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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon Domestic

Violence Experiment, Final Report

Author(s): Annette Jolin ; William Feyerherm ; Robert

Fountain ; Sharon Friedman

Document No.: 179968

Date Received: December 28, 1999

Award Number: 95-IJ-CX-0054

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.
95-IJ-CX-0054 

BEYOND ARREST: THE PORTLAND, OREGON 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT 

FINAL REPORT 

Annette Jolin 

William Feyerhem 

Robert Fountain 

Sharon Friedman 

May, 1998 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
BJXOND ARREST THE PORTLAND, OREGON 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERIMENT 

FINAL REPORT 

May, 1998 

Annette Jolin, Professor 

Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University 

William Feyerherm, Vice-Provost 

Graduate Studies and Research, Portland State University 

Robert Fountain, Associate Professor 

Department of Mathematical Science, Portland State University 

Sharon Friedman, Doctoral Candidate 

Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University 

2 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Prepared under Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-0054 from the National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in 

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

position of the U. S. Department of Justice. 

3 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment was carried out with the assistance and 

expertise of many people. With gratitude we acknowledge the contributions of the following persons. 

VICTIMS 

More than 500 Portland women participated in this study. Despite the emotional turmoil caused by 

the violent event that prompted their partner's arrest these women set aside time and energy to 

answer our questions. It is to them that we express our deepest gratitude. While their individual 

identities can not be revealed, their combined individual stories bear powerfuI testimony to the 

suffering intimate violence produces in women's lives. Many of the women told us that they hoped 

their participation would make a difference, if not for them, then perhaps for others like them. Their 

generosity added a dimension to our inquiry that only they could provide. 

PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU 

Chief Charles Moose's acceptance of a citizen initiated proposal to create a Domestic Violence 

Reduction Unit (DVRU) and his strong belief in the "problem solving approach to policing initiatives 

are the foundation upon which this study rests. Without his support, this study would never have 

been initiated. But there were many others in the Portland Police Bureau who assisted in various 

ways once the study was under way. DVRU Captains Robert Brooks, Marianne Heisler and Dave 

Butzer, Lieutenant Mike Pace, Sergeant Jim Maciag and Officers Scott Forbes, Linda Johnson, John 

Laws, Mike Donohue,, Rick Miller, Pam Moen, Steve Morrow, and Anne Sundstrom. We also thank 

police bureau staff persons Sharon Benson, Juanita Stokes, Juanita Hernandez, and Debbie Haugen. 

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSlTY 

We are greatly indebted to the research staff who worked with us on this project They were the ones 

who handled the complex as well as the mundane of the day-to-day operation. At the core of this 

group were three highly motivated and talented women, Sharon Friedman, Andrea URen and Joy 

Webber. We also thank Stacey Kowalski for her willingness to help out during a staffing crisis early 

on. They had assistance from Brian Anderson, Karen Angeline, Jason Bush, Liz Greason, Tarisa 

Hopkins, Charles Murch, Joseph Rojas, April Sims, Kelly Stanway, and Suzanne Wallace. Our 

interviewers had the arguably most taxing job on this project. They, more than any of us, experienced 

the emotional strains associated with balancing the needs of victims with the requirements of the 

study design. Our special thanks goes to Coryll Martin and Lori Patterson who conducted the 

majority of the interviews. The other interviewers were Leslie Bagon, Elizabeth Burkholder, 

Courtney Cole, Came Cutler, Erin Galvin, Malaina Guzman, Elaine Inman, Rebecca Jenkins, Julie 

ODonnell, Amber Raider, Alaine Toomey, Kim Van Vu, Vy Van Vu, Kristin Warden, Sham 

Wardinsky, and Emmaly Williams. 

Sheriff Dan Noelle provided us with the needed access to his agency's data base to permit tracking 

our cases from street arrest to jail booking. Kristi Johnson and Sue Griffin patiently assisted us 

throughout this process. 

MULTNOMAH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 

District Attorney Mike Schrunk was an early supporter of this project. His deputy district attorneys 

Helen Smith, the chief senior deputy and Rod Underhill, the senior deputy in their Domestic Violence 

Unit, served as valuable and patient consultants to our research team. However, it was Tom 

Simpson, the Senior Fiscal Specialist who bore the brunt of our requests for assistance when it came 

time to collect prosecution data for our nearly 1000 study cases. His expertise and willing 

cooperation were greatly appreciated. 

Betsy Welch, the Chief, Family Law Judge and Jerry Cooper, the Court Administrator were both 

members of the project advisory board. Their willingness to consult directly with us and refer us to 

others who could be of assistance was invaluable. We are deeply grateful to Neal Japport, the Court 

Administrator's Executive Assistant for helping us locate sentencing and restraining order 

information for our study cases. 

. 

MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 

STATE COURT MULTNOMAH COUNlY 

4 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
MULTN0MA-H COUNTY ADULT COMMUNTTY JUSTICE SERVICES 

Elyse Clawson joined our advisory board when she replaced Tamara Holden, as the agency‘s 

director. We appreciated her willingness to continue her a$rtcy’s assistance with our project Sped 

thanks go to Rachel DeMartini and Mark Hess of the agency’s domestic violence unit 

ADVISORY BOARD 

Our special thanks go to the members of our project Advisory Board: Charles Moose, Chief of Police, 

Michael Schrunk, Multnomah County District Attorney, Betsy Welch, Chief Judge Family Court, 

Jerome Cooper, Trail Court Administrator, Elyse Clawson, Director Adult Community Justice 

Services, Judith Armatta, Esq., Dr. Chiquita Rollins, Multnomah County Family Violence 

Coordinator, Amazonas Olivella, Chair Women of Color Caucus-Oregon Coalition Against Domestic 

and Sexual Violence. 

NATIONAL INSrrruTE OF JUSTICE 

Cindy Nahabedian succeeded Stephanie Bourques as project manager about mid-way through the 

study. Each showed remarkable adeptness at responding to requests for guidance without impinging 

on the flexibility we needed to complete the project. We appreciated their trust and sensitive support 

For his technical assistance with the computerized randomization program we are indebted to Dr. 

George Chou and to Richard U’Ren with special gratitude for many hours of thoughtful editing. 

5 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
LIST OF TABLES 

Number TITLE PAGE 

Table 4.1 Case Characteristics of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Cases 

in which the Batterer was Arrested on the Scene: Study 

Sample, Initial Interview Sample, and Treatment/ Control 

Sub-Samples. ................................................................................................... .35 

Table 4.2 Batterer Characteristics: The Study Sample, Initial Interview 

Sample, and Trea?ment/Control Sub-Samples. ......................................... 37 

Table 4.3 Victim Characteristics: The Study Sample, Initial Interview 

Sample, and Treatment/Control Group Sub-Samples. ............................. 39 

Table 4.4 Witnessing Battering: Batterers, Victims and Children .............................. 41 

Table 4.5 Victim Reports of Violence Experienced Six Months Before, 

During, and Six Months After the Arrest. .................................................... 43 

Table 4.6 Victim Empowerment Help-Seeking Behavior During the Six 

Months Prior to Entry into the Study. .......................................................... 44 

Table 4.7 Victim Empowerment: Perception of Agency at the Time of 

the Initial Interview, N=478 ........................................................................... 45 

Table 4.8 Stake in Conformity: A Comparison of Arrested Batterers and 

their Victims ...................................................................................................... 46 

Table 5.1 Study Treatment Cases: Batterer Deterrence and Victim 

Empowerment Treatment Provided as Reported by DVRU 

Officers ............................................................................................................... 51 

Table 5.2 VictimslE Reports of Services they Received from Uniformed 

Officers ............................................................................................................. .55 

Table 5.3 Victim Assessment of Uniformed OfficersE Conduct ............................... 56 

6 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6.1 Initial Interview Completion and Non-Completion 

Information .................................................................................................. .59 

Table 6.2 Case Characteristics for Study Cases With and Without Initial 

Interviews.. .63 ....................................................................................................... 

Table 6.3 Characteristics for Study Cases With and Without Initial and 

Follow-up Interviews ...................................................................................... 64 

Table 7.1 Jail Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and Control Group .............. 69 

Table 7.2 Prosecution Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and 

Control Group .................................................................................................. 72 

Table 7.3 Restraining Order Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and 

Control Group. ................................................................................................. 74 

Table 7.4 OJIN Sentencing Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and 

Control Group .................................................................................................. 75 

Table 7.5 Deferred Sentencing Program Data: Study Sample, Treatment 

Group, and Control Group .............................................................................7 6 

Table 8.1 Any Revictimizations ExperienceduSame Offenderiiby 

Treatment and Control Group ....................................................................... 7 9 

Table 8.2 Any Revictimizations Experienceduhy Offender (same or 

different than in original arrest)uby Treatment and Control 

Group ................................................................................................................. 79 

Table 8.3 Average Number of Revictimizations Experienced by 

Treatment and Control Group Victims: Same Offender and 

Any Offender ................................................................................................... .80 

Table 8.4 Police Reports of Revictimizations and Reoffenses by 

Treatment and Control Group. ...................................................................... 81 

Table 8.5 Average Number of Reported Revictimizations and Reported 

Reoffenses by Treatment and Control Group .............................................. 82 

Table 8.6 The Average Number of Reported Revictimizations for Those 

Cases Reporting Any Events by Treatment and Control 

Group. ................................................................................................................ 83 

Table 8.7 Police Calls to the Same Address by Treatment and Control 

Group ................................................................................................................. 84 

7 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8.8 Restraining Orders Filed During the Six Months Following the 

Origxnal Arrest by Treatment and Control Group ..................................... 85 

DVRU Interventions and Restraining Orders Filed .................................... 86 

Table 8.10 DVRU Interventions as Predictors of Restraining Orders Filed ............... 86 

Table 8.9 

Table 8.11 DVRU Interventions and Prosecutions by Treatment and 

Control Group .................................................................................................. 87 

Table 8.12 DVRU Interventions and Cases Prosecuted ................................................. 88 

Table 8.13 DVRU Interventions as Predictors of Prosecutions .................................... 88 

Table 8.14 DVRU Interventions and Change in Empowerment by 

Treatment and Control Group ....................................................................... 89 

Table 8.15 DVRU Interventions and Changes in Empowerment ................................ 89 

Table 8.16 DVRU Interventions as Predictors of Changes in 

Empowerment .................................................................................................. 90 

Table 8.17 Empowerment as a Predictor of the Number of 

Revictimizations Experienced from the Same Batterer .............................. 90 

Table 8.18 Empowerment as a Predictor of Number of Revictimizations 

Experienced from Any Batterer ..................................................................... 91 

Table 8.19 The Presence or Absence of Revictimization Experiences from 

the Same Batterer as a Function of Identified Predictors ........................... 91 

Table 8.20 The Presence or Absence of Revictimization Experiences from 

Any Batterer as a Function of Identified Predictors ................................... 92 

Table 8.21 The Presence or Absence of Reports of Revictimization as a 

Function of Identified Predictors ................................................................... 92 

Table 8.22 The Presence or Absence of Police Reports of Revictimization 

Resulting in Custody as a Function of Identified Predictors ..................... 92 

Table 8.23 The Presence or Absence of Reported Reoffense Allegations 

against the Ori@ Batterer as a Function of Identified 

Predictors .......................................................................................................... 93 

8 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8.24 The Presence or Absence of Reported Reoffense Allegations 

against the Original Batterer Resulting in Custody as a 

Function of Identified Predictors ...........................................................-.......93 

Table 8.25 The Number of Reported Revictimizations as a Function of the 

Identified Predictors ........................................................................................93 

Table 8.26 The Number of Reported Revictimizations Resulting in 

Custodies as a Eunction of the Identified Predictors .................................. 94 

Table 8.27 The Number of Reported Reoffenses as a Function of the 

Identified Predictors ........................................................................................ 9 4 

Function of the Identified Predictors ............................................................ 94 

Table 8.28 The Number of Reported Reoffenses leading to Custodies as a 

Table 8.29 The Number of Police CaIls to the Same Address for Any 

Reason as a Function of the Identified kedictors ....................................... 95 

Table 8.30 The Number of Police Calls to the Same Address for a 

Domestic Violence Problem as a Function of the Identified 

Predictors .......................................................................................................... 95 

9 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
LIST OF FIGURES 

Number ‘TITLE - PAGE 

Figure 1: Program Logic of the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit 

(DVRU) ................. . ..............................................*..*....*..................................... 47 

Figure 2: From Arrest to Conviction 68 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgments i 

List of Tables ii 

List of Figures v 

Table of Contents vi 

Section One: Executive Summary 1 

Section Two: Literature Review 10 

Section Three: Description of the Portland, Oregon 

Domestic Violence Experiment 18 

Section Four: The Sample 27 

Section Five: Levels of Treatment 47 

Section Six: Interviews 58 

Section Seven: From Arrest to Incarceration 67 

Section Eight: Results 78 

Section Nine: Discussion 96 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Reference List 100 

Appendix A: The Police Check List (PCL) 

Appendix B: Initial Interview Questionnaire 

Appendix C: Follow-up Interview Questionnaire 

Appendix D: Police Record Form 

Appendix E: Interviewer Training Materials 

Appendix F: Time to Failure Analysis 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION ONE 

Executive Summary 

The Police Response to Domestic Violence in Portland, Oregon 

As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland 

Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of 

Multnomah County,' developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation 

of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the 

centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), 

had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. 

Implementation of the first goal required thorough investigation of misdemeanor domestic 

violence cases in order to facilitate prosecution and conviction of batterers regardless of 

victims' participation. Implementation of the empowerment goal involved validating the 

victim's experience and providing her with information about, and access to, community and 

criminal justice system services. 

The Mandate for an Evaluation of the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit 

Mindhl of the police bureau's commitment to sound problem solving, the final program 

plan for the unit contained a mandate for an outside evaluation. In 1994, researchers fiom 

Portland State University carried out a study in order to determine if or not the DVRU had 

The Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee was first convened in 1987 as part of a Family Violence 

Intervention Project administered through the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Its members 

represent a broad spectrum of domestic violence service providers. Its goal is to provide an interagency forum for 

developing, implementing, and assessing a coordinated response to domestic violence in Portland and Mulmomah County 

(Hubbard, 1995). 

revision09/30/99 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
implemented the bureau's community policing policies and if " had succeeded in improving 

the overall community response to domestic violence" (Jolin and Clavadetscher 199513). The 

study tentatively concluded it had but recommended a more definitive study. In 1995 the 

National Institute of Justice funded the work described in this report. 

The Research Location 

Portland is the center of a 1.6 million population metropolitan area. Nearly half a million 

people live within the city limits. Despite its reputation as one of the nation's most livable 

cities, Portland's crime rate reflects its urban status. The city's rate of violent crime is more 

than three times higher than the state as a whole. With 1,856 violent crimes per 100,000 

population, Portland surpasses Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Denver, but ranks below Baltimore, 

Boston, and Kansas City (Maguire et al., 1995). 

Oregon Law Pertaining To Domestic Violence 

The police response to domestic violence is set forth in a 1977 statute (ORs 133.055) 

which states that a police officer must arrest in misdemeanor domestic violence cases when: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

the officer is at the scene 

the officer has probable cause to believe that an assault has occurred [or restraining 

order was violated]; or 

the officer has probable cause to believe that one of the persons has placed the other 

in fear of imminent serious physical injury. 

The Abuse Prevention Act of 1977 made Oregon the first state in the nation to mandate 

arrest for misdemeanor domestic crimes. 

The Research Questions 

The study described here was designed to see if DVRU strategies led to reductions in 

domestic violence. It was believed that, in the long run, increasing the cost of violence to 

batterers and reducing the risk of renewed violence to their victims could bring about 

2 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
reductions in domestic violence. In the short run, this could be accomplished by increasing 

prosecutions and enhancing victim empowermen? 

Batterer 

Victim 

The questions we asked were: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Do DVRU interventions increase prosecutions of misdemeanor domestic violence 

cases? 

Do DVRU interventions increase victim empowerment? 

Do DVRU interventions lead to reductions in domestic violence? 

In addition to answering questions about the effectiveness of a specialized police unit, 

this study also served to test an important research hypothesis: 

Arrest followed by prosecution, trial, and sentence for the offender coupled with 

provisions of enhanced support services for the victim reduces the recurrence of 

domestic violence more effectively than arrest alone. 

Study Case Eligibility Criteria 

Domestic violence incidents were included in the study if they involved misdemeanor 

crimes between adult, heterosexual, intimate partners when the male assailant was arrested at 

the scene and taken to jail by the officers who responded to the call. Victims had to reside 

within Oregon or Southwestern Washington and be reachable by telephone. Cases in which 

officers arrested both parties were excluded. 

2 It is important to keep in mind, however, that both the short term and the long term achievement of DVRU goals depends 

on others, for example the district attorney who decides to prosecute and the victim who decides to follow a safety plan. 

This suggests that DVRU strategies are best viewed as facilitative in nature;they open the gate making it possible for others 

who are part of the coordinated community response system to play their parts. 

3 To the extent that the study constitutes an evaluation of the DVRU, it is an evaluation of the effectiveness of DVRU 

interventions applied to a subset, albeit the largest subset, of the cases the unit actually handles. 

3 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The Randomization and Double Blind Procedures 

A double-blind randomization design was used to assign eligible cases to a DVRU 

treatment group or to a control group, i.e. one that did not receive DVRU intervention. For 

each eligible case, a computer program generated a random five-digit number. The last digit 

signified whether the case was to be classified as treatment or c0ntr0l.~ Treatment cases were 

then made available to DVRU officers and control cases were set apart for the duration of the 

study.' 

The Sample 

Data that allowed us to describe study case, victim, and batterer characteristics for our 

sample came from two sources: The Portland Police Data Systems (PPDS)6 computer files 

and from the interview schedules we developed for this study (see Appendices B and C). We 

obtained PPDS data for all 927 cases and victim interview data for 478 study cases. 

Cases included in this study represented a sub-population of domestic violence cases 

that occurred in Portland between March and November of 1996. It is important to view 

descriptions of the cases in our sample in their proper context; they are domestic violence 

occurrences that have come to the attention of the police and that involve an arrest (see 

Section Four for a detailed discussion of case eligibility criteria). 

Case CharacteristicsFor the sample as a whole 60% of cases involved charges of misdemeanor assault. In 

81% of the cases the violence consisted of slapping, pushing, kicking or hitting. Seventy-five 

percent of the victims had experienced similar violence from the same batterer before. 

Victims' children in 6 1 % of the cases witnessed this violence. Seventy-nine percent of the 

alleged domestic crimes occurred in a residence and 68% occurred between a man and a 

' To maintain the integrity of the double blind procedure, research staff at the police department did not know the 

randomization codes. 

5 No victims were denied access to DVRU services when they requested them. All victims received some services from 

uniformed oficers, and the district attorney reviewed all cases. 

6 See Police Record Form in Appendix D. 

7 Tables 4.1 through 4.8 contain detailed descriptive data for our sample. 

4 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
woman who were living together. In all but 13% of the cases the victim-offender relationship 

had lasted more than a year. 

Battered average age was 33. Sixty-two percent were of European, 24% of African, 

and 9% of Hispanic descent. Forty-nine percent had been arrested at least once in the 

preceding five years and, according to victims' reports, 35% had assaulted persons outside 

the family. In 6 1 % of the cases the women told interviewers that the men who had battered 

them had witnessed domestic violence during their own childhoods and 40% of them had 

received alcohol or drug treatment at some time. In 30% of the police reports it was noted 

that the batterer blamed the victim for the offense. Thirty-nine percent of the time, according 

to police reports, the batterer denied having committed the crime for which he was arrested. 

The average age of the victims in our study was 3 1. Seventy-two percent were of 

European, 16% of African American, and 6% of Hispanic descent. Over half earned less than 

$10,000 per year, 83% had children who in 33% of the cases were under the age of three. 

Forty percent of the victims reported having witnessed domestic violence themselves as 

children and 37% of them said they had been physically abused then also. Eighteen percent 

said that they had received alcohol or drug treatment at some point. 

Apart from the finding that more victims in the treatment group than in the control 

group (41 % vs. 28%) had children under the age of three and that treatment group victims on 

average were two years younger (30 vs. 32 years) than the control group victims, we found 

no differences between treatment and control group cases at the time of the initial interview. 

Victim Empowerment: Help-Seeking Activities 

In the initial interview we asked victims, 75% of whom had been abused by the batterer 

in the six-month period prior to the arrest, what, if any, help they had sought during that time. 

Thirty-eight percent said that they had asked the police to intervene prior to the present arrest 

and 20% had gone to court to obtain a restraining order. Aside from speaking to friends 

(71%) and family (63%), the next most often sought out assistance involved mental health 

5 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
professionals (29%) (see Table 4.6). There were no significant differences between the 

treatment and control group victims. 

Victim Empowerment: Perception of Agency. 

We asked victims to tell us how " in control" they felt when we interviewed them shortly 

after the batterer's arrest (see Appendix B Initial Interview items 13 1-1 34). Table 4.7 shows 

that more than half of the battered women felt their family lives were now mostly under 

control and stated that they thought themselves capable of handling most of their problems. 

Fully 70% of the victims whose assailant had been arrested said they felt "mostly" capable of 

keeping themselves safe. Again, there were no significant differences between the treatment 

and control group victims. 

The Independent Variable: DVRU Intervention 

Measuring Treatment: The Police Checklist 

The treatment, i.e. DVRU intervention, consisted of the investigative and empowerment 

strategies adopted by the DVRU in 1993. Investigative strategies involved various forms of 

evidence collection. Victim empowennent strategies included the development of safety 

plans, instructions on how to access criminal justice and community victim services, and 

assistance with transportation when necessary. 

We asked DVRU officers to provide us with an exhaustive list of the tasks they 

performed in the course of handling a case. The final version of this list was called The 

Police Checklist (PCL) and became the measurement tool we used to assess DVRU treatment 

(see Appendix A). 

What D VR U Oflcers Provided: The Treatment Condition 

DVRU officers provided treatment to 286 of the 404 randomly selected treatment group 

cases. DVRU officers were not successful in establishing contact with all treatment group 

victims. When they did reach victims (in 285/404 cases), officers were most likely (98%) to 

6 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
tell them how to go about prosecuting the batterer. In 70% of the cases DVRU officers gave 

victims safety plan information (see Table 5.1). 

Wlat the Arresting Oflcers Provided: The Control Condition 

Because an on-scene arrest was our control condition, both the victim and the offender 

had been exposed to police intervention. The majority of victims felt that the arresting 

officers had listened to them (79%) and were able to calm the situation (67%). About twothirds of the victims recalled having received the legally mandated information card, 

remembered having been given restraining order information, and recollected having been 

advised to contact the district attorney’s office. Other victims (42%) recalled that officers had 

given them information about shelters and 23% recalled being referred to a victim assistance 

program. Uniformed officers, according to victims, only infrequently (1 5%) seemed to 

provide ‘on the spot counseling.’ With one exception-the control group recalled receiving 

information their legal rights more often, there were no statistically significant differences 

between treatment and control group victim responses. When asked whether they would call 

the police again if needed in the future, fully 87% of all the women, 89% of those in the 

treatment group and 86% of those in the control group, said they would. 

Results: The Intermediate Outcomes 

The DVRU program plan called for the use of methods that would lead to an increase in 

prosecutions. We found that batterers in the treatment group were significantly more likely 

than their control group counterparts to be prosecuted (44% vs. 37%), convicted (24% vs. 

17%) and sentenced (27% vs. 18%). 

We obtained this information by following 927 cases fiom arrest to prosecution, fiom 

prosecution IO conviction, fiom conviction to sentencing, and from sentencing to sanction. 

Obtaining the necessary data was a complex task that required the active cooperation of many 

criminal justice agencies. It also required to create our own criminal justice system data file 

by linking relevant batterer and victim information from five separate agency data- bases. 

7 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
For measures of victim empowerment, our study revealed the following. Significantly 

more treatment group victims than control group victims (64% vs. 52%) sought assistance 

from the criminal justice system. Treatment group victims were more likely than control 

group victims (1 6% vs. 9%) to request batterer release information from the jail (see Table 

7.1); and they were more likely to call the police upon revictimization (1 9% vs. 10% Table 

8.4). While more treatment group (47%) than control group victims (40%) reported a sense 

of increased empowerment, this difference did not quite reach the commonly accepted 

significance threshold of p <. 05. Still, a significantly greater percentage of treatment group 

victims than control group victims reported that they had terminated contact with their 

abusive partners (24% vs. 14% Table 8.14). Following the arrest of their violent partner 

treatment and control group victims were equally likely to file restraining order petitions 

(Table 7.3). 

Results: The Final Outcomes 

The unit was developed to reduce domestic violence in Portland. Our findings indicated 

that DVRU interventions did reduce domestic violence when we looked at the information 

we received from the victims directly.’ Significantly fewer of the treatment group victims 

when compared to the control group victims told our interviewers that they had experienced 

further violence (including verbal violence) during the six months following the arrest of the 

batterer (see Tables 8.1 and 8.2). This implied that, as a group, the women who had received 

additional police services after their batterers’ arrest experienced significantly less repeat 

violence than those women whose only contact with the police took place during the original 

arrest. 

8 There was vimally no difference in the results for revictimization and reoffending, meaning that the vast majority of 

events of new violence occurred between the same two people who were involved in the arrest that brought the case into 

our study. 

8 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
When we examined police records, however, we found that the women in the treatment 

group called the poIice to report further episodes of violence significantly more often during 

the six-months follow-up period than did women in the control group (see Tables 8.4 to 8.7). 

On the surface, this discrepancy between what the women told the interviewers and what 

the police reports showed looked puzzling. We did not think it was, however. It is probable 

that victim empowerment is responsible for both effects. Newly empowered women report 

domestic violence more often than women who are not and, as well, are significantly more 

likely to report it if it does occur again. 

i 

The following key points summarize our findings: 

Arrest plus police-initiated follow-up compared to arrest alone led to reductions in 

subsequent self-reported domestic violence victimizations. 

Increased victim perception of empowennent led to reductions in subsequent selfreported domestic violence victimizations. 

Arrest plus police-initiated follow-up compared to arrest alone led to increased 

prosecutions, convictions, and sanctions for batterers. 

Arrest plus police-initiated follow-up compared to arrest alone led to increases in 

subsequent police reports of domestic violence. 

Following the batterer's arrest, 89% of victims in the treatment group and 86% of 

victims in the control group said that they would call the police again in the event of 

future victimization. 

Upon revictimization, 75% of the women in the treatment group vs. 35% of the 

women in the control group called the police to intervene. 

9 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION TWO 

Review-of the Literature 

The Extent of Domestic Violence 

Women are much more likely than men to be abused by someone they know. Women 

are attacked about six times more often by someone with whom they have had an intimate 

relationship than are male violence victims (I3ureau of Justice Statistics, 1995 & 1998; 

Messner & Tardiff, 1984). Women are 17 times more likely to be badly beaten by men than 

men are by women (Peterson, 1997; Zona, 1998). More than 25% of American couples 

experience one or more incidents of domestic violence between them each year (Feld and 

Straus, 1989). Severe repeat violence occurs in one of every 14 marriages (Dutton, 1988), 

and physical assaults may occur even more commonly among unmarried cohabiting couples 

(Stets and Straus, 1989). It is estimated that an intimate partner batters about 20% of the 

female adult population each year (Stith, Williams, and Rosen, 1990). For women aged 15- 

44, domestic violence is the single most common cause of injury (Novello, Rosenberg, 

Saltzman, and Shosky, 1992). It is estimated that 20% of visits to emergency rooms by 

women result from injuries sustained in domestic violence (Tim, 1993). Domestic violence 

is a serious criminal justice issue as well as a costly public health problem. Medical 

treatments and lost income revenue from domestic violence may cost as much as ten billion 

dollars per year (Meyer, 1992). 

Beyond the physical injuries to victims, domestic violence also contributes to child 

abuse and neglect (Widom, 1989; Giles-Sims, 1985; Hotaling, Straus, and Lincoln, 1989; 

Stark and Flitcraft, 1988; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, 1980; Walker, Thyfault, and 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Browne, 1982; Walker, 1984; 1989). Some evidence suggests that a history of abuse and 

violent behavior by parents contributes to future assaultive violence by adults whose 

childhood was spent living in abusive homes (Fagan and Wexler, 1987; Herrenkohl, E., 

Herrenkohl R., and Toedter, 1983; Hotaling et al., 1989; Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 198 1 ; 

Simons, Wu, Johnson, and Conger, 1995; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, 1980; Widom, 

1989). Battering, this research suggests, can be viewed as a learned behavior. Bandura 

(Bandura, 1973; 1986) theorizes, for example, that aggressive responses are learned through 

vicarious reinforcement of modeled behavior. His theory is supported by empirical evidence 

which shows that large nmnbers of assaultive men have witnessed family violence as 

children (Howell and Pugliesi, 1988; O'Leary and Curley, 1986; Rosenbaum and OLeary, 

198 1 ; Simons et al., 1995; Straus et al., 1980). Several authors contend that children 

witnessing such violence may themselves be likely to experience violence in some form in 

future relationships (Breslin et al, 1990; Davis & Carlson, 1987; Kalmuss, 1984; Sub & 

Abel, 1990). In one study, 70% of victims said their children witnessed domestic abuse 

(Hilton, 1993). Once men have learned battering behavior, they continue to batter, often 

because they receive positive reinforcement in the form of compliance and submission from 

their victims (Saunders, 1988), or because they experience the discharge of aggressive 

tensions from the actual battering as pleasurable (Okun, 1986). Another possible influence on 

batterer behavior is the cycle of violence. The cycle was conceived of by Walker (1979, 

1984), and occurs in three phases. The first phase involves the build up of tension, and is 

often marked by particularly hurtful insults. Victims may think during this phase that they 

can appease the batterer (Tim, 1993). The tension then leads to the second phase, violence, 

which initially shocks the victim. In the third phase, batterers express remorse for their 

actions, and may promise to stop the violence or get help, and thus persuade victims to stay 

in the relationship (Steinmen, 1990; Walker, 1979, 1984). Because this cycle of violence 

inhibits the victim's abilities to use the criminal justice system, intervention in the cycle itself 

plays a central role for any successful policy response (Ford, Reichard, Goldsmith, and 

11 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Regoli, 1996), otherwise batterers receive additional support for their behavior from the 

system’s failure to invoke criminal sanctions (Johnson, 1990). 

