the control group); (3) contempt of court (9.1% in the

control group vs. 1.9% in the treatment group); (4) any prior charges

for traffic offenses (47.7% in the control group vs. 26.4% in the

91

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.
treatment group); and (5) number of days between the gateway arrest

and the date of the Time 1 interview (mean of 53.98 days for the 

treatment group vs. 44.37 days for the control group). None of the 

comparisons reported in Table 10 point to large differences between

the groups.

We next compared treatment and control group victims who 

completed both a Time 1 and a Time 2 interview on pretreatment 

characteristics measured in the official records and on the Time 1 

interview. The results are presented in Tables 11 and 12.6 With the 

exception of three victims (one in the randomized treatment group, one 

in the randomized control group, and one in the interim control

group), who completed a Time 2 interview but not a Time 1 interview, 

this sample provides the same comparisons as the tests for equivalence 

among victims who completed a Time 2 interview. Thus, the differences

identified for Time 2 interviewees are identical to those identified 

for those who completed both Time 1 and Time 2 interviews.

Overall, the comparisons presented in this section indicate that 

the randomized treatment and control victims who were interviewed are

quite comparable to each other. But there are some differences between 

the groups that will require adjustment when we examine the effects of 

treatment on interview outcomes.

Table 12 duplicates Table 10 because the analysis is based on information 

provided in the Time 1 interview. So, the only individuals who can contribute 

to the analysis in Table 10 are individuals who completed both the Time 1 and 

Time 2 interviews.

92

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.
Unweighted Interview Outcomes

We turn now to a comparison of the randomized treatment and

control group outcomes, as reported by victims. The comparisons are

organized as follows. First, we present direct comparisons of outcomes 

measured at the Time 1 interview. Then, we present regression-adjusted 

estimates of the effects of treatment on the Time 1 interview

outcomes. The regression models include estimates for the effects of 

treatment and other characteristics that distinguished between 

treatment and control cases among those who completed a Time 1 

interview. We then conduct a similar analysis for victims who

completed a Time 2 interview. Finally, similar models are estimated 

for outcomes combined across both interviews.

Although there are many potential outcomes, we focused on several

that relate most directly to the targets of the intervention: contact

with the offender, knowledge about the no-contact order, contact with

the LCSD, and safety. At the Time 1 interview, the questions focused 

on the time period between the gateway arrest and the interview date.

At the Time 2 interview, the questions focused on the period of time 

that had passed since the first interview. These outcomes include the

victim's relationship with the offender at the time of the interview,

whether the victim was worried about her safety, whether the victim

carried a weapon to defend herself against the abuser, whether the 

victim had contacted the offender, whether the offender and victim 

were living together at the time of the interview, whether the 

offender and victim had lived together at all during the reference 

period, whether the victim had been contacted by a LCSD deputy during

the reference period, whether the victim had been contacted by a LEVA

93

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.
during the reference period, and the trend in the abuse by the 

offender (no abuse, stayed about the same, reduction in abuse, 

increase in abuse). 

In addition to being asked about the trend in the abuse, victims 

were asked a number of questions about various kinds of abuse. These 

questions were combined into logical groupings of psychological

aggression, physical aggression, sexual coercion, injury, and

stalking/threatening behavior. For each group of items, we 

distinguished between those who experienced any of the behaviors 

within that grouping and those who experienced none of the behaviors.

Next, we created "variety scales" where we added up the number of

different kind of behaviors each victim experienced within each group. 

So, as an example, if a victim experienced three different types of

psychological aggression, she received a score of 3 on the 

psychological aggression variety scale.

The psychological aggression group included questions about the

offender engaging in the following behaviors toward the victim: (1)

insults/swears; (2) shouts; (3) stomps out of the room; (4) threatens

to hit; (5) threatens to throw things; (6) destroys property; (7)

threatens to hurt others; (8) calls names like "fat" and "ugly"; (9) 

accusations of laziness; (10) accusation of being a lousy lover; (11)

preventing access to family money; (12) preventing from seeing family

or friends; (13) preventing from working; (14) insisting on knowing

whereabouts; and (15) knowing who calls on the phone.

The physical aggression group includes questions about the 

offender engaging in overt physical attacks on the victim including: 

(1) kicking; (2) biting or punching; (3) slapping; (4) beating up; (5) 

94

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.
hitting with an object; (6) choking; (7) slamming into a wall; (8) 

grabbing; (9) throwing something; (10) using knife or gun; (11)

pushing or shoving; (12) twisting arm or hair; (13) burning or 

scalding.

The sexual coercion group includes the following questions about 

actions by the offender against the victim: (1) insisting on anal sex

but no force; (2) insisting on unprotected sex but no force; (3) using 

threats to coerce sex; (4) using threats to coerce anal sex; (5) 

forcing victim to have sex; and (6) forcing victim to have anal sex. 

The injury group asks victims about actual injuries inflicted on 

them by the offender during the reference period. This group is

comprised of the following items: (1) cut or bleeding; (2) aches or

pains; (3) felt pain the next day; (4) sprains or bruises; (5) 

scratched; (6) private parts bleeding; (7) broken bones or teeth; (8)

head injury or concussion; (9) knocked unconscious; (10) hair pulled 

out; (11) eye or ear injury; (12) internal injuries; (13) received 

medical treatment for injuries; (14) offered medical treatment but 

declined; (15) saw medical doctor afterward; (16) needed to see a

doctor but didn't; and (17) received medical care at the hospital.

The final group of questions asks about stalking or threatening

behaviors by the offender directed at the victim during the reference

period including: (1) following; (2) spying; (3) standing outside

home; (4) going to parents' house; (5) leaving items to find; (6)

unsolicited telephone calls; (7) vandalizing victim's property; (8)

showing up where he doesn't belong; (9) electronic communication; (10) 

giving messages through others; and (11) threats to deter the victim 

from going to court.

95

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 presents the direct treatment-control comparisons of

outcomes measured at the Time 1 interview. Unlike our official record

analysis, some of the differences in this table are statistically

significant (two-tailed, p < .05 significance level). Victims in the 

treatment group were more likely to report being divorced at the Time

1 interview (44.7%) than control group victims (26.2%). In addition, 

victims in the treatment group were significantly more likely to 

report having been contacted by a LCSD deputy (52.6%) than victims in

the control group (35.5%). Treatment group victims also reported 

significantly higher scores on the physical aggression variety scale 

(count of the number of different types of physical aggression 

experienced since the gateway arrest) but this difference is based on

very small numbers since 9.3% of treatment group victims and 3.2% of 

control group victims reported experiencing any physical aggression at 

all. Victims in the treatment group also reported significantly higher 

levels of stalking and threats by the offender since the gateway 

arrest (differences in both prevalence and variety of stalking and 

threats) compared with the levels of stalking and threats reported by

victims in the control group. 

Because the groups do exhibit some important differences, we 

conducted a second analysis of the Time 1 interview data where we

regressed the outcomes on the treatment indicator variable and the 

four major pretreatment differences identified in Tables 7 and 8 (born 

in South Carolina, prior assault charges, victim's race is black, and

an indicator for whether the offender was the victim's ex-boyfriend at 

the time of the gateway incident). The results of these regressions

are presented in Table 14. Because of sparse data for some 

96

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.
combinations of these characteristics, some of the models would not

converge with all five predictor variables. When this occurred, the

variable causing the problem was removed and the model was reestimated. The results of these regressions indicate that all but one

of the treatment effects are statistically non-significant at the twotailed p < .05 significance level after adjusting for the influence of 

the treatment-control group differences. The one exception occurs with 

the estimated effect of treatment on the physical aggression variety 

scale. But, as noted above, this result is based on a scale where

there is very little variation (since the overwhelming majority of 

victims in both groups reported no physical aggression between the 

gateway arrest and the Time 1 interview).

Next, we turn to the Time 2 interview results. Table 15 presents 

direct comparisons of the outcomes between the two groups and reveals

that the only statistically significant differences involve reports of 

stalking or threatening behavior by the offender. In both comparisons, 

victims in the treatment group report higher levels of 

stalking/threatening behavior than victims in the control group. As

noted previously, there were several important pretreatment

differences between the treatment and control group victims who

completed a Time 2 interview. These differences included: (1) whether

the offender was born in South Carolina; whether the offender had

prior arrests for (2) assault charges, (3) contempt charges, or (4)

traffic charges; and (5) the length of time between the gateway arrest 

and the Time 1 interview. Table 16 presents regression-adjusted

treatment effect estimates where predictor variables measuring these 

differences were included in the models. After adjusting for these 

97

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.
differences, none of the treatment effect estimates are statistically

significant.

Our final unweighted interview comparison examines treatment and 

control group differences on outcomes combining information from the 

Time 1 and Time 2 interviews. According to Table 17, the only

statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two 

groups is the percentage of victims who report having been contacted 

by a LEVA. Treatment group victims reported contact with a LEVA in 

73.1% of the cases compared to a lower rate of 51.1% in the control

group. Differences in contact between a LCSD deputy sheriff and the

victim were sizable (55.8% in the treatment group compared to 39.5% in 

the control group) but not statistically significant. The differences

between the groups in rates of subsequent abuse and victimization

experienced by victims in the treatment and control groups were all

substantially smaller.

Table 18 presents the regression-adjusted estimates of treatment 

effects. These regressions actually adjust for the same pretreatment 

differences noted for the Time 2 interviews. Except for the apparent 

effect of the treatment on LEVA contact, none of the regressionadjusted treatment effects were statistically significant.

Summary of the Unweighted Interview Analysis

Overall, our conclusion from the unweighted interview data is

that there are some potentially interesting outcome differences in the 

direct comparisons of the treatment and control groups. Interesting

differences in the Time 1 interview data include contacts with the 

LCSD, psychological abuse, physical abuse, and stalking. In the Time

98

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 interview data, the direct comparisons suggested important 

differences between victim experiences in the treatment and control

groups in stalking victimization. In the combined analysis, the only 

statistically significant direct comparison involved LEVA contact. 

However, since there are also some pretreatment differences between

the groups these direct outcome comparisons are somewhat ambiguous. To 

address this ambiguity, we estimated regression models to adjust the 

treatment effect estimates for the effects of these pre-existing 

differences.

In the Time 1 interview data, only the effect of treatment on the

physical abuse variety scale remained statistically significant. But 

this finding is of questionable significance since less than 10% of

both groups experienced any physical aggression during the time period 

between the gateway arrest and the Time 1 interview. Turning to the

Time 2 interview data, the only statistically significant difference 

found between victim experiences in the treatment and control groups 

was for stalking behaviors. But after adjusting for pretreatment 

differences between the groups, there were no statistically

significant treatment effect estimates for any of the Time 2 outcomes.

For the analysis of the combined interviews, both the direct 

comparisons and the regression-adjusted treatment effect estimates 

indicated that victims in the treatment group were more likely to have 

experienced contact with a LEVA. But none of the remaining differences 

between victim experiences in the treatment and control groups were

statistically significant.

99

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.
Differences between Interviewed and Non-Interviewed Cases

Our assessment of the victim interview data thus far depends on

the assumption that the interviewed and non-interviewed cases do not 

differ from each other in important ways that are relevant to our

research question. Because this is a strong (and probably unrealistic) 

assumption to make, we now turn to a survey of potential differences 

between the observed and missing cases. Because the missing cases do 

not contribute any information to the victim interview data, our 

assessment focuses on differences between the observed and missing 

cases on various items from the administrative offender data which are 

observed for all cases. This assessment is an important foundation 

upon which to estimate sampling weights and is used to make

adjustments for nonresponse. We also note that the problems we face

with nonresponse in this study are commonly encountered in domestic

violence research that involves interviews with victims. We hope the 

methods used here will also be useful for other researchers facing 

similar problems.

Table 19 presents a comparison of the missing and observed Time 1

interview cases on pretreatment offender characteristics in the

administrative data. The analysis suggests some differences in racial

composition between the two groups. Specifically, the missing cases

tend to have more offenders in the "other" race category and more

offenders of Hispanic ethnicity, compared to the race of the offenders 

of victims who were interviewed. Additionally, the offenders in the

observed cases (victims’ offenders who were interviewed) tend to have

more years of education and spent a little more time in jail on

average prior to release compared to the offenders of victims who were 

100

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.
not interviewed. The comparisons also indicate a higher rate of prior

contempt charges among observed cases (offenders victims who were

interviewed) while there is a higher rate of prior traffic offense 

charges for the missing cases (offenders of victims who were not 

interviewed). There is an apparent difference in the prevalence of 

prior kidnapping charges between the two groups (offenders of victims

who were interviewed compared to those who were not) but the rates for 

both groups were very low.

In Table 20, we consider differences between the observed and

missing cases on offender case dispositions and outcomes found in the

official record data. This analysis indicates that guilty verdicts are 

more prevalent among the observed cases (offenders of victims who were 

interviewed) while not guilty verdicts are more prevalent among the

missing cases (offenders of the victims who were not interviewed). In

terms of outcomes in the official record data, a noteworthy difference 

is the higher rate of property offenses among missing cases (offenders 

of victims who were not interviewed).

We now turn to a comparison of the Time 2 interview participants 

and missing Time 2 cases. Table 21 reveals race and ethnicity

differences similar to those noted at the Time 1 interviews (race and

ethnicity of interviewed victims’ offenders compared to the race and 

ethnicity of victims’ offenders who were not interviewed). The 

offenders in the observed cases also tended to have higher education 

levels (also noted at the Time 1 interview). Offenders in observed 

cases (offenders of victims who were interviewed) were significantly 

more likely to have been born in South Carolina and to have been 

previously arrested by the LCSD compared to offenders of victims who 

101

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 not interviewed. Additionally, the offenders in the observed

cases (cases involving an interview) tended to be followed up about 45 

days longer on average than the offenders in the missing cases (cases

not involving an interview). Finally, the offenders in the missing 

cases (offenders of victims who were not interviewed) were more likely 

to have pre-gateway arrests for theft than offenders in the observed 

cases (offenders of victims who were interviewed). Table 22 compares 

the observed (interviewed) and missing (non-interviewed) cases on the

administrative data outcomes. This analysis suggests a higher rate of

guilty verdicts in the observed cases (cases involving an interview) 

and a slightly higher rate of post-gateway contempt charges for

failure to appear or failure to pay fines in the observed group (cases 

involving an interview). We note, however, that both groups had very 

low rates of these types of contempt charges after the gateway arrest.

Tables 23 and 24 indicate that our comparisons of cases where the

victim was interviewed at both Time 1 and Time 2 versus cases where

the victim had a missing interview at either Time 1 or Time 2 yield

the same substantive results as the Time 2 only comparison. Since the

vast majority of individuals who completed a Time 2 survey also

completed a Time 1 survey this is not particularly surprising.

Overall, the results presented in Tables 19-24 suggest that the

observed and missing cases are, in fact, comparable in many respects.

In other words, domestic violence cases where we were able to

interview victims were similar to domestic violence cases where we 

were not able to interview victims. But there are some important 

differences between the groups in terms of race and ethnicity, 

offenders’ years of education, whether the offender was born in South

102

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

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

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

Carolina, case dispositions, and arrests for certain types of

offending activity. Our next set of analyses will make an effort to

adjust for these differences.

Nonresponse Weights

Based on the results presented in the last section, we estimated 

nonresponse weights to be used in our interview analyses. The

procedure we used is discussed by Ridgeway and his colleagues

(2006:16-19) and implemented in the R Package with a procedure called

TWANG (Toolkit for the Weighting and Analysis of Nonequivalent 

Groups). The first step in developing the weights is to estimate a 

statistical model to predict which individuals are observed and which

individuals are missing based on information available in the

administrative data - which is observed for all cases. We use the

variables listed in Tables 25-27 to estimate these models.7

Based on the statistical model, each case is assigned an 

estimated probability of nonresponse which we use to create the firstround weights. For each non-respondent the first-round weight is equal 

to 1. For each respondent the first-round weight is equal to the 

estimated odds of non-response (i.e., the estimated probability of 

The statistical model used to estimate the probabilities of nonresponse is 

included in the TWANG package and is called generalized booted regression. 

Boosting methods are relatively new to the field of criminology and criminal 

justice but are being used with increasing frequency to estimate propensity 

scores which can then be used to estimate treatment effects in observational 

studies. The model in TWANG is estimated by calling the ps() function which 

we implemented with the following parameters: 

stop.methods[c("es.stat.mean")], n.trees = 3000, interaction.depth = 4, 

shrinkage = 0.01. We assessed comparability between the first-round weighted 

responders and nonresponders using TWANG's bal.table() function. Multicategory variables (race, court disposition, pre-trial diversion program 

disposition) are treated as factor (categorical) variables in R for purposes 

of these analyses.

103

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.
nonresponse divided by 1 minus the estimated probability of

nonresponse). The second step of the analysis is to compare the

weighted responders to the nonresponders on all of the characteristics 

discussed in Tables 25-27 to determine the extent to which the model 

helps us improve the comparability of the responders and 

nonresponders.

While the first-round weights are useful for comparing the 

responders to the non-responders, the goal of our analysis is to 

estimate the treatment effect for the population as a whole - both the 

responders and the nonresponders. To accomplish this objective,

Ridgeway and colleagues (2006:16) show that a sampling weight - which

is the inverse of the probability of being observed - is the sum of

two numbers: 1 and the odds of nonresponse. Since the odds of

nonresponse are identical to the first-round weight, the final 

nonresponse sampling weight is equal to 1 + the first-round weight.

Thus, the third step is to construct the final nonresponse weight by 

adding 1 to each of the first-round weights. 

Tables 25-27 present the results of the first two steps and we 

then use the final nonresponse weights obtained from the third step to 

estimate treatment effects. In each of these tables, we present the

unweighted mean/proportion for the observed cases, the first-round 

weighted mean/proportion for the observed cases and the

mean/proportion for the missing cases. Standardized difference 

statistics are calculated before and after weighting to identify 

sources of potential imbalance (lack of comparability) between the 

104

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.
responders and nonresponders.8

 All standardized statistics with an

absolute value exceeding 0.15 are shaded to indicate potential 

imbalances. 

Table 25 presents our assessment of the Time 1 interview first 

round weights. Prior to the construction of the first-round weights

there are twelve imbalances (defined as absolute standardized

difference exceeding 0.15). After applying the first-round weights,

this number was cut to 7. If we use a 0.2 cutoff, the number of preweighted imbalances is 5 and the number of post-weighted imbalances is 

3. Considering the problem of Time 2 nonresponse (Table 26), we see 17 

pre-weighted imbalances (using a 0.15 cutoff) and 12 post-weighted 

imbalances. If we adopt a 0.2 cutoff, there are 12 pre-weighted

imbalances and 6 post-weighted imbalances. For the problem of combined 

Time 1-Time 2 nonresponse (Table 27) and using a 0.15 cutoff for the 

standardized difference statistic, there are 16 pre-weighted 

imbalances and 11 post-weighted imbalances. With a 0.2 cutoff, there 

are 10 pre-weighted imbalances and 5 post-weighted imbalances. In

general, then, it appears that the weighting is helpful at reducing

the number of imbalances resulting from nonresponse bias. In the next

section we return to the issue of pretreatment equivalence after 

weighting for nonresponse. Then, we address the issue of estimating

treatment effects on the outcomes after weighting for nonresponse.