Feminist theory also addresses the causes and consequences of domestic abuse. Feminist 

approaches concentrate on a sociopolitical understanding of domestic violence (MacKinnon, 

199 1 ; Morgan, 1970, Sanday, 198 1). There are many perspectives and differences 

encompassed in the body of feminist theory. Bograd (1988) explores some commonalties in 

feminist perspectives on domestic violence, for example, the use of gender and power as 

socially constructed explanations for male violence and female victimization. Feminist 

theory also suggests that as women move toward a more equal stature in society they may 

face a backlash in the form of higher rates of domestic violence (Yllo, 1988). 

The majority of victims of domestic violence are female. Upon a broad review of several 

research studies, Crowell & Burgess (1 996) concluded that the primary risk factor for 

becoming a victim of domestic violence is being a woman. Qualities socially defined as 

positive for American women include passive selflessness, enduring patience, and altruistic 

nurturing behaviors (Sipe & Hall, 1996). 

Other risk factors such as living in a violent society such as the United States which 

generates more violent crimes than other Western nations lack empirical support from cross 

national comparisons (Barnett and LaViolette, 1993; Reiss & Roth, 1993; Straus and Gelles, 

1986). The identification of personal risk factors such as education level, age, race, income, 

addictions, and childhood abuse is common in this field of research (Crowell & Burgess, 

1996, Mahoney, 1994; Miller, Downs, & Gondoli, 1989). 

Conflicting statistics have been produced on the racial and ethnic proportions of 

domestic violence. Many minority groups have historically been over-represented in the 

criminal justice system, and rates of domestic abuse appear generally higher in this 

population (Straus & Gelles, 1986; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998). Yet there are some 

studies that show no differences between ethnic or racial groups (Berk, Berk, Loseke & 

Rauma 1983; Walker, 1979). 

12 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Alcohol abuse is cited frequently as a correlate of intimate violent behaviors, though 

rarely as a cause (Frieze & Browne, 1989; Leonard, 1993). Alcohol is one factor that is 

invoked as reason for diminishing responsibility for the batterer's violent behavior. Others 

include emotional factors such as intense frustration and the batterer's inability to control 

anger (Bograd, 1983; Gelles, 1974; Johnson, 1980; Ptacek, 1988; Deschner, 1984; Faulk, 

1977; Goldberg, 1983). Treatment of offenders differs between those who propose social and 

psychological remedies, and those who hold that batterers are criminals who need to be 

punished for their violent behavior. Dutton (1 995) who has provided batterer treatment for 

many years, nevertheless holds that it is erroneous to exonerate batterers based on 

psychosocial factors in that beyond absolving them of responsibility, such reactions preclude 

a critical look at the culture that supports their violent actions. 

Restraining orders, used as one of the main deterrent measures in some states (Klein, 

1 996) seek to prevent continued violent conduct (Harrel and Smith, 1996) by threatening 

batterers with criminal intervention if they don't abide by the conditions set forth in the 

judicial order. Another form of deterrence--arrest-may only affect a small number of 

offenders. Sherman (1 992) concluded fiom a comprehensive review of the available evidence 

that the deterrent effect of arrest appeared to depend upon the suspect's "stake in conformity." 

Sherman (1 992) developed this term to capture the costs a batterer incurred from the social 

consequences of the arrest, i.e., the arrest of employed batterers had a greater deterrent effect 

than the arrest of unemployed batterers. Williams and Hawkins (1989) found that another 

cost, the personal humiliation associated with arrest, has a strong influence on batterer 

behavior. 

Domestic violence intervention of any type is difficult. Partly because as a complex 

crime it has been notoriously difficult to define and measure (Weis, 1989; Gelles, 1998). The 

need for a valid, reliable tool for classification led to the creation of the Conflict Tactics 

Scales (Rhodes, 1992). Many studies of domestic violence use the Conflict Tactics Scale 

(CTS) as a reporting device (Comack, 1996). This scale is often used to measure reductions 

13 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
in the frequency and severity of violence. It has been used in two large national surveys, and 

in more than 100 local research projects (Straus, 1996). Straw and Gelles (1 979) developed 

the scale, which permits quantifying categories of abusive events. Although the CTS is the 

most widely used measure utilized to assess the range and frequency of abusive behaviors 

(Edleson & Tolman, 1992), it has been criticized for not measuring the severity of the injury 

or the intention of the abuse (Dobash & Dobash, 1992). A remedy for this shortcoming was 

developed by McFarlane, Parker, Soeken, and Bullock (1 992). 

Domestic Violence and the Criminal Justice System 

The criminal justice system prior to the mid 1980s practiced a lenient policy with respect 

to domestic violence, and, in keeping with the values of the time, was reluctant to intrude in 

domestic affairs (Hirschel, Hutchinson, Dean, and Kelley, 1990; Sigler, Crowley, and 

Johnson, 1990; Zona and Woods, 1994). Although the violent behaviors exhibited by 

offenders may not have been legally sanctioned, women have historically not been protected 

by the criminal justice system (Ferraro, 1989b). Intervention strategies advocated by 

feminists during the mid- and late 1970s focused largely on helping victims of domestic 

violence find temporary safe housing and aiding them in gaining access to legal remedies 

(Ferraro, 1989a; Martin, 1976; Schechter, 1982; Tolman and Bennett, 1990; Walker, 1984). 

Not until the late 1970s and early 1980s was it recognized that formal criminal justice actions 

convey to victims, the children of victims, and to society as a whole that violence against 

intimates is as serious a crime as violence against strangers and should be treated as such 

(Ford and Regoli, 1992; Klaus and Rand, 1984; Ritmeester and Pence, 1992; U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1984; Zorza and Woods, 1994; Crowell and Burgess, 1996; Dutton 

and McGregor, 1991; Gamache, Edleson and Schock, 1988; Sherman and Berk, 1984, 

Stanko, 1989). Today, police response to domestic violence, and the punishment imposed as 

a result of police intervention, are seen by many as indispensable to lowering the prevalence 

of domestic violence (Stark, 1993; Zona, 1993; Hamby, 1998). 

14 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
While many jurisdictions adopted mandatory arrest policies to increase consequences to 

batterers, Ferraro (1 989a) found that in one large metropolitan area 

laws in place, arrests occurred in only 18 % of the cases where police were present, and only 

3 % of these were prosecuted. In jurisdictions without mandatory arrest laws, suspected 

batterers were arrested for assaulting their wives only three to 10 % of the time by officers at 

the scene (Emerson, 1979; Langley and Levy, 1977; Roy, 1977). The rare cases that did lead 

to conviction most often resulted in either a light sentence or no sentence at all (Dutton, 

1987; Sherman, Schmidt, Rogan, and DeRiso, 1991 ; Sherman and Berk, 1984). By failing to 

impose punishment on domestic violence offenders, the criminal justice system inadvertently 

supports domestic abuse in our culture (Ford and Regoli, 1993; Zorza & Woods, 1994b). We 

now know that the majority of batterers who enter treatment do so only when mandated by 

the courts (Carrillo, 1988; Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Gondolf, 1991 ; Gruszinski and Hmell, 

mandatory arrest 

i 

199 1 ; Walker, 1984). Such dictated treatments along with mandatory sentencing for 

offenders in domestic violence cases has been shown to increase the penalty faced by 

batterers (Carlson & Nidey, 1995; Ford & Regoli, 1993). 

In addition to their other functions, mandatory arrest laws also force potentially reluctant 

police officers to apprehend the batterers (Buzawa and Buzawa, 1990; Gamer & Clemmer, 

1986). Belief in the possible harm to the arresting officer may create reluctance on the part of 

officers to take the batterer into custody (Bard, 1969; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1990; Davis, 1983; 

Ferraro, 1989b). 

Sherman and Berk's landmark Minneapolis experiment (1 984) has been widely cited as 

evidence that arresting batterers is more effective than other police actions in deterring future 

violent behavior (Lempert, 1989). The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provided funds for 

six repiication studies to determine the generalizability of the Minneapolis findings. No clear 

mandate supporting mandatory arrest policies has emerged from these studies, however 

(Berk, Campbell, and Western, 1992; Dunford, 1990; Hirschel et al., 1990; Pate, Hamilton, 

and Annan, 1991; Sherman et al., 1991). In fact, three of the studies suggested that arresting 

15 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
the batterer increased rather than decreased their risk of future violent behavior (Dunford, 

1990; Hirschel el ul., 1990; Sherman e? ul., 199 1). A recent meta-analysis of these six 

replication studies showed that the deterrent effects of arrest were inconclusive (Garner, 

Fagan, and Maxwell, 1995). Richard Berk (1 993) the co-author of the original Minneapolis 

study, analyzed the same data and in a slightly more optimistic tone concluded that the 

answer to the question "Does arrest work?" is most properly phrased as "it depends" but on 

the average we can do no better. Indeed, arresting the batterer is for the most part the 

necessary starting point for the kind of coordinated community response that has been touted 

as the most promising among new domestic violence intervention strategies. 

' 

The criminal justice system response to battering in the context of community 

coordinated programming enlists police, prosecutors, judges, probation officers and service 

agency representatives to convince batterers that sanctions are forthcoming (Tim, 1993). So 

far, the findings fiom studies of coordinated community response systems to domestic 

violence in Colorado (Edleson, 1991), California (Soler, 1987), Nebraska (Steinman, 1988), 

and Minnesota (Gamache, Edleson, and Schock, 1988; Syers and Edleson, 1992) appear 

encouraging. They give at least tentative support to the hypothesis that a coordinated 

community response will reduce violent behavior, and encourage victims to report domestic 

violence to the police when it occurs (Crowell and Burgess, 1996; Syers and Edleson, 1992). 

Other studies have found that the luck of coordination in response can reduce sanctions, and, 

in fact, increase violence (Steinman, 1990; Jaffe et ul., 1993). 

The present study consists of a controlled experiment that is designed to answer two 

broad questions. First, is a special police unit, which simultaneously aims at enhancing the 

criminal justice system response to batterers and at enhancing victim empowennent effective 

as a violence reduction strategy? Second, is arrest that leads to a coordinated criminal justice 

system and community agency response for batterers and victim empowerment more likely to 

reduce recidivism than arrest alone? 

16 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION THREE 

Description of the Portland, Oregon Domestic Violence Experiment 

The Initial Development of the Study 

The third year of the Portland Police Bureau Community Policing Transition Plan called 

for the implementation of bureau activities that would "Target at-risk youth for special 

attention'' (1 990:60). In the fall of 1992 the bureau assigned a captain to explore with the 

community what form such an effort should take. What followed were extensive discussions 

with a wide variety of community representatives who identified the "need to break the cycle 

of violence" as an immediate problem the Portland police should address (Brooks, 1992: 1). 

In close collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee: the police 

developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The plan had two goals: to increase 

the formal consequences for batterers and to empower victims. 

The first goal proposed was to increase regularly prosecuting all misdemeanor domestic 

violence offenses. Th~s was to be done regardless of the victim's desire to prosecute. Before, 

the district attorney prosecuted only those cases in which a victim signed a complaint and 

was willing to testify against her batterer. Because many victims did not feel safe enough to 

do so, charges against most batterers were dropped," which sent the clear message to both 

batterers and victims that no consequences beyond the arrest would follow when a domestic 

9 The Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee was first convened in 1987 as part of a Family Violence 

Intervention Project administered through the national Council of Juvenile and Family court Judges. Its members represent 

a wide variety of domestic violence service providers. Its goal is to provide an interagency forum for developing, 

implementing, and assessing a coordinated response to domestic violence in Portland, Oregon (Hubbard, 1995). 

10 Prosecution data for misdemeanor domestic violence cases were not collected until after the DVRU was created. 

17 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
assault occurred. This new proposed approach would shift the responsibility for the 

prosecution from the victim to the district attorney’s office. 

The second goal was to be implemented by helping victims successfully negotiate, seek, 

obtain, and use the resources of the criminal justice system. The Portland City Council 

approved the plan. The Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU) was created and began 

work in July 1993. 

The original DVRU proposal man&ted that its activities be evaluated. In 1994, 

researchers from Portland State University conducted a process evaluation, funded by the 

National Institute of Justice (92-IJ-CX-K037), as part of a larger community policing 

assessment project. They concluded that the DVRU had been successful in implementing the 

bureau’s community policing policies (Jolin and Clavadetscher 1995). Nearly all community 

partners of the new police unit believed that their partnership with the police “had succeeded 

in improving the overall community response to domestic violence“ (Jolin and Clavadetscher 

1995:3). These responses were encouraging but lacked empirical support. 

However, attempts to obtain empirical support proved difficult. Definitions of what 

constituted domestic violence differed within and between agencies. Moreover, mechanisms 

did not exist for inter-agency tracking (Jolin and Clavadetscher, 1995). Consequently, the 

researchers urged caution” in interpreting the findings which showed that prosecutions, use 

of restraining orders and victim empowerment in fact had increased as expected (Jolin and 

Clavadetscher 1995). In an attempt to answer the question of whether or not the activities of 

the DVRU reduced domestic violence, the Portland Police Bureau and researchers at Portland 

State University agreed to seek NIJ funding for an experimental design outcome study. The 

study was funded and began in December of 1995. 

11 The report contains a detailed description of the methodological constraints affecting the measurement of intermediate 

and long-term outcomes. 

18 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The Research Location 

At the time when the Portland Police Bureau revised its approach to domestic violence, 

nearly half a million people resided within the city limits. Portland is at the center of a 1.6 

million population metropolitan area. Despite its reputation as one of the nation’s most 

livable cities, Portland’s crime rate reflects its urban status. The city’s violent crime rate is 

more than three times that of the state as a whole. With 1,856 violent crimes per 100,000 

population, Portland surpasses Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Denver, but has a lower violent 

crime rate than Baltimore, Boston, and Kansas City (Maguire et al 1995). In addition to 253 

non-sworn personnel, the Portland Police Bureau employs about one thousand sworn police 

officers (Portland Police Bureau, 1996). 

Oregon Law Pertaining To Domestic Violence 

Defining domestic violence is not easy (Weis, 1989; Gelles, 1998). Even the legal 

definition varies between jurisdictions and over time. Oregon, for example, has no single 

definition of domestic violence. Instead, there are several statutory sources, which place 

parameters on the legal definitions depending on the fact situation. Definitions declare what 

is L‘ family” or LL domestic” and what is “violence” or “abuse.” Abuse is defined in the 

Family Abuse Prevention Act (ORs 107.700 (1) as: 

(a) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing physical 

injury; 

(b) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placing another in fear of imminent serious 

physical injury; or 

(b) Committing sexual abuse in any degree as defined in ORS 163.415, 163.425 and 

163.427. 

“ Family or household member” is defined as: 

(a) Spouses; (b) former spouses; (c) adult persons related by blood or marriage; (d) 

persons cohabiting with each other; (e) persons who have cohabited with each other 

19 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
or who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship with each other 

within two years immediately preceding the filing by one of them of a petition 

under ORS 107.71 0; (f) unmarried parents of a minor child. 

The mandatory arrest provisions enacted in 1977 have governed the police response to 

domestic violence in the State of Oregon and Portland. 

ORS 133.055 states that a police officer must arrest in domestic violence cases when: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The officer is at the scene; 

The officer has probable cause to believe an assault has occurred [or restraining 

order was violated]; or 

The officer has probable cause to believe one of the persons has placed the other in 

fear of imminent serious physical injury. 

The law also provides that police officers attempt to identify the primary aggressor 

taking into consideration self-defense. Officers must use all reasonable means to prevent 

further abuse, including advising each person of the availability of a shelter or other services 

in the community and giving each person immediate notice of the legal rights and remedies 

available (Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, 1994). These statutes 

made Oregon the first state in the nation to mandate arrest for misdemeanor domestic crimes 

and for restraining order violations. Mer some initial reluctance to accept a legal mandate 

that limits their discretion, most officers have come to accept the pro-arrest policy as the 

standard response to domestic violence. In Oregon in 1 996,12 police officers made 20,130 

arrests representing a 61 % arrest rate for domestic violence crimes (State of Oregon, 1997). 

In Portland in 1996, the year in which this study was conducted, police officers wrote 6177 

reports documenting incidents of domestic violence. Portland officers arrested 3042 batterers, 

a 52% arrest rate, which is lower than that for the state. 

12 Oregon did not initiate statewide domestic violence data collection until October 1994. 

20 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The Current Study: An Outline 

With respect to the DVRU, the study was designed to answer three main questions: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Do DVRU interventions increase prosecutions of misdemeanor domestic violence 

cases? 

Do DVRU interventions increase victim empowerment? 

Do DVRU interventions lead to reduction-in domestic violence? 

The study also permitted the testing of the following research hypothesis: 

Arrest followed by prosecution, conviction, and sentence for the offender and support 

services for the victim reduces the recurrence of domestic violence more effectively 

than arrest alone. 

Study Case Eligibility Criteria 

Domestic violence incidents were eligible for inclusion in the study if they involved 

misdemeanor crimes between adult, heterosexual, intimate partners; and where the male 

assailant was arrested at the scene and taken to jail by the officers who responded to the call. 

Victims had to reside within Oregon or Southern Washington and be reachable by telephone. 

Incidents in which officers arrested both parties, even if they met all other study criteria, were 

excluded (a detailed description of eligibility criteria follows in Section Four of this report). 

All police reports forwarded to the unit were reviewed and distributed by our research staff. 

Cases that met the study criteria were set aside for randomization; cases that did not meet the 

study criteria were given to the unit.’3 A double-blind randomization design was used to 

assign eligible cases to a “DVRU treatment” group or a “control” group, i.e. one that did not 

receive DVRU intervention. 

13 This arrangement meant that our research team took over one of the routine functions in the unit. Once unit officers had 

become accustomed to our daily presence and the de facto pre-empting of their initial case review, they were able to 

appreciate not having to make the three daily ’mail runs’ that were required to obtain police reports sent to them from 

throughout the bureau. 

21 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The DVRU Oper~tions’~ 

In 1993 the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit issued the following mission statement: 

“ [Our mission] is to decrease the level of domestic violence in Portland by: 

Investigating [misdemeanor] domestic violence cases; Assisting and promoting the 

deterrence of violence through community wide education and response; 

Empowering families and individuals in developing and maintaining violence free 

relationships and households; and interrupting the modeling of domestic violence in 

households for children” @VRU, 1995). 

The unit consisted of one ~aptain,’~ one sergeant, six officers and one Latina outreach 

worker. Before the unit began its operations on July 9, 1993, all unit personnel participated in 

a two-week training program designed to acquaint them with the DVRU program plan as it 

had been adopted by the city council. The training covered DVRU intervention strategies, 

their rationale and their expected outcomes. Near the end of the two-week training, the senior 

author of this study gave a two-hour presentation about the planned research evaluation.’6 

The daily operations of the unit entail reviewing the domestic violence misdemeanor 

cases that it receives fiom officers throughout the police bureau. In 1995, for example, the 

unit received 6424 misdemeanor domestic violence reports. Mindful of their limited 

resources, the unit gave priority to repeat domestic violence cases, cases in which weapons 

were used, and cases where children were present. The six DVRU oflicers work weekdays 

fiom eight in the morning to four o’clock in the afternoon. They frequently work in pairs and 

do everydung from taking pictures of injuries to transporting victims to and fi-om the 

courthouse. In 1995, officers worked 452 of the cases they received and categorized as 

priority cases (DVRU, 1996).” The workload issue became a point of discussion in the wake 

of our arrival at the unit. Officers seemed to feel that the use of the computerized 

randomization procedure that kept 60% of all arrest cases away from them left them without 

14 The 1995 publication by Jolin and Clavadetscher (see References) provides a complete and detailed description of the 

DVRU operations. Discussion in this paper includes funding and officer training issues. 

15 In I996 the captain was replaced by a half-time lieutenant due to budget cuts. 

16 During the study only three of the original DVRU staff had remained at the unit. 

17 The unit officers and sergeant also provide in-service training for bureau officers and give presentations in the 

community. In 1995, for example, they gave 96 domestic violence presentations to audiences outside the police bureau. 

22 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
enough to do. When we analyzed the problem numerically we discovered that the presence of 

research staff had actually increased the number of cases they ‘worked’ from an average 38 

to 50 cases a month. Still, this did not totally alleviate officers’ understandable uneasiness 

about knowing that large numbers of cases were not accessible to them. 18 

DVFZU Intervention Strategies 

The treatment, i.e. DVRU intervention, consisted of the investigative and empowerment 

strategies’’adopted by the DVRU in 1993. Investigative strategies involved various fom of 

collecting evidence. Victim empowerment strategies entailed the development of safety 

plans, instructions on how to access criminal justice and community victim services, as well 

as assistance with transportation to facilitate victims’ access to them. During the planning 

stage of the present study, DVRU officers provided us with an operational definition of what 

they meant by ‘working a case,’ or, in our language, what they meant by providing treatment. 

The resulting list contained every investigative and empowerment strategy they used when 

providing treatment. The list became the “Police Check List” and represented the 

measurement instrument for DVRU treatment (See Appendix A for a copy of the Police 

Check List). 

Coordinating DVRU and Research Activities 

Research requirements and service delivery requirements often have divergent priorities. 

Research is likely to be regarded as imposing artificial constraints on effective service 

delivery because such service delivery requires the kind of flexibility that is not comfortably 

brought in line with the standardized requirements of research. Most of the resultant 

impositions are identifiable but some, like the workload issue we touched on earlier, are more 

18 Since only custody cases were included in our study, this left an additional 1000 or more non-custody cases at the 

officers’ disposal. 

19 Appendix A Contains the Police Check List that was created by DVRU officers to document the distinct activities they 

use to intervene in domestic violence misdemeanor cases. 

23 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
a matter of perception than fact. Aside from accommodating each other's daily routines, it 

was necessary to work out formal agreements about the program plan, treatment delivery and 

victim safety. 

The Program Plan 

The first and most difficult issue was identified shortly after the unit began opemtions. 

At that time, DVRU officers used the full range of strategies to intervene in domestic 

violence cases. The victims who were the recipients of these services expressed great 

satisfaction with the services they received from the DVRU (Jolin and Clavadetscher 1995). 

However, it was soon recognized that if six officers provided the full range of services as 

dictated by the program plan only about 12% of the cases forwarded to the unit received 

DVRU services. This realization prompted a shift in policy. DVRU administrators decided 

that the 12% figure was too low. And without the possibility of an increase in resources at 

their disposal, it meant the unit had to dilute services. The result was a new policy. From 

now on, DVRU officers were instructed to make telephone contact with as many victims as 

possible instead of conducting 111-fledged investigations and providing assistance to only a 

few select victims. One officer said that the original plan was like providing Cadillac service 

to a few whereas the new policy was like providing Volkswagen service to many. Given that 

the present study was designed to test the effectiveness of the original DVRU program plan, 

the change in policy was unwelcome to the research team. In meetings between DVRU 

administrators and officers and the research team it was agreed that unit officers, for the 

duration of the study, would conduct their work in accordance with the original program 

plan. This, of course, was received as an intrusion since the research not only required a 

change in the way in which officers selected their cases but also led to a change in DVRU 

policy. Officers work as fiont line service providers to domestic violence victims. Thus, city 

council concerns and research design issues are not always foremost in their minds. To 

ameliorate what was clearly viewed as a negative effect on the DVRU's operations, officers 

24 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
were invited to meetings with research staff who listened to their concerns and attempted to 

provide a rationale for particular research strategies. 

Treatment Delivery Issues 

There was great concern among DVRU staff members about cases that were relegated to 

the control condition, i.e. withheld fiom them. An agreement was reached to ovemde the 

control condition in all cases in which a third party, e.g. the uniform officer who made the 

arrest, or the victim, requested DVRU services. Another treatment delivery issue arose from a 

discrepancy in the DVRU and research team work schedules. The DVRU officers generally 

worked between 8 am and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The most common method by 

which officers initiated treatment in a case was by phoning the victim. Logically, this would 

occur during DVRU office hours. Our pilot study and pre-test experiences dissuaded us from 

imposing similar restrictions on our research team. Establishing contact and getting 

interviews with domestic violence victims was difficult enough without time-imposed 

impediments to completing victim interviews. Consequently, we obtained interviews with 

treatment group victims who did not receive treatment because the officers were unable to 

contact them. 

Victim Safe@ Issues 

The fact that the control condition required withholding DVRU intervention was 

major safety issue that had to be resolved before the grant proposal for the present study 

could be submitted. The issue reemerged repeatedly during the implementation phase of our 

study. For example, the third party or victim request issue, we mentioned above, arose in part 

from victim safety concerns. Another, even more direct safety concern arose fi-om repeat 

victimization reports in control cases. Discussions with the DVRU command staff resulted in 

a mutually agreed-upon decision to make control group cases available for DVRU 

intervention if two subsequent domestic violence arrests occurred before the six months 

follow-up interview had taken place. Additionally, the research team agreed to stress to our 

interviewers the need to be aware of victim safety issues, particularly in control group cases. 

. 

25 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The need to balance safety issues with research design and information gathering 

requirements was emphasized in all interviewer-training sessions. 

Pre-Testing Sample Selection Procedures 

The pre-test was conducted between March 1 '' and March 18*, 1996. In the come of the 

pre-test we discovered that about 50% of the cases forwarded to the unit did not involve onscene arrests. Of those that did, 60% met the eligibility criteria for the study. It was clear 

from these findings that the timeline for reaching a sample size of 800 cases would have to be 

extended beyond the three to five months time period we had planned for this task. Eligibility 

criteria, randomization procedures, case flow and sample characteristics are discussed in the 

next section of this report. 

26 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION FOUR 

The Sample 

In this section we describe the study case selection criteria and their impact on the case I 

flow. We also describe the randomization and double blind procedures and our study sample. 

Our information comes from two sources, the Portland Police Data System (PPDS) a 

computerized data bank maintained by the Portland Police Bureau; and from initial and 

follow-up interviews with victims in our study. We have PPDS data for all study cases,2o and 

interview data for little over half of our cases2' 

Theoretically, an experimental research design should eliminate experimental and 

control group differences for all but the delineated outcome variables. Whether the 

randomization does in fact produce what we theoretically expect must nonetheless be 

examined. As a consequence, we have information for many domestic violence correlates, 

which permit us to present an extensive description of nearly a thousand misdemeanor 

domestic violence cases in which the batterer was arrested. Given the scarcity of such 

information for domestic violence arrest cases, this in itself represents a significant 

contribution to our understanding of domestic violence arrest cases. 

Our sample was selected from domestic violence cases that came to the attention of the 

Portland Police Bureau between March 1 8'h and November 27*, 1996. All of the cases, which 

met the study criteria during this time period, were included in our sample. 

20 Referred to as the "study sample" (N427) 

21 Referred to as the "initial interview sample" (11478) 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Eligibility Requirements for Study Cases 

Case Status Criteria 

0 Misdemeanor Cases 

Misdemeanor cases were selected because the study was an evaluation of the 

Domestic Violence Reduction Unit whose function it was to conduct follow-up 

intervention in misdemeanor domestic violence cases. In addition, we were 

interested in testing the hypothesis that going “ beyond arrest” would affect the 

reoccurrence of misdemeanor domestic violence. 

0 Custody Cases 

The decision to limit study cases to only those in which a uniform officer had 

made an on-scene arrest was dictated by the study’s theoretical purpose to test 

the “ beyond arrest” hypothesis noted above. 

NoDualArrest 

Dual arrests do occur despite a provision in the Oregon Legal Code, which 

requires that police officers establish the identity of the primary aggressor in a 

domestic violence situation. Pragmatic considerations relating to sample size and 

theoretical considerations relating to relationship dynamics led to OUT decision to 

exclude dual arrest cases from our study. 

Relationship Status: Intimate Partners 

The Oregon Legal Code (ORs 133.055) defines “domestic” and thereby sets 

the parameters for cases eligible for DVRU intervention. The study’s definition 

of “ domestic” means “ intimate” and is therefore narrower than the legal 

definition which includes, for example crimes that occur between blood 

relatives. Theoretical considerations relating to the divergent dynamics of 

relationships among blood relatives and intimate partner relationships were of 

primary concern when we chose to limit our study to intimate partners. 

28 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
0 Gender: Male Perpetrators and Female Victims 

Here too, the study definition is more restrictive than the one the DVRU uses. 

Our decision in this case was governed by pragmatic considerations driven 

primarily by sample size requirements and resource-time and moneyconstraints. Female batterers are a small (about 10% to 15 %) subgroup of 

arrested batterers. To obtain a sub-sample large enough for analysis would not 

have been possible in the time frame we were allotted to conduct the study. 

Age: The Perpetrator was Between the Ages 18 and 65; The Victim was Under 

the Age of 65 

With respect to the over 65 age group, here again, our study criteria were more 

restrictive than were those of the DVRU. Our primary considerations were 

guided by the fact that the unit handled these cases differently than it handled 

intimate partner abuse among other age groups. 

0 Case Processing Issues 

We excluded cases in which the victim’s telephone number was not 

included on the police report. 

We excluded cases, which were marked “ Confidential.” Police policy 

dictated this exclusion. 

We excluded cases, which received DVRU intervention before they came to 

the attention of our research staff. This happened, for example, when a 

victim contacted a DVRU officer shortly after the arrest occurred but before 

the police report reached the DVRU. For our purposes that meant the case 

had received DVRU intervention prior to coming into the study. 

As a brief review of the case eligibility criteria indicates, not all DVRU cases were 

suitable for inclusion in our study. Thus to the extent that the study constitutes an evaluation 

of the DVRU, it is an evaluation of the effectiveness of DVRU interventions applied to a subset, albeit the largest sub-set, of the cases the unit actually handles. Many of the eligibility 

29 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
criteria we adopted were chosen to reflect the theoretical considerations that formed the 

underpinnings ofthe DVRU program plan and the 'beyond arrest' research hypothesis, 

Case Flow 

When it became evident that in fact only 60% of DVRU custody cases met our study 

criteria, we realized that in addition to the three to five months we had allocated to the 

sampling phase of the study, at least another three months would be needed to obtain a 

minimum of 400 cases in each group. And so it was. It took eight months and nine days to 

obtain the study sample. Of the 1 1 14 cases selected for the study, 187 were eliminated: 49 

cases tumed out to be contaminated;22 54 cases failed to meet the study criteria,23 and 84 

cases were removed for insufficient data, e.g. insufficient agency records. Additional cases 

were 'truncated' for safety reasons or because they were control cases that received 

treatment. Truncated cases remained in the study sample (927) but not for the duration of the 

six months follow-up period. This situation arose, for example, when a third arrest occurred 

in a control group case before the conclusion of the six months follow-up period. We had 

agreed in our initial negotiations with the DVRU that any control group case with three 

repeat arrests during the six months follow-up period would be turned over to the DVRU for 

treatment. We had also agreed that victim self-referrals or third party requests for DVRU 

services would supersede a control group case assignment. For these reasons we had 

expected more attrition in the control group. We compensated for the expected 

disproportionate attrition from the control group by adopting a 60/40 sampling ratio for our 

22 We removed a number of cases from the study when we discovered that one of the original research staff pasons who 

was located at the DVRU offices obliged officers' requests to release to them police reports of certain control group study 

cas. We considered these cases to have been contaminated. 

23 Some case eligibility criteria were more difficult to discern than others were. For example, police reports did not always 

provide the kind of information that allowed our research staffto determine whether the relationship been the victim and 

the batterer was indeed an intimate relationship. Likewise, it was not always possible to ascertain whether a case was to be 

considered a misdemeanor or felony offense. As a result our research staffwould discover information that determined its 

ineligibility after the case had been entered into the study. 

30 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
randomization program. The obtained distribution of 404 (44%) treatment and 523 (56%) 

control group cases meant we did not lose as many control group cases as we had anticipated. 

Sampling Design and Randomization Procedures 

Computer generated random assignment 

For each eligible case, a computer program generated a five-digit number. The first four 

digits were used for tracking purposes, and to help disguise the treatment cases. The last digit 

signified whether the case was to be classified as treatment or control (digits 1,2,3,4 indicated 

“treatment,” digits 5,6,7,8,9,0 indicated “ control”). The program contained over a thousand 

numbers grouped according to their last digit in blocks of ten. The grouping of numbers in 

this manner eliminated the possibility of long runs of assignments made exclusively to one 

group. Due to the possibility of computer malfunction, we created back up disks of the entire 

database on a daily basis. This program not only assigned random numbers, but also served 

as a database for case tracking and querying. 

Sample size and statistical power 

The number of cases in the treatment and control groups was constrained by the need to 

limit 1) the costs of data collection and 2) the imposition on the police agency during the time 

the project staff was actively involved in running the experiment. 

Initial treatment and control group sizes of about four hundred each were determined to 

yield adequate sampling precision and statistical power for the project purposes. The power 

curve was examined for the test of difference in treatment-control victimization rates. This 

curve represents the probability of correctly rejecting the null-hypothesis of no diflerence 

when there is in fact a treatment effect. The calculations were based on a type I emor rate 

(alpha) of 5% and sample sizes of 400 in each of the two groups. We exceed these sample 

sizes, with a total of 523 cases in the control group and 404 cases in the treatment group. 

Studies have shown revictimization rates between 50% and 80% (see Edleson and Tolman, 

1992). The formula used for the power calculations was: 

31 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Where d is the true control-treatment difference and F is the cumulative standard normal 

distribution function. 

The curve showed that for treatment effects of 7% the power would exceed .8, and for 

treatment effects of 10% the power would exceed .97. In the worst case, if the 50% 

revictimization rate is used, the power to detect differences of 7% and IO%, respectively, was 

reduced to 63% and 88%. 

Case Assignment Procedure 

The research staff housed at the DVRU was responsible for the randomization of our 

case materials. The police themselves knew the codes, and were trained in the assignment 

procedure. They assisted in upholding the integrity of the double blind. The research staff 

picked up the police reports three times a day fiom the depository, so that the DVRU officers 

never saw a case until after it had been entered into the study by OUT research staff. With each 

case, staff checked the database to see if the victim had already been assigned a case number. 

If the case already existed in the database, the research assistant assigned the report the same 

case number. If not, it was assigned the next available case number on the list. The 

information was then recorded in the police report (such as address, phone number and 

birthdate of the victim, and name and birthdate of the offender) on a face sheet devised by the 

research team. The police report and the police intervention checklist (PCL) went into a 

manila envelope with the case number printed on the outside. The research assistant then 

gave the stack of sealed envelopes to the DVRU sergeant, who then divided the cases into 

treatment and control sets based on the last digit of the code.24 

~~ 

24 Our research staff was able to identify miss-assignments by comparing police checklist records against our list of control 

group cases. If a control group case had a police check list, we knew that this case had been mistakenly assigned to receive 

DVRU treatment. 

32 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
At this point, treatment cases were made available to the DVRU officers for intervention. 

Control were filed in a cabinet, and not touched25 until the cessation of the study.26 Research 

staff constrained by the double blind design contacted the victims in both groups and 

scheduled initial interviews. If the victim refused an interview, then the staff attempted 

another call after approximately one week. If the victim still refused to be interviewed, her 

case was omitted from the interview phase of the data collection but it was retained for 

agency data collection purposes. ‘ 

Double Blind 

All research staff members at the DVRU who were involved in randomization were kept 

ignorant of the treatment code. This created numerous situations where complicated 

procedures were necessary in order to uphold the integrity of our study design, consonant 

with the constraints of the double-blind procedures. Once the interviews were scheduled, the 

research staff member faxed a copy of the victim’s face sheet to a Portland State University 

(PSU) research facility, where the rest of the research staff was housed. The PSU research 

staff was in contact with the DVRU sergeant about contaminated control cases, safety 

concerns, and other issues. Additionally, from this facility, the interview packets were 

assembled, and picked up by interviewers. If interviewers had questions about the nature of a 

case, they were to speak only to the PSU staff so not to possibly let slip any information 

about the case to the staff at the DVRU. If a victim called a DVRU officer on her own 

initiative, the officer provided our research staff with an ‘orange slip’ denoting victim 

contact. The DVRU research staff would fax the information to PSU on a follow-up sheet, 

where, if the case were determined to be a control case, it would be marked “received 

treatment,” dated, and separated from the rest of the cases. If an interview was already 

~ ~~ 

25 Control group case envelopes were considered contaminated if the seal of the envelope was broken during the study 

period. 

26 Research staff took a weekly list of cases to the DVRU once the follow-up interview was completed. This meant that 

cases which had been set aside as control group cases were now released to the DVRU. 

33 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
arranged, the PSU research staff conducted the interview to avoid breaking an engagement 

with a victim who had agreed to participate in our study. These kinds of situations 

contributed to case attrition.*' 

The Sample 

Information about sample characteristics came from two sources, the Portland Police 

Data Systems (PPDS)28 computer files and the interview schedules we developed for this 

study.29 We obtained PPDS data for all 927 cases in the study. For just over half of the study 

sample (N=478) we also obtained interview data. 

27 We had to remove several Hispanic victims from the study because we discovered they were control cases that had 

received treatment. This was largely due to 'orange slip' problems that were related to language and organizational issues 

between our research staff and the police unit. This is the reason we 'lost' many of the Spanish-speaking victims. 

28 See Police Record Form (PRF) in Appendix D. 

29 See Appendix B and Appendix C. 

34 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Characteristics Study S.mple’* (SS) N427 Treatment Group 

Initial Iatewicw Sample (US) 11478 SS 11404 IIS n=fll 

163.160 Assault IV: 60% 60% 

13% 12% 

Crime Type Involved’ 

ORs Codes 163.190 Menacing 

9% 11% 

3 yo 2% 

133.310 VRO 

166.065 Harassment 

Control Group 

SS n=5U IIS ~267 

61% 

1 40/0 

8% 

3% 

Type of Violence 

Conflict Tactics 

Scale (CTS) 

Other & Missing 13% 

Single Family Residence 42% 

Apt Bldg. Or Condo 37% 

Number of Charges* 1 Charge: 82% 

Type of Residence 

Where the Amst 

Occurred* Other 21% 

Victim-Offender Married living together 29% 

Relationship Not married living together 39% 

Not living together 32% 

Duration of lcss than one year 13% 

Relationship one IO five years 50vo 

more than five yean 38% 

Who called the Victin 54% 

Police Friend 22% 

Family 14% 

Don’t Know/Other 11% c 

verbal Violence” 

Object Violence 

Moderate Violence 

Severe Violence 

16% 15% 

83% 82% 

41 % 43% 

39% 35% 

4% 5% 

24% 33% 

42% 370/. 

35% 29% 

16% 11% 

50% 480/, 

34% 41% 

55% 52% 

21% 23% 

15% 1 2% 

10% 13% 

93% 

49% 

81% 

43% 

91% 

49% 

81% 

45% 

95% 

48% 

82% 

41% 

Sexual Violence 3 ?‘o 

Injuries Police Report* Yes 59% 

Instrument/Force HandslFctt 79% 

Used as Noted in the Other” 7% 

Children Present* as Yes 24% 

Noted in Police Report Not Mentioned in Report 75% 

Involved Yes (927) 43% 

Police Report* Unknown 14% 

A &D Notcd on Police Report. 

Partner ( as Reported by Victim ) (440)M 72% 

Victim (as Reporled by Self) (461)” 22% 

Witnesses Present* as 

noted in Police Report Yes 3 8% 

30 An asterisk identifies information available for the Study Sample: N427 

3 1 Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. 

32 Variations in sample size are indicated for each variable. 

33 Ibid. 

34 See Table 4.5 in this section for definitions of these categories. 

35 Seven cases involved the use of a firearm, 13 cases the use of a knife, 6 the use of a club, and in 16 cases an object was 

thrown at the victim. 

36 38 victims in the initial interview sample gave ‘Don’t Know’ as an answer, in the treatment group the number was 16, in 

the Control Group it was 22. ‘Don’t Knows’ were excluded from the percentage calculations. 

37 17 victims in the initial interview sample gave ‘No answer‘ as an answer, in the Treatment Group the number was 8. in 

the Control Group it was 9. ’No Answer“ responses were excluded from the percentage calculations. 

3 yo 3% 

56% 62% 

78% 81% 

8% 6% 

15% 13% 

23% ZYO 

75% 75% 

43% 43% 

72% (n= I 95) 7 I % (n=245) 

18% (n=203) 25% (n=258) 

34% 41% 

35 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
As we expected, successful randomization enabled us to conclude there were no 

significant differences in case characteristics between treatment and control groups in either 

the study sample or the initial interview sample. 

Batterer Characteristics 

Our study design, for economic reasons, did not include interviews with batterers. Rather 

than settling for no information about batterers at all, we asked victims to answer questions 

about their batterers, cognizant that our batterer data derived from interviews reflect the 

victim’s view and not that of the batterer. 

On the whole, the data presented in Table 4.2, suggest that, as a group, the batterers in 

our study resemble batterers in other studies (Choi, 1990; Ford & RegoIi, 1993; Gelles & 

Comell, 1985; Straus, 1996), and men who are arrested for other violent offenses (Dutton, 

1995). We found that a substantial percentage are not fully employed (44%); 35% earn less 

than $ 10,000 annually, 32% have not completed high school, 40% have received treatment 

for substance abuse problems, 45% were abused as children, and 61% witnessed violence in 

their family of origin. 

36 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
37 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 4.2: B: 

pGizzzz Treatment Group 

SS404 11s-211 

62% 

33 years (393) 

Education 

Control Gruop 

SS=523 IIS=267 

62% 

34 years (513) 

Employment 

Annual Income 

34% (n=202) 

41% 

25% 

55% (n=206) 

12% 

22% 

1 I% 

F General Violence 

3 1 % (n=259) 

42% 

27% 

57% (n=263) 

8% 

24% 

11% 

Childhood 

Experiences 

36Yo 

33% 

13% 

1 9% 

36% (re1 74) 

38% (n=194) 

Blames Victim* 

34% 

35% 

13% 

18% 

35% (n=215) 

4 1 % (~247) 

1 Denies Incident* 

tterer Characteristics: The Study Sampl 

and TreatmentlControl Sub-Sal 

1 Study Sample (SS) N=927 1 Initial Interview Sample (IIS) 478 

33 years (n=906) 

European American 62% 

African American 24% 

Hispanic 9% 

Native American I% 

Some HS or less (11461) 32% 

HS or GED 41% 

Some college or more 26% 

Full time employment (11469) 56% 

Asian 4% 

Part time employment 1 0% 

Not employed-No government assistance 23% 

Not employed-Receives government 

assistance 11% 

S 10,000 or less 35% 

S 10,001 to 30,000 34% 

Over S 30,000 13% 

Don't know 18% 

Reported by Victim '' 

Reported by Victim 

35% (n=389, 

Received Treatment (n=441) '' 40% 

Any Arrest 5 years prior 

A&D is Problem (11461) '' 72% 

49! 

Batterer felt not at all cared for by parents 37%u 

Batterer witnessed domestic violence 

as a child 6 1 %" 

Batterer was abused as a child 45%44 

Yes 3 0% 

Yes 39% 

:,M Initial Interview Sample, 

apIes.J9; 

26% 

8% 

2% 

3 yo 

22% 

10% 

5% 

I% 

40% 

30% 

38 An asterisk identifies information available for the Study Sample: N=927 

39 Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. 

40 89 'Don't Know' answers in the Interview Sample, 37 in the Treatment Group, and 52 in the Control Group were 

excluded from the percentage calculations. 

42 77 'Don't Know' answers in the Interview Sample, 17 in the Treatment Group and 20 in the Control Group were excluded 

from the percentage calculations. 

43 17 Victims in the Interview Sample responded with 'Don't Know,' 7 in the Treatment Group and 10 in the Control 

Group. These responses were excluded form the percentage calculations. 

4 Seventy victims in the Interview Sample, 34 in the Treatment Group, and 36 in the Control Group did not know this 

information. Percentages were calculated without the 'Don't Know' responses. 

45 1 18 victims in the Interview Sample, 49 in the Treatment Group, and 69 in the Control Group did not know this 

information. Percentages were calculated without the 'Don't Know' responses. 

46 123 victims in the Interview Sample, 54 in the Treatment Group, and 69 in the Control Group did not know this 

information. Percentages were calculated without the 'Don't Know' responses. 

38 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The randomization allowed us to conclude that no significant differences in batterer 

characteristics between treatment and control groups existed in either the study sample or in 

the initial interview sample. 

Victim Characteristics 

Battered women who come to the attention of the criminal justice authorities, like their 

batterers, share certain characteristics with other victims whose records are available from 

police files. This was true for the women in our study as well. As Table 4.3 shows, on 

average they were 3 1 years old, 72% were European American, 16% were African American, 

and 6% were of Hispanic descent. While almost half (45%) the women we interviewed had 

some college education, fully 95% earned less than $30,000 a year. Comparing them to 

batterers, we found that almost twice as many victims had some college education (45% vs. 

26%) but were less than half (5% vs. 13%) as likely to have earned more than $30,000 per 

year. This may be related to the fact that more of the batterers than the victims (56% vs. 45%) 

were employed full time, and that of the 83% of the victims who had children, one third had 

children under the age of three (See Table 4.4). 

f 

Prior Domestic Violence 

We used a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979,1990b) to 

measure the existence of different types of violence before, during, and after the event that 

led to the batterer’s arre~t.~’ Prior violence, i.e. violence that occurred between the study 

victim and batterer during the six months before the study arrest, involved verbal violence in 

90%48 of the cases, moderate violence in 75%, object violence in 63%, severe violence in 

36%, and sexual violence in 14% of the cases. In 48% of the cases the violence led to injuries 

which in decreasing order of frequency involved cuts or bruises (47%), damage to eyes, ears, 

or teeth (1 l%), internal injuries (5%) (see Table 4.5). 

47 We discuss the limitations of the CTS in Section Two of this report. 

48 Table 4.5 identifies the items included in this category. 

39 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
40 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 4.3: Victim Characteristics: The Study Sample," Initial Interview Sample, and 

TreatmentlControl Group Sub-Samples. so 

f 

Characteristics 

Average Age* 

Race* 

Education 

Annual Income 

Employment 

Alcohol and Drug 

Problems 

Study Sample (SS) N=%7 

Initial Interview Sample (IIS) 11478 

31 (906) 

European American 72% 

African American 16% 

Latin American 6% 

Native American 3% 

Asian 4vo 

n475 

Some High School 22% 

High School or GED 34% 

Some College or more 45% 

Pi475 

S 10,000 or less 54% 

$ 10,001 to 30,000 41% 

Over S 30,000 5% 

x- 475 

Full Time 42% 

Part Time 19% 

Unemployed-No Government 

Assistance 16% 

Unemployed-Government 

Victim Self Report 

Received Treatment 18% 

A & D is a Problem 11% 

Assistance 23% 

Victimization by Same N478 I Batterer during Six Verbal Violence 

Months before 

Arrest 

Injury from Prior 

Victimization 

Official Record of Prior 

Victimization 

Childhood Experiences 

90% 

Moderate Violence 75% 

Severe Violence 36% 

Sexual Violence 14% 

N478 

Yes 48% 

Yes 15% 

N475 

Victim felt not cared for by parents 13% 

Victim witnessed domestic violence 40% 

Victim was abused as child 3 7% 

Treatment Group 

ss 404 11s 21 1 

30 (393) 

73% 

16% 

5% 

2% 

4% 

n=2 1 1 

25% 

32% 

43% 

-210 

56% 

40% 

4% 

n=2 10 

21% 

41% 

13% 

25% 

18% (n=206) 

13% (n=206) 

n=211 

92% 

76% 

37% 

15% 

(n=211) 

51% 

1 7% 

n=211 

1 0% 

43% (n=210) 

41% (n=210) 

Control Group 

72% 

16% 

6% 

3% 

4% 

N=264 

1 9% 

35% 

46% 

n=265 

52% 

42% 

6% 

n=265 

43% 

18% 

1 8% 

22% 

1Yh (n=260) 

1W/0 (n=258) 

n=267 

89% 

74% 

36% 

14% 

(1~267) 

46% 

14% 

-264 

16% 

38% (n=265) 

34% (n=265) 

49 An asterisk identifies information available for the Study Sample. 

50 Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. 

41 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Victim characteristics in the study sample as depicted in Table 4.3 did show one 

significant difference at the time of the initial interview: the mean age of the treatment group 

was younger (30 vs. 32) than the control group. 

Victim and Batterer Childhood Experiences 

The data in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 lend empirical support to the coexistence of adult and 

childhood experiences of domestic violence (Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1989; Simons et al, 

1995). This association is viewed as having causal significance in the cycle of violence 

literature (Campbell et al., 1994; Simons et al., 1995). As we noted in Section Three, the 

impetus for the creation of the Police Domestic Violence Reduction Unit was its potential to 

interrupt this very cycle. Again, it is important to remember that our findings are derived 

fiom a sub-population of domestic violence occurrences - those in which the batterer was 

arrested. 

Our initial interview contained questions that inquired about victim and batterer 

childhood experiences. The victim answered three questions about her own experiences and 

was then asked to answer those same questions for the batterer. For all three questions 

batterers' childhood experiences, according to their victims, were considerably more negative 

than their own. While 13% of victims reported they felt not at all cared for by their parents, 

they reported this to have been the case for 37% of the batterers. Likewise, while 40% of the 

victims said they had witnessed domestic violence while growing up, they said the same was 

the case for 6 1 % of their batterers. The difference was less pronounced for childhood 

experiences involving physical or sexual abuse (37% of victims vs. 45% of batterer~).~' 

51 There were no statistically significant differences between the Treatment and Control Group responses for either victims 

or batterers. 

42 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.4: Witnessing Battering: Batterers, Victims and Children. 

Victim has children 

Average Number of Children 

Children are under Age 3 

Children are 13 to 18 years 

Children Witnessed Violence 

between Batterer and Victim 

Police Report notes Child 

Witnesses 

Victim Witnessed Violence 

during Childhood 

Batterer Witnessed Violence 

1 during Childhoods3 

Interview Sample 

11,478'~ 

83% 

2.12 

33% 

24% 

6 1 % 

24% (927) 

40% 

61% Y 

Batterer was Abused as Child 1 45% 

[ victim was Abused as Child I 37% 

~ 

Treatment 

n=211 

81% 

2.2 

41% 

23% 

61% 

23% (404) 

43% 

5 9% 

47% 

41% 

Control n=267 

83% I 

2.12 

28% p.018 

25% 

61% 

25% (523) 

38% 

We show a significant differen~e~~ in the initial interview sample group in whether the 

victim has children under age three between the treatment and control groups at the the of 

the initial interview. 

Alcohol and Drug 

Alcohol and Drug use are fiequently noted correlates of domestic violence (Dutton, 

1995; Gelles & Straus, 1979; Burgess & Draper, 1989; Tim, 1993;). We asked victims . 

whether they considered Alcohol and Drugs (A&D) to be a problem for them or their 

batterers and whether either had ever received A&D treatment. Batterers, according to their 

victims, had more problems than their victims did. Eleven percent of the victims compared to 

72% of the batterers are reported to have A&D problems. This difference is reflected in 

reports of who has undergone treatment for this problem- 18% of victims vs. 40% of batterers. 

52 Missing cases are excluded from the percentage calculations. 

53 As reported by victims: I I8 victims gave 'Don't Know' as a response for the Interview Sample as a whole, 49 in the 

Treatment Group, 69 in the Control Group. Missing cases were omitted from the percentage calculations. 

9 We expected that about 5% of the variables we had included in our analyses would show significant differences by 

chance. Such findings do not necessarily show a flaw in the randomization design. 

43 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
We also tried to establish whether Alcohol and Drugs were a factor in the violent event 

that led to the batterer’s arrest. Here we have two sources of information, the report written 

by the arresting officer and the victim interview (see Table 4.1). According to the responses 

obtained during the interview, 72% of batterers and 22% of victims had used alcohol or drugs 

prior to the violent event that resulted in the arrest. 

Prior Violence and Changes After the Arrest 

Multiple and prolonged experiences of violence affect victims differently than one-time 

violent experiences (Stets & Straus, 1989). Ninety percent of the women we interviewed 

reported that they had experienced verbal violence. In 63% of the cases the batterer had 

“thrown, smashed, hit or kicked something” at least once during the six months prior to the 

arrest. Victims reported having experienced moderate physical violence such as being 

pushed, kicked or bitten, in 75%, and severe violence, such as being choked, beaten up or 

having a gun or knife used against them, in 36% of the cases. In 48% of the cases these 

violent events resulted in injuries to victims. As expected we found no significant differences 

between treatment and control group victims in the type and degree of violence they 

experienced prior to and at entry into the study. According to the data in Table 4.5 victim 

reports of whether or not they experienced various types of violence showed that what they 

experienced during the six months leading up to the arrest and during the event that led to the 

arrest was not very different. This picture changed dramatically for the time period after the 

arrest. Victims reported fewer revictimizations for all types of violence. Treatment group 

victims as compared to control group victims reported significantly fewer revictimizations 

during the six months’ follow-up period (refer to Section Eight for a detailed discussion of 

these results). 

44 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 4.5: Victim Reports of Violence Experienced Six Months Before, During, and Six 

Months After the Arrest. 

~ 36% 

14% 

Violence as 

Measured with the 

CTS55 

Verbal Violence" 

(1 7,18,19,20) 

Violence Directed 

at Object (21) 

Moderate Physical 

Violence (22,23,24, 

25,26) 

Severe Physical 

Violence (27,28,29) 

Sexual Violence 

(3 0) 

Violence Caused 

Iniurv 

During the Six 

Months Prior to the 

Arrest 5611S 11478 

90% 

63% 

75% 

48% 

During the Event 

that Led to the 

Arrest" IIS 11478 ~~ 

93% 

49% 

81% 

During the Six 

Months After the 

~rrest~' 

5 6% 

25% 

26% 

10% 

6% 

14% (380) 

Victim Empowerment: Help-Seeking Activities 

Several DVRU victim interventions were aimed at victim empowerment. The Initial 

Interview (See Appendix B) contained two sets of questions addressing empowerment issues. 

The first set of 13 questions asked victims to tell us about help-seeking activities they 

pursued during the six months before their batterer's arrest. Table 4.6 summarizes victim 

responses.6' We grouped the items into three categories: Seeking Criminal Justice Support, 

. 

Seeking Non-Criminal Justice Support, and Seeking Informal Support. Nearly twice as many 

55 The limitations of using the CTS as violence measurement tool were discussed in Section Two. 

56 There were no statistically significant differences between the Treatment and Control Group responses. 

57 There were no statistically significant differences between the Treatment and Control Group responses. 

58 Significantly fewer Treatment Group victims than Control Group victims reported revictimizations during this time 

period. 

59 These categories represent composites of questions (identified by numbers) in the Initial Victim Questionnaire in 

Appendix B. 

60 As noted in the police report N=927. 

61 The 13* question was an open-ended 'Other' category, 17% of the victims marked this response. Some examples of such 

'other' helgseeking behaviors were: talked to children, talked to the batterefs family or the batterer himself, talked to 

coworkers or boss, called suicide hotline, or went to a support group. 

45 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
victims sought informal support fiom family and fiiends (81%), as sought professional help 

(44%) or the assistance of the criminal justice system (47%). Prior to the violence that led to 

their partner's arrest, 38% of victims had asked the police to intervene, and 20% had gone to 

court to obtain a restraining order. Aside fiom speaking to fiiends (71%) and family (63%) 

the next most often sought out assistance involved mental health professionals (29%). It 

should be noted that a very small number of victims (3%) indicated that they either went to a 

shelter for counseling or stayed overnight there. 

- 

Control Group 

n=267 

15% 

14% 

62% 

70% 

28% 

12% 

12% 

2% 

3 yo 

36% 

20% 

9% 

45% 

43% 

81% 

.c.Table 4.6: Victim Empowerment Help-Seeking Behavior During the Six Months 

Prior to Entry into the Study. 

Victim Help-Seeking Behaviors Interview 

1 .Talked to Minister Yes: 13% 

2.Saw a Doctor Yes: 16% 

3.Talked to a Familv Member Yes: 63% 

Sample 11478 

Treatment 

Group n=211 

11% 

18% 

65% i 

4.Talked to a Friend Yes: 71% 72% 

5.Talked to a Mental Health Yes: 29% 3 0% 

Professional 

6.Talked to the District Attorney 

8.Went to a Shelter for Counseling 

7.Attempted to get a Warrant 

9.Staved Overnight at Shelter I I 1 O.Asked Police to Intervene I Yes: 38% I 40% 

I 

Yes: 14% 17% 

Yes: 12% 11% 

Yes: 3% 3 yo 

Yes: 3% 2% 

1 1 .Went to Court to get a Restraining 

Order 

12.Talked to an Attorney 

Total: Criminal Justice System 

Support Items 6,7, 10, 1 1, 12 

Total: Non-CJ Professional Support 

Items 1,2,5, 8,9 

Total: Informal Support Items 3,4 

Yes: 20% 21% 

Yes: 9% 9% 

47% 50% 

44% 45% 

8 1 YO 81% 

There were no significant differences in the study interview sample between the 

treatment and control groups at the time of the initial interview with respect to victim 

empowerment help-seeking behaviors. 

46 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Victim Empowerment: Perception of Agency 

A set of four questions asked victims to tell us how "in control" they felt in their present 

circumstances (See Appendix B Initial Interview items 13 1-1 134). Table 4.7 shows that half 

or more than half of the battered women gave no indication of being or feeIing unable to help 

themselves. Fully 70% of women feel capable of keeping themselves safe. 

Interview Sample Treatment Group 

11478 n=211 

Not true63 9% 12% 

Somewhattrue 20% 20% 

Mostly true 70% 69% 

Not true 21% 31% 

Somewhattrue 32% 22% 

Mostlytme 52% 55% 

Not true 11% 10% 

Somewhattrue 36% 36% 

Table 4.7: Victim Empowerment: Perception of Agency at the Time of the Initial 

Control Group 

n=267 

8% 

21% 

72% 

20% 

30% 

5 0% 

12% 

37% 

Victim is Confident 

that she can keep 

herself safe 

Victim feels her 

Family Life is under 

Control 

Victim Believes she 

can Solve her 

Problems 

Victim Feels she is 

doing all she can to 

get Help from the CJ 

system 

Mostlytrue 53% 

Not true 23% 

54% 52% 

22% 24% 

Somewhattrue 23% 

Mostlytrue 54% 

25% 

53% 

21% 

55% 

None of the differences in the interview sample regarding the victim's perception of 

agency were found to be significant at the time of the initial interview between the treatment 

and control groups. 

Stake In Conformiry 

62 Due to rounding percentages may not add up to 100. 

63 Response categories 'Not true at all' and 'Mostly not true' were combined into Wot true.' Response categories 'Mostly 

true' and 'Very true' were combined into 'Mostly true.' 

47 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
This concept which attempts to measure the degree to which an individual is integrated 

into society (see Table 4.8), was originally used to explain variations in the deterrent effect of 

arrest for sub-populations in some of the Minneapolis replication studies. Sherman (1 992) 

found support for stake in conformity as an important measure leading to deterrence in the 

data from Milwaukee, Omaha, and Colorado Springs, especially when employment was the 

unit of analysis. He found that in all three studies arrest of unemployed batterers (low stake in 

conformity) was associated with increased violence. The implication was that criminal justice 

interventions in domestic violence situations had a greater deterrent effect for batterers who 

were employed, had families and were otherwise tied to the srarus quo in some fashion. For 

purposes of this study, it would mean that offenders, who had more io lose rather than less to 

lose, would be less likely to become repeat offenders. Table 4.8 provides information about 

batterers’ and victims’ stake in conformity. Each item (See Appendix B) represents an 

indicator of conformity. It is reasoned that a batterer with more years of formal education, a 

greater degree of employment, higher income, who owns a home and car, interacts regularly 

with his extended family, belongs to a club or professional organization, and is married and 

has children has more fo lose than someone with fewer of these attributes. 