The standardized difference statistic is a fraction. The numerator is the 

difference between the two means being compared. The denominator is the 

standard deviation of the variable among the nonresponders. Generally 

standardized difference statistics exceeding +/-0.2 are considered evidence 

of imbalance or lack of comparability (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1985:36).

105

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.
Pretreatment Equivalence After Weighting for Nonresponse

In this section, we return to the issue of whether the randomized

treatment and control group victims who were interviewed are 

comparable to each other on pretreatment characteristics after 

weighting for nonresponse (cases that did not involve an interview 

with a victim but should have). Table 28 presents a comparison of the

treatment and control group cases among victims who completed a Time 1 

interview with Time 1 interview nonresponse weights. Shaded lines in 

the table indicate potential differences between the groups based on 

chi-square statistics exceeding 2.25 or T-statistics exceeding 1.5.

Some differences are apparent between the groups. Both victims and 

offenders in the control group were more likely to be black and

control group offenders were more likely to have been born in South

Carolina and arrested for contempt before the gateway incident.

Offenders in the treatment group were more likely to have been 

arrested before the gateway incident for assault and driving while 

impaired while victims in the treatment group were more likely to

report that the offender was their ex-boyfriend at the time of the 

incident. Finally, it appears that victims whose offenders were in the 

treatment group experienced a little over six days longer (on average) 

length of time between the gateway arrest and the Time 1 interview 

date than the victims whose offender was in the control group.

Table 29 presents treatment-control group comparisons for victims

who completed a Time 2 interview after weighting for Time 2

nonresponse. According to this analysis, control group offenders were

more likely to have been born in South Carolina and to have been 

arrested for alcohol and traffic offenses prior to the gateway arrest. 

106

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.
Treatment group offenders, on the other hand, waited about nine days 

longer (on average) from the gateway arrest to the date of the first 

interview compared to offenders in the control group.

For the combined Time 1-Time 2 analysis, we compare treatment and

control group cases among victims who completed both a Time 1 and a

Time 2 interview after weighting for nonresponse. This analysis is 

presented in Table 30 and indicates that control group offenders were

more likely to have experienced pre-gateway arrests for traffic

offenses. Victim of offenders in the treatment group also experienced

a longer waiting time between the gateway arrest date and the Time 1 

interview.

Overall, after weighting for nonresponse, the treatment and

control groups look very similar to each other on most pretreatment

characteristics. Nevertheless, there are a few potentially important 

differences that require adjustmentin our weighted interview analyses.

Treatment Effects After Weighting for Nonresponse

In this section, we discuss our weighted interview outcome 

analyses. Beginning with the Time 1 interview outcomes, the analysis 

presented in Table 31 indicates that treatment group victims were more 

likely to report being divorced than control group victims.

Additionally, victims in the treatment group indicated that they were

more likely to have been contacted by a LEVA (contacts by a Sheriff's

Deputy were not significant). Victims in the treatment group also

reported a greater likelihood of having experienced at least one 

stalking/threatening behavior and a higher average number of different 

types of stalking and threatening behaviors. Victims in the treatment

107

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.
group also reported a higher average variety score for physical

aggression but as in the unweighted analyses, very few victims 

reported experiencing any physical aggression by the Time 1 interview. 

We, therefore, put less emphasis on that result.

To adjust for potentially important pretreatment differences 

between the treatment and control groups, we estimated a series of 

regressions (reported in Table 32). In each of these regressions we

included control variables for whether the offender was black, whether 

the offender was a South Carolina native, whether the offender had any 

prior arrests for assault or contempt, whether the victim was black, 

whether the offender was the victim's ex-boyfriend at the time of the

gateway arrest and the waiting time to the first interview. After

adjusting for the effects of these potential confounding variables,

only the stalking/threat measures and physical aggression variety

score effects were statistically significant. Because of the small 

number of victims who reported any physical aggression at all, our 

conclusion from the Time 1 interview is that there appears to be a 

link between the intervention and stalking or threatening behaviors.

The Time 2 interview outcomes are summarized in Table 33 and the 

results indicate greater levels of stalking victimization (both

prevalence and variety). Table 34 reports regression analyses after 

adjusting for the following potential confounders: offender is a South 

Carolina native, whether the offender had been arrested for alcohol or 

traffic offenses prior to the gateway arrest, and the waiting time 

between the gateway arrest and the Time 1 interview. In these

regressions, the effect of the treatment condition on stalking 

continues to be evident and the effect of treatment on the 

108

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.
psychological aggression variety scale is also significant. In both

instances, victims in the treatment group report significantly worse 

outcomes than victims in the control group.

Table 35 presents direct comparisons of treatment and control

group outcomes after combining information from the Time 1 and Time 2

interviews and weighting for nonresponse. In this analysis only the

effect of treatment on victim reports of contact with a LEVA are 

statistically significant. After adjusting for potential confounders 

(Table 36), the treatment's effect on LEVA contacts is still 

statistically significant but none of the other effects are

statistically significant.

109

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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This research project offered the opportunity to examine the 

impact of proactive enforcement of no-contact orders on offender 

behavior and victim safety and well-being in cases of misdemeanor

domestic violence. Although no-contact orders are widely used,

research to date is inconclusive about whether these orders have the 

intended effect of protecting victims, promoting victim well-being,

and reducing offender recidivism. The major elements that have

limited their effectiveness include victim’s lack of knowledge of the

presence and nature of such order, law enforcement’s lax attitude

towards the enforcement of such orders, prosecutors who are reluctant

to prosecute offenders who breech such an order, and judges who are

reluctant to (and often don’t) issue bench warrants to permit police 

to enforce the orders. In previously conducted domestic violence

research, design limitations and questions about the extent to which 

orders are enforced have limited our ability to ascertain the impact 

of no-contact orders. Using an experimental design, our research

focused on the effect of proactive enforcement of court-ordered nocontact orders, as opposed to civil orders that have been the focus in 

much of the previous research. The primary emphasis of the

intervention was to establish contact between the Lexington County 

Sheriff’s Department’s Dedicated Officer and the victim for purposes 

of notifying the victim about the existence of the no-contact order, 

explaining the requirements of the no-contact order, instructing the 

victim what to do if a violation occurred, and monitoring compliance 

with and enforcing the no-contact order. We assessed the

effectiveness of this proactive enforcement of no-contact orders via 

110

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.
analyses of official criminal records data and two sets of victim

interview data. 

Our overall findings indicated few differences between the 

treatment and control groups, and therefore a modest effect of the 

treatment on offender and victim outcomes. Our analyses included an 

examination of officially recorded criminal activities that occurred 

after the gateway arrest that placed the offenders in both groups in 

our study. Our overall conclusion is that the treatment condition may 

yield some beneficial results in terms of reductions in arrests for

subsequent domestic violence and other predatory offenses but these

reductions are relatively small and not statistically significant. 

With respect to our analyses of the interview data, we see few 

differences between the treatment and control groups on most of the

outcomes studied. Some difference were apparent with respect to

contacts with the Lexington County Sherriff’s Department, two types of 

offender behavior, and the victim and offender’s relationship status;

however, these differences did not consistently reach statistical

significance across the full range of our analyses. Nevertheless, the 

patterns are of some interest so we briefly discuss them here. 

First, at the Time 1 interview, victims in the treatment group 

were significantly more likely to report having been contacted by a

LCSD deputy than victims in the control group, suggesting successful 

implementation of the proactive enforcement of no-contact orders to

those in the treatment group. We found other treatment differences

for contacts by law enforcement victim advocates from the Lexington

County Sheriff’s Department. In our combined analysis of the Time 1 

and Time 2 survey data, we found treatment victims were significantly

111

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.
more likely to report contacts with victim advocates. These contacts

between treatment victims and victim advocates may be the result of

their earlier contact with the dedicated officer and victims’

heightened awareness of the resources and services available to

domestic violence victims.

The treatment and control group also differed with respect to two

types of offender behavior. Counter to predictions and the goal of

proactive enforcement, the treatment group victims reported

significantly higher scores on the physical aggression variety scale 

(this is a count of the number of different types of physical

aggression experienced since the gateway arrest). We are cautious to

place significant weight on this finding given that this difference is 

based on very small numbers, with less than ten percent of treatment 

group victims and approximately three percent of control group victims 

having reported experiencing any physical aggression at all. Also, 

while this finding was evident for the Time 1 and Time 2 surveys 

individually, it was not statistically significant in the combined 

analysis of both surveys. 

The second type of treatment difference with respect to offender 

behavior (and victim perceptions of their batterer’s behavior) was 

found for stalking and threatening behaviors. Our survey data suggest 

that victims in the treatment group reported significantly higher

levels of stalking and threats by the offender since the gateway 

arrest (differences in both prevalence and variety of stalking and 

threats) compared with the levels of stalking and threats reported by

victims in the control group. We also note that this finding is 

strongly in evidence in the individual Time 1 and Time 2 surveys;

112

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.
however, it is not statistically significant in the combined analysis

of both interview databases. This finding is discussed below.

Finally, our Time 1 data indicate that victims in the treatment

group were more likely to report being separated or divorced from

their batterer than control group victims. This finding may indicate

that victims were attempting to end their violent relationships and

begin transforming their lives. However, this finding does not 

materialize in the Time 2 interview data.

It is clear from our research that proactive enforcement as

currently operationalized as enhanced contact between law enforcement

and victims is not an effective means of increasing victim safety or 

reducing offender recidivism. While research limitations in 

implementing the treatment and contacting victims for interviews 

limits our ability to fully examine the effect of intensive

enforcement, this is also an incredibly important finding. Our

research findings helps to further elaborate and tells us about what 

doesn’t work in enhancing the safety of domestic violence victims. Our 

findings also address previous concerns raised by other researchers, 

advocates, and social service providers about what constitutes an

effective domestic violence intervention and the relative risks posed

by victim-initiated versus court-ordered law enforcement remedies for

battering. First, our research demonstrates the difficulty of 

implementing even a simple domestic violence intervention. The design 

and plan for the implementation of the treatment protocol was

developed in consultation with the Sheriff’s Office and the prosecutor 

from the domestic violence court. This two-stage intervention was 

believed to address the times when victims were most at risk for 

113

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.
subsequent victimization and witness tampering. Yet, our report notes 

the difficulty of ensuring adequate implementation of even a simple

treatment regime. The implementation of the treatment was limited by

the difficulty in contacting victims and other law enforcement duties

faced by the dedicated officer. Future research will need to address

these logistical concerns. Second, and more importantly, our research 

findings indicate that court-imposed NCOs, and the enforcement of

those orders, do not appear to jeopardize women’s safety or aggravate

recidivism. Third, our findings may be viewed as part of the growing

literature that refutes claims that all law enforcement interventions, 

especially court-imposed remedies for dealing with male perpetrated

domestic violence, either disempower women or put them at greater

risk. Our intervention was designed to specifically enhance women’s 

decision-making, offering women information on the legal system and

their rights, and provide them with options in dealing with a violent

relationship. 

The Stalking Effect

As we note, our research findings from both the Time 1 and Time 2

survey data indicate that women in the treatment group reported a

greater likelihood of having experienced at least one

stalking/threatening behavior and a higher average number of different 

types of stalking and threatening behaviors. While the goal of

treatment implementation was to reduce offender recidivism, we do not

find this result all that surprising. The nature of the victimcomponent of the treatment (proactive enforcement of no-contact

orders) was such that victims were provided with a letter from the 

114

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.
dedicated officer at the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department,

together with a brochure outlining the presence and describing the

nature of the no-contact order in place. Victims in the treatment 

group were provided with examples and illustrations of breeches of the 

orders and were instructed as to their rights in respect to the order. 

The brochure also offered victims a number of suggestions as to how

they might document these breeches, including the use of caller id and 

photographing their incoming calls. Initial contacts to the victim by 

the dedicated officer were also geared toward providing women with 

information on domestic violence and no-contact orders, thus educating 

and empowering women to enforce such orders. Notably, victims in the

treatment group were not only more likely to be aware such an order

was in place, but were also more likely to have had contacts with law

enforcement and victim advocates. 

The treatment in this case may have served to change women’s 

perceptions of their batterer’s behavior. Long-term follow-up of the

Lexington County victims would allow for an examination of whether 

changes in perceptions of batterer behavior might have translated to 

an increased probability that some of the women have ended their 

violent relationships and transformed their lives. 

An alternative explanation for the stalking effect might be that 

the receipt of information from the Lexington County Sheriff’s 

Department and the presence of the officer at the victim’s home might

have aroused suspicion in the offender and lead to changes in his

behavior, including threatening and stalking behaviors.

115

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Non-response Problems

During our project it became apparent that conducting research on

domestic violence victims has changed over the last 20 years. Today 

there exist a number of challenges in contacting victims and 

conducting interviews that did not exist in the past (or were not part 

of human subjects purview), such as the ease at which contacts with

respondents occurred during the 1980’s research on the efficacy of 

mandatory arrest. We experienced great difficulty in attempting to

contact victims on the phone and via regular postal mail. First and 

foremost it is important to note that this population is a highly

transient one. We received our contact information from victim

information sheets and by the time we attempted contact many phone 

numbers had been disconnected. Additionally, we used an online

tracking service to attempt to locate our respondent population. Many 

of the women in our study have had multiple residential locations. 

Transportation problems also presented a problem for our research

subjects to reach the interview location. This resulted in many 

missed interviews and multiple attempts to reschedule. Additionally,

with the advent of cell phones, making contacts with research subjects 

has become and will continue to be increasingly difficult. The use of 

cell phones presented problems for our research staff in contacting

victims since these numbers are not listed publically. Finally, our 

efforts at establishing contact with the victim population were

hindered by important safety and human subject concerns. We did not 

contact the victims in court, which might have been an ideal location

to initiate research contact. 

116

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.
Research Limitations

Despite being based on an experimental design and examination of 

a variety of victim and offender outcomes, this study was not without

its limitations. One specific limitation relates to the caseload. 

Prior to the dedicated officer and research staff entering the field,

South Carolina’s criminal domestic violence law changed and the change 

was implemented in January 2006. The consequence of the change in the 

law for our study site was that the Lexington County Criminal Domestic 

Violence Court now only saw first time misdemeanor domestic violence 

cases. Repeat offenders were now sent up to general sessions court. 

The prosecutor has estimated that this reduced the caseload in 

Lexington County by roughly one-half.

Second, the implementation of the treatment condition was

impacted by a change in the dedicated officer part way through the 

study period and the ability of the officers to make contact with

victims in the treatment group. During the transition to a new

dedicated officer some of the cases that came into the court were

automatically placed in the control condition. Additionally, as we

note, the attempts and successful contacts with victims in the 

treatment group were disappointingly low. Yet, it is important to 

note that this change in staffing and successful contact with this 

population of victims reflects the reality of working with an agency 

and the realistic conditions under which an intervention would be

implemented. We also note that the Lexington County Sheriff’s 

Department implemented this treatment using their existing resources.

The availability of grants to fund interventions of this nature could

potentially lead to higher levels of treatment compliance. Thus, our

117

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.
analysis is best viewed as an "intent to treat" estimate of the

treatment effect (Horvitz-Lennon et al., 2005). Overall, these sorts

of problems add up to the general problem of treatment noncompliance -

a problem that exists in many field experiments in both the medical

and social sciences. Going forward, we will be closely examining how 

to address treatment noncompliance problems in our data to develop 

alternative estimates of our treatment effects. Yet it is important 

to note that these issues that limited the implementation of treatment 

speak to the external validity of our study findings.

Third, both the dedicated officers and our research staff had

difficulty in attempting to contact the women victims in our study for 

an interview. With the growth of cell phone use, this will continue 

to be a problem for researchers. The implication for our research was 

that we were not able to conduct as many interviews as we had hoped. 

Fourth, while our analyses were able to detect and identify

substantive differences in recidivism between the treatment and

control group, for many offenders in our study the observation of

their criminal behavior was relatively brief. Future long-term

follow-up of offenders and victims under proactive enforcement of nocontact orders would allow for an examination of a host of outcomes

that may be the consequences of this type of criminal justice

intervention. 

Given these limitations our research offers a number of

suggestions for future academic work. Although our research indicates 

modest effects of NCO intensive enforcement, given how it was

implemented within this project, our research does call for serious

consideration and evaluation of what might actually constitute 

118

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.
effective “enforcement” of court-imposed NCOs. Specifically, domestic 

violence interventions need to continue to draw on a wide range of law 

enforcement, social service, healthcare, and mental health providers.

Given the clear distinctions between Michael Johnson’s common couple 

violence and intimate terrorism, it is important that domestic 

violence interventions address these elements. Whereas, some

battering relationships are at high risk for subsequent violence and 

potentially lethal violence requiring intensive interventions, other 

batterers may be amenable to other less intensive treatments. With 

respect to no-contact orders this would include an examination of the

nature of contact between victims and their batterers. Contacts 

related to marital counseling, child care arrangements, and other

family commitments are qualitatively different than stalking and 

violence threatening behaviors that maybe indicative of future 

violence. 

Social and Criminal Justice Policy Implications

Overall our findings suggest very moderate effects of the

treatment for women’s well-being and batterer recidivism. While our 

stalking effects point to the potential benefits of empowering 

victims, the remaining findings suggest that relatively simple and

inexpensive domestic violence interventions have modest effects. At 

the same time, proactive enforcement of no-contact orders does not 

appear to place victims at risk for increased or continued violence

and abuse. It is therefore possible that there are other important

reasons for enforcing these types of criminal justice orders. These 

orders are increasingly seen as an appropriate criminal justice

119

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.
response to domestic violence, either in lieu of or in addition to a 

civil action brought by the victim. Used to disrupt the cycle of

violence between bond hearings and judicial proceedings, a NCO 

typically prohibits an offender from contacting a victim during the

period between his arraignment and sentencing. Failure to enforce 

such orders may also potentially serve to send the message that

continued contacts with victims (in which orders are in place) is

acceptable. This is consistent with anecdotal evidence that suggests

some batterers in the past have waived restraining orders in the faces 

of their victims asking them what the paper might do to protect them.

Given that the enforcement of no-contact orders does not place women 

at greater risk, there may therefore be a larger benefit to continuing 

to be “hard on partner violence.” Most importantly, it is important 

that the criminal justice system continue to work towards involving

victims in the criminal justice process and protect their rights 

within that system. An early evaluation of the Lexington County 

Criminal Domestic Violence Court indicated that many victims were

unaware of the presence of no-contact orders. It is therefore crucial 

that if these orders are going to continue to be part of the 

prosecution of domestic violence in South Carolina victims continue to 

be made aware of their presence and provided with information on how 

to enforce these orders to protect themselves and their families.

With respect to our stalking effects, there are a number of

social and criminal justice implications. First, we point to the

continued need for domestic violence interventions that educate women

and offer victims information on the criminal justice system and 

social services empower women in their decision-making. We believe it 

120

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.
is important for domestic violence interventions to continue to

provide women with information on the nature of intimate partner 

violence and the resources available to leave and end violent

relationships. Through the provision of information on the presence 

and nature of no-contact orders (via proactive enforcement by a

dedicated domestic violence officer or a victim advocate), victims 

have access to a tool that may be used to prevent their batterer from

continuing contact, thereby potentially reducing the risk of revictimization. Second, we suggest the continued need for criminal 

justice officials and legislators to examine the prevalence and nature 

of stalking of victims by current and previously intimate partners and 

develop early interventions and enforce orders that prohibit these 

behaviors by defendants facing domestic violence charges. Our 

findings suggest both a high prevalence of stalking behaviors by male

partners and significant differences between the treatment and control 

group with respect to perceiving contact behaviors as stalking and 

potentially threatening. Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) research, a 

collaborative partnership with the Colorado Springs police department, 

found that although stalking is highly prevalent among misdemeanor and 

felony domestic violence cases, stalking rarely leads to independent 

charges for these offenses. More importantly stalking allegations 

were also more prevalent in reports involving victims and suspects who 

were former versus current intimates. Stalking and threatening

behaviors in women’s transitions out of violent relationships has

implications for their health and well-being, physical safety, and 

decisions to testify against their batterer. Attending to these nonviolent stalking and threatening behaviors through the use of criminal 

121

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.
justice interventions might have implications for reducing the future

risk of violent and potentially lethal behaviors by batterers. 

Directions for Future Research

Our findings point to a number of directions for future research 

on the efficacy of criminal justice interventions geared toward

reducing offender recidivism and ensuring victim safety. Given

significant differences between the treatment and control group with 

respect to contacts with the law enforcement victim advocates, we

suggest this is a fruitful area of future research. Although the

advocates were not part of the treatment condition, it appears that

they were more likely to have contacts with victims in the treatment 

group for a variety of reasons and potentially because of the contacts 

between the dedicated officers and the women in the treatment group. 

Future research should explore the importance of advocates for victims 

experiencing domestic violence and look at how the presence and nature 

of contacts between victims and advocates shapes victim decisionmaking. Experimental and matched sample designs would be able to

explore the impact of contacts with advocacy for a host of victim

outcomes. We also suggest that criminal justice agencies and criminal 

justice focused interventions collaborate with social service

providers. An example would be Colorado’s Domestic Violence Enhanced

Response Team (DVERT) programs that work in partnership with community 

agencies to address domestic violence. DVERT’s goal is to provide a 

systematic community response to problem of domestic violence through

a multi-disciplinary collaboration of criminal justice and social

service providers focusing on pro-arrest policies and procedures, case 

122

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.
investigation and prosecution, and implementation of innovative forms

of outreach, advocacy, and services to victims. Evaluations of

similar programs using experimental and quasi-experimental designs 

will be an important component of future domestic violence research as 

scholars attempt to indentify and broaden this list of “what works”

with respect to attending to the tremendous social burden of domestic

and family violence.

123

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A: References

Adhikari, R., D. Reinhard, and J. Johnson. (1993). The Myth of 

Protection Orders. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 15:259-270.

Burgess-Proctor, A. (2003). Evaluating the Efficacy of Protection

Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 

15:33-54. 

Capshew, T., and C. A. McNeece. (2000). Empirical Studies of Civil 

Protective orders in Intimate Violence: A Review of the Literature.

Crisis Intervention, 6:151-167.

Carlson, M. J., S. D. Harris, and G. W. Holden, G. W. (1999).

Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Re-Abuse.

Journal of Family Violence, 14:205-226.

Crandall, M. L., A. B. Nathens, M. A. Kernic, V. L. Hold, and F. P.

Rivara. 2004. Predicting Future Injury among Women in Abusive

Relationships. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care

56:902-912.

Davis, R., and B. Smith. (1995). Domestic Violence Reforms: Empty

Promises or Fulfilled Expectations? Crime & Delinquency, 41:541-552.

DeJong, C., & A. Burgess-Proctor. (2006). A Summary of Personal

Protection Order Statutes in the United States. Violence Against 

Women, 12:68-88.

Fagan, J. (1996). The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises 

and Limits. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (NCJ 157641).

Finn, P. (1991). State-by-state Guide to Enforcement of Civil

Protective Orders. Response to the Victimization of Women & Children,

14:3-12.

Finn, P., and S. Colson. (1998). Civil Protective orders: Legislation, 

Current Court Practice, and Enforcement. Legal Interventions in Family 

Violence: Research Findings and Policy Implications. National 

Institute of Justice and the American Bar Foundation.

Fischer, K. (1992). The psychological impact and meaning of court

orders of protection for battered women. Ph.D. dissertation: 

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Fischer, K., and M. Rose. 1995. When “Enough Is Enough”: Battered

Women’s Decision Making Around Court Orders of Protection. Crime & 

Delinquency, 41:414-429.

Fleury, R. E., C. M. Sullivan and D. I. Bybee. (2000). When Ending the 

Relationship Does Not End the Violence: Women's Experiences of 

Violence by Former Partners. Violence Against Women, 6:1363-1383.

124

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.
Gist, J. H., J. McFarlane, A. Malecha, N. Fredland, P. Schultz, and P. 

Willson. (2001). Women in Danger: intimate Partner Violence

Experienced by Women who Qualify and Do Not Qualify for a Protective 

Order. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19:637-47.

Grau, J., J. Fagan, and S. Wexler. (1984). Restraining Orders for

Battered Women: Issues of Access and Efficacy. Women & Politics, 4:13-

28.

Goodman, L., and D. Epstein. (2005). Refocusing on Women: A New

Direction for Policy and Research on Intimate Partner Violence.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20:479-487. 

Gover, A. R., J. M. MacDonald, and G. A. Alpert. (2003). Combating 

Domestic Violence in Rural America: Findings from an Evaluation of a 

Local Domestic Violence Court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3:109-

132.

Gover, A. R., E. M. Brank, and J. M. MacDonald. (2007). A Specialized

Domestic Violence Court in South Carolina: An Example of Procedural

Justice for Victims and Defendants. Violence Against Women, 13:603-

626.

Holt, V., M. Kernic, T. Lumley, M. Wolf, and F. Rivara. (2002). Civil

Protective orders and Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence. 

Journal of the American Medical Association, 288:589-594.

Holt, V. L., M. A. Kernic, M. E. Wolf, and F. P. Rivara. (2003). Do

Protection Orders Affect the Likelihood of Future Partner Violence and 

Injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24:16-21. 

Horvitz-Lennon, M., A.J. O'Malley, R.G. Frank, and S.T. Normand

(2005). Improving traditional intention-to-treat analyses: a new 

approach. Psychological Medicine, 35:961-970.

Johnson, J., Y. Luna, and J. Stein. (2003). Victim Protective orders 

and the Stake in Conformity Thesis. Journal of Family Violence,

18:317-323

Kaukinen, C. (2004). The Help-Seeking Strategies of Female Violent 

Crime Victims: The Direct and Conditional Effects of Race and the

Victim-Offender Relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19:1-

24.

Kinports, K., and K. Fischer. (1993). Orders of Protection in Domestic 

Violence Cases: an Empirical Assessment of the Impact of the Reform

Statutes. Texas Journal of Women & Law, 2:163-276.

Klein, A. (1996). Re-Abuse in a Population of Court-Restrained Male

Batterers: Why Restraining Orders Don’t Work. In Eve Buzawa and Carl 

Buzawa (Editors) Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Beverly 

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

125

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.
Klein, C., and L. Orloff. (1996). Civil Protective orders. In Deborah

Goleman (Editor). The Impact of Domestic Violence on Your Legal

Practice: A Lawyer’s Handbook. American Bar Asssociation.

Keilitz, S. (1994). Civil Protective orders: A Viable Justice System 

Tool for Deterring Domestic Violence. Violence and Victims, 9:79-84.

Keilitz, S., C. Davis, H. Efkeman, C. Flango and P. Hannaford. (1998). 

Civil Protective orders: Victims’ View on Effectiveness. National

Institute of Justice Research Preview. U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs.

Keilitz, S., P. Hannaford, and H. Efkeman. (1998). The Effectiveness 

of Civil Protective orders. Legal Interventions in Family Violence: 

Research Findings and Policy Implications. National Institute of 

Justice and the American Bar Foundation.

Logan, T., L. Shannon, L., and R. Walker. (2005). Protective Orders in 

Rural and Urban Areas. Violence Against Women, 11:976-911. 

McFarlane, J., A. Malecha, J. Gist, K. Watson, E. Batten, I. Hall, and 

S. Smith. (2004). Protection Orders and Intimate Partner Violence: An

18-Month Study of 150 Black, Hispanic, and White Women. American 

Journal of Public Health, 94:613-619.

Meloy, J. R., P. Y. Cowett, S. Parker, B. Holfand, and A. Friedland. 

(1997). Domestic Protective orders and the Prediction of Subsequent

Criminality and Violence Toward Protectees. Psychotherapy, 34:447-458.

Mills, L. (1998). Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for

Domestic Violence: A Critical Literature Review and the Case for More

Research to Test Victim Empowerment Approaches. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 25:306-318.

Mills, L. (1996). Empowering Battered Women Transnationally: The Case

for Postmodern Interventions. 

Murphy, C.M., P.H. Musser, and K.I. Maton (1998). Coordinated

community intervention for domestic abusers: intervention system 

involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family Violence, 

13:263-284.

Parnas, R. I. (1967.) The Police Response to the Domestic Disturbance. 

Wisconsin Law Review, 2:914-960.

Ridgeway, G., D. McCaffrey, and A. Morral (2006). Toolkit for

weighting and analysis of nonequivalent groups: a tutorial for the 

TWANG package. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Rigakos, G.S. (1995). Constructing the symbolic complaint: police

subculture and the non-enforcement of protective orders for battered 

women. Violence and Victims, 10:227-247.

126

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. (1997). Situational Determinants of Police Responses to

Civil and Criminal Injunctions for Battered Women. Violence Against

Women, 3:204-216.

Rosenbaum, P.R. and D.B. Rubin (1985). Constructing a control group

using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the 

propensity score. The American Statistician, 39:33-38.

Sherman, L. W., J. D. Schmidt, and D. P. Rogan. (1992). Policing 

Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. Free Press, New York, NY.

Sherman, L., D. C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and 

S. D. Bushway (1998). Family-Based Crime Prevention. Preventing Crime: 

What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising. A Report to the United

States Congress, National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P. and N. Thoennes (2000). The Role of Stalking in Domestic

Violence Crime Reports Generated by the Colorado Springs Police

Department. Violence and Victims, 15:1-15.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1996). Interventions for Domestic 

Violence and Stalking. Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking 

Legislation. Annual Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Justice.

Weisz, A., R. Tolman, and L. Bennett. (1998). An Ecological Study of 

Non-Residential Services for Battered Women Within a Comprehensive 

Protocol or Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13:395-415.

Wolf, M. E., V. L., Holt, M. A. Kernic, and F. P. Rivara. (2000). Who

Gets Protection Orders for Intimate Partner Violence? American Journal 

of Preventive Medicine, 19:286-291. 

Yearwood, D. L. (2005). Judicial Dispositions of Ex-Parte and Domestic 

Violence Protection Order Hearings: A Comparative Analysis of Victims

Requests and Court Authorized Relief. Journal of Family Violence,

20:161-170.

Zoellner, L. A., N. C. Feeny, J. Alvarez, C. Watlington, M. L. 

O’Neill, R. Zager, and E. B. Foa. (2000). Factors Associated With

Completion of the Restraining Order Process in Female Victims of 

Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15:1081-1099. 

Violence Against Women Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322

127

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 B: Deputy Sheriff Letter and Victim Brochure

128

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.
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.
"#$!%&'()*!+),-!

./0&*12)*3!45!#678#!

9:)*/;!<7=>8<"><#=7!

!"#$%!&$!'#"(

)*+,(-./(0112(

,.(30.4(+5./,(

5.026(+02(

5.02(

716,789,8.06(

)*+,(86(+(5109*(4+77+0,:(

?!'/*@:!A,BB,*2!&(!,*!)B-/B!&(>

(C/-!'D!,!EC-1/!2)!:,F/!()G/)*/!

,BB/(2/-!,*-!'B)C1:2!'/H)B/!2:/!

@)CB2I!

)*+,(86(9.0,1;<,(.=(9./7,:(

)*+,(,-<1(.=(</086*;10,(2.16(

,*86(716/>,(80:(

5)*2/GJ2!)H!@)CB2!&(!,!H&*-&*1!'D!

,!EC-1/!2:,2!()G/)*/!:,(!F&)K,2/-!

,*!)B-/B!)H!2:/!@)CB2!)B!/*1,1/-!

&*!)2:/B!G&(@)*-C@2!&*F)KF&*1!2:/!

@)CB2I!?/086*;10,(9+0(51(@+8>(

,8;1(.7(+(=801A((

)*+,(,-<1(.=(1B821091(86(011212(

,.(</76/1(+(5109*(4+77+0,:(

LF&-/*@/!*//-/-!2)!JCB(C/!,!

'/*@:!A,BB,*2!F,B&/(!'D!@,(/I!9)(>

(&'K/!2DJ/(!)H!/F&-/*@/!&*@KC-/!

:,*-AB&22/*!*)2/(!K/H2!'D!2:/!-/>

H/*-,*23!@)J&/(!)H!/>G,&K(3!2/K/>

J:)*/!B/@)B-(3!B/@)B-&*1(!)H!2/K/>

J:)*/!@,KK(!)B!F)&@/!G,&K!G/(>

(,1/(3!@,KK/B!MN!B/@)B-(3!,*-!A&2>

*/((!(2,2/G/*2(I!!

!"#$%&'(%)

*(+%',)

-."//$01-)

2"34/'5"%')

!"#$%&'(%)*(+%',)

-."/$001-)

2"34/'5"%')

.LOMP%QRP!5RSPQT!

4UL++MVW4!NL9?+QXLPQ!

C=( -./( =11>( -./( +71( 80( 2+0$

D17E(9+>>(FGG(8;;128+,1>-H(

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 C: Tables 1-36

131

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. Pretreatment Characteristics in Official Records Files Related to the Offenders

Background Characteristic Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 237 229 51 0.8397 0.8253 0.9608 0.4144 

Offender Race = White (d) 237 227 51 0.7173 0.6828 0.8039 0.8105 

Offender Race = Black (d) 237 227 51 0.2152 0.2643 0.1176 -1.2400 

Offender Race = Other (d) 237 227 51 0.0675 0.0529 0.0784 0.6623 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 231 221 49 0.0563 0.0724 0.1429 -0.6992 

Offender Married (d) 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 

232 

237 

237 

224 

227 

227 

50 0.3621 0.4063 0.3600 

51 1.6624 1.8899 1.8824 

51 0.7426 0.7665 0.7843 

-0.9699 

-1.5829 

-0.5979 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 236 227 50 0.0890 0.0749 0.1800 0.5523 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 237 227 51 1.1941 1.3833 1.2549 -1.0263 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 237 227 51 34.8397 34.9868 34.5490 -0.1470 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 231 221 49 11.9957 11.8597 11.2857 0.6692 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 

237 

237 

237 

227 

227 

227 

51 1.6329 1.6784 1.5882 

51 0.5781 0.6476 0.7255 

51 0.9916 0.9956 1.0000 

-0.1549 

-1.5362 

-0.5419 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 237 227 51 0.1266 0.1322 0.1961 -0.1789 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 237 227 51 24.3882 24.3744 24.9020 0.0162 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 237 229 51 0.7595 0.7991 0.6863 -1.0308 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 180 183 35 5.6889 5.1530 5.3429 0.9794 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 237 229 51 4.3209 4.1179 3.6667 0.4285 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 180 183 35 1780.8333 1751.8142 2120.6571 0.1417 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 237 229 51 0.7173 0.7424 0.5490 -0.6089 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 237 229 51 0.4599 0.4541 0.3725 0.1249 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 237 229 51 0.0211 0.0218 0.0000 -0.0549 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 237 229 51 552.9283 540.7817 530.7451 0.7409 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.2405 0.2402 0.1569 0.0084 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 237 229 51 0.2700 0.2751 0.1961 -0.1228 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 237 229 51 0.1181 0.0830 0.1373 1.2605 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 237 229 51 0.0295 0.0218 0.0000 0.5248 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0175 0.0196 -0.8643 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 237 229 51 0.0253 0.0393 0.0196 -0.8551 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.2278 0.2533 0.2549 -0.6422 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 

237 

237 

237 

229 

229 

229 

51 0.3460 0.3537 0.2941 

51 0.1941 0.2620 0.1961 

51 0.2954 0.2620 0.2157 

-0.1747 

-1.7484 

0.8025 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 237 229 51 0.1941 0.1616 0.1961 0.9173 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 237 229 51 0.0506 0.0611 0.0392 -0.4938 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 

237 

237 

237 

229 

229 

229 

51 0.0169 0.0131 0.0196 

51 0.0084 0.0306 0.0000 

51 0.0506 0.0655 0.0784 

0.3351 

-1.7353 

-0.6868 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 237 229 51 0.0549 0.0655 0.0000 -0.4836 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0506 0.0306 0.0588 1.0950 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 

237 

237 

237 

229 

229 

229 

51 0.1814 0.1965 0.2157 

51 0.3460 0.4192 0.2745 

51 0.0928 0.0742 0.0784 

-0.4156 

-1.6264 

0.7245 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.1181 0.1092 0.1176 0.3050 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.0338 0.0306 0.0196 0.1949 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.1308 0.0917 0.1373 1.3401 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.2025 0.1747 0.2549 0.7682 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 237 229 51 0.0169 0.0175 0.0196 -0.0490 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.4388 0.4760 0.3137 -0.8051 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.4346 0.3930 0.3333 0.9111 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that group 

with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of the 

scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while 

the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between 

the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute value of 

the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference.

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. Contact Experiences with LCSD Dedicated Officer

Contact Description Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Any Effort At Contact (d) 237 229 51 0.6751 0.0306 0.0196 14.5057 

Any Contact Success (d) 237 229 51 0.3713 0.0175 0.0000 9.5932 

Time Between Gateway Arrest and First Contact Effort (c) 158 6 1 28.2089 51.0000 67.0000 -0.7501 

Time Between Gateway Arrest and First Successful Contact (c) 63 3 0 21.4921 20.3333 0.1215 

Any Phone Contact Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.4515 0.0262 0.0196 10.7085 

Any Personal Contact Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.0169 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Court Contact Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.4051 0.0044 0.0000 10.6513 

Any Voicemail Contact Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.1392 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Victim Initiated Contact (d) 237 229 51 0.1097 0.0044 0.0000 4.8658 

Officer Contacting Victim Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.6582 0.0306 0.0196 14.2035 

Officer Contacting Offender Effort (d) 237 229 51 0.0759 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Effort to Contact Prior to First Appearance (d) 237 229 51 0.4873 0.0218 0.0000 11.4677 

Any Success at Contacting Prior to First Appearance (d) 237 229 51 0.2585 0.0131 0.0000 7.6783 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in 

that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted 

as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference 

between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this 

table only apply to comparisons between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests.