48 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 4.8: Stake in Conformity: A Comparison of Arrested Batterers and their 

Married to VictWatterer 

Batterer and Victim Own Home Together 

Relationship Duration greater than 1 Year 

Victims 

29% 29% 

13% 13% 

87% 87% 

Interview Sample n=478 

e in Conformity Score I 

Has Children I NIA 183% 1 

In conclusion, given the randomization design, we did not expect to find significant 

differences in case, batterer or victim characteristics. The fact that we did find differences in 

treatment and control group 'victim age' and 'children under 3' was congruent with the 

expectation that about 5% of the variables would show significant differences by chance, and 

does not necessarily show a flaw in our randomization design. 

. 

64 The information for battercrs was obtained from victim interviews. 'Don't know' responses and missing values wcre 

excluded from the percentage calculations. 

65 'Don't know' responses were excluded from the percentage calculations. 

66 We obtained one statistically significant difference (p .026) for Treatment and Control Group responses to the item 

'Battcrer and Victim Own Home Together.' 

49 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION FNE 

Levels Of Treatment 

Treatment as Designed 

The specific elements that comprise the DVRU intervention are set forth in the original 

program plan that was presented to the Portland City Council in the spring of 1993. The 

DVRU itself, as well as its intervention strategies, owe their existence to the collaborative 

efforts between the Portland Police Bureau and the Family Violence Intervention Steering 

Committee. The influences of community policing on the one hand and the community 

domestic violence service providers on the other hand contributed to an intervention plan 

based on a combination of social learning theory, feminist theory, and deterrence theory. The 

overall goal of the combined DVRU strategies was to interrupt the cycle of violence that 

occurs among some couples. Learning theory principles and deterrence theory principles 

were reflected in the DVRU strategies that sought to bring about sanctions for batterers. 

Feminist principles were expressed in those DVRU strategies that sought to empower 

victims. 

Batterers are assumed to use violence to maintain a pattern of control over their partners 

(Mahoney, 1991 ; Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Schechter, 1982; Martin, 1976; Yllo, 1993; 

Wilson and Daly, 1992; Jones, 1994). The punishment inherent in criminal justice system 

interventions serves to counteract the rewards the batterers get from controlling their partners. 

As a corollary, batterers can be assumed to perceive as a threat any intervention that seeks to 

enhance their partner’s control in the relationship. If we assume for a moment that actual 

batterers conform their conduct to these theoretically expected patterns then we would 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
anticipate outcomes that potentially negate each other. In other words, one has created a 

situation in which the batterer faces sanctions for his use of violence while feeling an 

increased need to use it, thereby negating any deterrent effect that might have been gained 

from the experience of criminal justice system interventions. Mahoney (1 99 1) coined the 

term Separation Aggression to identify the violence batterers direct at their intimate partners 

when they take control of the situation by leaving their abusers. Other researchers have 

pointed to escalations in yiolence when women have taken steps to leave their assailants 

(Campbell, 1992; Hart, 1988; Browne, 1987). Of course, not all violent relationships have 

equally fdy established power and control patterns. It is likely that the above noted effect 

is less applicable to relationships of shorter duration, or to relationships where victims are 

more rather than less empowered prior to the violent conduct that led to the DVRU 

intervention. Nonetheless, DVRU strategies (hereafter referred to as “treatments”) have 

potentially complex effects on expected outcomes. 

The DVRU Program Logic 

The program logic suggests that the DVRU engage in two types of activities that 

combine to reduce repeat violence between intimate partners. One set of strategies is 

investigative in nature and seeks to increase the likelihood that batterers are prosecuted, 

convicted and sentenced. The other set of strategies is intended to empower victims. Victims 

who are empowered, it is reasoned, are more likely to participate in the prosecution of their 

batterers and are more likely to engage in conduct that avoids repeat victimization. Thus the 

combined expected effect of these strategies, mediated by the interim outcome measures of 

prosecutions, convictions, sentences and empowerment, is a reduction in repeated intimate 

violence. 

51 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Figure 1: Program Logic of the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit @VRU) 

DVRU 

Interventions 

Levels of Treatment 

By 1995, almost two years after the DVRU began its work, findings from a National 

Institute of Justice funded process evaluation confirmed that the original program plan had 

been implemented as intended (Jolin and Clavadetscher, 1995). Six officers worked in teams 

of two to provide the full range of interventions in selected priority cases. Priority status 

meant that one of four conditions pertained to a given case: a history of violence; the victim 

was injured; the violence involved the use of a weapon; or children had witnessed the 

violence. This approach to treatment delivery was highly labor intensive with the 

consequence that, numerically speaking, the vast majority of cases sent to the DVRU 

remained essentially untouched. Still, as the process evaluation revealed, victims with whom 

DVRU officers had contact gave high praise to their efforts. Likewise, DVRU partners, 

within as well as outside the criminal justice system, were highly complimentary in their 

52 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
assessment of the unit. Still, as we mentioned in Section Three of this report, in the time 

between the conclusion of the process evaluation and the beginning of the present study, the 

new DVRU leadership had implemented a thoroughly revised program. The centerpiece of 

the new DVRU program plan was to provide information to as many victims as possible by 

telephone. One of the DVRU officers described the change: “We used to provide Cadillac 

service to a few; now we give Volkswagen service to many.” 

Since the research design for this study was based on the original DVRU program plan, 

our first task involved a series of discussions with the new DVRU leadership in which we 

stressed the need to return to the unit’s original program plan. Ultimately the DVRU 

command staff and its officers agreed to provide treatment as set forth in the original DVRU 

program planfor the duration of our study. The officers were given to understand that they 

could switch back to the victim phone call approach as soon as the researchers were gone. 

This did little to enhance our already precarious status as outsiders in a police operations unit, 

but by the time we began with the sample selection a spirit of goodwill, with just a hint of an 

acceptance of the inevitable prevailed6’ 

Measuring Treatment: The Police Check List 

We had asked DVRU officers to provide us with an exhaustive list of the tasks they 

performed in the course of “ working a case.” We compiled their responses in a list and asked 

DVRU officers as well as command staff whether this list was an accurate representation of 

the original DVRU program plan. The final version of this list was named The Police Check 

List (PCL) and became the measurement tool we used to assess DVRU treatment (see 

Appendix A for a copy). 

Aside from the first four items on the PCL, there were 17 items, which represented a 

specific action an officer might undertake in the course of “ working” a study treatment case. 

67 A detailed discussion of these and other study implementation issues can be found in an article by Jolin and Moost 

(1997) listed in the Reference section of this report. 

53 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
There are two ways to represent the concepts underlying DVRU treatment. First, treatment 

activities can be viewed as representing the offender deterrence and victim empowerment 

concepts specified in the theoretical model of the program plan. Second, DVRU interventions 

can also be viewed as level of engagement, making distinctions, for example, between calling 

a victim on the telephone and going to the victim’s house to take pictures of her injuries. 

54 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Tabie 5.1: Study Treatment Cases: Batterer Deterrence and Victim Empowerment 

Treatment Provided 68as Reported by DVRU Officers69; 

Types Of Treatments Used As Part Of The DVRU Intervention Program 

DVRU Provided Any Treatment 

DVRU Provided No Treatment 

DVRU Established Telephone Contact with Victim 

DVRU Delivered Any Type of Treatment?’ 

Any Batterer Deterrence Treatments 

Took Photographs etc. to Assist Prosecution 

Served Restraining Order 

Helped Victim Get Appointment with District Attorney 

Helped Victim with Transport to and from Court 

Helped Victim get Restraining Order 

Provided Victim with Prosecution Information 

Treatment 

Received 

7 1% (286) 

29% (1 18) 

67%” (270) 

100% 7286) 

100% (285) 

12% (35) 

4%(11) 

41% (1 16) 

2% (5) 

13% (37) 

98% (280) 

t I .. 

Provided Victim with Restraining Order Information I 74% (211) I 

Any Victim Empowerment Treatment 

Transported Victim to Shelter 

Gave Victim Motel Vouchers 

79% (226) 

None 

None 

Gave Victim Food Basket 

Referred Victim to Advocacy Program 

Provided Information on Safety Planning 

None 

26% (73) 

70% (200) 

I Other” I 56% (160) .I 

Provided lnformation on Getting Access to Safe Housing 

Provided Information on How to Get Counseling 

Provided lnformation on Batterer Counseling 

Of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment group, DVRU 

50% (1 44) 

59% (168) 

56% (161) 

officers indicated having provided treatment to 286 cases. They submitted PCLs for another 

68 DVRU officers submitted PCLs for 394 of the 404 cases that had been randomly assigned to the Treatment Group. 

69 It was our intent to ask Treatment Group victims about the treatment they had received from the DVRU officers. The 

research design provided for a 36-hour window before we made any attempt to contact Treatment Group victims. Still, our 

interviewers discovered that many victims had had no DVRU contact before the initial victim interview. Because our 

questionnaires had no provisions for this occurrence, we were unable to get reliable victim information for DVRU services. 

70 DVRU officers were unable to establish telephone contact with 124 of the 394 cases for which they submitted PCLs. 

71 In 286 cases PCLs indicated that DVRU officers had used at least one type. of intervention. 

72 Comments associated with the category ‘Other‘ most often entailed details on interventions or victims’ responses to them 

and accounts of phone contact attempts. 

55 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
1 0873treatment group cases for which they were unable to provide treatment. The most 

common ‘batterer deterrence’ strategy was providing prosecution information to victims 

(98%). The most common ‘empowerment’ strategy was providing safety plan information to 

victims (70%). Some form of ‘batterer deterrence’ intervention was provided in 71% (285 of 

404) of treatment group cases. Some form of ‘empowerment’ intervention was provided in 

56% (226 of 404) of treatment group cases in the study. 

If one looks at treatment provided fiom the “ level of engagement” perspective, three 

distinct levels are apparent. One level consists of providing information, a second level 

consists of providing assistance to those involved in the case, a third level entails personal 

contact with either the batterer (restraining order service), the victim (taking photographs of 

her injuries), or witnesses (taking statements). The pattern that emerged indicated that DVRU 

officers engaged in personal contact (level three activities) least often, and in providing 

information (level one activities) most often. The rate at which they provided assistance to 

victims (level two activities) fell in between. When we looked at the personal contact level, 

DVRU officers reported having “taken photographs or witness statements’’ in 12% (39, and 

having “ served restraining orders” in 4% (1 1) of treatment group cases. Two other activities 

“Helping victims with transport to/fiom court” (2% or 5) and “Helping victims get 

restraining orders,” (13% or 37) can involve personal contact and have therefore been 

considered level three activities. Other level three treatments-transported victim to shelter, 

gave victim motel vouchers, gave victim food baskets-were not used at all. The officers 

indicated that they had ‘provided assistance’ (level two) to victims by helping them get an 

appointment with the district attorney in 1 16 cases (4 1 %), and by referring them to a victim 

advocacy program in 73 cases (26%). DVRU officers said that the treatments they delivered 

most often involved providing information (level one). For example, they provided victims 

with prosecution information in 280 of the 286 cases that received any treatment at all. In 200 

73 We received no PCLs for 10 Treatment Group cases. These were treated as missing cases for purposes of the analysis. 

56 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
(70%) cases victims received information about safety planning and requesting a restraining 

order. In other words, nearly every case received treatment if that treatment could be 

provided by telephone. It appears that the “victim call back policy” may have retained its 

preeminent status after all. 

What the Arresting Officers Provide: The Control Condition 

In our particular study, arresting the batterer constitutes the baseline intervention. Given 

the history of criminal justice intervention, Oregon provides a fairly high level of 

intervention by criminal justice agencies even in the absence of treatment as defined in our 

study. In many communities around the country, arresting batterers for misdemeanor 

domestic violence crimes is considered a strong government response in and of itself. In fact, 

there are those (Sherman, 1992) who suggest that arresting batterers represents an 

unwarranted degree of formal intervention. Still, for us this is the starting point. 

The treatment, as discussed above, and as the title of this project suggests, aims to go 

beyond arrest. While it is the case that DVRU intervention strategies are aimed at increasing 

the likelihood that batterers are prosecuted, this does not mean that men are not prosecuted if 

no DVRU intervention occurs, Because an on-scene arrest is our control condition, both the 

victim and the offender have been exposed to police intervention. As Table 5.2 shows, 

uniformed officers provide information and assistance to victims that differs little from some 

of the information DVRU officers provide a day or two later (See Table 5.1). It is 

conceivable then that a control group victim who received information from the arresting 

officer about initiating the prosecution in her case did indeed contact the district attorney’s 

office, hence we have a control group case with prosecution. The same scenario applies to 

obtaining restraining orders, seeking shelter or other assistance. 

We asked treatment and control group victims to tell us what assistance they received 

from the uniformed officers who arrested their batterers. We asked, for example (See 

Appendix B for Initial Interview Questionnaire items 91 through 102) whether the officers 

57 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
provided the legally mandated Information Card. Oregon law (ORs 133.055) requires that 

patrol officers give to domestic violence victims a card which contains victim services and 

referral infomation. Clearly, victims who receive this card will be more readily able to gain 

access to available services than victims who do not. It removes obstacles and thus enables 

victims to take actions to prevent further victimizations. Officers may also provide victims 

with verbal instructions about safety plans, how to prosecute, andor get a restraining order. 

We asked victims whether or not they received this type of information from the officers. For 

example, we asked: “ . . .[Did the officers] recommend that you go to the District Attorney’s 

office?’ This, as can be seen from the DVRU program plan, is also part of the DVRU 

intervention. Thus control group and treatment group victims receive similar information. 

The difference lies in how often and when this information is given to victims. Control group 

victims, for example get referral information from the “ Information Card,” and they may get 

additional verbal instructions from the arresting officers. Treatment group victims get this 

information twice, when the batterer is arrested and later when DVRU officers contact them. 

Table 5.2 shows what victim’s remembered from their encounter with the arresting officers. 

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group victim 

responses with one exception. More control group (48%) than treatment group victims (40%) 

recalled that the arresting officers had “ Provided information on legal rights or assistance.” 

The majority of victims felt that the arresting officers listened to them (79%) and were able to 

calm the situation (67%). About two thirds of the victims recalled receiving the legally 

mandated “ Information Card,” having been given restraining order information and been 

advised to contact the district dtomey’s ofice. Fewer victims recalled that uniformed 

officers related information about non-criminal justice system services. For example, 42% of 

victims remembered officers giving them information about shelters, and 23% recalled being 

referred to a victim assistance program. Uniformed officers, according to victims, only 

infrequently (1 5%) seemed to provide ‘on the spot counseling.’ 

58 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 5.2: Victims' Reports Of Set~ices'~ They Received From Uniformed Officers 

Police Services Provided by the Initial Interview Treatment 

Officers Who Made the Original Sample 11478 Group n=267 

Control Group 

n=21 I 

On-Scene Arrest 

Information Card Given to 76% 78% 74% 

Victims' Assessment of Arresting Officers' Conduct 

Victim 

Listened to Victim 

Officers Calmed Things Down 

Provided Restraining Order 

Information 

Recommended Contacting DA 

Provided Information about 

Shelters 

Provided Information about Legal 

Rights/Assistance 

Recommended Contacting a 

Shelter 

Recommended Counseling 

Referred Victim to Victim's 

Provided 'On-The-SpotCounseling' 

Assistance Program 

An arrest represents a significant intervention for the parties to the incident. Victims as 

well as offenders tend to pay close attention to police officers' conduct. We have learned that 

79% 78% 80% 

67% 66% 69% 

72% 72% 72% 

70% 67% 72% 

42% 43 yo 40% 

44% 48% 40% p<.O4 

18% 19% 16% 

15% 14% 17% 

23% 24% 22% 

15% 16% 13% 

whether or not victims are satisfied with the officers' handling of their situation affects their 

willingness to participate in further formal intervention strategies (Carlson & Nidey, 1995). It 

is also reasonable to suspect that the arresting officer's interaction with the victim can 

strengthen or undermine the victim's resolve to help herself, i.e. it can bolster or diminish her 

sense of empowerment. Insofar as victim empowerment and batterer deterrence are central to 

~ ~~ ~~ 

74 We asked a question about 'Transport to hospital or shelter,' only one percent of the victims in our study indicated 

receiving this service from uniformed officers. This is likely to reflect study design and shelter policy provisions rather 

than officer conduct. Misdemeanor crimes rarely involve serious physical injury and some local shelters do not reveal their 

location to police officers. 

59 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
the hoped for change in recidivism, determining the extent to which the arresting officer’s 

conduct may have contributed to these factors is of interest. A set of questions in the Initial 

Victim Interview (See Appendix B. Questions 90 through 110) asks victims to assess their 

experience with the arresting officers. Table 5.3 summarizes how victims’ felt about the 

Victim Assessment of Initial Interview Sample 

Specific Officer action^'^ n478 

Officers Were Concerned Very Much So 49% Very Much So 49% 

About Me Somewhat 38% Somewhat 37% 

Treatment Group n=2 1 1 

arresting officers who intervened. 

Control Group n=267 

Very Much So 48% 

Somewhat 39% 

.c.Table 53: Victim Assessment of Uniformed Officers’ Conduct” 

I Not At All 14% 

Oficers Were Respectful 1 Very Much So 68% 

NotAtAll 14% Not At All 13% 

Very Much So 74% Very Much So 64% 

Officers Were Objective 

and Businesslike 

Officers Treated Me Like 

I was Lying or Crazy 

Officers Were Hostile 

Victim’s Overall 

Satisfaction with Officers 

Victim Would Want the 

Police involved in Future 

Victim’s Satisfaction 

With 91 1 Operator 

Somewhat 2 1 YO Somewhat 17% Somewhat 24% 

Not At All 11% Not AtAll 9% NotAtAIl 12% 

Very Much So 58% Very Much So 61% Very Much So 56% 

Somewhat 28% Somewhat 27% Somewhat 29% 

Not At All 14% NotAtAll 12% Not At All 16% 

Very Much So 9% VeryMuchSo 6% Very Much So * 13% 

Somewhat 11% Somewhat 10% Somewhat 11% 

Not At All 80% NotAtAll 84% NotAtAll 77% 

Very Much So 4% VeryMuchSo 2% VeqMuchSo 5% 

Somewhat 9% Somewhat 8% Somewhat 10% 

Not At All 87% Not At All 90% NotAtAll 85% 

Very Satisfied 47% Very Satisfied 48% Very Satisfied 46% 

Satisfied 34% Satisfied 34% Satisfied 34% 

Dissatisfied 10% Dissatisfied 9% Dissatisfied 10% 

Very Dissatisfied 10% Very Dissatisfied 10% Very Dissatisfied 10% 

Yes 87% Yes 89% Yes 86% 

Very Satisfied 38% Very Satisfied 39% Very Satisfied 40% 

Satisfied 43% Satisfied 41% Satisfied 45% 

Dissatisfied 19% Dissatisfied 19% Dissatisfied 18% 

Often the tone for an interaction with the police is influenced by the police emergency 

telephone experience, i.e. the 91 1 call. We asked victims who had called the police to tell us 

how satisfied they were with the response they received fiom the operator. Of the 56% 

75 Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100. 

76 One of the questions asked victims to recall how ’helpful’ they thought the officers WM. A scanning problem resulted in 

a large number of missing answers casting doubt on the reliability of responses to this question. 

60 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
percent of the victims in our study who called the police emergency number more than two 

thirds reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the encounter. Similarly, 8 1 % of the 

victims we interviewed said they were satisfied with the way the arresting officers handled 

their situation, and 47% said they were very satisfied. Their overall assessment of the patrol 

officers who came to their house is captured by the fact that 87% of the victims said “Yes” 

when we asked “ If you’re ever assaulted again by an intimate partner, would you want law 

enforcement to get involved again?” 

61 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION SIX 

Interviews 

The research design called for two in-person interviews with all victims in the study. The 

initial victim interview was to take place within one week of her partner’s arrest. The followup interview was to occw six months after that. We expected initial interviews to conclude 

shortly after reaching 800 study cases, with follow-up interviews to conclude six months 

thereafter. Portland State University students were trained to conduct the one-hour interviews 

using specially developed questionnaires (see Appendices B and C). Interviews were to take 

place at victims’ homes. Victims received eight dollars cash per interview in partial, though 

largely symbolic, compensation for giving their time to the study. Confidentiality and safety 

provisions were an integral part of the interviewing process. Victim interviews began in 

March 1996 and ended in July 1997. 

Scheduling Interviews 

Research staff at the DVRU offices scheduled all initial victim interviews. Since 

research staff were blind to the randomization codes, the initial victim phone contact 

involved reading fiom a script (see Appendix E) so as not to inadvertently provide 

contaminating information to control group victims. To avoid other possible sources of 

contaminating the double-blind design, interview schedules for the treatment and control 

groups had different color codes and were assembled and tracked at a different location. 

Establishing contact with victims and conducting the actual interviews proved more 

difficult than anticipated. The reasons for interview non-completion rates and associated final 

counts for each category are shown in Table 6.1. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 6.1: Initial Interview Completion and Non-Completion Information 

Victim Contact and Non-Contact 

Information 

Interviews Completed 

Interviews Not Completed79 

Telephone Disconnected 

Unable to Contact-Ever 

Victim Refusal 

Interview Scheduled but not 

Completed j 

Lanmge ProblemsE0 

Study Sample Treatment Control Group I 

N=93077 Group 11406 n=523 

5 12 216 29678 

418 

55 18 37 

187 78 109 

202 89 113 

128 59 69 

18 8 10 1 

Past Cut-Off Date I54 I20 I34 I 

Several problems prevented the research staff from establishing contact with victims or 

carrying out a scheduled interview. Many of the victims had unlisted phone numbers, for 

example. In other cases, batterers would not allow their partners to answer the phone. Since it 

was our policy not to speak to the batterer about the purpose of the call, it became impossible 

to set up an interview without placing the victim at risk. In other cases victims said that they 

would rather be interviewed at the police station than at their homes. We decided not to do 

this for fear of contaminating the control condition by bringing the victims to the DVRU for 

an interview. 

Some victim refusals may have been due to the telephone identifier our research staff 

used when they called victims to set up the initial interview. The caller identified herself as 

calling from 'family services,' the name of the organizational division within which the 

DVRU was housed." Some victims may have identified this with the Children's Services 

77 We obtained interviews for three cases for which we did not obtain official records. Because we have official records 

data for almost twice as many cases as cases for which we have interview data we have adopted 927 as the study sample 

size elsewhere. 

78 34 completed interviews were not included in this analysis due to contamination. 

79 It was possible that more than one reason for non-completion applied to a case. For example, a case could have been 

coded as both 'past the cut-off date' and 'unable to speak the language' because we were not able to converse with a Korean 

victim for example. 

80 We only completed 5 interviews in a language other than English4 in Spanish and 1 in Vietnamese. Thus 13 of the 18 

were not completed. 

81 We had adopted this identifier to avoid using the term Domestic Violence Reduction Unit with control group victims. 

63 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Department and associated the call With losing their children. One of the more common 

reasons for an interviewer's inability to complete an interview, once it was scheduled or 

already begun, came from an interviewer safety policy we had adopted. According to this 

policy an interview could only be conducted if the victim was the only adult in the house. As 

many victims were staying with friends or family members, it was not always possible for 

victims to actually produce an 'empty' house in which case our interviewer was instructed to 

cancel and reschedule the interview. Such difficulties in obtaining victim interviews 

prompted us to make several adjustments in our interviewing procedures. 

First, the initial policy to call victims only during DVRU operating hours was 

reconsidered. We had adopted this plan to achieve greater concordance between DVRU 

officer and study victim contacts. We had hoped to avoid creating a subgroup of treatment 

group victims who never had any contact with unit officers because they were not reachable 

between 8 am and 4 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. Immediately after the policy was 

changed and victims were called during evening hours and on weekends, we were much more 

successful in establishing contact with victims. 

Second, we adjusted the 10-day rule for the initial interview. The original plan had called 

for each initial interview to be completed within one week to ten days of the arrest that 

brought the case into the study. As it became evident that scheduling and adhering to an 

agreed upon schedule proved difficult with our group of victims, we relaxed the 1 0-day rule. 

The 1 0-day provision became the preferred option but researchers recorded the time that had 

elapsed between the arrest and initial interview so it could be used later as a variable in the 

data analysis. 

Third, we included telephone interviews. The initial interview plan stipulated in-person 

interviews for all cases. When it became obvious that it was difficult for some victims to 

make and keep appointments with us they were offered a phone interview at their earliest 

convenience. Though in-person interviews remained the preferred mode, a telephone 

interview was considered preferable to none. 

64 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Fourth, estimates of sample size for completed interviews had to be revised. After three 

months into the study we realized that case-flow and victim contact-rate realities, together 

with time and resource limitations, put our original goal of 800 victim interviews out of 

reach. The revised goal was to aim for 800 study cases and work hard to get the greatest 

possible number of interviews within that sample. 

In fact, we ultimately obtained initial interviews for 478 study cases, representing a 52% 

completion rate. The follow-up interview completion rate was 81% (386/478). Clearly, the 

retention rate for victims once they were part of our study was markedly higher than the rate 

at which we were able to bring them into the study initially. This may have been attributable 

to a procedural change in the scheduling of follow-up interviews which was possible only 

because the double blind provisions ceased to apply once the study sample was in place. 

Now, instead of the research staff attempting coordination between interviewers and victims, 

each interviewer was given a caseload and allowed to contact the victim and conduct the 

interview at her convenience. Research staff was in contact with the interviewers, and took 

care of making sure each victim was paid. Also, if the interviewer was unable to complete an 

interview for any reason, the research staff ‘worked’ the case until the interview was 

completed. Research staff carried out random checks to insure interview completion and 

accuracy. Progress was reviewed at weekly staff meetings. 

What exactly brought about the relatively low completion rate for the initial interviews is 

difficult to ascertain. Indisputably, women who have been victimized by their partners to the 

extent that it leads to their batterer’s arrest experience significant upheaval in their lives. 

They are forced to consider whether or not to press charges, obtain a restraining order and 

relocate themselves and their children while attempting to deal with the emotional dynamics 

of a violent intimate relationship that has now become a public event involving criminal 

justice authorities. In the midst of this turmoil participation in a research study has low 

priority. 

65 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The Effect of Interview Procedure Changes on the Distribution of Sample 

Characteristics 

The randomization procedure, as described in Section Four, produced essentially'*equal 

and equivalent treatment and control samples. Had we been able to interview everyone, 

perhaps the same could have been said about our interview sub-samples. But, as mentioned, 

this was not the case. Completed victim interviews were obtained for about half the cases in 

the study. Whether or not differences existed between cases with and cases without 

interviews was examined. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show the differences between the two groups. 

In Table 6.2 the distributi,on of case characteristics for study cases with an initial interview is 

compared to study cases with no interview. Statistically significant differences for three 

variables were found: Crime Involved, Offender Race and Victim Race. As the " Crime 

Involved" category shows, we were more successful at obtaining interviews with victims 

whose case involved an arrest for a restraining order violation than other types of offenses. 

This makes sense, for a victim who has a restraining order when she enters the study is likely 

to have a stable residence (and phone number), and is accustomed to dealing with 

representatives of the criminal justice system. These are all factors that increase chances of 

obtaining an interview with her. Resource limitations, namely difficulties finding qualified 

Spanish speaking student interviewers, seem to have been responsible for the lower than 

expected number of interviews with Hispanic women. As Table 6.3 shows the was true when 

we examined cases with both, the initial and the follow-up interview, and compared them to 

study cases with no interviews. 

82 There were two statistically significant differences: 'Victim Age' and 'Victim has Children under Age 3'. 

66 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6.2: Case Characteristicsa for Study Cases With and Without Initial 

Interviews 

CASE CHAM CTERISTICS 

Crime Involved 

Children Present - Police Report 

Wimesses Present - Police Report 

Injury Involved - Police Repon 

InstrumenWeapon Used - Police Report 

INITLQL VICTIM INTER VIEW 1 

YES NO 

163.160 Assault IV 5 8% 52% 

163.190 Menacing 12% 9% 

133.310 VRO 12% 5% <.005 

OtherMissing 12% 14% 

Yes: 29x0 20% 

Yes: 35% 33% 

Yes: 55% 51% 

Handfleet: 76% 67% 

N478 N452 

166.065 Harassment 3 yo 3% 

I EL 

A & D - Police Report 

Offender with Prior Criminal Record 

15YO 9% Iz I 

Yes: 41% 3 6% 

Yes: 48% 41% 

White 65% 68% 

Offender Age: Average in Years 

Victim Race 

Victim Age: Average in Years 

ReDeat Violence - Police ReDort 

Offender Race 

Other 4 % 5yo 

33 33 

White 73% 58% 

Black 14% 12% 

Hispanic 4% 7% c.04 

Other 5% 5% 

32 31 

Yes: 26% 23% 

Black 

Hispanic 

24% 

7% 

83 All of the data in this table are based upon information as provided in the original police reports. 

84 This category includes knives, guns, bludgeoning instruments and thrown objects. 

67 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6.3: Characteristics for Study Cases With and Without Initial and Follow-Up 

Interviews. 

YES 

N = 386 

163.160 Assault IV 55% 

l63.190 Menacing 12% 

133.310 Restraining Order Violation (VRO) 12% 

166.065 Harassment 3% 

1 Case Characteristics 

NO 

N-544 

52% 

12% 

6% < .01 

3% 

I Crime Involved 

-~ ~ 

Injury involved - Police Report 

InstrumentslWeapons Used - Police 

Report 

Children Present - Police Report 

Witnesses Resent - Police ReDon 

Offender with Prior Criminal Record 

A & D - Police ReDort 

Offender Race - Police Report 

Victim Race - Police Report 

1 Repeat Violence - Police Report 

OtherMissing 12% I 15% 

Yes 26% I 22% 

Yes 53% 163% 

Hands/Feet 74% I 83% 

Yes 46% 50% 

Yes 40% 44% 

White 64% 61% 

Black 25% 23% 

Hispanic 6% 11% 

Other 5% 6% 

White 59% 71% 

Black 14% 14% 

Hispanic 2% 8%<.005 

Other 5% 7% 

33 33 

32 31 

The Interviewers and Interviewer Training 

Interviewers were Portland State University graduate and undergraduate students. Many 

of them were social work graduate students. The two men in the initial interviewer pool 

remained for only a short while, leaving an all-female interview staff for the remainder of the 

study. Some of the initial interviewers remained with us fiom March 1996 until July 1997. 