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. Case Dispositions (for DV Charge Leading to Gateway Arrest)

Case Disposition Measure Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 237 229 51 1.6329 1.6784 1.5882 -0.1549 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance (c) 237 229 51 30.0000 29.8035 34.3725 0.1420 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Final Case Disposition (c) 193 182 44 186.5233 176.5275 212.4091 0.5651 

Case Disposition = Guilty (d) 237 229 51 0.5907 0.5939 0.6667 -0.0696 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty (d) 237 229 51 0.0675 0.0393 0.0784 1.3511 

Case Disposition = Nolle Prosequi (d) 237 229 51 0.1561 0.1528 0.1176 0.0979 

Case Disposition = Death (d) 237 229 51 0.0000 0.0087 0.0000 -1.4418 

Case Disposition = Case Pending (d) 237 229 51 0.1857 0.2052 0.1373 -0.5332 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete (d) 36 44 5 0.5556 0.5455 0.4000 0.0903 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated (d) 36 44 5 0.1944 0.2045 0.2000 -0.1124 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected (d) 36 44 5 0.0278 0.0682 0.0000 -0.8249 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending (d) 36 44 5 0.2222 0.1818 0.4000 0.4495 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in 

that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as 

the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between 

two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only 

apply to comparisons between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. None of the 

reported comparisons are statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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. Official Record Outcomes

Official Record Outcome Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 237 229 51 552.9283 540.7817 530.7451 0.7409 

Any Subsequent Arrest Record (d) 237 229 51 0.3882 0.4061 0.4902 -0.3954 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Excluding Zeros) (c) 92 93 25 1.6848 1.6237 1.6400 0.4291 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 237 229 51 0.6540 0.6594 0.8039 -0.0573 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina (d) 237 229 51 0.3671 0.3930 0.4706 -0.5764 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 237 229 51 0.2278 0.2751 0.3137 -1.1762 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim (d) 235 228 49 0.0723 0.1140 0.1633 -1.5453 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.0506 0.0480 0.0392 0.1294 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults (d) 237 229 51 0.0127 0.0306 0.0588 -1.3338 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary (d) 237 229 51 0.0042 0.0218 0.0196 -1.6862 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0087 0.0196 -0.0345 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 237 229 51 0.0127 0.0087 0.0392 0.4111 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 237 229 51 0.1097 0.0786 0.1765 1.1479 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0211 0.0349 0.0588 -0.9068 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0844 0.0655 0.1176 0.7733 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 237 229 51 0.0970 0.1397 0.1961 -1.4280 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 237 229 51 0.0380 0.0218 0.0392 1.0204 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud (d) 237 229 51 0.0295 0.0437 0.0588 -0.8135 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment (d) 237 229 51 0.0169 0.0000 0.0392 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Homicide (d) 237 229 51 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0131 0.0000 -0.4883 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0044 0.0196 0.5495 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0042 0.0044 0.0000 -0.0243 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft (d) 237 229 51 0.0211 0.0393 0.0000 -1.1509 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0886 0.1004 0.0392 -0.4366 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism (d) 237 229 51 0.0169 0.0087 0.0196 0.7796 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.0084 0.0044 0.0000 0.5495 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 237 229 51 0.0253 0.0306 0.0392 -0.3441 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0042 0.0131 0.0000 -1.0390 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0338 0.0393 0.0588 -0.3192 

Any Subsequent Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 237 229 51 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.1181 0.1703 0.2941 -1.6044 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses (d) 237 229 51 0.0675 0.1135 0.1176 -1.7345 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that group 

with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores 

divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Ztest for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between the 

randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. None of the reported comparisons are statistically 

significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 5. Logistic Regression Recidivism Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances (Official Record Outcomes)

Odds Treatment 

Official Record Outcome Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Wald ChiSquare 

Treatment Error 

Any Subsequent Arrest Record 0.0275 1.0279 0.1968 0.0195 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina -0.0131 0.9870 0.1981 0.0044 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department -0.1470 0.8633 0.2213 0.4410 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim -0.4498 0.6378 0.3333 1.8218 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.0847 1.0884 0.4343 0.0381 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults -0.7495 0.4726 0.7079 1.1211 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary -1.5176 0.2192 1.1087 1.8735 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse 0.0087 1.0087 1.0223 0.0001 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt 0.3799 1.4621 0.3253 1.3636 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses -0.2617 0.7697 0.5945 0.1939 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses 0.3811 1.4639 0.3627 1.1042 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence -0.3416 0.7106 0.2956 1.3359 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.3770 1.4579 0.5793 0.4235 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud -0.4283 0.6516 0.5077 0.7119 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Homicide N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping -0.4026 0.6686 0.9337 0.1859 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft -0.3275 0.7207 0.5860 0.3123 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses -0.0163 0.9838 0.3292 0.0025 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations -0.0040 0.9960 0.5773 0.0000 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses -0.1254 0.8821 0.5025 0.0623 

Any Subsequent Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses -0.3593 0.6982 0.2723 1.7407 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses -0.4750 0.6219 0.3405 1.9460 

Note: The logistic regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: (1) indicator variable 

for treatment (coded 1 if case is randomized to treatment and 0 if the case is randomized to control); (2) a count of the 

number of children reported by the offender at the jail booking; (3) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender is a 

South Carolina native and 0 otherwise; (4) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender has any prior arrests for 

domestic violence and 0 otherwise; and (5) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender has any prior arrests for 

traffic offenses and 0 otherwise. In some models, convergence could not be attained due to quasi-complete separation. 

When this occurred, the predictor variable causing the problem was dropped. Wald chi-square tests in this table only 

apply to the logistic regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in these models. The interim controls 

are not included in these tests. None of the reported comparisons are statistically significant (two-tailed p< .05 

significance level).

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6. Interview Response Rates

Interview Responses Treatment 

Group 

Control 

Group 

Interim 

Control 

Group 

Total 

Total Number of Cases 237 229 51 517 

Number of Male Offender, Female Victim Cases 199 189 49 437 

Number of Victims Completing Time 1 Interview 76 62 3 141 

Number of Victims Completing Time 2 Interview 53 44 3 100 

Number of Victims Completing Both Interviews 52 43 2 97 

Percentage of Victims Completing Time 1 Interview 38.19% 32.80% 6.12% 32.27% 

Percentage of Victims Completing Time 2 Interview 26.63% 23.28% 6.12% 22.88% 

Percentage of Victims Completing Both Interviews 26.13% 22.75% 4.08% 22.20% 

Note: to compare response rates between the treatment and control groups, we calculated chisquare tests of independence. Each of these chi-square tests has one degree of freedom. The test 

statistic for Time 1 interview response rates was 1.2274, for Time 2 interview response rates the 

test statistic was 0.5811 and for the combined Time 1-Time 2 response rates the test statistic 

was 0.5987. None of these tests is statistically significant. 

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 7. Official Record Background Characteristics For Cases Where a Time 1 Interview Was Completed

Background Characteristic Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean Z-Test 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 76 62 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 76 62 0.7368 0.6613 0.9661 

Offender Race = Black (d) 76 62 0.2105 0.3226 -1.4911 

Offender Race = Other (d) 76 62 0.0526 0.0161 1.1414 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 75 61 0.0267 0.0164 0.4057 

Offender Married (d) 75 61 0.4400 0.4262 0.1612 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 76 62 1.6447 2.0484 -1.4287 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 76 62 0.7368 0.7903 -0.7326 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 75 62 0.0800 0.1613 -1.4746 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 76 62 1.2500 1.8871 -0.9734 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 76 62 34.8816 35.4516 -0.3065 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 75 61 12.0400 12.1639 -0.3442 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 

76 

76 

76 

62 2.2237 1.9677 

62 0.5263 0.7097 

62 0.9868 1.0000 

0.3534 

-2.1954 

N/A 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 76 62 0.1579 0.1290 0.4791 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 76 62 23.8421 24.6452 -0.5092 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 76 62 0.7895 0.8065 -0.2467 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 60 50 6.0833 5.3400 0.7511 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 76 62 4.8026 4.3065 0.5629 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 60 50 1586.8000 1910.9800 0.9692 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 76 62 0.7237 0.7258 -0.0278 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 76 62 0.5263 0.4355 1.0620 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 76 62 0.0132 0.0000 N/A 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 76 62 569.7895 534.5806 1.1916 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 

76 

76 

76 

62 0.2368 0.2419 

62 0.3684 0.1774 

62 0.1447 0.0645 

-0.0698 

2.4787 

1.5060 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 76 62 0.0526 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 76 62 0.0132 0.0323 -0.7653 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 76 62 0.0395 0.0806 -1.0295 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 76 62 0.3158 0.2258 1.1771 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 76 62 0.4211 0.4194 0.0201 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 76 62 0.2500 0.2581 -0.1083 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 76 62 0.3289 0.2258 1.3385 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 76 62 0.1974 0.1290 1.0715 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 76 62 0.0789 0.0806 -0.0366 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 76 62 0.0132 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 76 62 0.0000 0.0161 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 76 62 0.0789 0.0645 0.3253 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 76 62 0.0658 0.0323 0.8929 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 76 62 0.0395 0.0323 0.2256 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 76 62 0.1579 0.1774 -0.3061 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 76 62 0.3158 0.4194 -1.2590 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 76 62 0.1316 0.0806 0.9562 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 76 62 0.1184 0.1935 -1.2222 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 76 62 0.0395 0.0484 -0.2554 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 76 62 0.1711 0.1129 0.9652 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 76 62 0.2368 0.1613 1.0978 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 76 62 0.0000 0.0323 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 76 62 0.5132 0.4032 1.2881 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 76 62 0.5132 0.4032 1.2881 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview (c) 76 62 54.5000 49.2097 1.2132 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between the randomized treatment and control 

groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute value of the Z-test 

exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference.

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 8. Background Characteristics From Time 1 Interview

Time 1 Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Victim Age (c) 76 62 3 34.5263 32.9677 36.3333 0.8213 

Victim is a High School Graduate (d) 74 61 3 0.7432 0.7705 1.0000 -0.3666 

Victim Race = White (d) 

Victim Race = Black (d) 

Victim Race = Other Race (d) 

76 

76 

76 

62 

62 

62 

3 

3 

3 

0.8289 

0.1316 

0.0395 

0.7258 

0.2581 

0.0806 

0.6667 

0.0000 

0.3333 

1.4612 

-1.8901 

-1.0295 

Victim Race = Missing (d) 76 62 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 75 62 3 0.0800 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident (d) 75 61 3 0.8000 0.7869 0.3333 0.1881 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband (d) 75 62 3 0.4133 0.4677 0.3333 -0.6389 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband (d) 75 62 3 0.0133 0.0323 0.3333 -0.7534 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend (d) 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend (d) 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other (d) 

75 

75 

75 

62 

62 

62 

3 

3 

3 

0.3600 

0.1067 

0.1067 

0.3710 

0.0323 

0.0968 

0.0000 

0.3333 

0.0000 

-0.1327 

1.6665 

0.1903 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that 

group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of 

the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions 

while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons 

between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference.

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 9. Official Record Background Characteristics For Cases Where a Time 2 Interview Was Completed

Official Record Background Characteristics Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Z-Test 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 53 44 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 53 44 0.7547 0.6818 0.7975 

Offender Race = Black (d) 53 44 0.2264 0.2955 -0.7739 

Offender Race = Other (d) 53 44 0.0189 0.0227 -0.1332 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 52 43 0.0192 0.0233 -0.1360 

Offender Married (d) 52 43 0.4231 0.3953 0.2735 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 53 44 1.7170 1.9773 -0.7822 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 53 44 0.7547 0.7955 -0.4770 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 52 44 0.0769 0.1136 -0.6149 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 53 44 1.3019 2.1136 -0.8850 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 53 44 36.3396 35.1136 0.5319 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 52 43 12.2500 12.2093 0.0879 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 

53 

53 

53 

44 2.4340 

44 0.5849 

44 0.9811 

1.8864 

0.7955 

1.0000 

0.6124 

-2.2139 

N/A 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 53 44 0.1887 0.1364 0.6912 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 53 44 25.1132 24.0227 0.5221 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 53 44 0.7925 0.8409 -0.6112 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 42 37 5.8571 5.4865 0.3212 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 53 44 4.6415 4.6136 0.0267 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 42 37 1448.3333 1744.7027 0.8013 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 53 44 0.7736 0.7955 -0.2604 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 53 44 0.5849 0.5682 0.1660 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 53 44 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 53 44 594.1509 562.2045 0.9617 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 

53 

53 

53 

44 0.2075 

44 0.3585 

44 0.1321 

0.3409 

0.2045 

0.0682 

-1.4763 

1.6658 

1.0303 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 53 44 0.0189 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 

53 

53 

53 

44 0.0189 

44 0.0189 

44 0.3396 

0.0227 

0.0909 

0.2500 

-0.1332 

-1.5975 

0.9599 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 53 44 0.3962 0.4318 -0.3545 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 53 44 0.2642 0.2500 0.1586 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 53 44 0.3019 0.2727 0.3155 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 53 44 0.2264 0.1136 1.4545 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 53 44 0.0943 0.0682 0.4662 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 53 44 0.0189 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 53 44 0.0000 0.0227 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 53 44 0.0755 0.0682 0.1381 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 53 44 0.0566 0.0455 0.2472 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 53 44 0.0377 0.0227 0.4251 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 

53 

53 

53 

44 0.1132 

44 0.2642 

44 0.1509 

0.1591 

0.4773 

0.0682 

-0.6604 

-2.1759 

1.2798 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 53 44 0.1132 0.2045 -1.2387 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 53 44 0.0377 0.0455 -0.1903 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 53 44 0.1887 0.1136 1.0177 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 53 44 0.2264 0.1364 1.1358 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 53 44 0.0000 0.0227 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 53 44 0.5094 0.4091 0.9866 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview (c) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 2 Interview (c) 

53 

52 

53 

44 0.5094 

43 53.9808 

44 177.0566 

0.3864 

44.3721 

171.2955 

1.2121 

2.2139 

0.5273 

Number of Days Between Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews (c) 53 44 121.7547 125.8409 -0.3724 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that 

the mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for 

dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted 

variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between the 

randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that 

the absolute value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference.

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 10. Background Characteristics From Time 1 Interview For Victims Who Completed a Time 2 Interview

Time 1 Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Victim Age (c) 52 43 2 35.4615 32.9070 36.0000 1.1038 

Victim is a High School Graduate (d) 52 42 2 0.7885 0.7619 1.0000 0.3073 

Victim Race = White (d) 52 43 2 0.7885 0.7674 1.0000 0.2458 

Victim Race = Black (d) 52 43 2 0.1538 0.2093 0.0000 -0.7019 

Victim Race = Other Race (d) 52 43 2 0.0577 0.0930 0.0000 -0.6561 

Victim Race = Missing (d) 52 43 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 51 43 2 0.0588 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident (d) 51 42 2 0.7255 0.7619 0.5000 -0.3994 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband (d) 51 43 2 0.4118 0.4419 0.5000 -0.2940 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband (d) 51 43 2 0.0196 0.0465 0.0000 -0.7393 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend (d) 51 43 2 0.3137 0.3256 0.0000 -0.1228 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend (d) 51 43 2 0.1373 0.0465 0.5000 1.4896 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other (d) 51 43 2 0.1176 0.1395 0.0000 -0.3168 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that 

group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of 

the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions 

while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons 

between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. None of the reported Z-tests exceed 

1.5.

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 11. Official Record Background Characteristics For Cases Where Both Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews Were Completed

Background Characteristic Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Z-Test 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 52 43 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 52 43 0.7500 0.6744 0.8130 

Offender Race = Black (d) 52 43 0.2308 0.3023 -0.7884 

Offender Race = Other (d) 52 43 0.0192 0.0233 -0.1360 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 51 42 0.0196 0.0238 -0.1390 

Offender Married (d) 51 42 0.4314 0.3810 0.4922 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 52 43 1.6538 1.9767 -0.9673 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 52 43 0.7500 0.7907 -0.4681 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 51 43 0.0588 0.1163 -0.9945 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 52 43 1.2885 2.1395 -0.9071 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 52 43 35.9615 35.1860 0.3340 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 51 42 12.2157 12.2143 0.0030 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 

52 

52 

52 

43 2.4615 

43 0.5962 

43 0.9808 

1.8837 

0.7907 

1.0000 

0.6332 

-2.0305 

N/A 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 52 43 0.1731 0.1395 0.4463 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 52 43 24.6538 24.1163 0.2586 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 52 43 0.7885 0.8372 -0.6035 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 41 36 5.9756 5.5833 0.3341 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 52 43 4.7115 4.6744 0.0350 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 41 36 1428.1463 1722.0556 0.7769 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 52 43 0.7692 0.7907 -0.2510 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 52 43 0.5769 0.5581 0.1840 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 52 43 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 52 43 597.4231 557.0000 1.2122 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 

52 

52 

52 

43 0.2115 

43 0.3654 

43 0.1346 

0.3256 

0.2093 

0.0698 

-1.2565 

1.6609 

1.0251 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 52 43 0.0192 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 

52 

52 

52 

43 0.0192 

43 0.0192 

43 0.3462 

0.0233 

0.0930 

0.2558 

-0.1360 

-1.6033 

0.9517 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 52 43 0.4038 0.4186 -0.1456 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 52 43 0.2692 0.2558 0.1478 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 52 43 0.3077 0.2791 0.3046 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 52 43 0.2308 0.1163 1.4491 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 52 43 0.0769 0.0698 0.1329 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 52 43 0.0192 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 52 43 0.0000 0.0233 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 52 43 0.0769 0.0698 0.1329 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 52 43 0.0577 0.0465 0.2429 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 52 43 0.0385 0.0233 0.4218 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 

52 

52 

52 

43 0.1154 

43 0.2692 

43 0.1538 

0.1628 

0.4651 

0.0698 

-0.6692 

-1.9824 

1.2748 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 52 43 0.1154 0.2093 -1.2496 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 52 43 0.0385 0.0465 -0.1945 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 52 43 0.1923 0.1163 1.0115 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 52 43 0.2308 0.1395 1.1295 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 52 43 0.0000 0.0233 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 52 43 0.5000 0.4186 0.7919 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview (c) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 2 Interview (c) 

52 

52 

52 

43 0.5192 

43 53.9808 

43 177.1154 

0.3953 

44.3721 

171.1860 

1.2053 

2.2139 

0.5312 

Number of Days Between Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews (c) 52 43 123.1346 126.8140 -0.3322 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that 

the mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for 

dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted 

variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between the 

randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that 

the absolute value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference.

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 12. Background Characteristics From Time 1 Interview For Victims Who Completed Both Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews

Time 1 Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Victim Age (c) 52 43 2 35.4615 32.9070 36.0000 1.1038 

Victim is a High School Graduate (d) 52 42 2 0.7885 0.7619 1.0000 0.3073 

Victim Race = White (d) 52 43 2 0.7885 0.7674 1.0000 0.2458 

Victim Race = Black (d) 52 43 2 0.1538 0.2093 0.0000 -0.7019 

Victim Race = Other Race (d) 52 43 2 0.0577 0.0930 0.0000 -0.6561 

Victim Race = Missing (d) 52 43 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 51 43 2 0.0588 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident (d) 51 42 2 0.7255 0.7619 0.5000 -0.3994 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband (d) 51 43 2 0.4118 0.4419 0.5000 -0.2940 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband (d) 51 43 2 0.0196 0.0465 0.0000 -0.7393 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend (d) 51 43 2 0.3137 0.3256 0.0000 -0.1228 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend (d) 51 43 2 0.1373 0.0465 0.5000 1.4896 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other (d) 51 43 2 0.1176 0.1395 0.0000 -0.3168 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that 

group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of 

the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions 

while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons 

between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. None of the reported Z-tests exceed 

1.5.

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 13. Time 1 Interview Outcomes

Time 1 Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married (d) 76 61 3 0.1974 0.3115 0.0000 -1.5367 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting (d) 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated (d) 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed (d) 

76 

76 

76 

61 

61 

61 

3 

3 

3 

0.1579 

0.4474 

0.0000 

0.1311 

0.2623 

0.0164 

0.0000 

0.6667 

0.0000 

0.4407 

2.2363 

N/A 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married (d) 76 61 3 0.1974 0.2787 0.3333 -1.1180 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview (d) 75 62 3 0.1867 0.2097 0.0000 -0.3370 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the Incident (d) 75 61 3 0.3467 0.3443 0.0000 0.0293 

Victim Contacted Offender Since Incident (d) 76 62 3 0.6447 0.5968 0.0000 0.5784 

Offender Contacted Victim Since Incident (d) 74 62 3 0.7703 0.7419 0.6667 0.3839 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) (d) 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy (d) 

Victim Reports Knowledge of No-Contact Order (d) 

75 

76 

73 

60 

62 

62 

3 

3 

3 

0.7200 

0.5263 

0.8904 

0.5667 

0.3548 

0.8387 

0.6667 

0.5000 

1.0000 

1.8583 

2.0144 

0.8806 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety (d) 76 62 3 0.4868 0.4355 0.6667 0.6018 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense (d) 76 62 3 0.1579 0.1290 0.6667 0.4791 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest (d) 67 58 2 0.0299 0.0000 0.0000 1.3265 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest (d) 67 58 2 0.7761 0.8621 1.0000 -1.2368 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest (d) 67 58 2 0.0597 0.0690 0.0000 -0.2110 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest (d) 67 58 2 0.1343 0.0690 0.0000 1.1939 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale (c) 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale (c) 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale (c) 

76 

75 

76 

62 

62 

62 

3 

3 

3 

1.5658 

0.3067 

0.1053 

1.0484 

0.0484 

0.0484 

0.0000 

0.0000 

0.0000 

1.4975 

2.0621 

0.9734 

Injury - Variety Scale (c) 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale (c) 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression (d) 

76 

75 

76 

62 

61 

62 

3 

3 

3 

0.2500 

1.6933 

0.4605 

0.0968 

0.9016 

0.3710 

0.0000 

1.0000 

0.0000 

0.9790 

2.6745 

1.0602 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression (d) 75 62 3 0.0933 0.0323 0.0000 1.4362 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion (d) 76 62 3 0.0658 0.0484 0.0000 0.4351 

Victim Reports Any Injury (d) 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats (d) 

76 

75 

62 

61 

3 

3 

0.0658 

0.5867 

0.0161 

0.4098 

0.0000 

0.3333 

1.4230 

2.0514 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that 

group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of 

the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions 

while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons 

between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the Z-test 

is statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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 14. Time 1 Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances

Odds Treatment 

Time 1 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Test 

Statistic 

Treatment Error 

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview 0.0394 1.0402 0.4565 0.0074 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the Incident 0.0716 1.0742 0.3840 0.0348 

Victim Contacted Offender Since Incident 0.2345 1.2643 0.3799 0.3810 

Offender Contacted Victim Since Incident -0.0884 0.9154 0.4300 0.0423 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.6498 1.9152 0.3918 2.7502 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.5103 1.6658 0.3786 1.8169 

Victim Reports Knowledge of No-Contact Order 0.2506 1.2848 0.5609 0.1996 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety -0.0388 0.9619 0.3733 0.0108 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense -0.1448 0.8652 0.5364 0.0729 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest N/A 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest -0.5406 0.5824 0.5059 1.1420 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest -0.2531 0.7764 0.7805 0.1051 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 0.6235 1.8654 0.6613 0.8887 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.3035 1.3546 0.3746 0.6562 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 1.3601 3.8966 0.8594 2.5047 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.5321 1.7025 0.8755 0.3693 

Victim Reports Any Injury 1.6003 4.9545 1.1406 1.9686 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.6698 1.9538 0.3729 3.2260 

Numerical Variables T-Test 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale 0.5072 0.3697 1.3700 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.3134 0.1456 2.1500 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 0.0820 0.0617 1.3300 

Injury - Variety Scale 0.1926 0.1742 1.1100 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 0.6175 0.3214 1.9200 

Note: The regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: (1) indicator variable for 

treatment (coded 1 if case is randomized to treatment and 0 if the case is randomized to control); (2) an indicator 

variable coded 1 if the offender is a South Carolina native and 0 otherwise; (3) an indicator variable coded 1 if the 

offender has any prior arrests for assault and 0 otherwise; (4) an indicator variable coded 1 if the victim is black and 

0 otherwise; and (5) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender was the victim's ex-boyfriend at the time of the 

gateway incident and 0 otherwise. Wald chi-square tests in this table only apply to the logistic regression coefficient 

for the treatment indicator variable in these models. In some models with categorical outcomes, convergence could not be 

attained due to quasi-complete separation. When this occurred, the problematic variable was dropped. The interim controls 

are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the treatment coefficient is statistically significant (twotailed p < .05 significance level).

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

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

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 15. Time 2 Interview Outcomes

Time 2 Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married (d) 53 44 3 0.2075 0.2727 0.3333 -0.7514 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting (d) 53 44 3 0.0943 0.1136 0.3333 -0.3112 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated (d) 53 44 3 0.4717 0.3409 0.0000 1.3027 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed (d) 53 44 3 0.0189 0.0227 0.0000 -0.1332 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married (d) 53 44 3 0.1887 0.2500 0.3333 -0.7300 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview (d) 53 44 3 0.2830 0.4091 0.3333 -1.3047 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the First Interview (d) 53 44 3 0.3585 0.4318 0.6667 -0.7365 

Victim Contacted Offender Since First Interview (d) 53 44 3 0.5849 0.6136 0.6667 -0.2873 

Offender Contacted Victim Since First Interview (d) 53 44 3 0.7547 0.7500 0.6667 0.0536 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) (d) 50 43 3 0.2200 0.1628 0.0000 0.6962 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy (d) 53 44 3 0.1509 0.0909 0.0000 0.8940 

Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status = Don't Know Status (d) 52 43 3 0.1346 0.1860 0.0000 -0.6843 

Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status = Yes, Still in Place (d) 52 43 3 0.5385 0.3721 0.3333 1.6187 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety (d) 53 44 3 0.4528 0.2727 0.3333 1.8279 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense (d) 53 44 3 0.2264 0.1364 0.3333 1.1358 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest (d) 41 32 2 0.0244 0.0313 0.5000 -0.1782 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest (d) 41 32 2 0.6585 0.7500 0.0000 -0.8450 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest (d) 41 32 2 0.1463 0.0313 0.0000 1.6571 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest (d) 41 32 2 0.1707 0.1875 0.5000 -0.1858 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale (c) 53 44 3 3.0755 2.3864 2.3333 1.0132 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale (c) 53 44 3 0.4340 0.4545 1.6667 -0.0622 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale (c) 53 44 3 0.1887 0.1591 0.3333 0.2387 

Injury - Variety Scale (c) 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale (c) 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression (d) 

53 

53 

53 

44 

43 

44 

3 

3 

3 

0.5660 

2.0377 

0.5849 

0.2727 

0.8837 

0.5455 

0.0000 

0.3333 

0.3333 

0.8580 

2.7964 

0.3904 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression (d) 53 44 3 0.1132 0.1136 0.3333 -0.0066 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion (d) 53 44 3 0.1132 0.0909 0.3333 0.3596 

Victim Reports Any Injury (d) 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats (d) 

53 

53 

44 

43 

3 

3 

0.1132 

0.6226 

0.0682 

0.3256 

0.0000 

0.3333 

0.7609 

2.8954 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of individuals in that group 

with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores 

divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Ztest for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table only apply to comparisons between the 

randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the Z-test is statistically 

significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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 16. Time 2 Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances

Odds Treatment 

Time 2 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Test 

Statistic 

Treatment Error 

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married 0.0131 1.0132 0.1757 0.0056 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting -0.2109 0.8099 0.4311 0.2395 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated -0.0913 0.9127 0.2080 0.1925 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married 0.1229 1.1308 0.1844 0.4444 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview -0.4409 0.6435 0.3657 1.4537 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the First Interview 0.0395 1.0403 0.1720 0.0526 

Victim Contacted Offender Since First Interview -0.0276 0.9728 0.1717 0.0257 

Offender Contacted Victim Since First Interview -0.0616 0.9403 0.1761 0.1223 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) -0.0439 0.9570 0.2481 0.0313 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.1296 1.1384 0.2804 0.2135 

Victim Reports That No-Contact Order Still in Place 0.1450 1.1560 0.1764 0.6759 

Victim Reports No Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status -0.6684 0.5125 0.6752 0.9798 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety -0.0294 0.9710 0.2277 0.0167 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.2845 1.3291 0.1886 2.2771 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest N/A 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest -0.6538 0.5201 0.4966 1.7331 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest 0.1066 1.1125 0.3337 0.1020 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 0.5891 1.8024 0.3856 2.3345 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression -0.2269 0.7970 0.2578 0.7745 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 0.0564 1.0580 0.5706 0.0098 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.3322 1.3940 0.4040 0.6764 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.2575 1.2937 0.4375 0.3466 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.2432 1.2753 0.1927 1.5923 

Numerical Variables T-Test 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale -0.0017 0.2838 -0.0060 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.0566 0.1326 0.4267 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 0.0349 0.0481 0.7258 

Injury - Variety Scale 0.1227 0.1394 0.8802 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 0.1224 0.1759 0.6960 

Note: The regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: (1) indicator variable for 

treatment (coded 1 if case is randomized to treatment and 0 if the case is randomized to control); (2) an indicator 

variable coded 1 if the offender is a South Carolina native and 0 otherwise; (3) an indicator variable coded 1 if the 

offender has any prior arrests for assault and 0 otherwise; (4) an indicator variable coded 1 offender has any prior 

arrests for contempt and 0 otherwise; (5) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender prior arrests for traffic offenses 

and 0 otherwise; and (6) the length of time (in days) between the gateway arrest and the first interview. Wald chi-square 

tests in this table only apply to the logistic regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in these 

models. In some models with categorical outcomes, convergence could not be attained due to quasi-complete separation. When 

this occurred, the problematic variable was dropped. The interim controls are not included in these tests.

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 17. Combined Time 1 - Time 2 Interview Outcomes

Combined Victim Interview Items Treatment 

Group N 

Control 

Group N 

Interim 

Control 

Group N 

Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Interim 

Control 

Group Mean 

Z-Test 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Either Interview 52 43 2 0.3077 0.3953 0.0000 -0.8932 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since Incident 52 43 2 0.4423 0.4651 0.5000 -0.2223 

Victim Contacted Offender 52 43 2 0.7885 0.6744 0.5000 1.2565 

Offender Contacted Victim 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 

52 

52 

52 

43 

43 

43 

2 

2 

2 

0.8269 

0.7308 

0.5577 

0.8837 

0.5116 

0.3953 

1.0000 

1.0000 

0.5000 

-0.7774 

2.2040 

1.5760 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 52 43 2 0.6154 0.5349 0.5000 0.7910 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 52 43 2 0.3077 0.1860 0.5000 1.3582 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 52 43 2 0.6923 0.5814 0.0000 1.1225 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 52 43 2 0.1346 0.1628 0.0000 -0.3856 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 52 43 2 0.1731 0.1163 0.0000 0.7774 

Victim Reports Any Injury 52 43 2 0.1154 0.0698 0.0000 0.7557 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 52 43 2 0.7500 0.6279 1.0000 1.2862 

Note: all of the comparisons in this table involve dichotomous variables. The Z-test for dichotomous variables is a test for the difference 

between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the difference between two means. The Z-tests in this table 

only apply to comparisons between the randomized treatment and control groups. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines 

indicate that the Z-test is statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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 18. Combined Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances

Odds Treatment 

Combined Time 1 - Time 2 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Chi-Square 

Test 

Treatment Error 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Either Interview -0.2495 0.7792 0.5014 0.2475 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since Incident 0.0005 1.0005 0.4741 0.0000 

Victim Contacted Offender 0.9839 2.6749 0.5682 2.9987 

Offender Contacted Victim -0.4248 0.6539 0.7469 0.3236 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.9857 2.6797 0.4929 3.9993 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.5196 1.6814 0.4783 1.1802 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 0.0687 1.0711 0.5054 0.0185 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.8113 2.2508 0.5558 2.1304 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.3454 1.4126 0.4974 0.4822 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression -0.0284 0.9720 0.6392 0.0020 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.5330 1.7040 0.7116 0.5610 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.6053 1.8318 0.8103 0.5579 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.4229 1.5264 0.5422 0.6084 

Note: The logistic regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: (1) indicator variable 

for treatment (coded 1 if case is randomized to treatment and 0 if the case is randomized to control); (2) an indicator 

variable coded 1 if the offender is a South Carolina native and 0 otherwise; (3) an indicator variable coded 1 if the 

offender has any prior arrests for assault and 0 otherwise; (4) an indicator variable coded 1 offender has any prior 

arrests for contempt and 0 otherwise; (5) an indicator variable coded 1 if the offender prior arrests for traffic 

offenses and 0 otherwise; and (6) the length of time (in days) between the gateway arrest and the first interview. Wald 

chi-square tests in this table only apply to the logistic regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in 

these models. In some models with categorical outcomes, convergence could not be attained due to quasi-complete 

separation. When this occurred, the problematic variable was dropped. The interim controls are not included in these 

tests. Shading indicates that the treatment effect is statistically significant.

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 19. Pretreatment Characteristics and Missing Time 1 Interview Data

Background Characteristic Observed N Missing N Observed 

Mean 

Missing 

Mean Z-Test 

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition (d) 138 250 0.5507 0.4920 -1.1079 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 138 250 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 138 248 0.7029 0.6976 -0.1092 

Offender Race = Black (d) 138 248 0.2609 0.2177 -0.9604 

Offender Race = Other (d) 138 248 0.0362 0.0847 1.8200 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 136 241 0.0221 0.0954 2.7000 

Offender Married (d) 136 244 0.4338 0.3770 -1.0842 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 138 248 1.8261 1.6734 -0.9044 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 138 248 0.7609 0.7258 -0.7511 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 137 248 0.1168 0.0847 -1.0235 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 138 248 1.5362 1.2177 -1.0709 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 138 248 35.1377 34.6653 -0.4161 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 136 241 12.0956 11.7054 -1.6988 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 138 249 2.1087 1.4458 -1.6813 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 138 248 0.6087 0.5847 -0.4604 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 138 248 0.9928 0.9919 -0.0877 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 138 248 0.1449 0.1411 -0.1023 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 138 248 24.2029 23.2863 -0.9666 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 138 250 0.7971 0.8160 0.4536 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 110 204 5.7455 5.6716 -0.1182 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 138 250 4.5797 4.6280 0.0866 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 110 204 1734.1545 1738.1422 -0.0183 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 138 250 0.7246 0.7760 1.1304 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 138 250 0.4855 0.4720 -0.2550 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0160 0.7319 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 138 250 553.9710 540.3040 -0.7299 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 138 250 0.2391 0.2680 0.6224 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 138 250 0.2826 0.3160 0.6844 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 138 250 0.7087 0.1280 0.5579 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 138 250 0.0290 0.0160 -0.8617 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 

138 250 

138 250 

138 250 

0.0217 

0.0580 

0.2754 

0.0120 

0.0200 

0.2560 

-0.7443 

-1.9897 

-0.4148 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 138 250 0.4203 0.3680 -1.0125 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 138 250 0.2536 0.2320 -0.4776 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 138 250 0.2826 0.3120 0.6039 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 138 250 0.1667 0.1680 0.0337 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 138 250 0.0797 0.0520 -1.0847 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 

138 250 

138 250 

138 250 

0.0072 

0.0072 

0.0725 

0.0240 

0.0320 

0.0680 

1.1869 

1.5507 

-0.1654 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 138 250 0.0507 0.0760 0.9532 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0362 0.0560 0.8638 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 

138 250 

138 250 

138 250 

0.1667 

0.3623 

0.1087 

0.2120 

0.4600 

0.0800 

1.0771 

1.8631 

-0.9445 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 138 250 0.1522 0.1240 -0.7798 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 138 250 0.0435 0.0360 -0.3658 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 138 250 0.1449 0.1080 -1.0672 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 138 250 0.2029 0.1960 -0.1631 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0200 0.3902 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 138 250 0.4638 0.5000 0.6835 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 138 250 0.4638 0.3960 -1.2947 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference between observed and missing 

Time 1 interview 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.
Table 20. Case Dispositions, Official Record Outcomes, and Missing Time 1 Interview Data

Case Dispositions and Official Record Outcomes Observed N Missing N Observed 

Mean 

Missing 

Mean Z-Test 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance (c) 138 250 28.9783 30.5200 0.9839 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Case Disposition (c) 117 207 165.0000 181.3720 0.8322 

Case Disposition = Guilty (d) 138 250 0.7174 0.6040 -2.2335 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty (d) 138 250 0.0217 0.0680 1.9729 

Case Disposition = Nolle Prosequi (d) 138 250 0.1087 0.1480 1.0879 

Case Disposition = Death (d) 138 250 0.0000 0.0080 N/A 

Case Disposition = Case Pending (d) 138 250 0.1522 0.1720 0.5037 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete (d) 19 33 0.5789 0.5152 -0.4444 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated (d) 19 33 0.2105 0.1818 -0.2529 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected (d) 19 33 0.0526 0.0606 0.1188 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending (d) 19 33 0.1579 0.2424 0.7187 

Any Subsequent Arrest Record (d) 138 250 0.3913 0.4200 0.5502 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Excluding Zeros) (c) 54 105 1.6481 1.6476 -0.0033 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 138 250 0.6449 0.6920 0.4408 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina (d) 138 250 0.3623 0.4080 0.8824 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 138 250 0.2536 0.2760 0.4764 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim (d) 137 248 0.1022 0.1008 -0.0431 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 138 250 0.0362 0.0440 0.3684 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0200 0.3902 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0160 0.1152 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0080 0.0811 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0040 -1.1296 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 138 250 0.0797 0.1120 1.0126 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0362 0.0280 -0.4484 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0652 0.0920 0.9181 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 138 250 0.1087 0.1320 0.6674 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0280 0.8462 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud (d) 138 250 0.0217 0.0360 0.7768 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0120 0.4438 