One of the interviewers who joined our study at the outset and remained until the end of the 

interviewing phase conducted 329 interviews. In order to accommodate victim scheduling 

needs and student class schedules we had to maintain a pool of about 10 to 14 interviewers at 

85 Ibid. 

68 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
all times, including one who spoke Spanish and one who spoke Vietnamese. The 

administrative resources needed to maintain this pool of available student interviewers were 

greater than anticipated. The most taxing task was to hire and train new interviewers as others 

left the study. Students rather than professional interviewers were chosen because of the 

opportunity that it gave them to work on a research project. While this may have been a 

laudable policy, it was one that placed strain on the research team. 

The initial interviewer training was a daylong affair that included presentations by 

research team members; the DVRU sergeant and officers; a representative fiom Women ’s 

Strength, a women’s self-defense program; and the project manager. Topics ranged from an 

overview of the study to interviewing and role-playing. Each interviewer received a copy of 

the Interviewer Manual which contained copies of the questionnaire, informed consent 

letters, victim re-contact sheet, and so on (see Appendix F). Ongoing training sessions were 

held at the principal investigator’s home on a monthly basis. Interviewers who joined the 

study once it had begun received a shortened version of the original daylong training session, 

augmented by on-the-job instruction fiom more experienced interviewers. 

Conducting Interviews Safely 

Contacting domestic violence victims by telephone mere hours after their partner’s arrest 

raised a variety of safety issues. Our research staff who called victims shortly after the arrest 

was carefully trained to avoid any possibility that our phone-call could jeopardize the 

victim’s safety. A complete copy of the telephone script is in the Interviewer Manual (see 

Appendix E). Phone-calls, as we discovered, could present safety issues for our research 

staff as well. One staff member’s experience reminded us of the fact that batterers can use 

caller identification features to obtain names and phone numbers. In this case, the batterer, 

suspicious and angry, called the interviewer at home and demanded to know the purpose of 

the call to his house. The staff member had to notify the Telephone Company to change her 

69 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
phone number. We immediately notified our interviewers instructing them to use the *67 

featureg6when calling victims from their homes. 

The research design, as noted above, called for in-person interviews to be conducted in 

the victim’s home if possible. A significant portion of the interviewer-training program 

addressed safety relating to victim home visits. Prior to arriving at the victim’s house, for 

example, interviewers were instructed to reconfirm the interview with the victim by calling 

her house. As part of this phone call, the interviewer reiterated that she would only be able to 

conduct the interview if the batterer was neither in nor near the house. If this could not be 

arranged, the interviewer was to reschedule the interview. Aware of the possibility that the 

victim might not be able to control the interview circumstances, interviewers were told to be 

alert at all times once they had entered the house. In the event that they felt “ something was 

not right,” they were free to discontinue the interview. Interviewers were also instructed to 

not leave behind any materials that could endanger the victim’s safety. If in the course of 

conducting the interview, an interviewer felt that the victim’s safety was in jeopardy right 

then, as when the angry batterer entered the home during the interview, the interviewer was 

instructed to notify either the principal investigator or the police. In this study safety was 

paramount for victims and interviewers. Carefully delineated procedures as well as a measure 

of luck were necessary to achieve this goal. 

86 This feature blocks the outgoing number from appearing on Caller Identification. Some phones will not accept blocked 

calls. For these cases, the interviewers called from a phone at the Portland State University research facility. 

70 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION SEVEN 

From Arrest To Incarceration 

On several occasions in this report we have referred to the 1995 process evaluation of the 

DVRU (Jolin and Clavadetscher, 1995). We commented that tracking domestic violence 

crimes through the criminal justice system was not only a complex task but also one that was 

impossible to carry out in any routine way. It was not possible then, nor was it possible at the 

time of this study, to discern which domestic violence arrests lead to what types of 

prosecution andor sentencing outcomes. We concluded then that this was due to the fact that 

Each justice agency has created a system which tracks its own workload or fulfills 

its own communication needs best. The computerized information at each agency 

has been designed as if the important “ story” about a case begins and ends within 

that agency’s oversight. For example, each agency typically creates a new, unique 

“ case number” for what are really the same characteristics of an event or person 

moving through the chain of agencies which form the criminal justice “system 

(Jolin and Clavadetscher, 1995:41). 

Our recommendation in 1995 that each agency make a small sacrifice of convenience 

and either agree to use one case number, assigned when the emergency call is logged, i.e. at 

the 9- 1 - 1 stage, or agree to track the previous agency’s case number alongside their own was 

not implemented. 

The present study gives some insight into what we may learn about the criminal justice 

response to domestic violence when agency databases are linked by a common number. We 

followed 927 cases from arrest to prosecution, from prosecution to conviction, from 

conviction to sentencing, and from sentencing to sanction. Getting the necessary data was a 

complex task that required the active cooperation of many criminal justice agency 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
representatives. It required locating “ our” batterers and “ our” victims in each agency data 

base:’ identifying and extracting the relevant data,” and then creating our version of a 

coordinated justice system data file based on a case identification number. Once this task was 

completed, we were able to follow domestic violence cases through the criminal justice 

system following a misdemeanor arrest. The following graph depicts the intermediate 

outcomes in our study: 

.c.Figure 2. From Arrest to Conviction 

-~ ~~ ~ 

Arrests 

100% (927) 

Arrest + DVRU 

(404) 44% 

r 

Arrest 

53% (523) 

I 

U 

Prosecutions p<.008 

35% (325) 

Arrest + DVRU Arrest 

(1 79) 44% 37% (191) 

U 

Arrest + DVRU 

(98) 24% 

Convictions p<.002 

20% (91) 

Arrest 

17% (9 1) 

87 Many of the problems we encountered were related to the use of aliases by battms as well 8s victims. In one case the 

batterer and the victim each had more than 10 recorded aliases as well as variations in birth dates. 

88 This was particularly challenging for sentencing and restraining order information. The court database is a relational 

database that contains records of all court actions relating to a particular we. However, if a case involves criminal as well 

as civil court actions, the activities are recorded in the respective criminal and civil database subsystems. Given the fact that 

domestic violence cases often involve both the criminal and the civil court system we spent many hours sifting through 

seemingly endless records of judicial orders. 

72 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Thirty five percent of the 927 batterers in our study were prosecuted for at least one of the 

offenses they had been charged with. Twenty percent were convicted and 22 percent of the 

927 men in our study had a sentence imposed.89 Batterers in the treatment group were more 

likely than their control group counterparts to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. An 

equal number (20%) of victims in each group filed restraining orders against their batterers. 

We now take a closer look at our data for each component of the criminal justice system. 

The Portland Police Data System (PPDS) 

As dictated by the study’s eligibility criteria, cases considered for tracking had to have 

entered the criminal justice system via an on-scene arrest for a misdemeanor domestic crime. 

The police bureau maintains computerized records of such arrests in the PPDS. Arrest 

records were available for each of the 927 study cases in the sample. 

Multnornah County Sheriffs Warrant and Inmate System (SWIS) 

Oregon law (ORs 133.3 10) mandates that a defendant is booked into jail upon a 

probable cause arrest for a domestic crime. Assuming the law was implemented as ordered 

we expected to find electronic booking records for all cases in our study. Jail data were found 

for all but nine batterers in our study. 9o 

89 For sentencing records we used the OJIN records as the most proximate data source to the event. 

90 The Sheriffs Department underwent a major computer system conversion during the course of our study. Our efforts to 

collect data for nearly one thousand cases only added to an already difficult situation. We appreciated the kindness and 

understanding we were shown by the people in the record division. 

73 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 7.1: Jail Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and Control Group 

Study Sample Treatment Group 

N=92Y1 11404 

Jail Time Prior to Release on Bail Average: 64 hrs 70 hours 

or Own Recognizancegz 2 days 16 hrs 2 days 22 hours 

Jail Time Prior to Any form of Average: 126 hrs 139 hours 

Release 5 days 2 hours 5 days 19 hours 

Control Group 

n=523 

57 hours 

2 days 9 hours 

4 12 hours 

4 days 16 hrs 

Release decisions in domestic violence cases in Portland are guided by a 1993 judicial 

0 Own Recognizance 55% 57% >than expected 54%<than expected 

0 Released on Bail 36% 32% <than expected 39%>than expected 

0 Released to Third Party 4% 5% >than expected 3% <than expected 

0 Released upon Sentence 4% 5% >than expected 3% <than expected 

Completion 

- Victim Requested Release Notification I 13% 16% 1 9% p.001 

order specifying that in matters of pretrial release of defendants for offenses involving family 

members “ any release decision, other than security release [i.e. bail], shall be deferred until 

the first appearance of the defendant before a magistrate” (Londer, 1993). Thus batterers 

remained in jail until arraignment unless they were able to post bail. If they did post bail they 

were required to sign a release agreement stating that they would have no contact with the 

victim in the offense unless specifically authorized by the court. 

As Table 7.1 shows, there were statistically significant differences in the type of release 

for treatment and control group offenders. It is not clear what might have produced these 

differences. The other significant finding-that more treatment group victims requested to be 

notified of the batterer’s release from jail-may reflect differences in victim empowerment 

between the two groups. 

91 There were nine study cases we were unable to find in the jail database. 

92 The number of missing cases varied by category. 

93 The difference between treatment and control group release type was statistically significant at the F. 04 level. 

74 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
District Attorney Case Tracking System (DACTS) 

The District Attorney Case Tracking System (DACTS) became operational in June 1993. 

The database could flag domestic violence cases? thus enabling us to identify which arrest 

cases were prosecuted and with what results. In addition to its own case number, DACTS 

carried forward the police report number thereby creating a li~k~~between the police and 

district attorney data bases. 

Because our study involved only cases in which the batterer was arrested, and because 

police arrest reports were routinely forwarded to the district attorney's office, we expected to 

find DACTS records for all% study cases9' One of the intermediate outcome goals for the 

DVRU program plan was to increase prosecutions for misdemeanor domestic crimes, based 

on the expectation that DVRU investigations would produce prosecutable cases. Thus a 

deputy district attorney who screened cases for prosec~tion~~ was presumably less likely to 

decline prosecuting a DVRU, i.e. treatment group case, than a non-DVRU, i.e. control group 

case, mainly because the treatment group case provided more of the needed evidence to 

prosecute. Table 7.2 shows that this was the case: the district attorney's office initiated 

prosecutions in treatment group cases significantly more often than in control group cases. 

This difference carried through to convictions. Batterers in the treatment group were 

significantly more likely to be convicted of at least one of the charges they faced than 

batterers in the control group. We also found that the district attorney up-graded 

misdemeanors to felonies more often when treatment group than when control group cases 

were involved. 

g4 This requires a special designation because the crimes themselves, e.g. Assault IV, give no indication of the victimoffender relationship status. 

95 DACTS also contains the DA Case Court Number, which in theory can provide a useful link to the court database. 

96 Nevertheless, we were unable to obtain DACTS case disposition information for 45 study cases. 

97 The police report distribution process provides that one copy of a domestic violence arrest report is sent to the District 

Attorney's ofice and another one to the DVRU. Only those sent to the DVRU were subject to the randomization 

procedures used in this study. 

98 The Multnomah County District Attorney's Offcc uses written guidelines for the screening of criminal cases. 

75 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
76 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 7.2: Prosecution Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and Control Group 

Prosecutorial Action Study Treatment 

Sample Group 11404 

N=927* 

Cases Issued 37% (325) 44% (1 79) 

' Cases Rejectedioo 63% 56% 

Convictions 20% (1 89) 24% lo' 

Control Group 

11423 

37% (191) p.008 

63% 

1 7%102 p.002 

0 Case Dismissed'03 37% 31% 

0 Not Guilty by Trial 5% 3% 

0 Guilty by Trial 8 'Yo 8% 

0 Guilty Plea 50% 46% 

Average Number of Charges per Case 1.58 1.6 S.D. .99 

Convictions on Felony Charges 9% 14% 

A Conditional 'No Drop' Policy 

The district attorney 's policy about victim participation in misdemeanor domestic 

violence cases stipulates that the decision to prosecute not depend upon the victim's 

willingness to proceed with the case so long as at least one priority criterion is met. Priority 

criteria are: 1. The case involves a weapon; 2. The case involves children; 3. The offender has 

a history of domestic violence; and 4. The offender confessed. If none of these exist then the 

victim's participation becomes necessary for the case to proceed (Underhill, 1997).lW 

Deferred Sentencing Program 

Batterers without a criminal history were generally eligible to enter the deferred 

sentencing program. If they chose to participate they had to enter a plea of guilty at 

arraignment. If they successfully completed the six months treatment program administered 

through the Adult Community Justice Services Department (Community Corrections), their 

34% 

5% 

6% 

42% 

1.56 S.D. 1.05 

4% 

99 Forty-five cases in the DACTS have unknown dispositions. Unknowns are excluded from the percentage calculations. 

100 A case is 'Rejected' if the evidence provided in the police report is not enough to meet the probable cause test necessary 

for prosecution. 

101 The treatment and control group percentages are based upon the aggregate of 'guilty pleas' and 'found guilty' divided by 

927. 

102 Ibid. 

103 Dismissal means a case is selected for prosecution, but for some reason the district attorney is unable to proceed with 

the case from that point on. For example, the case has proceeded to trial and the main witness fails to testify. 

104 Underhill Rocerick. 1997. Senior Deputy District Attorney for Domestic Violence Cases in the Multnomah County 

District Attorney's Ofice. Personal communication. Portland, Oregon. 

77 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
plea was withdrawn and criminal charges dismissed. If the batterer failed to complete the 

program, he was sentenced in conjunction with the original charges. We present deferred 

sentencing data in the last part of this section. 

Oregon Judicial Information Network (OJIN) 

OJM was our data source for sentencing and restraining order information. OJIN is a 

relational database, i.e. it records in (mostly) chronological order all legal actions pertaining 

to each case under its jurisdiction. Criminal and civil case records are maintained separately. 

While some OJIN data were accessible via public computer terminals at the courthouse, 

extracting case specific information from the database required skill. Without assistance from 

the Court Administrator’s staff, it would not have been feasible to collect the necessary data 

for this case-tracking task. 

Restraining Order Information 

Whether or not a victim had a restraining order against her batterer was important for 

two reasons. One, it served as baseline indicator of victim empowerment if a victim upon 

entry into the study already had a restraining order against her batterer. Two, it served as an 

indicator of newly acquired victim empowerment if she filed a restraining order petition after 

she came into the study. 

The Court Administrator’s ofice provided us with records of all restraining order 

petitions that were filed in Multnomah County between March 18, 1995 and May 27,1997. 

From these records we were able to establish the existence of a restraining order at the time 

of the batterer’s arrest as well as the filing of a petition during the six months following the 

arrest. According to the information in Table 7.3 eleven percent of study cases had 

restraining orders in place when they entered the study. After entry into the study an 

additional 185 restraining order petitions were filed. There were no statistically significant 

differences between treatment and control group cases. 

78 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 73: Restraining Order Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and Control 

Group. 

Study Sample 

N427 

Study Cases with Restraining Orders 30%’O5(276) 

Restraining Order was in effect prior 

to entry into the study 

Victim Filed Restraining Order after 

entry into the study 

Restraining Order was Served 

Restraining Order was Contested by 

batt erer 

Restraining Order was Vacated upon 

Victim’s Request 

Treatment Control Group 

Group 11404 n=523 

32% (129) 28% (147) 

11% 

20% (1 85) 

85% 

27% 

13% 

13% 9% 

20% (82) 20% (1 03) 

83% 87% 

22% 30% 

12% 14% 

According to Oregon law, the respondent, i.e. the batterer, can request a hearing as soon 

as he has been served with the restraining order. The court must hold such hearings within 

five days of the request when child visitation is involved and within 21 days if other 

provisions are contested. The results in Table 7.3 show that restraining orders filed by 

treatment and control group victims were equally likely to be served, contested and vacated. 

Sentencing Information 

OJIN was also the database from which we extracted batterer sentencing data. The study 

cases which could logically be expected to have sentencing records were cases identified in 

the district attorney data files by “guilty by trial” or “guilty by plea” dispositions. According 

to the district attorney records, 189 study cases had such dispositions. Of these we were able 

to locate 176 in 0JIN.’O6 

While it was reasonable for us to expect a treatment effect for ‘sentence imposed,’ it is 

difficult to make a straightforward case for treatment effects influencing the type of sentence 

105 Due to rounding percentages may not add to 100. 

106 Despite our expectations that only cases with ‘guilty plea’ and ‘guilty by trial’ i.e. convictions in DACTS would be in 

OJM, we found 20 cases in OJM which DACTS had identified as having an ‘unknown’ disposition, and 11 cases which 

DACTS had identified as ‘dismissed.’ Conversely, 13 of the cases we expected to be in OJM because DACTS had listed 

them as ‘guilty plea’ or ‘guilty by trial’ were not in OIM. 

79 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
given. For example, greater investigative thoroughness could lead to indictments on more 

serious charges and with it more severe sentences. Or, greater investigative thoroughness 

could persuade otherwise reluctant batterers to enter into plea bargains for lighter sentences. 

As Table 7.4 shows, there were no differences between the two groups in the types of 

sentences batterers received. However, there was a statistically significant difference in 

whether or not a sentence was imposed. More treatment group batterers were sentenced than 

control group batterers. 

.c.Table 7.4: OJIN Sentencing Data:'07 Study Sample, Treatment Group, and Control 

Group; 

Corrections Data: Adult Community Justice Services Domestic Violence Unit Data Base 

Batterers with sentences to probation were under the supervision of the Adult 

Community Justice Services Division. It was not possible to obtain electronic data for 

batterers who were maintained on general probation caseloads. However, we were able to 

obtain some data for batterers in the Deferred Sentencing Program, i.e. Diversion. The 

batterer's decision to enter the Deferred Sentencing Program occurred at the prosecution 

stage of the criminal process. The six-month program was administered by probation officers 

107 Sentences typically involve more than one of the above categories, e.g. probation plus fine. Hence percentages can not 

be summed by column. 

108 This category includes sentences to community service, A&D counseling, battmr counseling etc. 

80 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
that were assigned to this special unit. The program dictated no contact with the victim for 

the first 30 days, participation in a 24-week domestic violence education program, 

participation in akohol/drug treatment if necessary, and so on. Non-compliance, depending 

on the seriousness of the violation, could lead to expulsion from the program and to criminal 

sanctions. 

Determining the exact deferred sentencing program status of batterers in our study was 

possible only to the extent of locating ‘our’ batterers in the Deferred Sentencing Unit 

database. We were able to follow a batterer from the DACTS disposition to an OJIN sentence 

and subsequent interactions with the Deferred Sentencing Program with only a limited degree 

of reliability because of the complexity of exchanging information across three agencies with 

three separate databases. The district attorney’s office, which initiated the batterer’s program 

participation and entered this information into its DACTS database; the courts, which 

provided the judicial order making the batterer’s decision legally binding and entered the 

information into OJIN; the Deferred Sentencing Program, which oversaw batterers’ 

compliance and entered this information into their program’s data base. In the course of 

tracking study cases through the criminal justice system we learned that crossing institutional 

boundaries can be analogous to the kiss of death for the data involved. For this reason we are 

least confident about the accuracy of our data at this step in our tracking procedure. 

81 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c. fable 7.5: Deferred Sentencing Program Data: Study Sample, Treatment Group, and 

Control Group. 

Batterers sentenced to Deferred Sentencing 

I Study Sample 

N427 

12% (1 10) 

Program'09 

Batterers still in Program at 6-month check 37% (41) ~ ~~ 

Batterers no longer in Program at 6-months 

check 

Successful Completion 

Removed from Program 

Treatment Control Group 

Grouv 11404 n=523 

63% (69) 

40% (28169) 

29% (20169) 

I 

14% (57) 1 10% (53) 

59% (33) 68% (36) 

42% (14133) 39% (14136) 

27% (9133) I 31% (11136) 

The category Program Participation in Table 7.5 illustrates one problem with a sixmonths follow-up study design. Twenty-four treatment group batterers and 17 control group 

batterers were still undergoing court mandated counseling when our study concluded. Any 

questions about treatment impact on future violence by these batterers must remain 

unanswered. 

109 We were not able to determine case dispositions for 21 cases with a program completion date, 10 in the treatment group 

and 11 in the control group. 

82 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION EIGHT 

Results 

In this section we examine the outcome data we collected six months after the domestic 

violence arrest that brought the case into study. These data came from two sources, follow-up 

interviews with victims and police reports. In Part 1, we will report the behavior of 14 

outcome variables with respect to “ intent to treat.” That is, their values will be compared 

between our treatment and control groups, disregarding the fact that not all members of the 

treatment group received treatment and that the most common type of treatment entailed 

providing information to victims (see Section Five). In Parts 2 and 3, the control and 

treatment groups were pooled, and the effects of various predictorsI’Oon the outcome 

variables are shown. In Part 2, their effect on the number of restraining orders, number of 

prosecutions, and change in empowerment from the initial to the follow-up interview were 

studied. Finally, in Part 3, the effect of the police checklist predictors and these intermediate 

outcomes were used as predictors of our fourteen outcome variables. 

Part 1: Treatment and Control Group Outcomes 

First we examined treatment and control group differences for victims who 

experiencedI’Inew violence from the same offender involved in the original arrest, any 

offender, or both based on interviews with the victims. Then we looked at treatmentlcontrol 

~~ ~ 

110 Fourteen items from the police checklist. 

111 We chose the terms ‘experienced‘ new violence or ‘experienced revictimization to refer to self-reports of victimization 

and ‘reported’ revictimization to refer to official data or revictimization or reoffending. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
group differences for reported revictimization-reports of incidents as well as reports of 

custodies in the police records. 

Revictimization No Count 

Same Batterer 

Expected Count 

Count Yes 

Any Revictimizations Experienced from the Same Offender and From Any Offender 

The information in this section is based upon follow-up interviews with treatment and 

control group victims in our study @J=396). We asked victims how many separate disputes 

they had had with their partner during the six months following his arrest. First we 

considered the issue of whether there was any difference in the prevalence of revictimization, 

Treatment Control Total 

86 69 155 

73.4 81.6 

101 139 240 

i.e. if a different proportion of victims in the treatment vs. control group had experienced any 

Total 

victimization at all. 

I 

Expected Count 1 13.6 126.4 

Count 187 208 395 

In each case, Fisher’s Exact test was performed on the two-way cross tabulation table. 

.c.Table 8.1: Any Revictimizations Experienced-Same Offender- by Treatment and 

Control Group 

The exact two-sided significance was .010. There were more victim events in the control 

group than expected under the hypothesis of no difference between groups. 

84 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.2: Any Revictimizations Experienced- Any Offender (s,me or different than 

in original arrest)-by Treatment and Control Group 

Treatment Control 

Count 86 67 No Revictimization any 

batterer 

Total 

153 

__ . I 

Expected Count 

Count Yes 

72.4 80.6 

101 141 242 

-1 

The exact two-sided significance was .005. There were more victim events in the control 

Total 

group than expected under the hypothesis of no difference between groups. 

- -_ 

Expected Count 1 14.6 127.4 

Count 187 208 395 

Turning to the average number of subsequent incidents, independent samples t-tests were 

performed to compare group means. 

.c.Table 8.3: Average Number of Revictimizations Experienced by Treatment and 

Control Group Victims: Same Offender and Any Offender 

Although the average number of self-reported victimizations is higher in the control 

group, the differences are not statistically significant. 

Police Reports of Revictimizations, Reoffenses and Repeat Calls to the Original Address 

In examining the police records of the offender and the victim, we have identified 

fourteen outcome variables that will be investigated in this section and four variables 

reflecting survival times that are presented in Appendix F. 

85 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
We began by examining the differences in the official records of justice events following 

the entry event. The groups compared were those for whom treatment was intended (cases 

randomly assigned to the DVRU) and those for whom DVRU treatment was not intended 

(cases randomly not assigned to the DVRU). 

First, we looked at indicators of presence or absence of reported revictimization, reported 

revictimization resulting in custody, reported reoffenses, and reported reoffenses resulting in 

custody during the six-month observation period. Second, we examined the four variables 

which were the frequencies (within the six months following the initial incident) of reported 

revictimizations, reported revictimizations resulting in custody, reported reoffenses, and 

those resulting in custody. Following these are the numbers of repeat calls to police to the 

original address for any incident and domestic violence incidents. The information on these 

fourteen variables was obtained from PPDS and compiled on the police record form (see 

Appendix D). 

Proportions with Police Records of New Events 

The first question was simply whether a greater proportion of the treatment or control 

group cases had police records of any subsequent justice events. The four events we chose to 

compare were two pertaining to revictimization and two related to the alleged offender’s 

subsequent allegations. In each instance we were interested in both whether an event was 

reported to the poke and whether it had resulted in a physical custody. In each instance, 

Fisher’s Exact test was performed on the two-way cross-tabulation table to determine if the 

differences were statistically significant. 

86 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.4: Police Reports of Revictimizations and Reoffenses by Treatment and 

Control Group. 

Reported Event 

Report of Any 

I I GROUP I I 

Treatment Control 

N YO N YO 

76 19.1% 48 9.9% 

Victimization 

Reported Victimization 

resulting in Arrest 

Reoffense 

Resulting in Arrest 

Total 

Report of Any 

Reported Reoffense 

44 1 1.1 YO 25 5.1% 

," 83 20.9% 47 9.7% 

47 11.8% 24 4.9% 

397 100.0% 486 100.0% 

TOTAL 

883 1100.0% 

Sig. 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Clearly the victims who were assigned to the treatment group were more likely have a 

police record of a subsequent revictimization, and more likely to have had a record of such an 

event which involved the arrest of the offender. It was also clear that the alleged offenders 

whose cases were in the treatment group were more likely to have a reported subsequent 

allegation, and a reported subsequent allegation that resulted in an arrest. 

Average Number of Reported Revictimizations and Reoffenses 

In the preceding sections we focused on the first recorded event of each of four types 

(victimization and reoffense, both any and those involving custody). While we found 

differences in reporting rates of the treatment and control groups, this did not tell the entire 

story for the six months that we followed them subsequent to the entry event. In some 

instances the records indicated the presence of multiple subsequent victimization reports to 

the police, as well as reports of multiple subsequent allegations of offenses. In the preceding 

analyses, these multiple events were ignored, as the focus was on whether an event had 

occurred or not. In the following section we extend the analysis to include all subsequent 

recorded events, not just the first one. In order to do so, we examine the mean number of 

87 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
events reported by each group. These are summarized in the Table 8.5, in which the “mean” 

is the average number of reported events. This might be more easily understood if expressed 

as a rate; for example the mean of .29 for reported revictimizations by the treatment group 

would indicate that for every 100 victims in this group, we would expect a total of 29 

reported revictimizations. From the earlier table, we would expect that 19 of those 100 

victims would report this total of 29 revictimizations. In each case, independent samples ttests were performed to compare group means. 

Variable 

.c.Table 8.5: Average Number of Reported Revictimizations and Reported Reoffenses 

by Treatment and Control Group 

I N I Mean I S.D. I t 

Reported Revictimizations 

Reported Revictimizations 

leading to Arrest 

Reported Reoffenses 

Reported Reoffenses 

leading to Arrest 

Treatment 

Control 

Treatment 

Control 

Treatment 

Control 

Treatment 

Control 

397 I .12 1 .34 I 3.285 

.46 

397 I .12 I .34 I 3.723 

I I I 

486 I .05 I .22 I 

sig.] 

.ooo 1 

In all four cases, the means were significantly higher in the treatment group, confirming 

the earlier pattern, that the total numbers of reported events are higher in the treatment group. 

While we did not compute tests of significance, it was also the case that the average number 

of reported events,for those who had any reported event, was higher in the treatment group. 

For example, the treatment group had a rate of 29 reported events per 100 persons, and 19 

persons per 1 00 who had any reported event. The average was therefore 1.5 1 reported events 

per person for whom official records of revictimizations existed (2911 9). These averages are 

88 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
presented in the table below, only in the case of reoffense reports resulting in custody is there 

no appreciable difference in the groups. 

ported. Revictim ization Treatment 

.c.Table 8.6: The Average Number of Reported Revictimizations for Those Cases 

Reporting Any Events by Treatment and Control Group. 

Control 

Reports of Any Revictimization 

Reported Revictimization Resulting in 

an Arrest 

Any Reported Reoffense 

Reported Reoffense Resulting in an 

1.51 1.32 

1.08 0.97 

1.53 1.34 

1.01 1.01 

Police Calls to the Same Address 

Before leaving the analysis of the officially recorded subsequent experiences, we provide 

one additional analysis. It examined not the victim or the offender, but the location of the 

event. We searched the police database for any events reported within the six months 

following the entry event at the same address, regardless if the same parties were involved. 

While there were more calls to the same address for the treatment group involving any event, 

this difference was not statistically significant. The differences in repeat calls for domestic 

violence incidents were significant, with a higher average number of calls for the addresses 

involving the treatment group. In each case, independent samples t-tests were performed to 

compare group means. 

89 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.7: Repeat Police Calls to the Same-Address by Treatdent and Control 

Group; 

On the whole, the police report results appear to contradict those we obtained from 

victim interviews. Several plausible explanations may be explored. First, the sample 

responding to the follow-up interview may be different from the non-respondents. Second, 

there may be a relationship between the activities of the DVRU and increased reporting of 

incidents to the police, operating through increased sense of empowerment. With respect to 

the first possibility, we examined the officially recorded information about the 

revictimization of both those who responded to follow-up interview questions and those who 

did not. Of those who responded, 15.4% had a police recorded victim event compared to 

14.5% of those who did not respond in the follow-up interviews. The probability of such a 

difference occurring by chance is .71 (Fisher Exact Test). It therefore appears that the two 

groups are not significantly different with respect to their officially recorded victimization 

status. Since we know that there are differences in the perceived empowerment, and that self 

reported revictimization is lower in the treatment group, it is reasonable to conclude that the 

apparently higher rate of officially recorded victimization among the treatment group is likely 

the function of increased rates of reporting and not of a higher rate of actual revictimization. 