Any Subsequent Charges for Homicide (d) 138 250 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0120 -0.2084 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0080 0.0811 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0040 -0.4275 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0040 -0.4275 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft (d) 138 250 0.0145 0.0400 1.3893 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0942 0.1080 0.4279 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0160 0.7319 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 138 250 0.0000 0.0120 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 138 250 0.0435 0.0200 -1.3339 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0080 0.0811 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses (d) 138 250 0.0217 0.0320 0.5830 

Any Subsequent Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 138 250 0.0072 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses (d) 

138 250 

138 250 

0.1377 

0.0507 

0.1480 

0.1080 

0.2769 

1.9101 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important difference between observed and missing Time 1 interview 

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.
Table 21. Pretreatment Characteristics and Missing Time 2 Interview Data

Observed Missing Pretreatment Characteristic Observed N Missing N Z-Test Mean Mean

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition (d) 97 291 0.5464 0.5017 -0.7623 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 97 291 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 97 289 0.7216 0.6920 -0.5503 

Offender Race = Black (d) 97 289 0.2577 0.2249 -0.6614 

Offender Race = Other (d) 97 289 0.0206 0.0830 2.1226 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 95 282 0.0211 0.0851 2.1309 

Offender Married (d) 95 285 0.4105 0.3930 -0.3026 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 97 289 1.8351 1.6920 -0.7617 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 97 289 0.7732 0.7266 -0.9026 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 96 289 0.0938 0.0969 0.0903 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 97 289 1.6701 1.2180 -1.0812 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 

97 

95 

97 

97 

97 

289 

282 

290 

289 

289 

35.7835 

12.2316 

2.1856 

0.6804 

0.9897 

34.5156 

11.7163 

1.5138 

0.5640 

0.9931 

-0.9747 

-1.9625 

-1.3965 

-2.0193 

0.3289 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 97 289 0.1649 0.1349 -0.7314 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 97 289 24.6186 23.2768 -1.1645 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 97 291 0.8144 0.8076 -0.1492 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 79 235 5.6835 5.7021 0.0275 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 97 291 4.6289 4.6048 -0.0395 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 79 235 1587.1392 1787.0383 -0.8792 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

291 

291 

291 

291 

291 

0.7835 

0.5773 

0.0000 

579.6592 

0.2680 

0.7491 

0.4433 

0.0172 

533.6667 

0.2543 

-0.6841 

-2.2887 

N/A 

-2.3285 

-0.2681 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 97 291 0.2887 0.3093 0.3823 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 97 291 0.1031 0.1271 0.6288 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0241 0.8250 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0137 -0.4751 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 97 291 0.0515 0.0275 -1.1402 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 97 291 0.2990 0.2509 -0.9322 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 97 291 0.4124 0.3780 -0.6019 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 97 291 0.2577 0.2337 -0.4806 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 97 291 0.2887 0.3058 0.3193 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 97 291 0.1753 0.1649 -0.2355 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 97 291 0.0825 0.0550 -0.9734 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0206 0.6606 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0275 0.9736 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 97 291 0.0722 0.0687 -0.1152 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 97 291 0.0515 0.0722 0.7033 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 

97 

97 

97 

291 

291 

291 

0.0309 

0.1340 

0.3608 

0.0550 

0.2165 

0.4467 

0.9507 

1.7725 

1.4822 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 97 291 0.1134 0.0825 -0.9208 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 97 291 0.1546 0.1271 -0.6883 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 97 291 0.0412 0.0378 -0.1520 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 97 291 0.1546 0.1100 -1.1678 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 97 291 0.1856 0.2027 0.3675 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0206 0.6606 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 97 291 0.4639 0.4948 0.5278 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 97 291 0.4536 0.4089 -0.7720 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference between observed and missing Time 

2 interview 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.
Table 22. Case Dispositions, Official Record Outcomes, and Missing Time 2 Interview Data

Case Dispositions and Official Record Outcomes Observed N Missing N Observed 

Mean 

Missing 

Mean Z-Test 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance (c) 97 291 29.1340 30.2509 0.6283 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Case Disposition (c) 

Case Disposition = Guilty (d) 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty (d) 

83 241 

97 291 

97 291 

162.3253 

0.7320 

0.0309 

179.9834 

0.6151 

0.0584 

0.8283 

-2.0817 

1.0605 

Case Disposition = Nolle Prosequi (d) 97 291 0.0928 0.1478 1.3766 

Case Disposition = Death (d) 97 291 0.0000 0.0069 N/A 

Case Disposition = Case Pending (d) 97 291 0.1443 0.1718 0.6318 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete (d) 17 35 0.6471 0.4857 -1.0948 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated (d) 17 35 0.1176 0.2286 0.9521 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected (d) 17 35 0.0588 0.0571 -0.0244 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending (d) 17 35 0.1765 0.2286 0.4315 

Any Subsequent Arrest Record (d) 97 291 0.4124 0.4089 -0.0596 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Excluding Zeros) (c) 40 119 1.6750 1.6387 -0.2095 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 97 291 0.6907 0.6701 -0.1721 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina (d) 97 291 0.4021 0.3883 -0.2402 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 97 291 0.2990 0.2577 -0.7941 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim (d) 96 289 0.1042 0.1003 -0.1075 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 97 291 0.0412 0.0412 0.0000 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0206 0.6606 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0137 -0.4751 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse (d) 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 

97 291 

97 291 

97 291 

0.0000 

0.0206 

0.1031 

0.0103 

0.0034 

0.0997 

1.0039 

-1.6731 

-0.0975 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0515 0.0241 -1.3544 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0722 0.0859 0.4262 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 97 291 0.1134 0.1271 0.3561 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0241 0.1947 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud (d) 97 291 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 

Any Subsequent Charges for Homicide (d) 97 291 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0137 0.2599 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0069 -0.3346 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery (d) 97 291 0.0000 0.0069 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0034 -0.8186 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0344 0.6772 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 97 291 0.1031 0.1031 0.0000 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0137 0.2599 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 97 291 0.0000 0.0103 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0309 0.5298 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0069 -0.3346 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0206 0.0309 0.5298 

Any Subsequent Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 97 291 0.0103 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 97 291 0.1237 0.1512 0.6672 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses (d) 97 291 0.0722 0.0928 0.6220 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important difference between observed and missing Time 2 interview 

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.
Table 23. Pretreatment Characteristics and Missing Time 1 or Time 2 Interview Data

Observed Missing Pretreatment Characteristic Observed N Missing N Z-Test Mean Mean

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition (d) 95 293 0.5474 0.5017 -0.7738 

Male Offender, Female Victim (d) 95 293 1.0000 1.0000 N/A 

Offender Race = White (d) 95 291 0.7158 0.6942 -0.3993 

Offender Race = Black (d) 95 291 0.2632 0.2234 -0.7964 

Offender Race = Other (d) 95 291 0.0211 0.0825 2.0739 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic (d) 93 284 0.0215 0.0845 2.0811 

Offender Married (d) 93 287 0.4086 0.3937 -0.2547 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 95 291 1.8000 1.7045 -0.5085 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking (d) 95 291 0.7684 0.7285 -0.7682 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service (d) 94 291 0.0851 0.0997 0.4161 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest (c) 95 291 0.0851 0.0997 0.4161 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking (c) 95 291 35.6105 34.5808 -0.7895 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking (c) 93 284 12.2151 11.7254 -1.8420 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release (c) 95 292 2.2000 1.5137 -1.4015 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina (d) 95 291 0.6842 0.5636 -2.0783 

Offender Booked on Domestic Violence Charge (d) 95 291 0.9895 0.9931 0.3521 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge (d) 95 291 0.1579 0.1375 -0.4948 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) (c) 95 291 24.4105 23.3540 -0.9230 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) (d) 95 293 0.8105 0.8089 -0.0356 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) (c) 77 237 5.7922 5.6667 -0.1836 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 95 293 4.6947 4.5836 -0.1807 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) (c) 77 237 1565.5584 1792.3629 -0.9853 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina (d) 95 293 0.7789 0.7509 -0.5554 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 95 293 0.5684 0.4471 -2.0574 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0171 N/A 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date (c) 95 293 579.1263 534.1536 -2.2661 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 95 293 0.2632 0.2560 -0.1391 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults (d) 95 293 0.2947 0.3072 0.2289 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary (d) 95 293 0.1053 0.1263 0.5456 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0239 0.7966 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0137 -0.5080 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 95 293 0.0526 0.0273 -1.1921 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 95 293 0.3053 0.2491 -1.0797 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 95 293 0.4105 0.3788 -0.5511 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 95 293 0.2632 0.2321 -0.6166 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 95 293 0.2947 0.3038 0.1664 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud (d) 95 293 0.1789 0.1638 -0.3430 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment (d) 95 293 0.0737 0.0580 -0.5507 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0205 0.6333 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0273 0.9441 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 95 293 0.0737 0.0683 -0.1806 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery (d) 95 293 0.0526 0.0717 0.6450 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0316 0.0546 0.9038 

Any Prior Charges for Theft (d) 95 293 0.1368 0.2150 1.6684 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 95 293 0.3579 0.4471 1.5283 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism (d) 95 293 0.1158 0.0819 -1.0016

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 95 293 0.1579 0.1263 -0.7860

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 95 293 0.0421 0.0375 -0.2005

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 95 293 0.1579 0.1092 -1.2637

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses (d) 95 293 0.1895 0.2014 0.2525

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0205 0.6333

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 95 293 0.4632 0.4949 0.5376

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses (d) 95 293 0.4632 0.4061 -0.9784

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important pretreatment difference between observed and missing 

interview cases at either Time 1 or Time 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 24. Court Dispositions, Official Record Outcomes, and Missing Time 1 or Time 2 Interview Data

Case Dispositions and Official Record Outcomes Observed N Missing N Observed 

Mean 

Missing 

Mean Z-Test 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance (c) 95 293 28.7789 30.3584 0.8844 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Case Disposition (c) 

Case Disposition = Guilty (d) 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty (d) 

82 242 

95 293 

95 293 

163.7317 

0.7368 

0.0316 

179.4339 

0.6143 

0.0580 

0.7322 

-2.1675 

1.0129 

Case Disposition = Nolle Prosequi (d) 95 293 0.0947 0.1468 1.2934 

Case Disposition = Death (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0068 N/A 

Case Disposition = Case Pending (d) 95 293 0.1368 0.1741 0.8494 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete (d) 16 36 0.6250 0.5000 -0.8345 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated (d) 16 36 0.1250 0.2222 0.8210 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected (d) 16 36 0.0625 0.0556 -0.0991 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending (d) 16 36 0.1875 0.2222 0.2830 

Any Subsequent Arrest Record (d) 95 293 0.4105 0.4096 -0.0167 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Excluding Zeros) (c) 39 120 1.6667 1.6417 -0.1418 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) (c) 95 293 0.6842 0.6724 -0.0983 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina (d) 95 293 0.4000 0.3891 -0.1895 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department (d) 95 293 0.2947 0.2594 -0.6760 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim (d) 94 291 0.0957 0.1031 0.2053 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations (d) 95 293 0.0421 0.0410 -0.0490 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0205 0.6333 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0137 -0.5080 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse (d) 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt (d) 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt (d) 

95 293 

95 293 

95 293 

0.0000 

0.0211 

0.0947 

0.0102 

0.0034 

0.1024 

N/A 

-1.7057 

0.2156 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0526 0.0239 -1.4061 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0737 0.0853 0.3584 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence (d) 95 293 0.1053 0.1297 0.6284 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0239 0.1597 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud (d) 95 293 0.0316 0.0307 -0.0422 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0137 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Homicide (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0137 0.2347 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0068 -0.3578 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0068 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0034 -0.8414 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0341 0.6398 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses (d) 95 293 0.1053 0.1024 -0.0801 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0137 0.2347 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations (d) 95 293 0.0000 0.0102 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0307 0.4932 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0068 -0.3578 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0211 0.0307 0.4932 

Any Subsequent Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges (d) 95 293 0.0105 0.0000 N/A 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses (d) 95 293 0.1158 0.1536 0.9109 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses (d) 95 293 0.0737 0.0922 0.5531 

Note: a (d) indicates that this variable is dichotomous and that the mean in the table is interpreted as the proportion of 

individuals in that group with that characteristic; a (c) indicates that this variable is continuous or a count and that the 

mean should be interpreted as the sum of the scores divided by the number of people in the group. The Z-test for dichotomous 

variables is a test for the difference between two proportions while the Z-test for continuous/counted variables tests for the 

difference between two means. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Shaded lines indicate that the absolute 

value of the Z-test exceeds 1.5 and may be suggestive of an important difference between observed and missing interview cases 

at either Time 1 or Time 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 25. Comparability of Observed and Missing Time 1 Interview Cases

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition 0.551 0.548 0.492 -0.117 -0.113 

Offender Race = White 0.703 0.709 0.692 -0.024 -0.037 

Offender Race = Black 

Offender Race = Other 

Offender Race = Missing 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 

Offender Ethnicity = Missing 

0.261 

0.036 

0.000 

0.022 

0.014 

0.229 0.216 

0.062 0.084 

0.000 0.008 

0.053 0.095 

0.012 0.036 

-0.109 

0.172 

0.090 

0.249 

0.115 

-0.033 

0.081 

0.090 

0.145 

0.131 

Offender Married 0.434 0.369 0.377 -0.117 0.016 

Offender Marital Status = Missing 0.014 0.009 0.024 0.062 0.101 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.826 1.804 1.673 -0.102 -0.087 

Number of Children = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.090 0.090 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 0.117 0.099 0.085 -0.115 0.099 

Offender Past Military Service = Missing 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 

Number of Charges = Missing 

0.007 

1.536 

0.000 

0.008 0.008 

1.436 1.218 

0.000 0.008 

0.008 

-0.527 

0.090 

0.004 

-0.361 

0.090 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 35.138 34.474 34.665 -0.045 0.018 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking = Missing 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 

Years of Education = Missing 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 

Days in Jail = Missing 

0.000 

12.096 

0.014 

2.109 

0.000 

0.000 0.008 

11.851 11.705 

0.019 0.036 

1.655 1.446 

0.000 0.004 

0.090 

-0.174 

0.115 

-0.277 

0.063 

0.090 

-0.065 

0.094 

-0.087 

0.063 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 0.609 0.579 0.585 -0.049 0.012 

Location of Birth = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.090 0.090 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 0.145 0.139 0.141 -0.011 0.005 

Offender Booking Charges = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.090 0.090 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 24.203 23.714 23.286 -0.110 -0.051 

Age at First Arrest = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.090 0.090 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 

4.580 

0.725 

0.486 

4.476 4.628 

0.707 0.776 

0.479 0.472 

0.009 

0.123 

-0.027 

0.028 

0.166 

-0.015 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.239 0.264 0.268 0.065 0.009 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 0.283 0.278 0.316 0.072 0.082 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 0.109 0.116 0.128 0.058 0.035 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.029 0.029 0.016 -0.103 -0.106 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 

0.022 

0.058 

0.275 

0.021 0.012 

0.061 0.020 

0.261 0.256 

-0.089 

-0.271 

-0.044 

-0.081 

-0.289 

-0.011 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.420 0.400 0.368 -0.108 -0.065 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 0.254 0.218 0.232 -0.051 0.034 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 

0.283 

0.167 

0.080 

0.311 0.312 

0.106 0.168 

0.061 0.052 

0.063 

0.004 

-0.125 

0.002 

0.165 

-0.041 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 

0.007 

0.007 

0.073 

0.006 0.024 

0.005 0.032 

0.063 0.068 

0.109 

0.140 

-0.018 

0.120 

0.151 

0.019 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.051 0.068 0.076 0.095 0.029 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.036 0.035 0.056 0.086 0.090 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 

0.167 

0.362 

0.109 

0.211 0.212 

0.386 0.460 

0.092 0.080 

0.111 

0.196 

-0.106 

0.002 

0.148 

-0.044 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.152 0.153 0.124 -0.085 -0.088 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.044 0.035 0.036 -0.040 0.005 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.145 0.109 0.108 -0.119 -0.003 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 0.203 0.194 0.196 -0.017 0.005 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 0.015 0.015 0.020 0.039 0.033 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 0.464 0.459 0.500 0.072 0.082 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 0.464 0.430 0.396 -0.138 -0.069 

(Continued) 

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 25. Comparability of Observed and Missing Time 1 Interview Cases (Continued)

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) 0.645 0.668 0.692 0.046 0.023 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina 0.362 0.393 0.408 0.093 0.030 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.254 0.301 0.276 0.050 -0.055 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.036 0.030 0.044 0.038 0.066 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults 0.014 0.008 0.020 0.039 0.087 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary 0.014 0.021 0.016 0.012 -0.038 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt 

0.007 

0.014 

0.080 

0.004 0.008 

0.015 0.004 

0.085 0.112 

0.008 

-0.166 

0.102 

0.043 

-0.179 

0.087 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses 0.036 0.045 0.028 -0.050 -0.100 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses 0.065 0.075 0.092 0.092 0.058 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence 0.109 0.117 0.132 0.069 0.045 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.014 0.020 0.028 0.082 0.051 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud 0.022 0.034 0.036 0.076 0.009 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment 0.007 0.003 0.012 0.044 0.082 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping 0.014 0.014 0.012 -0.023 -0.015 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.008 -0.022 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery 0.007 0.007 0.004 -0.051 -0.049 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses 0.007 0.004 0.004 -0.051 -0.007 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft 0.014 0.013 0.040 0.130 0.137 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.094 0.106 0.108 0.044 0.007 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism 0.007 0.010 0.016 0.070 0.048 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses 

0.000 

0.043 

0.007 

0.000 0.012 

0.034 0.020 

0.004 0.008 

0.110 

-0.167 

0.008 

0.110 

-0.097 

0.049 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses 0.022 0.012 0.032 0.058 0.113 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim 

0.138 

0.051 

0.102 

0.137 0.148 

0.069 0.108 

0.115 0.101 

0.029 

0.184 

-0.005 

0.032 

0.126 

-0.046 

Same Victim Status = Missing 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.050 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance 28.978 30.150 30.520 0.097 0.023 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Final Case Disposition 165.000 176.315 181.372 0.096 0.030 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Disposition = Missing 0.152 0.184 0.172 0.053 -0.032 

Case Disposition = Guilty 0.717 0.665 0.604 -0.232 -0.124 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty 0.022 0.016 0.068 0.184 0.205 

Case Disposition = Noll Pros 0.109 0.135 0.148 0.111 0.037 

Case Disposition = Death 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.090 0.090 

Case Disposition = Case Pending 0.152 0.184 0.172 0.053 -0.032 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete 0.080 0.077 0.068 -0.047 -0.036 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated 0.029 0.028 0.024 -0.033 -0.029 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.041 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending 0.022 0.036 0.032 0.058 -0.020 

Pre-Trial Intervention = Not Applicable 0.862 0.855 0.868 0.017 0.039 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 0.007 0.006 0.016 0.070 0.081 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 553.971 537.820 540.304 -0.076 0.014 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 1734.155 1747.008 1738.142 -0.002 0.004 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest = Missing 0.203 0.219 0.184 -0.049 -0.090 

Note: Rows with standardized statistics with absolute values exceeding 0.15 (either before or after weighting) are shaded.

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 26. Comparability of Observed and Missing Time 2 Interview Cases

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition 0.546 0.541 0.502 -0.089 -0.079 

Offender Race = White 0.722 0.719 0.687 -0.074 -0.069 

Offender Race = Black 

Offender Race = Other 

Offender Race = Missing 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 

Offender Ethnicity = Missing 

0.258 

0.021 

0.000 

0.021 

0.021 

0.219 0.223 

0.062 0.082 

0.000 0.007 

0.063 0.085 

0.015 0.031 

-0.083 

0.225 

0.083 

0.229 

0.060 

0.011 

0.074 

0.083 

0.078 

0.092 

Offender Married 0.411 0.377 0.393 -0.036 0.032 

Offender Marital Status = Missing 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.000 0.038 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.835 1.763 1.692 -0.094 -0.047 

Number of Children = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 0.094 0.103 0.097 0.011 -0.020 

Offender Past Military Service = Missing 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 

Number of Charges = Missing 

0.010 

1.670 

0.000 

0.009 0.007 

1.466 1.218 

0.000 0.007 

-0.042 

-0.721 

0.083 

-0.025 

-0.395 

0.083 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 35.784 34.739 34.516 -0.122 -0.021 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking = Missing 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 

Years of Education = Missing 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 

Days in Jail = Missing 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 

Location of Birth = Missing 

0.000 

12.232 

0.021 

2.186 

0.000 

0.680 

0.000 

0.000 0.007 

11.971 11.642 

0.033 0.031 

1.788 1.514 

0.000 0.003 

0.665 0.564 

0.000 0.007 

0.083 

-0.238 

0.060 

-0.255 

0.059 

-0.234 

0.083 

0.083 

-0.117 

-0.014 

-0.104 

0.059 

-0.204 

0.083 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 0.165 0.134 0.135 -0.088 0.004 

Offender Booking Charges = Missing 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 

Age at First Arrest = Missing 

0.000 

24.619 

0.000 

0.000 0.007 

23.994 23.277 

0.000 0.007 

0.083 

-0.167 

0.083 

0.083 

-0.089 

0.083 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 4.629 4.171 4.605 -0.004 0.080 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 

0.784 

0.577 

0.268 

0.708 0.749 

0.504 0.443 

0.280 0.254 

-0.079 

-0.269 

-0.032 

0.094 

-0.122 

-0.059 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 0.289 0.245 0.309 0.045 0.138 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 0.103 0.106 0.127 0.072 0.063 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.010 0.006 0.024 0.090 0.120 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 

0.021 

0.052 

0.299 

0.009 0.014 

0.055 0.027 

0.257 0.251 

-0.059 

-0.147 

-0.111 

0.044 

-0.167 

-0.014 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.412 0.371 0.378 -0.071 0.015 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 0.258 0.217 0.234 -0.057 0.039 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.289 0.283 0.306 0.037 0.049 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 0.175 0.111 0.165 -0.028 0.146 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 0.082 0.053 0.055 -0.120 0.008 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 0.010 0.007 0.021 0.072 0.096 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 0.010 0.006 0.027 0.105 0.131 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.072 0.070 0.069 -0.014 -0.004 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.052 0.066 0.072 0.080 0.023 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.031 0.021 0.055 0.105 0.149 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 0.134 0.164 0.216 0.200 0.128 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.361 0.359 0.447 0.173 0.176 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 0.113 0.080 0.082 -0.112 0.011 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.155 0.140 0.127 -0.082 -0.040 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.041 0.029 0.038 -0.018 0.048 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.155 0.118 0.110 -0.143 -0.024 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 0.186 0.157 0.203 0.043 0.114 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 

0.010 

0.464 

0.454 

0.014 0.021 

0.390 0.495 

0.406 0.409 

0.072 

0.062 

-0.091 

0.048 

0.208 

0.007 

(Continued) 

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 26. Comparability of Observed and Missing Time 2 Interview Cases (Continued)

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) 0.691 0.641 0.670 -0.020 0.028 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina 0.402 0.365 0.388 -0.028 0.048 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.299 0.279 0.258 -0.094 -0.048 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.041 0.035 0.041 0.000 0.032 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults 0.010 0.007 0.021 0.072 0.098 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary 0.021 0.029 0.014 -0.059 -0.131 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses 

0.000 

0.021 

0.103 

0.052 

0.072 

0.000 0.010 

0.014 0.003 

0.082 0.100 

0.056 0.024 

0.089 0.086 

0.102 

-0.293 

-0.011 

-0.179 

0.049 

0.102 

-0.183 

0.060 

-0.208 

-0.013 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence 0.113 0.110 0.127 0.041 0.051 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.021 0.026 0.024 0.022 -0.010 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud 0.031 0.033 0.031 0.000 -0.012 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment 0.010 0.003 0.010 0.000 0.074 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.029 0.015 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.010 0.008 0.007 -0.042 -0.014 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses 0.010 0.012 0.003 -0.117 -0.147 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.075 0.088 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.103 0.088 0.103 0.000 0.049 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism 0.010 0.008 0.014 0.029 0.049 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.102 0.102 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.021 0.012 0.031 0.059 0.109 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.010 0.002 0.007 -0.042 0.053 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses 0.021 0.012 0.031 0.059 0.108 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses 0.124 0.117 0.151 0.077 0.096 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses 0.072 0.073 0.093 0.071 0.069 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim 0.104 0.099 0.100 -0.013 0.006 

Same Victim Status = Missing 0.010 0.007 0.007 -0.042 0.002 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance 29.134 30.009 30.251 0.073 0.016 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Final Case Disposition 162.325 162.908 179.983 0.103 0.099 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Disposition = Missing 

Case Disposition = Guilty 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty 

Case Disposition = Noll Pros 

Case Disposition = Death 

0.144 

0.732 

0.031 

0.093 

0.000 

0.165 0.172 

0.683 0.615 

0.029 0.058 

0.123 0.148 

0.000 0.007 

0.073 

-0.240 

0.117 

0.155 

0.083 

0.017 

-0.140 

0.128 

0.070 

0.083 

Case Disposition = Case Pending 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated 

0.144 

0.113 

0.021 

0.165 0.172 

0.132 0.058 

0.020 0.027 

0.073 

-0.234 

0.042 

0.017 

-0.312 

0.048 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected 0.010 0.006 0.007 -0.042 0.016 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending 

Pre-Trial Intervention = Not Applicable 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest = Missing 

0.031 

0.825 

0.000 

579.660 

1587.139 

0.186 

0.042 0.027 

0.801 0.880 

0.000 0.017 

563.835 533.667 

1839.677 1787.038 

0.258 0.192 

-0.021 

0.169 

0.132 

-0.254 

-0.099 

0.017 

-0.089 

0.242 

0.132 

-0.166 

0.026 

-0.166 

Note: Rows with standardized statistics with absolute values exceeding 0.15 (either before or after weighting) are shaded.

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 27. Comparability of Observed and Missing Interview (Both Time 1 and Time 2) Cases

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Randomly Assigned to Treatment Condition 0.547 0.528 0.502 -0.091 -0.053 

Offender Race = White 0.716 0.718 0.689 -0.057 -0.061 

Offender Race = Black 

Offender Race = Other 

Offender Race = Missing 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 

Offender Ethnicity = Missing 

0.263 

0.021 

0.000 

0.022 

0.021 

0.231 0.222 

0.051 0.082 

0.000 0.007 

0.052 0.085 

0.016 0.031 

-0.099 

0.222 

0.083 

0.226 

0.056 

-0.023 

0.113 

0.083 

0.117 

0.085 

Offender Married 0.409 0.364 0.394 -0.030 0.061 

Offender Marital Status = Missing 0.021 0.014 0.020 -0.004 0.048 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.800 1.755 1.704 -0.062 -0.033 

Number of Children = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 0.085 0.097 0.100 0.048 0.008 

Offender Past Military Service = Missing 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 

Number of Charges = Missing 

0.011 

1.674 

0.000 

0.010 0.007 

1.502 1.220 

0.000 0.007 

-0.045 

-0.724 

0.083 

-0.040 

-0.450 

0.083 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 35.611 34.790 34.581 -0.099 -0.020 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking = Missing 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 

Years of Education = Missing 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 

Days in Jail = Missing 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 

Location of Birth = Missing 

0.000 

12.215 

0.021 

2.200 

0.000 

0.684 

0.000 

0.000 0.007 

11.997 11.725 

0.037 0.031 

1.749 1.514 

0.000 0.003 

0.656 0.564 

0.000 0.007 

0.083 

-0.226 

0.056 

-0.262 

0.059 

-0.243 

0.083 

0.083 

-0.125 

-0.035 

-0.090 

0.059 

-0.186 

0.083 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 0.158 0.145 0.137 -0.059 -0.021 

Offender Booking Charges = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 24.411 23.656 23.354 -0.130 -0.037 

Age at First Arrest = Missing 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 4.695 4.240 4.584 -0.021 0.064 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 

0.779 

0.568 

0.263 

0.731 0.751 

0.500 0.447 

0.280 0.256 

-0.065 

-0.244 

-0.016 

0.046 

-0.106 

-0.054 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 0.295 0.263 0.307 0.027 0.096 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 0.105 0.108 0.126 0.063 0.056 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.011 0.009 0.024 0.087 0.100 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 

0.021 

0.053 

0.305 

0.008 0.014 

0.060 0.027 

0.252 0.249 

-0.064 

-0.155 

-0.130 

0.053 

-0.200 

-0.006 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.411 0.370 0.379 -0.065 0.018 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 0.263 0.207 0.232 -0.073 0.059 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 

0.295 

0.179 

0.074 

0.298 0.304 

0.096 0.164 

0.050 0.058 

0.020 

-0.041 

-0.067 

0.013 

0.184 

0.034 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 0.011 0.008 0.020 0.070 0.086 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 0.011 0.005 0.027 0.103 0.136 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.074 0.070 0.068 -0.021 -0.007 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.053 0.062 0.072 0.074 0.036 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.032 0.023 0.055 0.101 0.139 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 0.137 0.184 0.215 0.190 0.076 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.358 0.370 0.447 0.179 0.156 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 0.116 0.091 0.082 -0.123 -0.031 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.158 0.154 0.126 -0.095 -0.084 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 

0.042 

0.158 

0.189 

0.033 0.038 

0.111 0.109 

0.160 0.201 

-0.024 

-0.156 

0.030 

0.025 

-0.007 

0.102 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 

0.011 

0.463 

0.463 

0.018 0.020 

0.399 0.495 

0.424 0.406 

0.070 

0.063 

-0.116 

0.015 

0.191 

-0.036 

(Continued) 

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 27. Comparability of Observed and Missing Interview (Both Time 1 and Time 2) Cases (Continued)

Pretreatment Characteristics 

Unweighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Weighted 

Observed 

Mean 

Missing Mean 

Std. 

Difference 

(Before 

Weighting) 

Std. 

Difference 

(After 

Weighting) 

Number of Subsequent Arrests (Including Zeros) 0.684 0.656 0.672 -0.012 0.016 

Any Subsequent Arrests in South Carolina 0.400 0.370 0.389 -0.022 0.040 

Any Subsequent Arrests by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.295 0.283 0.259 -0.081 -0.055 

Any Subsequent Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.042 0.039 0.041 -0.006 0.010 

Any Subsequent Charges for Assaults 0.011 0.006 0.020 0.070 0.102 

Any Subsequent Charges for Burglary 0.021 0.025 0.014 -0.064 -0.097 

Any Subsequent Charges for Child Abuse 

Any Subsequent Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 

Any Subsequent Charges for All Other Contempt 

Any Subsequent Charges for Disorder Offenses 

Any Subsequent Charges for Drug Offenses 

0.000 

0.021 

0.095 

0.053 

0.074 

0.000 0.010 

0.013 0.003 

0.071 0.102 

0.056 0.024 

0.078 0.085 

0.102 

-0.302 

0.025 

-0.188 

0.042 

0.102 

-0.172 

0.102 

-0.211 

0.027 

Any Subsequent Charges for Domestic Violence 0.105 0.112 0.130 0.073 0.053 

Any Subsequent Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.021 0.030 0.024 0.019 -0.038 

Any Subsequent Charges for Fraud 0.032 0.044 0.031 -0.005 -0.079 

Any Subsequent Charges for Harassment 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.117 0.117 

Any Subsequent Charges for Kidnapping 0.011 0.012 0.014 0.027 0.015 

Any Subsequent Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.011 0.008 0.007 -0.045 -0.019 

Any Subsequent Charges for Robbery 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Any Subsequent Charges for Sex Offenses 0.011 0.012 0.003 -0.122 -0.145 

Any Subsequent Charges for Theft 0.021 0.017 0.034 0.072 0.096 

Any Subsequent Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.105 0.100 0.102 -0.009 0.007 

Any Subsequent Charges for Vandalism 0.011 0.008 0.014 0.027 0.045 

Any Subsequent Charges for Weapons Violations 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.102 0.102 

Any Subsequent Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.021 0.013 0.031 0.056 0.100 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.011 0.006 0.007 -0.045 0.004 

Any Subsequent Charges for Other Offenses 0.021 0.012 0.031 0.056 0.109 

Any Subsequent Charges for Violent Offenses 0.116 0.118 0.154 0.105 0.099 

Any Subsequent Charges for Property Offenses 0.074 0.084 0.092 0.064 0.027 

Any Subsequent Arrests in LCSD For Crimes Against the Same Victim 0.096 0.101 0.103 0.024 0.008 

Same Victim Status = Missing 0.011 0.006 0.007 -0.045 0.010 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and First Appearance 28.779 30.331 30.358 0.103 0.002 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Final Case Disposition 163.732 155.744 179.434 0.091 0.138 

Days Between Gateway Arrest and Disposition = Missing 

Case Disposition = Guilty 

Case Disposition = Not Guilty 

0.137 

0.737 

0.032 

0.151 0.174 

0.718 0.614 

0.031 0.058 

0.098 

-0.252 

0.113 

0.062 

-0.212 

0.117 

Case Disposition = Noll Pros 0.095 0.101 0.147 0.147 0.129 

Case Disposition = Death 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.083 0.083 

Case Disposition = Case Pending 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Program Complete 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Terminated 

0.137 

0.105 

0.021 

0.151 0.174 

0.109 0.061 

0.028 0.027 

0.098 

-0.183 

0.038 

0.062 

-0.197 

-0.002 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Rejected 0.011 0.007 0.007 -0.045 -0.007 

Pre-Trial Intervention Program Status = Pending 

Pre-Trial Intervention = Not Applicable 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 

0.032 

0.832 

0.000 

579.126 

1565.558 

0.046 0.027 

0.810 0.877 

0.000 0.017 

559.493 534.154 

1973.859 1792.363 

-0.026 

0.139 

0.132 

-0.248 

-0.113 

-0.117 

0.205 

0.132 

-0.140 

0.091 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest = Missing 0.189 0.231 0.191 0.004 -0.101 

Note: Rows with standardized statistics with absolute values exceeding 0.15 (either before or after weighting) are shaded.

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 28. Pretreatment Equivalence of Weighted Treatment and Control Cases (Weighting for Time 1 

Interview Nonresponse)

Treatment Control Test Background Characteristic Group Mean Group Mean Statistic

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Offender Race = White 

Offender Race = Black 

Offender Race = Other 

0.7354 

0.1921 

0.0725 

0.6696 

0.3114 

0.0190 

0.6452 

2.5219 

1.4392 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0510 0.0193 0.6386 

Offender Married 0.4284 0.3713 0.4366 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking 0.7580 0.7731 0.0395 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 

0.0787 

0.5076 

0.1628 

0.1436 

0.7000 

0.1171 

1.4420 

4.7004 

0.5420 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) 0.7801 0.8007 0.0763 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 0.7049 0.7295 0.0911 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.5142 0.4438 0.6205 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 0.0119 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 

0.2544 

0.3575 

0.1420 

0.2469 

0.1860 

0.0762 

0.0092 

4.3884 

1.2384 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.0530 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 0.0080 0.0375 1.5653 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 0.0338 0.0902 1.8559 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 0.3066 0.2219 1.1657 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.4070 0.4144 0.0073 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 

0.2339 

0.3528 

0.1672 

0.2394 

0.2275 

0.1017 

0.0057 

2.3195 

1.3901 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 0.0680 0.0742 0.0218 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 0.0117 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 0.0000 0.0141 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.0738 0.0610 0.0866 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.0770 0.0373 0.7573 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.0348 0.0370 0.0046 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 0.1856 0.1908 0.0050 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 0.3290 0.4285 1.2997 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 0.1247 0.0714 1.0902 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.125 0.1864 0.8843 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.0326 0.0478 0.2131 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.1536 0.0959 1.0773 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 0.2328 0.1568 1.1614 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 0.0000 0.0331 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 0.5144 0.3970 1.7360 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 0.4976 0.3861 1.5810 

Victim is a High School Graduate 0.7455 0.7746 0.1431 

Victim Race = White 

Victim Race = Black 

Victim Race = Other Race 

0.8274 

0.1185 

0.0569 

0.7316 

0.2483 

0.1044 

1.6277 

3.7936 

0.6688 

Victim Race = Missing 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0873 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident 0.7994 0.7923 0.0097 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband 0.4201 0.4280 0.0079 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband 0.0138 0.0310 0.4399 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other 

0.3617 

0.1053 

0.0990 

0.4330 

0.0267 

0.0813 

0.6447 

3.1377 

0.1381 

Numerical Variables 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview 

Victim Age 

54.9048 

34.0824 

48.2992 

32.5004 

T-Test 

1.6400 

0.8100 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 564.7888 523.5532 1.3400 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 1.2358 1.7960 -0.9800 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 34.6882 34.9788 -0.1600 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 11.9579 12.0031 -0.1300 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 1.9698 1.7951 0.3000 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.7019 1.9538 -0.9300 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 23.6502 24.3568 -0.4500 

Number of Prior Arrests (Excluding Zeros) 6.0127 5.4130 0.5800 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 4.6904 4.3342 0.3900 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 1633.7840 1866.8646 -0.6500 

Note: Rows with chi-square statistics exceeding 2.25 or t-test statistics exceeding 1.5 are shaded to 

indicate possible pretreatment imbalances.