Part 2: Intermediate Outcomes and Final Outcomes for the Total Sample 

90 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
In Parts 2 and 3, the control and treatment groups were pooled, and the effects of various 

predictors (fourteen items from the police checklist) on the outcome variables are shown. In 

Part 2, their effect on the number of restraining orders, number of prosecutions, and change 

in empowerment from the initial to the follow-up interview were studied. Finally, in Part 3, 

the effect of the police checklist predictors and these intermediate outcomes were used as 

predictors of our eighteen outcome variables. 

Treatment Control Total 

Restraining Orders 

Filed No Count 315 386 70 1 

No Count 82 100 182 

Yes Expected Count 315.2 385.8 

Part 2: Intermediate Outcomes 

The three intermediate outcome variables were (1) restraining orders filed, (2) cases 

prosecuted, and (3) change in empowerment from initial to follow-up interview. Fourteen 

items fiom the police checklist were used as predictors: victim contacted, victim agreed to 

services, took photos and/or statements, provided information on safety planning, provided 

information on pursuing prosecution, provided information on obtaining a restraining order, 

provided information on safe housing, provided information on victim counseling, provided 

information on offender counseling, referred victim to advocacy program, helped set up 

appointment with DA, helped get restraining order, served restraining order, and helped 

transport victim to court (see Appendix A). 

’ 

(1) Restraining Orders Filed 

Before investigating the effect of the predictors, a cross tabulation was performed on this 

variable and treatmentlcontrol group. 

.c.Table 8.8: Restraining Orders Filed During the Six Months Following the Original 

Arrest by Treatment and Control Group 

91 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Yes Expected Count 81.8 100.2 

Total Count 397 486 

The exact two-sided significance was 1 .OOO. There was not a significant difference 

between groups. Therefore, we combined the treatment and control groups in an effort to 

understand what factors contributed to the filing of a restraining order following the batterer's 

883 

arrest (all cases in this study). 

Cross-tabulations were performed for each of the fourteen items on the police checklist 

These reflect the activities of DVRU officers in each case. Only the results that were 

% 

23.2% 

76.8% 

4.0% 

96.0% 

13.1% 

86.9% 

4.2% 

95.8% 

significant at the 5% level are presented here. 

0.008 

0.000 

0.004 

0.000 

.c.Table 8.9: DVRU Interventions and Restraining Orders Filed 

Served RO 

174 20.0% 

Total 182 20.6% 701 

- 

n 

3 

48.6% 

51.4% I 37 

80.6% I 846 

79.4% 

71 Sig. I 

1.2% 0.000 I 98.8% 

100.0% 

As a summary of these results, restraining orders were more likely to follow a domestic 

violence arrest if 1) the victim agreed to receive DVRU services 2) the DVRU took steps to 

collect such evidence as photographs or statements, 3) the DVRU helped to set up an 

appointment with the District Attorney's office, 4) the DVRU officers helped victims get a 

restraining order and 5) the DVRU officers actually served the restraining order. 

92 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
In an effort to learn more about the factors contributing to the filing of a restraining 

D VR U Interventions Coefficient 

DVRU Officers Took Photos or Witness Statements 1.1942 

order, a stepwise logistic regression was performed, using all of the predictors. In this way, 

the combination of predictors can be found which best anticipates whether a restraining order 

Significance 

.OO 15 

will be filed. 

.c.Table 8;lO:'DVRU Interventions-as ,Predictors ofnRestraining Orders Filed; 

I 

DVRU Officers served the Restraining Order I 1.7323 I .0174 1 

The suggestion is that encouraging these activities would increase the use of restraining 

orders in cases such as those in this study. 

(2) Prosecutions 

In addition to the fiIing of a restraining order, a significant step in the handling of a 

domestic violence case is the decision to prosecute the case. Before investigating the effect of 

the predictors, a cross tabulation was performed on this variable and treatmentlcontrol group. 

.c.Table 8.1 1: DVRU Interventions and Prosecutions by Treatment and Control Group 

The exact two-sided significance was .O 10. There were more cases prosecuted in the 

treatment group than expected under the hypothesis of no difference between groups. 

93 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Cross tabulations were performed for each of the fourteen items on the police checklist, 

as well as the Cases Prosecuted variable. Only the results that were significant at the 5% level 

will be shown. 

ROwas filed 

Total 

.c.Table 8.12: DVRU Interventions and Cases Prosecuted 

No 182 20.9% 690 79.1% 872 98.8% 

Yes 55 30.2% 127 69.8% 182 20.6% 0.002 

NO 134 19.1% 567 80.9% 701 79.4% 

182 20.6% 701 79.4% 883 100.0% 

- D VR U Interventions Coefficient I Significance 

Victim Accepted DVRU Services .547 1 I -0036 

Next, a stepwise logistic regression was performed, using all of the predictors. In this 

DVRU Served RO 

RO was Filed 

way, the combination of predictors can be found which best anticipates whether the case was 

.- __ - 

1.2365 .0592 

.5011 .0095 

prosecuted. 

.c.Table 8.13: DVRU Interventions as Predictors of Prosecutions 

Only three variables remained in the model: 

94 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
These factors may explain the increased likelihood of prosecution for the cases in the 

treatment group, and provide indicators for activities, which might increase the rate of 

prosecution of such cases. 

Variable 

Change in Empowerment 

(3) Change in Empowerment 

In addition to the system variables of filing a restraining order and increased prosecution 

of cases, it was expected that a significant benefit of the DVRU would be an increased sense 

of empowerment among victims. Thus we seek to identify those specific DVRU activities 

that lead to an increased sense of empowerment. We assessed empowerment by calculating 

the change from the initial to the follow-up interview in the empowerment scales embedded 

in the interview protocol. 

Before investigating the effect of the predictors, a t-test was performed to compare the 

control and treatment means. 

Code N Mean S.D. t Sig. 

1*28 3’65 1.848 .065 Treatment 174 

Control 190 .59 3.38 

.c.Table 8.14: DVRU Interventions and Change in Empowerment by Treatment and 

Control Group 

Although the average change was higher in the treatment group, the difference was not 

significant at the 5% level. 

Next, t-tests were performed for each of the fourteen items on the police checklist, as 

well as the “ RO filed” and “ Case prosecuted” variables. Only the results that were 

significant at the 5% level are shown. 

95 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.15: DVRU Interventions and Changes in Empowerment 

D VRU Interventions 

DVRU Served RO 

DVRU Gave Safety Plan Information 

Photos and Statements Taken 

Provided RO Inform, 

Coefficient Significance 

3.154 .013 

.832 .045 

, 

I S.D. I t I Sin. 1 

3S1 I 2.001 I -046 I 

3.51 I 

3.46 I 2.078 I .038 1 

-%++--j 2.539 -012 

4.08 I I I 

3S3 I 2.237 I .026 1 

3.06 I I I 1 I 

3.48 I 2.935 I .004 1 I I 

3.96 I I I 

It appears that victim empowerment is likely to be increased when victims accept DVRU 

services, when DVRU officers take photos or witness' statements, when the officers provide 

information on both safety planning and the process of obtaining a restraining order, and 

when the DVRU officers actually assist in obtaining and serving the restraining order. 

Next, a stepwise regression was performed, using all of the predictors. In this way, the 

combination of predictors can be found which best predicts change in empowerment. Only 

two variables remained in the model, provision of information on safety planning and the 

action of the officers in actually serving a restraining order: 

.c.Table 8.16: DVRU Interventions as Predictors of Changes in Empowerment 

96 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Part 3: Final Outcomes 

The fourteen outcome variables fiom Part 1 will now be revisited. The effects of the 

police checklist items and the intermediate predictors will be shown. These analyses were 

conducted across the entire set of cases in the study and were designed to identi& specific 

actions that appeared to increase the odds of the outcome variables occurring, independent of 

the treatment / control status of the case. 

Each of the first four analyses was conducted using the data from both victim interviews- 

-the initial and follow-up interview. Additional information was gleaned from the interview 

process, as well as the information from the police checklist and the official records. 

Variable 

Change In Empowerment 

.c.Table 8.17: Empowerment as a Predictor of the Number of Revictimizations 

Experienced from the Same Batterer 

Coefficient Significance 

-.255 .ooo 

When a stepwise regression was performed, using all of the predictors, the 

only variable remaining in the model was: 

Variable 

Change In Empowerment 

Coeficient Significance 

-.275 .ooo 

An increase in empowerment leads to the decrease in number of self-reported 

revictimizations committed by the same batterer. 

.c.Table 8.18: Empowerment as a Predictor of Number of Revictimizations Experienced 

from Any Batterer 

A stepwise regression was performed, using all of the predictors. The only variable 

remaining in the model was: 

97 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
An increase in empowerment leads to a decrease in number of self-reported 

revictimizations by any offender. This fmding has positive implications for efforts to increase 

DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcome Variable 

Provided Information on Offender Counseling 

Coefficient 

-.7269 

a sense of empowerment among victims. 

Significance 

.0074 

.c.Table 8.19: The Presence or Absence of Revictimization Experiences from the Same 

Batterer as a Function of Identified Predictors 

A stepwise regression was performed, using all of the identified predictor variables. The 

variables remaining in the model were: 

- 

DVRU Served RO 

RO was Filed 

Case was Prosecuted 

Change in Empowerment 

I 

2.0971 .0201 

-SO98 .05 10 

-.6852 .0069 

-.1104 .0010 

D VRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes 

DVRU Succeeded in Contacting Victim 

Case was Prosecuted 

Change in Empowerment 

Making batterer counseling information available to victims, filing of a restraining order, 

Coefficient Significance 

-.4920 .03 17 

-333 .027 1 

-.1123 .0007 

and prosecution of the case decrease the probability of new victimizations experienced during 

the six months following the original arrest. An increase in empowerment also decreases the 

probability of a self-reported revictimization. Serving a restraining order, on the other hand, 

increases the probability of a self-reported revictimization by the same offender. 

.c.Table 8.20: The Presence or Absence of Revictimization Experiences from Any 

Batterer as a Function of Identified Predictors 

A stepwise regression was performed, using all of the predictors. The variables 

remaining in the model were: 

Contacting the victim and prosecuting the case decrease the probability of a self-reported 

revictimization by any offender. An increase in empowerment also decreases that probability. 

98 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
It is worth pointing out that an increase in empowerment has an effect on each of these 

Helped with appt for DA 

RO was Filed 

Case was Prosecuted 

last four analyses. Increased empowerment reduces each of the indicators of the probability 

of revictimization and reoffense. The basic message then is that efforts to increase the sense 

of empowerment should have a beneficial effect on the odds of continued domestic violence. 

1.2950 .0001 

1.0428 .0009 

.690 1 .0293 

.c.Table 8.21: The Presence or Absence of Reports of-Revictimization as a Function of 

Identified Predictors 

In the initial analyses of presence or absence of a reported event, a stepwise logistic 

regression was performed, using all of the predictors. The variables remaining in the model 

were: 

D VRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes 

Provided RO Information 

I D VR U Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes I Coeficient I Significance 1 

Coefficient Significance 

-1.3557 .0130 

Helped with appt for DA 

DVRU served RO 

All three of the variables increased the probability of police reports of revictimization. 

I 

2.0277 .oooo 

2.6065 .003 8 

.c.Table 8.22: The Presence or Absence of Police Reports of Revictimization Resulting 

in Arrest as a Function of Identified Predictors 

The variables remaining in the model were: 

Providing information on restraining orders reduces the probability of a reported 

revictimization resulting in custody. The other two variables increase the probability. 

99 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.23: The Presence or Absence of Reported Reoffense .',ilegations against the 

Original Batterer as a Function of Identified Predictors 

The variables remaining in the model were: 

D VR U Interventions and Intermediate 

outcomes 

Coefficient 

1.2448 

RO was Filed 1.0470 

Case was Prosecuted .7106 

Helped with appt for DA 

Significance 

.ooo 1 

.0006 

.0207 

All three variables increase the probability of police reports of reoffending. 

D VR U Interventions and Intermediate 

Outcomes 

Helped with appt for DA 

RO was Filed 

.c.Table 8.24: The Presence or Absence of Reported Reoffense Allegations against the 

Original Batterer Resulting in Custody as a Function of Identified Predictors 

Coefficient Significance 

1.6102 .oooo 

.9139 .0131 

The variables remaining in the model were: 

DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes 

Helped with appt for DA 

RO was Filed 

Referred to Victim Advocacy Group 

Provided RO Information 

Coefficient Significance 

.455 .ooo 

.220 .004 

-.381 .006 

.350 .042 

Both variables increase the probability of a reported reoffense resulting in custody. 

.c.Table 8.25: The Number of Reported Revictimizations as a Function of Identified 

Predictors 

Since we are here dealing with the total number of reported revictimizations, a stepwise 

regression was performed, using all of the predictors. The variables remaining in the model 

were: 

Referral to a victim advocacy program reduces the number of reported revictimizations, 

while the other three variables increase the number. 

100 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.26: The Number of Reported Revictimizations Resulting in Arrests as a 

Function of Identified Predictors 

DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes Coefficient Significance ' 

Helped with appt for DA .167 .ooo 

DVRU served RO .417 .ooo 

Provided RO Information -.163 .oo 1 

DVRU Succeeded in Contacting Victim .lo2 .032 

The variables remaining in the stepwise regression model were: 

DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes Coefficient 

.360 

RO was filed .242 

Helped with appt for DA 

Significance 

.ooo 

.002 

Providing the victim information on restraining orders reduces the number of reported 

revictimizations resulting in custody, while the other three variables increase the number. 

Provided RO Information 

.c.Table 8.27: The Number of Reported Reoffenses as a Function of Identified 

-.098 .010 

Predictors 

The variables remaining in the stepwise regression model were: 

Both of the variables increase the number of reported reoffenses. 

.c.Table 8.28: The Number of Reported Reoffenses leading to Arrest as a Function of 

Identified Predictors 

The variables remaining in the stepwise regression model were: 

I DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes I Coefficient 1 Significance I 

Providing information on restraining orders decreases the number of reported reoffense 

arrests. The other two variables increase the number. 

101 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
.c.Table 8.29: The Number of Repeat Police Calls to the Same Address-For Any 

Reason- as a Function of Identified Predictors 

A stepwise regression was performed, using all of the predictors. The only variable 

remaining in the model was: 

D VRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes Coefficient 

RO was filed .282 

Significance 

.022 

Filing a restraining order increases the number of repeat calls. 

DVRU Interventions and Intermediate Outcomes 

RO was filed 

.c.Table 8.30: Police Calls to the Same Address for a Domestic Violence Problem as a 

Function of Identified Predictors 

Coefficient Significance 

.174 .002 

A stepwise regression wils performed, using all of the predictors. The variables remaining in 

the model were: 

Both variables increase the number of repeat calls for domestic violence to the address of 

the original mest. 

In summary, these results show that fewer treatment group victims than control group 

victims experienced revictimizations during the six-month follow-up period. The results also 

show that treatment group victims, not control group vict:'ms, are more likely to have police 

records of revictimizations; and that treatment group cases have a greater number of repeat 

calls to the original address than control group cases. Using DVRU activities and 

intermediate outcome data as predictors of revictimizations for study cases no longer divided 

into treatment and control subgroups, the results show that certain DVRU activities are 

significant predictors of increased victim empowerment, and increased victim empowerment 

in tum is a significant predictor of reduced revictimization. 

102 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION NINE 

Discussion 

Violence between intimate partners is a crime embedded in a complicated web of social, 

cultural and interpersonal dynamics. Our findings reflect some of these complexities. We 

attempted to determine whether police initiated interventions in the context of a coordinated 

community response system worked to reduce domestic violence. The opportunity to 

examine this question arose when the Portland Police Department launched its Domestic 

Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU) in partnership with the Family Violence Intervention 

Steering Committee in 1993. The work of this specialized police unit was to bring batterers, 

once they had been arrested, further into the criminal justice system so that they might either 

be sanctioned or treated for their battering conduct. Simultaneously, unit officers worked 

with the batterers' partners. For victims they provided safety plan information and concrete 

assistance in how to gain access to available criminal justice and community victim services. 

In carrying out these tasks the unit officers worked in close cooperation with other members 

of the local coordinated domestic violence response system. The initial impetus for this 

research project came fiom the police department's desire to know whether the work of this 

specific police unit would lead to reductions in domestic crime in Portland. Our study was 

designed to answer this question. But in addition, and perhaps more importantly, the police 

unit represented fiom a policy perspective an important next step in approaches to domestic 

violence in our society. The existence of this innovative police unit permitted us to examine 

whether police responses that go beyond arrest are more effective in reducing domestic 

violence than arrest alone. 

103 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
The strategy to reduce violence involved increasing the cost of violence to batterers 

and reducing the risk of renewed violence for their victims. The former objective was to be 

accomplished through DVRU activities that increased the likelihood of prosecutions, the 

latter through DVRU activities that served to enhance victim empowerment. As a result of 

this strategy we expected as interim outcome measures to find more prosecuted batterers and 

more empowered victims in the DVRU treatment group than the control group. 

Indeed we found that cases with DVRU treatment resulted in prosecutions of batterers 

significantly more often (44 % vs. 37%) than cases without DVRU intervention. In addition 

to more prosecutions, treatment group batterers were significantly more likely than control 

group batterers to be convicted (24% vs. 1 7%) and sentenced (27% vs. 1 8%).' l2 Several 

DVRU activities were associated with the increased likelihood of prosecution (See Table 

8.12). Among them were whether the officers provided prosecution information to the Victim, 

helped her set up an appointment with the district attorney, or encouraged her to obtain a 

temporary restraining order against the batterer. 

The majority of empowerment data came from comparisons of the initial and follow-up 

interviews with victims. Although the average change in empowerment measurements for the 

treatment group was twice as large as the change in empowerment for the control group, the 

difference was not quite statistically significant (p .065). Still, we identified several 

individual DVRU interventions (Table 8.15) that were significant predictors of overall 

enhanced victim empowerment. Among them were whether DVRU officers took 

photographs to collect evidence from the victim, whether they provided the victim with 

safety plan information, helped her to obtain a temporary restraining order, or actually served 

the order. Section Five (Table 5.1) and Section Eight (Tables 8.9 and 8.12) show that not all 

treatment group cases actually received treatment. The type of treatment our analyses 

identified as significant predictors of empowerment, such as " Helped victim get a restraining 

112 We were unable to ascertain the disposition status for 45 study cases in the district attorney database, which is the 

reason for the conviction and sentence discrepancy. 

1 04 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
order” was provided in relatively few (1 3%) of the cases. Whether this is the reason for the 

lack of difference in empowerment between the treatment and control groups or whether our 

measwes of empowerment are not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes remains an open 

question. 

In addition to measuring changes in victim empowerment by means of questions 

contained in the initial and follow-up interview, we collected information about whether or 

not victims filed restraining orders against their batterers. We reasoned that the more 

empowered the victim felt, the more likely she would be to file a restraining order. Treatment 

group victims were no more or less likely than control group victims to have filed retraining 

orders against their batterers. While certain DVRU activities were related to the increased 

likelihood of treatment group victims filing restraining orders, control group victims filed 

these orders just as often but without the help of the DVRU. One of the reasons for this 

finding may be related to the fact that domestic violence victim advocacy groups in the 

community were engaged simultaneously in efforts to assist victims with restraining orders. 

One such effort was a Legal Access Project in which student volunteers helped victims 

complete the necessary restraining order forms at the courthouse. 

The DVRU model led us to expect that prosecuting the batterer and empowering the 

victim would reduce the risk to the victim and would result in measurable reductions in the 

occurrence of misdemeanor domestic violence. We used two sources of information to assess 

whether this was so, police records and victim interviews. Victim interview data showed 

reductions in revictimizations for the treatment group (Tables 8.1 and 8.2). Significantly 

fewer treatment group than control group victims told our interviewers that they had 

experienced any new violence fi-om any intimate partner during the six months following the 

arrest of the batterer. As a group, those women who received additional police services after 

their batterer’s arrest experienced significantly less repeat violence than those women whose 

only contact with the police took place during the original arrest. We also found that six 

months after the original arrest, significantly more treatment group women than control 

105 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
group women (24% vs. 14% p) reported that they had ended their relationship with the 

batterer. Women who end relationships with batterers are often at heightened risk of repeat 

battering (Mahoney, 199 1 ; Brown, 1990; Campbell, 1992; Jones, 1994). In our study, 

however, the prevalence of revictimization for the group with more separations, Le. the 

treatment group, was less than it was for the group with fewer separations i.e. the control 

group. In other words fewer women in the group with the greater number of those who were 

leaving their batterers reported revictimization. However, the smaller number of women who 

were revictimized in the treatment group reported on average as many incidents of 

revictimization as the larger group of revictimized women in the control group. This many 

mean that some measure of separation aggression (Mahoney, 199 1) may have been at work 

after all. Whether this was indeed the case will have to be addressed in subsequent analyses 

of these data. 

When we analyzed police records the results were different. Police reports of further 

victimizations and reports of alleged reoffending during the six-month follow-up period were 

associated significantly more often with the treatment group than the control group (see 

Tables 8.4 through 8.7). On the surface, this discrepancy between what the women told the 

interviewers and what the police reports show may seem puzzling. However, we reasoned 

that it was possible that victim empowerment might be responsible for these seemingly 

contradictory effects on our two measures of recidivism. We hypothesized that 

empowerment may be responsible for both, reductions in the occurrence of revictimization, 

and for victims' increased help seeking activities. A newly empowered woman, for example, 

may be more inclined to enlist outside help, in this case from the police, than a woman who 

is less sure of herself and the legitimacy of her case. 

If we assume that batterers use violence to maintain a pattern of control over their 

partners (Mahoney, 1991; Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Schechter, 1982; Martin, 1976; Yllo, 

1993; Wilson and Daly, 1992; Jones, 1994) then the punishment inherent in criminal justice 

system interventions may counteract the rewards batterers get from controlling their partners. 

106 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
As batterers become less able to exercise control, their victims are more likely to undertake 

activities designed to reduce their risk of revictimization. Hence the finding that women 

whose battering partners are subject to criminal justice sanctions that go beyond arrest 

experience fewer revictimizations than the control group but are more likely to seek outside 

help if they do. 

Empowerment, regardless of how victims acquired it, was a significant predictor of 

lower self-reported revictimization in our study. Other studies have provided some support 

for a relationship between victim empowerment and reduction in domestic violence. Dugan 

et al., (1 997) have found an empirical link between the increased availability of domestic 

violence victim services and reductions in fatal partner violence. Jacobson and Gottman 

(1 998:223), conclude fiom their extensive observations of batterers and their women 

partners, that victim empowerment is an important preventative byproduct of criminal justice 

interventions. 

The present study has several limitations. First, we had interview data for only half of the 

927 study cases, which restricts the generalizability of our self-report data. Second, the sixmonth follow-up design was probably too short a time period in which to assess the impact of 

court imposed sanctions. Third, the treatment as it was designed differed fiom the treatment 

as it was implemented. We have discussed these limitations in various sections of this report. 

We have speculated about possible reasons for the differences in self-reported 

revictimizations for treatment and control group women in conjunction with the opposite 

finding for police reports of revictimizations. We suggested that differences in victim 

empowerment might explain both findings. There are other possibilities as well. One of 

these is that the mere existence of enhanced police services produces more calls to the police. 

A study by Davis and Taylor (1 997), for example, suggests that citizens who are confident in 

the police handling of domestic violence situations are more likely to report new violence 

than citizens with less confidence in the police. 

107 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
If there is one thing our findings emphasize, it is that police activities on behalf of 

domestic violence misdemeanor crimes are a crucial element in community-wide efforts to 

reduce violence. With respect to batterers, the police hold the key to whether or not batterers 

will be held accountable for their criminal conduct; with respect to victims, the police 

confirm the reality of battering and help provide the legitimacy and the support needed to 

disengage from or change a violent relationship. Our data show that police activities on 

behalf of victims reduce violence more effectively than interventions that are only directed at 

batterers. Nevertheless, continuing attention will have to be paid to both victims and 

batterers, since strong interaction effects, such as the affirmation of a woman's suffering that 

comes from convicting her assailant, will no doubt always remain operative 

108 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES 

Adams, D. (1988). Treatment Models of Men who Batter. In Yllo, K. and Bopd, M. (E&.) 

Feminist Perspectives On Wve Abuse. Beverly hills, CA: Sage. 

Bandura, A.J. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall. 

Bandura, A.J. (1986). Social Foundations Of nought And Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall. 

Bard, M. (1 969). Family intervention police teams as a community mental health resource. 

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 60 (2): 247-50. 

Barnett, 0. W., & LaViolette, A.D. (1993). It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered 

Women Stay. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Berk, R. A. (1 993). What the scientific evidence shows: on the average we can do no better 

than arrest. In R. J.Gelles and D.R. Loseke (Eds.) Current Controversies on Family 

Violence (pp.323-336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Berk, R.A.; Berk, S.F.; Loseke, D.R. & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family 

violence myths. In Finkelhor et a1 (Eds.), The Dark Side of Families: Current Family 

Violence Research, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 

Berk, R.A., Campbell, R.K. and Western, B. (1 992). A Bayesian analysis of the Colorado 

Springs spouse abuse experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 

Bograd, M. (1 983). Domestic violence: Perceptions of battered women, abusive men, and 

non-violent men and women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of 

Chicago. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Bograd, M. (1 988). Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse: An Introduction. 1 1-27. h Yell0 

and Bograd (Eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Wfe Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Bowker, L.H. (1988). On the relationship between wife-beating and child abuse. In Mlo, IL 

and Bograd, M. (Eds.) Feministperspectives on wfe abuse. Beverly hills, CA: Sage. 

Breslin, F.C.; Riggs, D.S.; O'Leary, K.I.; & Aruasm I. (1990). Family Precursors; expected 

and actual consequences of dating aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5. 

247-25 8. 

Brooks, R. (1992). Concept Document. Unpublished manuscript, Family Services Division, 

Portland Police Bureau. 

Browne A. and D.G. Dutton. 1990. Escape from Violence: Risks and alternatives for abused 

women-what do we currentiy know? In R. Roesch, D. G. Dutton, and V.F. Sacco 

(Eds.) Family Violence: Perspectives on Treatment, Research and Policy (pp.65-9 1) 

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: British Columbia Institute on Family Violence. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (August, 1995). National Crime Victimization Survey. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (March, 1998) Violence by intimates. Office of Justice Programs. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Burgess, R.L. & Draper, P. (1 989) The explanation of family violence: the role of biological, 

behavioral, and cultural selection. In Ohlin & Tonry (Eds.). Family Violence. 

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Buzawa, E., and Buzawa, C. (1 990). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. 

Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 

Campbell, J.C. (1992). If I Can't Have You, No One Can" : Power and Control in Homicide 

of Female Partners. In J.Radford and D.E.H. Russell (Eds.) Femicide (99-1 13). New 

York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 

Campbell, J.C.; Miller, P.; Cardwell, M.M. & Belknap, R.A. (1994). Relationship Stam of 

Battered Women Over Time. Journal of Famit'y Violence, 9 (2). 99-1 1 1. 

110 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Carlson, C. And Nidey, F.J. (1995). Mandatory penalties, victim cooperation, and the judicial 

processing of domestic abuse assault cases. Crime & Delinquency, 41 (l), 132-149. 

Choi, A. (1 990). A critique on Brown’s ‘Police Responses to Wife Beating: Neglect of a 

Crime of Violence.’ Journal of Criminal Justice 18.455-458. 

Comack, E., (1 996). Women in Trouble. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing. 

Crowell, N.A., and Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding Violence Against Women. 

Washington D.C; National Academy Press. 6 

Davis, L.V. & Carlson, B.E. (1987). Observation of spouse abuse: what happened to the 

children? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2.278-291. 

Davis, R.C. and Taylor, B.G. (1997). A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results 

of a Randomized Experiment. Criminology (35) 2.307-333. 

Davis, P.W. (1 983). Restoring the semblance of order: police strategies in the domestic 

disturbance. Symbolic Interaction, 6 (2): 21 6-74. 

Deschner, J. (1 984). The Hitting Habit: Anger Control For Battering Couples. New York: 

Free Press. 

Dobash, R., and Dobash, R., (1 979). Violence Against Wives, New York: The Free Press. 

Dobash, R., and Dobash, R., (1 981). Research as social action. Journal ofFamiZy Issues, 2 

(4). 439-470. 

Dobash, R., and Dobash, R., (1 992). Women, Violence, and Social Change. New York: 

Routledge. 

Domestic Violence Reduction Unit. (1 996) DVRU Statistics FY 1994/1995. Portland, OR: 

Portland Police Bureau. 

Domestic Violence Reduction Unit. (1 995) DVRU Statistics FY 1993/1994. Portland, OR: 

Portland Police Bureau. 

111 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Dugan, L., D. Nagin and R.Rosenfeld. (1996). Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner 

Homicide: The Efects of Changing Domesticity, Women's Status, and Domestic 

Violence Resources. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of 

Criminology, Chicago, Illinois. 

Dunford, F. (1 990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. 

Criminology, 28(2), 183-206. 

Dutton, D.G. (1 987). The criminal justice response to wife assault. Law and Human 

Behavior, 1 1, 189-206. 

Dutton, D.G. (1988). The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminological 

Perspectives. Toronto: Allen and Bacon. 

Dutton, D.G. (1995). The Barterer: A Psychological Profile. New York: Basic Books. 

Dutton, D.G. and McGregor, (1991). The symbiosis of arrest and treatment for Wife assault: 

The case for combined intervention. In M. Steinman (Ed), Woman battering: Policy 

responses @p. 13 1-1 54). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Edleson, J., and Tolman, R. (1992). Interventionfor men who batter: An ecological 

approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Edleson, J.L. (1991). Coordinated community responses to woman battering. In M. Steinman 

(ed.) Woman Battering: Policy Responses (pp. 203-2 19). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson 

Press. 

Emerson, C. D. (1 979). Family violence: a study by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs 

Department. Police Chief46 (6): 48-50. 

Fagan, J. and Wexler, S. (1 987). Family origins of violent delinquents. Criminology, Xxvpp. 

643-669. 

Fantuzzo, J.W. and Lindquist, C.V. (1989). The effects of observing conjugal violence on 

Children: a review and analysis of research methodology. Journal of Family Violence 

4 (1) 77-93. 

112 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Faa, M. (1977). Men who assault their wives. In M. Roy (Ed.) Battered Women: A PsychoSociological Study Of Domestic Violence. 

Feld, L.S. and Straus , M.A. (1 989). Escalation and desistance of Wife assault in mhage. 

Criminology, xxvII(1). pp. 141-161. 

Ferraro, K. (1 989a). The legal response to woman battering in the United States. In I-hnmer 

et a1 (Eds.) Women, Policing and Male Violence. New York: Routledge. 

Ferraro, K. (1989b). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36(1), 61-74. 

Ford, D.A. and Regoli, M.J. (1 993). The Criminal Prosecution of Wife Assaulters. In Zoe 

Hilton (ed.) Legal Responses to Wfe Assault, Newbury Park: Sage. 

Ford, D.A., and Regoli, M.J. (1992). The preventive impacts of policies for prosecuting Wife 

batterers. In E.S. Buzawa and C.G.Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing 

Criminal Justice Response (pp. 1 8 1-208). Dover, MA: Auburn House. 

Ford, D.A., Reichard, R., Goldsmith, S. And Regoli, M.J. (1996). Future Directions for 

Criminal Justice Policy on Domestic Violence. In E.S. Buzawa and G.G. Buzawa 

(Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Opp. 243-265). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Frieze, I.H. & Browne, A. (1989). Violence in Marriage. In Ohlin & Tonry (Eds.). Family 

Violence. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Gamache, D., Edleson, J., and Schock, M. (1988). Coordinated police, judicial, and social 

service response to woman battering: A multiple-baseline evaluation across three 

communities. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick, & M. Straus (Us.). 

Coping with Family Violence: Research and Policy Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Garner, J. & Clemmer, E. (1 986 Nov). Danger to Police in Domestic Disturbances- A New 

Look. Research In Brief. National Institute of Justice. 

Garner, J., Fagan, J. And Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the spouse abuse 

replication project: a critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11, 3-28. 

113 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Gelles, R.J. (1 974). The Violent Home: A Study Of Physical Aggression Between Husbands 

And Wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Gelles, R. J. (1998). Family violence. In The Handbook of Crime and Punishment (pp: 178- 

206) M. Tonry (Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Gelles, R.J. & Straw, M.A. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family. In Burr, Hill, Nye 

& Reiss (Eds.). Contemporary Theories About the Family. New York: Free Press. 

Gelles, R.J.; Cornell, C.P. (1 985). Intimate Violence in Families. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Giles-Sims, J. (1 985). A longitudinal study of battered children of battered wives. Family 

Relations, XXXT'I, April, 332-338. 

Goldberg, H. (1 983). The New Male-Female Relationship. New York: Signet. 

Gondolf, E. W. and Foster, R. (1 99 1). Pre-program attrition in batterers programs, Journal of 

Family Violence 6 (4), 337-350. 

Grusznski, R. J., and Canillo, T.P. (1 988). Who completes batterers' treatment group? An 

empirical investigation. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 14 1 - 1 50. 

Hamby, S.L. 1998. Partner Violence Prevention and Intervention. J.L.Jasinski and 

L.M. Williams (Eds.) Partner Violence (pp: 2 10-258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Harrell, Adele (1 99 1). Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence 

oflenders: Final report. The Urban Institute. Washington D.C. 

Hart, B. 1988. Beyond the "Duty to Warn": a therapist's "Duty to Protect" battered women 

and children. In K.Yl16 and M.Bogard (Eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Wi$e Abuse @p: 234- 

248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Healey, K. C.Smith and C.0'Sullivan. 1998. Batterer Intervention: Program Appoaches and 

Criminal Justice Strategies. Washington, D.C.: US. Department of Justice 

Department of Justice Programs. 

Herrenkohl, E.C., Herrenkohl, R.C. and Toedter, L.J. (1983). Perspective on the 

intergeneration transmission of abuse, in Finkelhor, D. and R. Gelles, (Eds.), The 

Dark Side of Families, Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications, pp. 306-3 16. 

114 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Hilton, N.Z. (1 993). Battered women’s concerns about their children witnessing Wife assault. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7 77-86. 

Hirschel, J., Hutchinson, I., Dean, C., Kelley, J. (1 990). Charlotte spouse assault replication 

project: Final report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Hotaling, G.T., and Sugarman, D.B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to Wife 

violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims I. 10 1-1 24. As cited 

in Crowell, N.A., and Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding Violence Against 

Women. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Hotaling, G.T., Straus, M.A., Lincoln, A. (1 989). Intrafamily violence and crime and 

violence outside the family. In L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (Eds.), Family Violence. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 3 15-376. 

Howell, M., and Pugliesi, K. (1988). Husbands who harm: Predicting spousal violence by 

men. Journal of Family Violence, 3( l), 15-27. 

Hubbard, L. (1 999, Safety and Justice: Community Intervention in Domestic Violence- The 

Multnomah County Model. State of Oregon Criminal Justice Services Division. 

Jaffe, P., Hastings, E., Reitzel, D., and Austin, G. (1993). The impact of police laying 

charges. In Zoe Hilton (ed) Legal Responses to Wife Assault, Newbury Park: Sage. 

Johnson, Ida M. (1 990). A loglinear analysis of abused wives’ decisions to call the police in 

domestic-violence disputes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 147-1 59. 

Johnson, V. (1 980). I’ll Quit Tomorrow: A Practical Guide To Alcoholism Treatment. New 

York: Harper & Row. 

Jolin, A. (1 995). The Domestic Violence Reduction Unit: An Evaluation of a Community 

Policing Project in Portland, Oregon. Unpublished Report. Funded under NIJ grant 

#92-IJ-CX-K037. 

Jolin, A. and Clavadetscher, M. (1 995). Assessment of Community Policing Performance 

within the Portland Police Bureau Domestic Violence Reduction Unit. Portland, 

Oregon: Portland State University, School of Urban and Public Affairs. 

115 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Jolin, A. and Moose, C.A. (1 997). Evaluating a domestic violence program in a community 

policing environment: research implementation issues. Crime & Delinquency, 43 (3). 

279-297. 

Jones, Ann. 1994. Next Time She'll Be Dead. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 

Kalmus, D. (1 984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of 

Marriage and the Family, 46. 11-19. 

Klaus, P.A. and Rand, M.R. (1 984). Family Violence, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special 

Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, April. 

Klein, A.R. (1 996). Re-Abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers. In Buzawa 

and Buzawa (Eds.) Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications. 

Langley, R., & Levy, R. (1977). W$e Beating: The Silent Crisis. New York: Dutton. 

Lempert, R. (1 989). Humility is a virtue: on the publicization of policy-relevant research. 

Law & Sociely Review, 23 (1) 145-161. 

Leonard, K.E. (1 993) Drinking patterns and interaction in marital violence: Review, critique, 

and future directions for research. Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence. 253-280. 

Londer, D.H. (1 993) In the Matter of the Pretrial Release of Defendants for Offenses 

Involving Family Members. Multnomah County, Oregon. Order No. ( 9301-00000 . 

K93-09. 

Lloyd, S., G. Farrell, and K.Pease. 1994. Preventing Repeat Comestic Violence: A 

Demonstration Project on Merseyside. Police Research Group, Crime Prevention 

Unit Paper 49. London, England: Home Ofice. 

MacKinnon, C. (1 991). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard 

University Press. 

Maguire, K; Pastore, A.L., and Flanagan, T.J. (1 995). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice 

Statistics-1 995. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

116 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Mahoney, M.R. (1991) Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issues of 

Separation. Michigan Law Review 90: 2-941 

Mahoney, M.R. (1 994). Women's Lives, Violence, and Agency. In Fineman, M.A. & 

Mykitiuk, R. (Eds.) The Public Nature of Private Violence. New York: Routledge. 

Martin, D. (1 976). Battered Wives. New York: Pocket Books. 

McFarlane, J.; Parker, B.; Soeken, K.; & Bullock, L. (1992). Assessing abuse during 

pregnancy: Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 267. 3 176-3 178. 

I 

Messner, F., & Tardiff, K. (1984). The social and ecology of urban homicide. Paper delivered 

at American Criminology annual meeting, Cincinnati, OH. 

Meyer, H. (1992, January 6). The billion-dollar epidemic. American Medical News. 

Miller, B.A.; Downs, W.R., and Gondoli, D.M. (1989). Spousal Violence among alcoholic 

women as compared to a random household sample of women. Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol, 50 (6). 533-539. 

Morgan, R. (1 970). Sisterhood is Powerful. New York: Random House. 

Novello, A., Rosenberg, M, Saltzman. L, and Shosky, J. (1 992). From the Surgeon General, 

U.S. Public Health Service. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 

267(23) ,3 132. 

Okun, L. (1 986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths. Albany, NY: State University of 

New York Press. 

O'Leary, K.D., and Curley, A.D. (1 986). Assertion and family violence: Correlates of spouse 

abuse, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12,281-289. 

Oregon Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (1 990). Domestic Violence Survey 

of OCADSV Programs, 2. 

Pate, A., Hamilton, E., and Annan, S. (1991). Metro-Dade spouse abuse replication project 

final report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation. 

117 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Pease, K. and G. Laycock. 1996. Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims. 

Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Peterson, K.S. (1997, 11/18) Partners unequal in abuse study: Women's risk is greater. USA 

Today, p 1D. 

Portland Police Bureau (1 990). Community Policing Transition Plan, Portland: City of 

Portland. 

Portland Police Bureau (1996). Annual Report 1995. Portland, OR: Portland Police Bureau. 

Ptacek, J. (1 988). Why do men batter their wives? In Yells and Bograd (Eds.) Feminist 

Perspectives on WVe Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Reiss, A.J., Jr., & Roth, J.A. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Violence. National 

Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Rhodes, N.R. (1992). The Assessment of Spousal abuse: An alternative to the Conflict 

Tactics Scale. In Viano (ed.) Intimate Violence. @p. 27-35) Washington, DC: Taylor 

& Francis. 

Ritmeester, T. and Pence, E. (1992). A cynical twist of fate: how processes of ruling in the 

criminal justice system and the social sciences impede justice for battered women. 

Review of Law and Women's Studies. Vol. 2. 

Rosenbaum, A. and O'Leary, S. (1 98 la). Children, the unintended victims of marital 

violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51,692-699. 

Sanday, P.R., (1 981). Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual 

Inequaliy. Cambridge University Press. 

Saunders, D.G. (1 988). Issues in conducting treatment research with men who batter. In 

Gerald Holding, David Finkelhor, John Kirkpatrick and Murray Straus (Eds.). 

Coping with Family Violence. CA: Sage. 

Schechter, S. (1 982). Women and male violence. Boston: South End Press. 

Sherman, L.W. (1992). Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments And Dilemmas. New York: 

The Free Press. 

118 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Sherman, L.W., and Berk, R.A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic 

assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 26 1-272. 

Sherman, L.W., and Berk, R.A. (1988). Police Responses to Family Violence Incidents. 

Journal of the American statistical Association, 83 (40 1 ), 70-76). 

Sherman, L.W., Schmidt, J., Rogan, D., and DeRiso, C. (1991). Predicting domestic 

homicide: Prior police contact and gun threats. In Michael Steinman (Ed.), Woman 

Buttering: Policy Responses, 73-93. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing. 

Sigler, R.T., Crowley, J.M., and Johnson, I. (1990). Judicial and Prosecutorial Endorsement 

of Innovative Techniques in the Trial of Domestic Abuse Cases. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 18,443-453. 

Simons, R.L., Wu, C., Johnson, C., and Conger, R.D. (1995). A Test of Various Perspectives 

on the Intergenerational Transmission of Domestic Violence. Criminology, 33,141 - 

171. 

Sipe, B. & Hall, E.G. (1 996). lam not your Victim: Anatomy of Domestic Violence. Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage. 

Soler, E. (1 987). Domestic violence is a crime: a case study--San Francisco Family Violence 

Project. In D.J.Sonkin(Ed.), Domestic Violence on Trial (pp. 21-35). New York: 

Springer. 

Stanko, E.A. (1 989). Missing the mark? Police Battering. In Hanmer, Radford & Stanko 

(Eds.) Women, Policing and Male Violence (46-49). London: Routledge. 

Stark, E. (1 993).Mandatory Arrest of Batterers. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5) 651- 

680. 

Stark, E. and Flitcraft, A. (1 988). Violence among intimates: An epidemiological review. In 

Hasselt VN et al., (Ed.) Handbook of Family Violence. 293-3 18. New York: Plenum. 

State of Oregon ( 1997) Report of Criminal menses and Arrests, 1996. Salem, Oregon: Law 

Enforcement Data System. 

119 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Steinman, M. (1 990). Lowering recidivism among men who batter women. Journal of Police 

Science and Administration, 17, 124-1 32. 

Stets, J.E., and Straus, M.A. (1989). The Marriage License as a Hitting License: A 

Comparison of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Couples. Journal of 

Family Violence, 41 (2). 

Stith, S.K., Williams, M., and Rosen, K. (1990). Violence Hits Home. New York: Springer 

Publishing Company. 

Straw, M. (1 979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) 

scales. Journal of Marriage Family, 41,75-88. 

Straw, M. A., Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the 

American family. Garden City, NY: AnchorDoubleday. 

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1 986). Societal Changes and change in family violence from 

1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the 

Family, 48.465-480. 

Straus, M.A. (1 990). Meauring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict Tactics Scales. 

In Straus & Gelles (Eds.) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and 

Adaptations to Violence in 8, I45 Families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction 

Publishers. 

Straus, M.A. (1 996). Identifying Offenders in Criminal Justice Research on Domestic 

Assault. In E.S. Buzawa and G.G. Buszawa (Eds.), Do Arrests and Restraining 

Orders Work? @p. 14-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Suh, E.k. & Abel, E.M. (1990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of the abused. 

Journal of Independent Social Work, 4. (4). 27-34. 

Syers, M. and Edleson,J.L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice 

intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(4):490-502. 

Tim, L.L. (1993). Battering of Women: The Failure of Intervention and the Case for 

Prevention. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

120 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Tolman, R., and Bennett, L.W. (1 990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 87-1 18. 

U.S. Department of Justice. (1984). Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Attorney General's 

Task Force on Family Violence. 

Walker, L. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row. 

Walker, L. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer Publications. 

Walker, L. (1 989). TerrifLing Love: Why Battered Women Kill And How Socieq Respnk. 

New York: Harper and Row. 

Walker, L., Thyfault, R. and Browne, A. (1982). Beyond the juror's ken: battered women, 

Vermont Law Review, VII, pp. 1. 

Weis, J.G. (1989). Family violence research methodology and design. In Ohlin & Tonry 

(Eds.) Family Violence. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Widom, C.S. 1989. Child Abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27, 

25 1 -2 7 1 . 

Williams, K.R. & Hawkins, R. The meaning of arrest for Wife assault. Criminology 27, (1). 

1 63-1 8 1. 

Wilson, M. and M. Daly.1992. Till Death us do Part. J. Radford and D. E.H. Russell (Eds.) 

Femicide (pp: 83-98). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 

Yllo, K. (1993). Through a femifist lense: gender, power and violence. R.J. Gelles and 

D.R.Loseke (Eds.). Current Controversies on Family Violence (pp: 47-62). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Yllo, K. (1988). Political and Methodological Debates in Wife Abuse Research. In Yello and 

Bograd (Eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Wve Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Zorza, J. (Ed.). (1 998, FebMar). Domestic Violence Report, 3 (3). 

Zorza, J. and Woods, L. (1 994). Analysis and Policy Implications of the New Domestic 

Violence Police Studies. National Center on Women and Family Law. 

121 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Zorza, J. (1 993). Mandatory Arrest for Domestic Violence: Why it May Prove the Best First 

Step in Curbing Repeat Abuse. Criminal Justice (3) 5 1-54. 

122 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix A 

PO!BIBLE POLICE ImRVEmoNS 

(POLICE CHECK LIST) 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
POSSIBLE POLfCE INTERVENTIONS 

(Police Check List) 

RIGHT 

Arrest Date -Dl 

IIIIll 

CASE ID Date of Birth 

WRONG 

de&C 

FOR 

RESEARCH 

STAFF 

USE 

ONLY 

Answer the questions-on this.form by completely filling in the '!bubbles 

only a #2 pencil. Ink marks may not be "seen" by the scanner. 

Victim's name 

L 

.- 

:h corresponc your responses. Us: 

Record the victim's date of birth and the date of arrest by filling in the boxes and the corresponding "bubbles" at 

Enter the dates as mmddyy (i.e. Jan. 23, 1996 is 012396). 

IS the victim's phone number available? 

Which of the following activities did you do when you contacted the victim 

of a domestic assault? 

First call to victim - spoke to victim 

Second call to victim - spoke to victim 

Third call to victim - spoke to victim 

Contacted victim by phone, victim agreed to accept DVRU services 

Took photographs and/or victim statements to assist DA with prosecution 

Provided information on safety planning (Le. call 91 1, escape route, etc.) 

Provided information on how to pursue prosecution of perpetrator 

Provided victim with information of how to obtain a restraining order 

Provided information on how to access safe housing or women's shelters 

Provided information on how to get counseling for victim 

Provided information on how to get perpetrator counseling 

Referred victim to a victim advocacy program 

Helped victim set up appointment with district attorney 

Helped victim get a restraining order 

Served restraining order 

Transported victim to a shelter 

Helped victim with transportation to/from court 

Gave victim motel vouchers 

Gave victim food basket 

Other (explain on back of form) 

Yes 

8 

m 

8 

m 

a3 

CD 

CD 

cc> 

al 

8 

m 

Q 

(13 

(D 

m 

al 

m 

m 

CD 

m 

m 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix B 

INITIAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULES: 

TREATMENT AND CONTROL 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

I 

I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ASKING YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF: 

MM-DD-W . ID Number 

1. 

2. 

.. 3. 

4. 

5. 

6 

7. 

a. 

9. 

When were you born? 

How do you describe yourself? Would you say you are: 

What is the highest grade you completed in school? 

What is your current employment situation? Are you: 

What is your own personal annual income? 

What is your relationship to the man who was arrested 

because he abused you? Are you: 

How long have you been in a relationship with this man? 

J 

Do you and he own a home together? 

Do you own your own home? 

0 Hispanic 

0 African American 

0 White 

0 Native American 

0 Pacific Islander 

0 Asian 

0 Other 

0 Some High School 

0 Hi h School 

0 GI!D Some College 

0 O Collei!? Post raduate 

0 Erndoyed full time 

0 Employed part time 

0 Not employed: No government assistance 

0 Not employed: Recelve god. assistance 

0 Married, living together 

0 Married, not jiving to ether 

0 Divorced, not,livlng together 

0 Not marfled, living together 0 Not marned, not living together 

0 Less than one month 

0 1 - 2 months 

0 3 - 4 months 

0 5 - 6 months 

0 More than 6 months but less than a year 

0 1 - 5 years 

0 More than 5 years 

0 Divorced, living toge a her 

YES NO 

am 

mtD 

10. Do you own your own car? mo 

11. Do you interact regularly with members of your extended 

12. Are you an active member in any club or social organization? 

am 

am 

family (parents, in-laws, uncles, aunts, brotherdsisters etc.) 

13. Do you belong to any professional organizations (for example: am 

employee union, local, state or national professional organization) 

kyund ArraS - I 

Page 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
m I mmamm mm m m mmm mm 

TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CHILDHOOD: 

you feel emotionally cared for by 0 Very much so 

0 Somewhat 

0 Not at all -- 

15. As a child, did you ever witness your parents hitting 0 Yes 

0 No 

16. Were you-physically or sexually abused by a close 0 Yes 

0 No 

each other or throwing things at each other? 

family member as a child? 

FOR THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE THINK ONLY ABOUT THE 6 MONTHS 

BEFORE THE DISPUTE ON 

PLEASE TELL ME HOW OFTEN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ABUSIVE EVENTS HAPPENED BETWEEN YOU 

AND YOUR PARTNER. 

THAT LEAD TO THE ARREST OF YOUR PARTNER. 

QUESTIONS ONLY ABOUT THE 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE CURRENT ARREST OF YOUR 

TELL ME HOW MANY TIMES HE.... 

0123456789 

17. Threatened to hit or throw something at you 

18 Threatened you with a knife or gun 

19. Threatened to kill you 

20 Swore at, screamed at or insulted you 

21 Threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something 

22 Threw something at you 

23 Pushed, grabbed, or shoved you. 

24 Slapped or spanked you with an open hand 

25 Kicked, bit, or hit you with his fist 

26 Hit or tried to hit you with something 

27 Choked or strangled you 

C Used a gun, knife, or other weapon against you 

30 Forced you td have sex with him 

ANY OF THE ABUSE YOU DESCRIBED LEAD TO INJURIES THAT INCLUDED: 

Cuts or Bruises 0 Yes 

0 No 

0 Yes 

0 No 

0 Yes 

0 No 

0 Yes 

0 No 

3 Yes 

0 No 

0 Yes 

0 No 

Damage to eyes, ears or teeth 

10-20 

.. 

a: 

P: 

p. 

b 

.! 

I! 

b; 

p; 

l 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
II mmm I II I I II II 

37. As far as you know, in the 6 months BEFORE the current 

arrest, did your partner have a physical fight with someone 

who does not belong to your household? 

0 Yes 

0 No 

0 Don? know 

WE WOULD STILL LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE CURRENT ARREST OF YOUR 

PARTNER. DURING TH."TIME YOU MAY HAVE TRIED TO GET HELP FOR THE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR 

PARTNER. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU DONE THE FOLLOWING? 

38 Talked to a minister, prlest Or rabbi 

39 Saw a doctor, nurse or gone to an emergency room 

40. Talked to a family member about your partner's violence 

41 Talked to a fnend or neighbor about your partner's wolence 

42 Talked to a mental health professional or counselor 

43 Talked to the district attorney 

44 Attempted to get a warrant for your padner's arrest 

45 Gone to a shelter just to talk 

46 Stayed overnight at a battered woman's shelter 

47 Asked the police to intervene between you and your partner 

48 Gone to court to obtain a restraining order 

49 Talked to an attorney about your partner's violence 

NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PARTNER, 

51. What is the highest grade he completed in school? 0 Some high school 

0 Hi h school 

0 GfD 

0 Some college 

0 College 

0 Postgraduate 

0 Employed full time 

0 Employed part time 

0 Not employed: No goverment assistance 0 Not employed: receives govt. assistance 

52 What IS the current employment situation of your partner? 

3 

53 What is your partner's annual income? 

54 Does your partner own his own home? 

55 Does he own his own car? 

56 Does he interact regularly with members of his 

extended family? 

57 1s he an active member in a club or social organization? 

58. Does he belong to any professional organizations (for 

example employee union, local, state or national 

sional organization? 

0 0-$5,000 

0 $5,001-10,000 

0 $10,001-20,000 

0 $20,001-30,000 

0 $30,001-40 000 

0 Over S40.ObO 

0 Don't know 

OYes ONo ODonY know 

OYes ONo ODonYknow 

OYes ONo ' ODonY know 

OYes ONo ODon't know 

OYes ONo ODon't know 

ID # Page 3 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
i 

.A 

i 

NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PARTNER'S CHILDHOOD 

59. As a child, did your partner feel emotionally cared for by his parents? 

60. As a child, did your partner ever witness his parents hitting each other or throwing things at each other? 

0 Very much so 0 Somewhat cared for 0 Not at all cared for 0 Don't know 

0 Yes 0 No 0 Don't know _- 

61. Was your partner physically or sexually abused by a close family member as a child? 

OYes 0 No ODon't know 

NOW I'M GOING TO READ A LIST OF THtNGS THAT CAN HAPPEN DURING ARGUMENTS. PLEASE TELL ME 

WHICH OF THEM YOUR PARTNER DID DURING THE DISPUTE THAT BROUGHT THE POLICE TO YOUR HOUSE 

ON 

DID HE: Yes No 

62. Threaten to hit-or throw something at you CD CD 

63. Threaten you with a knife or gun CD (D 

65. Swear at, scream at or insult you m ml 

66. Throw, smash, hit or kick something a (E) 

67. Throw something at you a CD 

68. Push, grab or shove you 0 CE) 

69. Slap or spank you with an open hand 

70. Kick, bite or hit you with his fist 

71. Hit or try to hit you with something 

72. Choke or strangle you m (E) 

73. Beat you up m m 

74. Use a gun, knife or other weapon against you 

75. Force you to have sex with him Q (E) 

a (E) 

f 64. Threaten to kill you 

CD CD 

6 m 

CD m 

0 (E) 

DID ANY OF THE ABUSE YOU JUST DESCRIBED LEAD TO INJURIES THAT INCLUDED: 

76. Cuts or bruises 

Yes No 

0 CE) 

77. Broken bones am 

78. Burns 03 GI 

79. Internal injuries CD CD 

80. Damage to eyes, ears or teeth 03 m 

81. Other [D m 

82. Were you given medical attention for any of these injuries? 

We've asked about the injuries that may have occurred during the dispute that lend to the arrest of your 

partner. Now I'd like to ask you a few questions about alcohol or drug issues. 

0 Yes 0 NO 

83. When the dispute occurred, had your partner been using alcohol or drugs? 

84. When the dispute occurred, had you been using alcohol or drugs? 

85. Has your partner ever received treatment for a drug or alcohol problem? 

86. Have you ever received treatment for a drug or alcohol problem? 

0 Yes 0 No 0 Don't Knot 

OYes ONo ONA 

0 Yes 0 No 0 Don? Kno 

OYes ONo ONA 

Page4 ID# &pldAnnt-C 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
87. DO YOU think that alcohol or drugs are a problem for YOU? 

88. oo YOU think alcohol or drugs are a problem for your partner3 

m~ NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS IS ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. WE 

NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT YOUR CONTACTS WITH THE LAW HAVE BEEN, WHAT ACTIONS THE OFFICERS _. HAVE TAKEN, AND WHAT THEIR ATTITUDES WERE LIKE. YOUR INPUT WILL BE VERY USEFUL IN HELPING 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO IMPROVE HANDLING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS. YOUR 

RESPONSES WILL BE COMPLRELY CONFIDENTIAL. 

89. Going back to the incident when your partner was arrested on 

OYes ON0 ONA 

OYes ONo ODonYKnow 

, do you remember who called 

the police? 

P 

0 Your child 0 A neighbor 0 Your partner 

0 Don't know 0 You 

0 A friend 0 Another family member 0 Other 

NOTE: If other than "You", skip to question 91. 

go. If you called the police yourself, how satisfied were you with the response you got from the person who answer 

o Very unsatisfied 0 Unsatisfied 0 Satisfied 0 Very satisfied 

the phone? 

NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE POLICE SOMETIMES DO. 

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS DID THE POLICE DO WHEN THEY ARRIVED ON 

HOUSE? DID THEY: 

AT YOUR 

Yes No 

91. Give you an information card? (P, 09 

92. Calm things down? m m 

Provide advice on how to get along with your partner? 

94. Recommend that you go to the District Attorney's office? 

95. Provide information on women's shelters and support groups? 1D ce, 

96 Provide information on legal rights or assistance? 1D Q 

97. Recommend or help you contact a women's shelter or support group? 

98. Recommend or refer you to counseling? 1D a 

99. Transport you to a hospital or a shelter? 

100 Refer you to a victim assistance program? m (E) 

101 Listen to what you had to say? [P) (E) 

102 Give you information about getting a restraining order? 

93. m m 

CD 6 

CE, (E) 

CE) a 

0 0 a 

103 Overall how concerned would you say the officers were 

104. Overall how helpful would you say the officers were? 

105 Did the officers treat you with respect? 

106. Dld the officers treat you like you were lying or crazy or 

107. Would you say they were objective and business-like? 

108 Would you say they were hostile and nasty toward you? 

109 Overall, how satisfied were you with the attitudes of the uniformed officers who arrested your partner? 

0 Very much 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

0 Very helpful 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

0 Very much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

0 Very much SO 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

OVery much SO 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

OVery much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

about you? 

getting upset over nothing? 

0 Very satisfied 0 Satisfied 0 Dissatisfied 0 Very Dissatisfied . 

'0. If you're ever assaulted again by an intimate partner, would you want law enforcement to get involved again? 

OYes ONo 

ID # Page 5 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
YOU HAVE GIVEN US A GOOD IDEA OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS THE POLICE OFFICERS TRlED TO HELP 

YOU WITH THIS SITUATION. NEXT I WILL READ TO YOU A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THAT MAY 

DESCRIBE HOW A WOMAN IN THIS SITUATION MIGHT FEEL. FOR EACH STATEMENT, PLEASE CHOOSE 

THE RESPONSE THAT BEST DESCRIEES HOW THE STATEMENT APPLIES TO YW. 

_. 

11 1. I feel-confident in my abilities to keep myself safe. 

112. I feel my family life is under control. 

I 11 3. I believe that I can solve problems when they happen, 

! 

I 

0 Not true at all 

0 Mostly not true 

0 Somewhat true 

0 Mostt true 

0 Very Y rue 

0 Not true at all 

0 Mostly not true 

0 Somewhat true 

0 .Mostly true . 0 Verytrue 

0 Not true at all 

0 Mostly not true 

0 Somewhat true 

0 Mostt true 

o Very Le 

114. I feel I am doing all I can to get help from the criminal justice system. 0 Not true at all 

0 Mostly not true 

0 Somewhat true 

0 Mostly true 

0 Very true 

NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN. 

11 5. How many children do you have? (IF NONE, THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION. SKIP TO RECONTACT SHE 

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 010 

116. How many children do you have under 3 years of age? 

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 

1 17. How many children do you have between the ages of 3 and 63 

GO 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 

11 8. How many children do you have between the ages of 7 and 12 years? 

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 

11 9. How many children do you have between 13 and 18 years? a 

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 

120. Have any of your children seen your partner be violent with you? 

If none of your children have seen your partner be violent with you, I am going to ask you to report on your 

oldest child whose age falls between 4 and 16. If one or more of your children have seen your partner be 

violent with you, I want you to report on your oldest child, whose age falls between 4 and 36, who saw your 

partner being violent with you. 