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 29. Pretreatment Equivalence of Weighted Treatment and Control Cases (Weighting for Time 2 

Interview Nonresponse)

Background Characteristic Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Test 

Statistic 

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Offender Race = White 0.7453 0.6920 0.3208 

Offender Race = Black 0.2206 0.2823 0.4815 

Offender Race = Other 0.0341 0.0257 0.0409 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0347 0.0263 0.0386 

Offender Married 0.4305 0.3695 0.3532 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking 0.7676 0.7853 0.0415 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 

0.0823 0.1117 

0.5867 0.7850 

0.1837 0.1264 

0.2211 

3.9325 

0.5932 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) 0.7686 0.8324 0.5349 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 0.7461 0.7900 0.2331 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.5483 0.5746 0.0640 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 

0.0000 0.0000 

0.2022 0.3532 

0.3407 0.2041 

N/A 

2.6328 

2.1302 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 0.1282 0.0746 0.6718 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.0169 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 0.0156 0.0205 0.0380 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 0.0196 0.0914 1.9672 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 0.3187 0.2538 0.4748 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.3753 0.4356 0.3513 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 0.2553 0.2399 0.0300 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.2962 0.2769 0.0421 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 0.2090 0.1019 2.0802 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 0.0835 0.0663 0.7746 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 0.0175 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 0.0000 0.0205 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.0703 0.0732 0.0028 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.0567 0.0530 0.0057 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.0354 0.0205 0.1980 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 

0.1170 0.1694 

0.2574 0.4839 

0.1410 0.0630 

0.4951 

5.0608 

1.5337 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.1074 0.2040 1.6844 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.0310 0.0471 0.1777 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.1769 0.1090 0.8772 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 0.2092 0.1425 0.6950 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 0.0000 0.0244 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 0.4892 0.3961 0.8102 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 0.4933 0.3815 1.1628 

Victim is a High School Graduate 0.7936 0.7592 0.1535 

Victim Race = White 0.7783 0.7757 0.0008 

Victim Race = Black 0.1501 0.1950 0.3346 

Victim Race = Other Race 0.0723 0.1132 0.3546 

Victim Race = Missing 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0691 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident 0.7302 0.7696 0.1859 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband 0.4121 0.4180 0.0032 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband 0.0190 0.0527 0.7078 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other 

0.3230 0.3594 

0.1277 0.0391 

0.1182 0.1308 

0.1270 

2.3146 

0.0334 

Numerical Variables 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 2 Interview 

53.0367 43.8932 

177.6924 169.3781 

T-Test 

2.2800 

0.7400 

Number of Days Between Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews 123.5404 124.3410 -0.0700 

Victim Age 35.1721 32.5997 1.1000 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 591.4722 557.4100 1.0100 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 1546.2689 1747.4872 -0.5000 

Number of Prior Arrests (Not Including Zeros) 5.7229 5.6109 0.0900 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 4.3989 4.6705 -0.2500 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 25.0543 23.7767 0.6400 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 2.2969 1.8489 0.5400 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 12.1939 12.1446 0.1100 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 36.0649 34.9122 0.5000 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 1.2841 2.0285 -0.8900 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.7360 1.9170 -0.5600 

Note: Rows with chi-square statistics exceeding 2.25 or t-test statistics exceeding 1.5 are shaded to 

indicate possible pretreatment imbalances.

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 30. Pretreatment Equivalence of Weighted Treatment and Control Cases (Weighting for Time 1 or Time 

2 Interview Nonresponse)

Background Characteristic Treatment 

Group Mean 

Control 

Group Mean 

Test 

Statistic 

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Offender Race = White 0.7440 0.6854 0.3458 

Offender Race = Black 0.2093 0.2876 0.7433 

Offender Race = Other 0.0468 0.0270 0.1557 

Offender Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0474 0.0277 0.1496 

Offender Married 0.4424 0.3152 1.4498 

Offender Reports Any Children at Booking 0.7880 0.7717 0.0334 

Offender Reports Any Past Military Service 0.0760 0.1098 0.2683 

Offender Reports Being Born in South Carolina 0.5979 0.7504 2.0081 

Offender Booked on Non-Domestic Violence Charge 0.1818 0.1144 0.7625 

Any Prior Arrest Record (Before Gateway Arrest) 0.7508 0.8303 0.7217 

Any Prior Arrest Record in South Carolina 0.7211 0.7887 0.4785 

Any Prior Arrest Record by Lexington County Sheriff's Department 0.5032 0.5621 0.2870 

Both Parties Arrested at Gateway Arrest (Dual Arrest) 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Alcohol Violations 0.2099 0.3447 1.8898 

Any Prior Charges for Assaults 0.3301 0.2155 1.3653 

Any Prior Charges for Burglary 0.1268 0.0831 0.4015 

Any Prior Charges for Child Abuse 0.0176 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for FTA/FTP/Attorney Contempt 0.0113 0.0162 0.0636 

Any Prior Charges for All Other Contempt 0.0210 0.0982 1.9794 

Any Prior Charges for Disorder Offenses 0.2908 0.2582 0.1156 

Any Prior Charges for Drug Offenses 0.3481 0.4348 0.6795 

Any Prior Charges for Domestic Violence 0.2430 0.2198 0.0709 

Any Prior Charges for Driving While Impaired 0.3012 0.2910 0.0103 

Any Prior Charges for Fraud 0.1750 0.0839 1.9901 

Any Prior Charges for Harassment 0.0603 0.0611 0.0004 

Any Prior Charges for Homicide 0.0172 0.0000 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Kidnapping 0.0000 0.0162 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Motor Vehicle Theft 0.0682 0.0756 0.0179 

Any Prior Charges for Robbery 0.0576 0.0584 0.0003 

Any Prior Charges for Sex Offenses 0.0343 0.0182 0.2628 

Any Prior Charges for Theft 

Any Prior Charges for Traffic Offenses 

Any Prior Charges for Vandalism 

0.1430 0.1860 

0.2593 0.4862 

0.1294 0.0699 

0.2280 

4.5906 

0.8550 

Any Prior Charges for Weapons Violations 0.1105 0.2084 1.5560 

Any Prior Charges for Probation/Parole Violations 0.0252 0.0506 0.4708 

Any Prior Charges for Other Property Offenses 0.1591 0.1009 0.7135 

Any Prior Charges for Other Offenses 0.1993 0.1431 0.4810 

Any Prior Charges for Offenses With Missing Charges 0.0000 0.0320 N/A 

Any Prior Charges for Violent Offenses 0.4622 0.3879 0.4749 

Any Prior Charges for Property Offenses 0.4808 0.3956 0.6062 

Victim is a High School Graduate 0.8027 0.7539 0.2980 

Victim Race = White 0.7809 0.7714 0.0106 

Victim Race = Black 0.1410 0.1897 0.4056 

Victim Race = Other Race 0.0834 0.1253 0.2744 

Victim Race = Missing 0.0000 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Ethnicity = Hispanic 0.0736 0.0000 N/A 

Victim Reports Living With Offender at Time of Gateway Incident 0.7314 0.7747 0.2152 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Husband 0.4299 0.3868 2.0688 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Husband 0.0195 0.0634 0.9290 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Boyfriend 0.3077 0.3904 0.5957 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Offender is Ex-Boyfriend 0.1206 0.0409 1.8001 

Offender-Victim Relationship = Other 0.1222 0.1184 0.0030 

Numerical Variables T-Test 

Victim Age 34.9952 32.3597 1.0900 

Number of Days Between Time 1 and Time 2 Interviews 126.3546 122.9767 0.2800 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 2 Interview 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Time 1 Interview 

Number of Days Between Gateway Arrest and Record Search Date 

178.9613 166.3906 

52.6068 43.4139 

590.9394 541.9726 

1.0100 

2.4300 

1.3800 

Age at First Arrest (Including Current Arrest if No Prior Arrests) 24.3749 23.5506 0.4300 

Number of Prior Arrests (Including Zeros) 4.1800 4.7484 -0.5200 

Number of Days Since Last Arrest (Among Those With Priors) 1779.7194 1792.8728 0.0200 

Days in Jail Between Gateway Arrest and Bond Release 2.1006 1.7770 0.4400 

Years of Education Reported by Offender at Booking 12.0956 12.0945 0.0000 

Offender's Age at Time of Booking 35.4474 34.8194 0.2700 

Number of Charges Booked at Gateway Arrest 1.2699 1.9365 -0.8900 

Number of Children Reported by Offender at Booking 1.7225 1.8360 -0.3600 

Note: Rows with chi-square statistics exceeding 2.25 or t-test statistics exceeding 1.5 are shaded to 

indicate possible pretreatment imbalances.

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 31. Weighted Time 1 Interview Outcomes

Treatment Control Test Time 1 Victim Interview Items Group Mean Group Mean Statistic

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married 0.2062 0.2949 1.3121 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting 0.1651 0.1489 0.0558 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated 0.4319 0.2403 5.1712 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the Incident 

Victim Contacted Offender Since Incident 

Offender Contacted Victim Since Incident 

0.0000 

0.1967 

0.2072 

0.3748 

0.6646 

0.7738 

0.0165 

0.2994 

0.2002 

0.3367 

0.6108 

0.7516 

N/A 

1.7386 

0.0091 

0.1930 

0.2331 

0.0877 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 

Victim Reports Knowledge of No-Contact Order 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 

Victim Reports Any Injury 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 

0.7194 

0.5123 

0.8870 

0.4831 

0.1348 

0.0243 

0.7550 

0.0647 

0.1560 

0.4665 

0.1114 

0.0576 

0.0779 

0.5661 

0.5385 

0.3493 

0.8494 

0.4359 

0.1308 

0.0000 

0.8550 

0.0749 

0.0702 

0.3715 

0.0287 

0.0451 

0.0135 

0.3698 

4.2020 

3.3571 

0.3754 

0.2818 

0.0048 

N/A 

1.6807 

0.0449 

1.8401 

1.1521 

2.8541 

0.1114 

2.5988 

4.7798 

Numerical Variables 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale 1.6574 1.0975 

T-Test 

1.4300 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.3645 0.0466 2.1000 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 

Injury - Variety Scale 

0.0872 

0.2801 

0.0451 

0.0809 

0.8600 

1.2700 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 1.6539 0.7965 2.9200 

Note: Rows with chi-square or t-test statistics significant at two-tailed p < .05 level are shaded.

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 32. Time 1 Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances and Nonresponse Weights

Odds Treatment 

Time 1 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Test 

Statistic 

Treatment Error 

Categorical Variables 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated 

-0.6478 

0.1970 

0.8813 

0.8421 

0.6596 

1.8289 

Ch

0.5038 

0.5137 

0.4321 

i-Square 

1.6535 

0.1470 

4.1602 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married -0.7225 0.5369 0.4896 2.1778 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview 0.2100 1.2337 0.4686 0.2009 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the Incident 0.2133 1.2378 0.4112 0.2690 

Victim Contacted Offender Since Incident 0.3806 1.4632 0.4112 0.8564 

Offender Contacted Victim Since Incident -0.0418 0.9591 0.4692 0.0079 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.7566 2.1310 0.4268 3.1432 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.4274 1.5333 0.4304 0.9859 

Victim Reports Knowledge of No-Contact Order 0.2676 1.3068 0.5314 0.2536 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety -0.0160 0.9841 0.3936 0.0016 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense -0.3015 0.7397 0.6333 0.2266 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest N/A 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest -0.6182 0.5389 0.4742 1.6992 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest -0.2551 0.7748 0.6778 0.1417 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 0.7787 2.1786 0.5845 1.7750 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.3166 1.3725 0.4057 0.6089 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 1.5682 4.7980 0.8692 3.2551 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.4685 1.5976 0.8376 0.3128 

Victim Reports Any Injury 1.8433 6.3174 1.1318 2.6525 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.8195 2.2694 0.4044 4.1063 

Numerical Variables T-Test 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale 0.5051 0.4348 1.1617 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.3774 0.1576 2.3947 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 0.0822 0.0601 1.3677 

Injury - Variety Scale 0.2422 0.1753 1.3816 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 0.7201 0.3173 2.2695 

Note: The regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: treatment/control condition; 

offender is black; offender is a South Carolina native; any prior arrests for assault; any prior arrests for driving while 

impaired; victim is black; offender is victim's ex-boyfriend; and waiting time between gateway arrest and first interview. 

Chi-square and T-tests in this table only apply to the regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in these 

models. The interim controls are not included in these tests. Some models would not converge with all control variables; 

in these models the problematic variable(s) were dropped and re-estimated. Shaded lines indicate that the treatment 

coefficient is statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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 33. Weighted Time 2 Interview Outcomes

Treatment Control Test Time 2 Victim Interview Items Group Mean Group Mean Statistic

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married 0.2064 0.2510 0.2713 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting 0.0900 0.1233 0.2642 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated 0.4773 0.3409 1.7505 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed 0.0157 0.0269 0.1428 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married 0.1905 0.2579 0.5853 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview 0.2713 0.4002 1.7489 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the First Interview 0.3489 0.4247 0.5632 

Victim Contacted Offender Since First Intrview 0.5834 0.6128 0.0827 

Offender Contacted Victim Since First Interview 0.7601 0.7424 0.0386 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.2228 0.1595 0.5732 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.1537 0.0859 0.9932 

Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status = Don't Know Status 0.1263 0.1888 0.6838 

Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status = Yes, Still in Place 0.5512 0.3749 2.7852 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 0.4463 0.2829 2.5708 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.2215 0.1462 0.8300 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest 0.0251 0.0271 0.0030 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest 0.6508 0.7481 0.7529 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest 0.1438 0.0332 1.9930 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 0.1804 0.1916 0.0140 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.6018 0.5449 0.3064 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 0.1046 0.1105 0.0089 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.1127 0.0975 0.0550 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.1046 0.0669 0.4240 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.6305 0.3239 8.3145 

Numerical Variables T-Test

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale 3.1880 2.3507 1.2500 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.4204 0.4579 -0.1100 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 0.1913 0.1716 0.1500 

Injury - Variety Scale 0.5493 0.2809 0.7700 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 2.0700 0.8888 2.8200 

Note: Rows with chi-square or t-test statistics significant at two-tailed p < .05 level are shaded.

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 34. Time 2 Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances and Nonresponse Weights

Odds Treatment 

Time 2 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Test 

Statistic 

Treatment Error 

Categorical Variables Chi-Square 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Married -0.1719 0.8421 0.5676 0.0917 

Victim Living Situation = Currently Cohabiting -0.4161 0.6596 0.7423 0.3141 

Victim Living Situation = Divorced or Separated 0.6037 1.8289 0.5072 1.4167 

Victim Living Situation = Widowed N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Victim Living Situation = Single, Never Married -0.6220 0.5369 0.5355 1.3491 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Interview -0.6432 0.5256 0.5060 1.6156 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since the First Interview -0.2499 0.7789 0.4813 0.2695 

Victim Contacted Offender Since First Interview 0.1125 1.1191 0.0492 0.8244 

Offender Contacted Victim Since First Interview 0.4950 1.6405 0.5682 0.7591 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.6833 1.9804 0.6517 1.0993 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 1.1205 3.0664 0.8054 1.9355 

Victim Reports That No-Contact Order Still in Place 0.8043 2.2351 0.4960 2.6296 

Victim Reports No Knowledge of No-Contact Order Status -0.8500 0.4274 0.6871 1.5305 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 0.7364 2.0884 0.5128 2.0619 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.6554 1.9259 0.6350 1.0651 

Trend in Abuse = Got Worse After Gateway Arrest N/A 

Trend in Abuse = No New Abuse After Gateway Arrest -0.6416 0.5265 0.6075 1.1155 

Trend in Abuse = Stayed About the Same After Gateway Arrest 1.7650 5.8416 1.0525 2.8122 

Trend in Abuse = Less After Gateway Arrest 0.1912 1.2107 0.7400 0.0668 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.5554 1.7426 0.5025 1.2218 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 0.1223 1.1301 0.6732 0.0330 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 1.0481 2.8522 0.7618 1.8928 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.6880 1.9897 0.7767 0.7848 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 1.6277 5.0921 0.5430 8.9861 

Numerical Variables T-Test 

Psychological Aggression - Variety Scale 1.6464 0.7701 2.1379 

Physical Aggression - Variety Scale 0.2236 0.3677 0.6081 

Sexual Coercion - Variety Scale 0.1827 0.1466 1.2462 

Injury - Variety Scale 0.5304 0.4348 1.2199 

Stalking/Threats - Variety Scale 1.5474 0.4917 3.1470 

Note: The regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: treatment/control condition; 

offender is a South Carolina native; any prior arrests for alcohol offenses; any prior arrests for traffic offenses; 

offender is victim's ex-boyfriend; and waiting time between gateway arrest and Time 1 Interview. Chi-square and T-tests in 

this table only apply to the regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in these models. The interim 

controls are not included in these tests. Some of the models would not converge with all predictor variables. In these 

models, the problematic variable(s) were dropped and re-estimated. Shaded lines indicate that the treatment coefficient is 

statistically significant (two-tailed p < .05 significance level).

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 35. Weighted Interview Outcomes (Time 1 and Time 2 Combined)

Treatment Control Chi-Square Combined Victim Interview Items Group Mean Group Mean Test

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Either Interview 0.2999 0.3539 0.2793 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since Incident 0.4387 0.4281 0.0096 

Victim Contacted Offender 0.8092 0.6600 2.4480 

Offender Contacted Victim 0.8210 0.8676 0.3171 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 0.7160 0.4895 4.2473 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.5465 0.3981 1.7822 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 0.6080 0.5563 0.2275 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.3939 0.2101 0.7459 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.7112 0.5645 1.9808 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 0.1568 0.1552 0.0004 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 0.1655 0.1199 0.3597 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.1050 0.0705 0.3293 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 0.7695 0.5791 3.4940 

Note: Rows with chi-square statistics significant at two-tailed p < .05 level are shaded.

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 36. Combined Interview Regression Models Adjusting For Pretreatment Imbalances and Nonresponse Weights

Odds Treatment 

Combined Time 1 - Time 2 Interview Outcomes Treatment 

Coefficient 

Multiplier 

for 

Coefficient 

Standard 

Chi-Square 

Test 

Treatment Error 

Offender and Victim Living Together at Time of Either Interview -0.4788 0.6195 0.5059 0.8957 

Offender and Victim Have Lived Together Since Incident 0.0880 1.0920 0.4699 0.0351 

Victim Contacted Offender 0.9700 2.6379 0.5494 3.1176 

Offender Contacted Victim 0.0763 1.0793 0.6749 0.0128 

Victim Reports Contact by Law Enforcement Victim Advocate (LEVA) 1.0147 2.7585 0.4838 4.3980 

Victim Reports Contact by Sheriff's Deputy 0.7246 2.0639 0.4770 2.3076 

Victim Reports Concerns About Safety 0.4713 1.6021 0.4830 0.9523 

Victim Reports Carrying Weapon For Self-Defense 0.5559 1.7435 0.5699 0.9516 

Victim Reports Any Psychological Aggression 0.7121 2.0383 0.4937 2.0802 

Victim Reports Any Physical Aggression 0.3116 1.3656 0.6206 0.2520 

Victim Reports Any Sexual Coercion 1.0393 2.8272 0.6859 2.2959 

Victim Reports Any Injury 0.8334 2.3011 0.7868 1.1221 

Victim Reports Any Stalking/Threats 1.0366 2.8196 0.5344 3.7622 

Note: The regressions reported in this table include the following predictor variables: treatment/control condition; any prior arrests 

for traffic offenses; and waiting time between gateway arrest and Time 1 Interview. Chi-square tests in this table only apply to the 

logistic regression coefficient for the treatment indicator variable in these models. The interim controls are not included in these 

tests. None of the reported treatment coefficients is statistically significant at two-tailed p < .05 significance level.

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.