What is the first name of the child you have in mind as you answer the next set of questions? 

I am going to hand you a set of questions about your child that I'd like you to answer by marking the correct 

"bubble" with this number 2 pencil. Atter you have finished answering these questions please lace the 

will be given to a researcher who will put the information into the computer. Your name will never be linked 

with your answers. The information that you and many others will give us about children who grow up in 

violent homes will be consolidated so that there is no way for anyone to be able to identify individual 

children. Your answers will be used to help other children who grow up in similar situations. 

answer sheet in this envelope and then seal the envelope shut. I will never set your answers. 9 his envelope 

Beyond Arrest - c ID ## Page € 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix C 

FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ASKING 

1. What is the highest grade you completed in school? 

YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF: 

0 Less than Hi h School 

0 Hi h School 

0 Some College 

0 Colle e 

0 Post Eraduate 

0 SomeHigh 2 chool 

o G~D 

PlIIiI ID Number MM-OD-W 

5. What is his current employment situation? 

6. What is his annual income? 

7. Does he own hiaown home? 

8. Do you own your own home? 

9. Do you and he own a home together? 

1C Does he own his own car? 

11. Do you own your own car? 

12. Does he interact regularly with members of his extended 

13. Do you interact regularlywith members of your extended 

4. Is he an active member in a club or social organization? 

family (parents, in-laws, uncles, aunts, brotherdsisters etc.)? 

family (parents, in-laws, uncles, aunts, brotherdsisters etc, 

2. What is your current employment situation? Are you: 0 Employed full time 

0 Employed part time 

0 Not employed: No government assistance 

0 Not employed: Receive govt. assistance 

3. What is your own personal annual income? 0 $0 - 5000 

0 $5001 - 10.000 

0 $20,001 - 30,000 

0 $30,001 - 40,000 

0 $10,001 - 20,000 

0 Over $40.000 

Now I'm going to ask you some questions about the man who was arrested six months ago because he abused you. 

0 Less than High School 

0 Some High School 0 Hi h School 

0 GfD 

0 Some College 

4. What is the highest grade he completed in school? 

O 0Col'e!Y Post raduate 

0 Don't know 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Emdoved full time 

Em$o$ed part time 

Not employed: No government assistance 

Not employed: Receives god. assistance 

0 Don't know 

Yes No Don't Know 

000 

00 

00 

000 

00 

000 

00 

.)? 

000 Waw 2 

Page 1 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

Yes No Don't Know 

Are 00 you an active member in a club or social organization? 

Does he belong to any professional organizations (for example: 

Do you belong to'any professional orgari7?fions (for example: 

000 

0 -0 

employee union, local, state or national professional organization) 

employee union, local, state or national professional organization) 

Do you think alcohol or drugs are a problem for the man who was 000 

arrested six months ago because he abused you? 

Has he received treatment for a drug or alcohol problem in the last 6 

months? 

0 0 0 

Have you received treatment for a drug or alcohol problem in the last 6 

months? 

Do you think that alcohol or drugs are a problem for you? 0 0 O(NA) 

0 0 

As far as you know, in the 6 months after the arrest on 000 

did he have a physical fight with someone who does not belong to )our 

household? 

What is your current relationship to the man who was arrested six 

months ago for abusing you? Are you: 

0 Married, living together 

0 Married, not living together 

0 Divorced, living together 

0 Divorced, not living together 

0 Not mamed, living together 

0 Not marned, not living together 0 Relationship has ended 

Have you had any contact with this man in the last six months? 0 Yes 0 No (if no, skip to 28) 

If yes, did you agree to this contact? 0 Yes 0 No 

26. If yes, the purpose of the contact involved: 

Approximately how many times did you have contact with him in the 0 None 

last SIX months? 0 1-5 

0 6-10 

0 More than 10 

During the last 6 months, have you had any contact with uniformed 

police officers about domestic violence issues? 

0 Yes 0 NO (if no, skip to 48) 

f 

27. 

28. 

If Yes: 

The next set of questions is about your experiences with law enforcement officers. Your input wilt be 

very useful in helping law enforcement agencies improve handling of domestic violence situations. 

Your responses will be completely confidential. 

I would like to talk to you about a number of things that the police sometimes do. Which of the 

following things did the uniformed officers do when the responded to the dispute(s) during the last six 

months? 

I 

0 Dating 

0 Legal matters 

0 Child care arrangements 

0 Money/property matters 

0 Living together.married 0 Other 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
29. Give you an information card? 

30. Calm things down? 

31. Recommend that you go to the District Attorney's office? 

Yes No 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

32. Provide information oh women's shelters and support groups? 0 -- 0 

33. Provide information on legal rights or assistance? 0 0 

34. Recommend or help you contact a women's shelter or support group? 

35. Recommend or refer you to counseling? 0 0 

36. Transport you to a hospital or a shelter? 

37. Refer you to a victim assistance program? 0 0 

38. Listen to what you had to say? 0 0 

39. Give you information about getting a restraining order? 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

40. Overall how concerned wild you say the officers were 0 Very much 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

about you? 

41. Overall how helpful would you say the officers were? 0 Very helpful 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

42. Did the officers treat you with respect? 0 Very much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at.all 

43. Did the officers treat you like you were lying or crazy or 

getting upset over nothing? 

44. Would you say they were objective and business-like? 

45. Would you say they were hostile and nasty toward you? 

0 Very much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

0 Very much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

0 Very much so 0 Somewhat 0 Not at all 

46. Overall, how satisfied were you with the attitudes of the uniformed officers who responded to the dispute(s) 

during the past six months? 

0 Very satisfied 0 Satisfied 0 Dissatisfied 0 Very Dissatisfied 

7. If you're ever assaulted again by an intimate partner, would you want law enforcement to get involved again? 

OYes ONo 

For the next set of questions, I ask that you please think only about the six months after the dispute 

that lead to the arrest of that partner. 

8. How many separate disputes did you and your partner have in the last 6 months? 

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 010ormare s 

Please tell me how often each of the following abusive events have happened between you and this 

partner. Again, these are questions only about the 6 months after the arrest of your partner. 

Tell me how many times he ... 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ 

9 Threatened to hit orthrow something at you 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

00000000000 

00000000000 

00000000000 

3. Threw, smashed, hit or kickedsomething 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

00000000000 

00000000000 

6. Slapped orspankedyouwithanopen hand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0. Threatened you with a knife or gun 

1. Threatened to kill you 

2. Swore at, screamed at or insulted you 

4. Threw something at you 

5. Pushed, grabbed or shoved you 

Page 3 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 

57. Kicked, bit or hit you with his fist 0 0 0 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 

58. Hit or tryed to hit you with something 

59. Choked or strangled you 

60. Beat you up . 0000000000 

62. Forced you to have sex with him 

63. Violated a restraining order 

64. Violated a stalking order 

0000000000 

0000000000 

61. Used a gun, knife orotherweapon against you 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0000000000 

0000000000 

0000000000 

DID ANY OF THE ABUSE YOU DESCRIBED LEAD TO INJURIES THAT INCLUDED: 

65. Cuts or bruises 

66. Broken bones (including jaw) 

67. Burns 

68. internal injuries 

Yes No 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

69. Damage to eyes, ears or teeth 0 0 

70. Back injury 0 0 

71. Dislocated joint (arm, hip, shoulder) 0 0 

72, Mental or emotional problems 0 0 

73. Other 0 0 

Still thinking about the 6 months after the arrest of your partner on 

for the problems with your partner. How many times have you done the following? . You may have tried to get help 

Page 4 W1M 2 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Six months ago we talked to you about the dispute that lead to your partner's arrest Did any of the 

following happen as a result of this arrest? 

92. Did someone other than the arresting officer contact you from the police 0 Yes 0 No 

department? (And-other than someone from this study.) 

If no, skip to question #708 

If yes: 

93. Was this officer from the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit, also OYes ONo ODonYknow 

(Clarify: the DVRU officers are plain clothes police ofkers, who would have contacted you in the days afferyour 

partner's arrest). Kno, or still don't know, skip to question #loa. 

sometimes called the Family Services Division? 

94. How many times did you have contact with the Unit? OOnce 02-3 04-7 081 

95. 

Yes No 

Did the officer(s) who contacted you after your partner was arrested take pictures of your injuries? 0 0 

96. Did they help you make a safety plan? 

97. Did they tell you how to help with the prosecution of your case? 

98. Did they tell you how to get a restraining order against your partner7 

99. Did they tell you how to get into a shelter or other safe housing? 

100. Did they tell you how to get counseling for yourself? 

101. Did they tell you how your partner might get counseling? 

102. Did they refer you to a victim's assistance program? 

103. Did they give you a motel voucher? 

104. Did they help you set up an appointment with the district attorney 

105. Did they help you get a restraining order7 

106. Did they provide transportation for you7 

107. If you were ever involved in another dispute, would you want this 

108. Did the District Attorney's office talk to you about this case? 

109. Did you help the DA with the prosecution of your case? 

110. How satisfied were you with their involvement or noninvolvemeni 

J 

11 1. Did you get a restraining order? 

112. Do you know the outcome of your case 

113. Did you appear in court in connection with this case? 

's office? 

unit to be 

:7 

involved? 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 Yes 0 No 0 Don't know 

If no, skip to #I 10 

OYes ONo 

0 Vety satisfied 

0 Satisfied 

0 Dissatisfied 

0 Very Dissatisfied 

Yes No 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

If no, skip to #117. If yes, 

continue with #114 on next 

pageWNI 2 

C 

c 

c 

C 

c 

C 

C 

C 

C 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
114. Was this appearance related to the criminal prosecution of your case? 

Y es 

0 

115. Was this appearance related to a restraining order? 0 

0 116. Was this appearance related to some other legal matter concerning you and your partner? 

Now I would like to talk to you about any disputes with any other intimate male partners you may have 

been involv-A with in the past six months. 

117. How many, if any, other male intimate male partners have abused you in the last six months? 

/fno& skip to #f 87 ONone 01 02 03 04 0 5 or more 

1 18. How many abusive events with other partners were you involved in? 

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 OMorethan 

Tell me how many total times hehhey ... (each event may have included one or more of the following): 

119. Threatened to hit or throw something at you 

120. Threatened you with a knife or gun 

121. Threatened to kill ysu 

122. Swore at, screamed at or insulted you 

123. Threw, smashed, hit or kicked something 

124. Threw something at you 

125. Pushed, grabbed or shoved you 

i26. Slapped or spanked you with an open hand 

127. Kicked, bit or hit you with his fist 

128. Hit or tryed to hit you with something 

129. Choked or strangled you 

130. Beat you up 

131, Used a gun, knife or other weapon against you 

132. Forced you to have sex with him 

133. Violated a restraining order 

134. Violated a stalking order 3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Yes 

0 

0 

Did any of the abuse you described lead to injuries that included: 

135. Cuts or bruises 0 

136. Broken bones (including jaw) 0 

137. Burns 0 

138. Internal injuries 0 

139. Damage to eyes, ears or teeth 

140. Back injury 0 

141, Dislocated joint (arm, hip, shoulder) 0 

142. Mental or emotional problems 0 

143. Other 0 

0 

Wave 2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

NO 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

89 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

Page 6 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
144. Did law enforcement get involved in any of these disputes? ' OYes ONo 

Still thinking about any disputes with othermale intimate partners, how many times have you done any 

of the following to get help with these problems? 

163. Concerning the abusive events you experienced with these other intimate partners during the past six monk 

did the police Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (family services) get involved? 

Clarification: This is the same unit we referred to earlier. They are the plain clothed 

officers who would have confacfedyou in the days following the arrest. Ifno, go to 187. 

0 Yes 0 No 

164. Did you ask members of this unit to get involved? OYes ONo 

165. Did members of this unit call you and offer their assistance? OYes ONo 

166 Did you receive service from this unit? OYes ONo 

If no, go to 181 

167. How many times did you receive services from members of this unit? 

s 

01 02 03 04 OMorethan4 

Yes No 

168. Did the officer(s) from this unit take pictures of your injuries? 0 0 

00 

170. Did they tell you how to help with the prosecution of your case? 0 0 

171. Did they tell you how to get a restraining order against your partner? 0 0 

172. Did they tell you how to get into a shelter or other safe housing? 0 0 

00 

00 

169. Did they help you make a safety plan? 

173. Did they tell you how to get counseling for yourself? 

174. Did they tell you how your partner might get counseling? 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix D 

POLICE RECORD FORMS 

SECTION 1: THE STUDY CASE (from the incident and custody report) 

(Not for coding) 

Time Frame: 12 months with study incident report date as midpoint: 

Incident Date -/- /- 

End date for six months after case came into study: / / 

Start date for six months before case came into study: / / 

Check relationship (Box 9a): - 

PPDS # exactly as printed on incident report: 

1. Study Case lD: - - - __ 

2. Police Report Number: - - - 

3. Reported date of incident: - - / - - / - - 

4. Reported time of incident: 

5. Type of premises where incident occurred (refer to Box 1 PPB Incident Report 

Coding Sheet ) 

Code: 

6. Address where the study case incident occurred (location of incident) 

Exact residence address =1 

Other address = 2 

If Exact residence, the address is: 

7. Classification of Offense (from incident report) 

Code: (refer to PPB offense codes, omit code 673) 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
8. Charge from actual custody report (list first three) 

WOE: Enter 133310for ORS/ORD no. if789 code listed on ofinse classifimfionfrom incident rpport) 

ORS/ORD NO: (refer to 19% Oregon 

a.---=--- d.----- 

b .--- *--- e.----- 

Code) Charge Code: (refer to PPDS codes master listing) 

9. Witnesses listed ofi. police report or mentioned in narrative: 

Yes=1 No=2 Unk=3 

D-17 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION 1: (continued) 

10. If Yes, how many: __ or Unk = 88 (number of witnesses) 

11. Children present: 

Yes=1 No=2 Unk=3 

12. Physical injury noted for the victim: 

Yes=1 No=2 Unk=3 

13. Weapon used (refer to Box 3 PPB incident report coding sheet, no weapon used 

= 888) 

Code:a. ___ b. --- 

c. --- 

14. Drug/ Alcohol use indicated: 

Yes=1 No=2 Unk=3 

15. Victim Race: 

1 = A - Other Asian, Pacific islander 5 = J - Japanese 

2 = C - Chinese 

3 = H - Hispanic 

4 = I - American Indian 

Cambodian,Thai,Laotian 

6 = B - Black 

7=W-White 

8 = V - Vietnamese, 

9 = U - Unknown 

16. Offender Race: 

1 = A - Other Asian, Pacific islander 5 = J - Japanese 

2 = C - Clunese 

3 = H - Hispanic 

4 = I - American Indian 

Cambodian,Thai,Laotian 

6 = B - Black 

7=W-White 

8 = V - Vietnamese, 

9 = U - UnknOWn 

17. Assailant denies physical abuse directed at victim: 

Yes=l No=2 Unable to determine=3 

18. Assailant blames victim for the incident: 

Yes=l No=2 Unable to determine=3 

D-18 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION 2: REPEAT VIOLENCE AT ORIGINAL RESIDENCE 

(Not for coding) 

Study date: / / 

12monthtimeframe: / / to: / /- 

Exact Residence Address: 

PPDS: 

Criminal activity level at address'(from PPDS): 

1. Police district where incident occurred: - - - 

NOTE: If the address is not an exact residence address or dOther,tI skip the rest of 

this page and go to GSection 3 Victimization Records.0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

incident 

-- Total number of reported incidents within the 6 months after the study inadent 

If there were NO incidents for this time, skip to question 5 (below) 

-- Total number of DV related incidents 

(List the actual number in each category) 

a. - - Violent offense 

b. - - Property offense 

c. - - Drug offense 

d. - - Public-order offense 

e. - - Restraining order violation 

-- Total number of Non-DV related incidents 

(List the actual number in each category) 

Violent offense 

Property offense 

Drug offense 

Public-order offense 

Restraining order violation 

-- Total number of reported incidents within the 6 months before the study 

If there were NO incidents for this time, skip the rest of this page and go to 

BSection 3: Victimization Recordso 

6. -- Total number of DV related incidents 

(List the actual number in each category) 

a. - - Violent offense 

b. - - Property offense 

c. - - Drug offense 

d. - - Public-order offense 

e. - - Restraining order violation 

7. -- Total number of Non-DV related incidents 

(Lst the actual number in each category) 

a. - - Violent offense 

b. - - Property offense 

D-19 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
c. - - Drug offense 

d. - - Public-order offense 

e. - - Restraining order violation 

D-20 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION 3: VICTIMIZATION RECORDS 

(Not for coding) 

Study date: / / 

12monthtimeframe: / / to: / / 

Victim Name: 

Victim CRN: 

PPDS Victimization record- Only include.DVvictimizations thatfit the studyEs 

definition of intimate. Begin by checking the relationship (Suspect Description, DOB 

or Incident Reportfrom Records) 

1. VICTIh4 - Additional (to study date) DV noncustody and custody victimizations for 

Yest1 No=2 

this victim, during the 12 month time frame?: 

If No, skip the rest of this page and section 3a and go to dSection 4 Offender Records6 

2. Total number of DV victimizations by any offender, that resulted in an arrest within 

__ Actual number of custodies 

the 6 months after the study incident: 

3. 

result in a non-custody incident reportwithin the 6 months after the study incident 

-- Actual number of non-custody incident reports 

Total number of DV victimizations by any offender, that did not result in an arrest, but did 

4. Total number of DV victimizations by any offender, that resulted in an arrest within 

-- Actual number of custodies 

the 6 months before the study incident reported: 

5. Total number of DV victimizations by any offender, that did not result in arrest but 

-- Actual number of noncustody incident reports 

did result in a non-custody incident report within the 6 months before the study incident reported: 

D-21 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION 3a: INDIVIDUAL VICTIMIZATION RECORDS 

(Not for coding) 

Study date: / /- 

12monthtimeframe: -/-/- to: / / 

Study Victim Name: 

Study Assailant Name: 

DV Victimizations, 6 months after and 6 months before the-studyincident, where 

the victim was neither charged/arrested nor was the suspect/subject of the report 

from PPDS. In order for any victimization to be recorded as a DV victimization, 

the relationship must meet the studyEs defznition of intimate. Begin by checking 

the relationship between the complainant and the assailant. (Suspect Description, 

DOB or Incident ReportfLorn Records) 

1. 

2. 

DV Incident identification number (most recent first, circle one only): 

01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 

Reported Incident Date: - _ / - _ / - - 

3. Is this incidenss reported date after or before the study incident reported?: 

After =2 

Before = 1 

4. Same assailant as in study case: Yes = 1 No = 2 

If No, 

5. AssaiIanMs date of birth: _ - / - - / - - 

6. Type of report Non-Custody = 1 Custody = 2 

If Non- Custod y, 

Classification of Offense (list first all) 

PPDS Codes Master Listing: 

7. 

a.----- 

C. ----- 

If Custody, 

8. Charge from custody report (list first three) 

(NOTE: Enfm 133.310for ORS/ORD no. $789 code listed on offense classification) 

ORS/ORD NO: (refer to 19% Oregon Penal Code) 

Charge Code: (refer to PPDS codes master listing) 

a. -_-.___ d ._____ 

b ._-_.___ e ._____ c.---.--- f ._-___ 

D-22 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
(not for coding) This is incident/page # - - of - - incidents/pages 

D-23 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
SECTION 4: OFFENDER RECORDS DURING STUDY PERIOD 

(Not for coding) 

Study date: / / 

12monthtimeframe: / / to: / / 

Study Victim Name: 

Study Assailant Name: 

Study Assailant CRN (Very important!): 

DV incidents and custodies for the study offender from PPDS, 6 months after and 

6 months before the study incident report date. In order for any offense to be 

recorded as a DV offense, the relationship must meet the studyEs definition of 

intimate. Begin by checking the relationship between the complainant and the 

assailant. (Suspect Description, DOB or Incident Report from Records) 

1. ASSAILANT - Additional (to study date) DV non-custody and custody offenses for 

this assailant during the 12 month time frame?: 

Yes=l No=2 

If No, skip the rest of this page and go tobsection 4a: Offender Criminal Historv from LEDs6 

2. DV Incident identification number (most recent first, circle one only): 

01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 

3. Reported Incident Date: - - / - - / - _ 

4. Is this incident& reported date after or before the study incident reported?: 

After 22 

Before =1 

5. Same victim as in study case: Yes = 1 No = 2 

7. Type of report Non-Custody = 1 Custody = 2 

Zf Non-Custody, 

8. Classification of Offense (list first three) 

PPDS Codes Master Listing: 

a. _____ b. -_--- 

C.----_ 

Zf Custody, 

Charge from custody report (list first three from PPDS) 

(NOTE: Enter 133.310for ORS/ORD no. if789 code listed on ofinse classifidion) 

9. 

ORS/ORD NO: (refer to 1996 Oregon Penal Code) 

Charge Code: (refer to ~PDS codes master listing) 

a .___.___ d ._____ b.-_-.--- e. ---_- 

D-24 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
(not for coding) This is inridentJpage # - - of - -.incidents/pages 

D-25 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix E 

INTERVIEWER MANUAL 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
/ 

taken. Data on assaultive behavior by offenders before and after arrest and intervention 

period will be gathered fiom face-to-face interviews with victims. Interviews Will be ’ 

conducted within one week of the batterer’s arrest and then 6 months later. Corroborating 

evidence regarding subsequent arrests andor other police contacts by perpetrators will be 

obtained fiom police computer records. 

Stud; Auspices 

The study is being conducted by researchers fiom Portland State University. 

The research is supported by Grant No. 95-U-CX-0054 which was awarded by 

.the National Institute of Justice. The National Institute of Justice was established to 

support research and development to improve the fhctioning of criminal justice 

depanments around the country. Reports on the findings of the study will be sent to the 

National Institute of Justice which will make the results of this study available to justice 

departments in all 50 states. 

Victim Protection and ComDensation 

Victim participation is voluntary. Each time victims are contacted, they will be 

informed about the purpose of the research and told that participation is totally voluntary. 

Rehsal to participate will not affect their standing with criminal justice agencies or any 

community support program. 

desiged to protect the victims’ interests and privacy. Questionnaires are identified by 

case number only. Interviewers must assure victims that no information on individual 

cases OJ responses to questions will be provided to anyone or any agency; only aggreyate 

statistics are included in the reports. 

interviewers are expected to keep any information they receive in complete 

confidence For safety and confidentiality reasons victims will not be interviewed in the 

presence of the offender or other adults or teenage children. 

The interviews will be private and confidential. The interview procedures will be 

Victims will be paid $8 for each interview. 

3 OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD WORK PROCEDURES 

SamDle Selection 

A random sample of 800 female vktims of misdemeanor domestic assault will 

make up the study sample. The partners of all victims will have been arrested and booked 

into Multnomah County jail. Four hundred victims will have received follow-up police 

services fiom the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit @VRw. The other four hundred 

victims will have received treatment as usual (no follow up after their partner was 

arrested). 

Approximately 10 new custody cases are sent to the DVRU each day. Each 

morning, the project manaser will use a randomization procedure to assign cases to either 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
the intervention or control group. The victims’ names, addresses, phone numbers, as well 

as arrest and intervention dates, and assigned case number wil1 be recorded daily by the 

project manager. These cases will be assigned to an interviewer by the project manager. 

The interviewer is expected to meet with the Victim as soon as possible after the case -- is 

assigned. 

Advance ~hone-cdk 

The project manager will make an initial contact with all victims the day following 

their partners’ arrest. The project manager will explain to the victim that she has been 

selected for a study that examines the way the Portland Police Bureau handles domestic 

violence. The project manager informs victims-thatitheir .participation is. voluntary, that 

their answers are pivate and confidential, and that they will be paid $8.00 for participating 

in the study. 

Assignments 

The project manager will fill out the Face Sheet and assign the case to an 

interviewer. The interviewers will be alerted that they have been assigned a case by a 

-phone call from the project manager. The Face Sheet for each victim, among other‘s, will 

list: the victim’s name, address, phone number, case number, victim date of binh, arrest 

date. and assignment date. It will also contain any additional information that relates to 

contactin2 the victim, e.g. directions to her house, etc. The Face Sheet will be faxed to 

Diane Mikkelson at the Regional Research Institute. Diane will make up each case packet 

and place the packet in a manila envelope with the interviewers’ name written on the 

envelope. The envelopes will be placed in the appropriate out-basket at the RTU for pickup by the interviewer. The interviewer should contact the victim by phone as soon as 

possible after s/he has received the assignment to reconfirm the appointment time with the 

vicrirn. If the appointment time must be changed, it is important for the interviewer to be 

sensitive to selecting a time and place for the interview that makes the victim feel safe. 

The intewiewer must always ask the victim if it is a safe time to talk. If the interviewer 

hears any hesitancy on the victim’s part when making the follow-up phone call or 

regarding the appointment time that might indicate she does nor feel safe, the interviewer 

should call back at a more convenient time for the victim. The interviewer must notify the 

project manager%f the change in appointment time. If the interviewer needs assistance in 

locating an address, she should call the project manager at 636-2053 or 

pager # 903-248 1. 

The interviewer is to record each time an attempt is made to contact the victim on 

the Face Sheet - the date, time, and outcome of the effort. The Face Sheet will be 

returned with the completed interview so they can be used to assist in contacting the 

victim for the second interview. 

If the interviewer is unable to complete an interview assignment, the Face Sheet 

must be returned to the project manager with the whole package of materials included in 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Have positive feelings about yourself as an interviewer and the study. The research is 

extremely important and will probably be engrossing to most victims. 

Take a genuine interest in victims and let them know that their participation, opinions, 

and attitudes are valued. . -- 

The questionnaire directions, this r..-nual, and the training conference will provide 

answers to most questions that may arise. Famiiiarize yourself with the questions and 

the associated instructions so that you can comfortably respond to queries about the 

study and the interviewer role in it. 

People that answer the door or Victims may ask questions not only to gather 

information, but to reassure themselves that they are not being subject to a sales pitch.. 

The interviewer may tell victims that they can call our office and ask to speak with Dr. 

Annette Jolin, the study's-principal investigator or.Eve!yn-Morley, the project 

manager. 

. 

Victims are dost likely to raise questions prior to the interview, but they may also 

ask during it. Regardless of when questions are posed, answer them cou~teousIy, honestly. 

and as briefly as possi’de. Don’t over-explain, you may introduce bias by providing more 

information than is ne.:essary or you may confuse the victim. 

You don’t have to memorize response categories, but you must become familiar 

enough with them to feel confident that you, the interviewer, can respond to inquiries in a 

convincing and conversational way. 

Remember that your best chance to be successful in obtaining the interview is on the first 

contact with the victim. Your enthusiasm and attitude will make a difference in how the 

victim will respond to you. 

IMPORTANT REMINDERS: 

Do not discuss eligibility criteria with the person who answers the door 

Do not answer questions that are not asked, i.e. do not volunteer information 

unless asked. 

-Do not leave behind copies of questionnaires or answer sheets with anyone! 

Answering Victims’ Questions 

Question: Who wants this information? 

Answer. The survey is carried out by Portland State University for the National ’ 

Institute of Justice 

10 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Ouestion: 

Answer. 

Ouestion: 

An swe 6 

Ouestion: 

Answer: 

Ouestion: 

Answer. 

Question. 

Answer . 

Answer: 

What’s it all about? 

We are gathering information on ways the Portland Police Bureau can 

better handle cases involving family disputes. 

Why me? 

.- 

Your name was selected fiom a list of people who have recently used the 

Portland Police Depament as a result of a family dispute. The answers 

will help plan how these cases can best be handled in the fbture. 

Can my answers be used against me? 

The answers are completely private and confidential. No infomation will 

be provided to any person or agency - not the police, your partner, a 

treatment agency, or any other person. Your answers, together with those 

from all victims who were selected for the study, are grouped and 

presented as summaries only. Your name will not be on the form that we 

use for the interview. Many of the questions you answer are on a form that 

even I will never see. 

T’m too busy. Why don’t you interview someone else who has time? 

The opinions of busy people like you are just as important as the opinions 

of people who are not as busy. I’ll come back tomorrow or this evening if 

that is more convenient. Or, I could wait while you finish what you’re 

doing and conduct the interview then. 

How do 1 know that you’re not selling something? 

Here is my identification badge and a consent form fiom Portland State 

University which describes the study. You can call Evelyn Morley, the 

project manager, who will vouch for me. Also, you will be paid for your 

p arti ci pati on. 

What if I don’t want to be interviewed? 

The intemiew is voluntary and you may refbse if you wish. We hope that 

you won’t. For the results of this study to be accurate and representative. 

it is very important that we talk to every person who was selected. I am 

not permitted to substitute any other person for you. We can start the 

interview and if the you don’t want to answer a question, just tell me. 

11 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Ouestion: 

Answer: 

What happens to the information? 

As soon as we finish the interview, all of the forms will be put in an 

envelope and sealed. Your name is not on the forms when-we process the 

information. When the data are analyzed, your answers will be combined 

with everyone else's so that no individual answers can ever be identified. 

May I have the results from this study? 

-- 

Question: 

I 

Answer: Yes, certainly. The results of the study will be available in the fall of 1997 

To get the results you would need to contact Annette JoIIn, the principal 

investigator,-at 725.5 166;and-let. her know. how ..we can get the results to 

you. 

a 

12 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
REDUCING NON-RESPONSE 

It is expected that the majority of interviewer contacts will result in completed interviews. 

However, there may be times when victims are either not at home or not cooperative. 

Obviously, if only .$he most available and willing people are interviewed,. they will not be 

representative of the total population being studied and the study results may be different 

from those that would be obtained if every selected victim participated. Our goal, 

therefore, is to interview every person selected to be in th~s study. The intenrjewer has a 

vital role in this shared effort. 

Contact at the Door 

To gain cooperation;these are some of the things the interviewer should do: 

. . .approach each interview with a positive attitude, confident that (s)he will 

successfully conduct the interview; 

... be familiar with the instructions described in the section on Getting the 

Interview; 

. . .present herhimself in a professional manner, appropriately dressed, and 

well-organized; i.e. as someone victims will welcome into their homes; 

... if there is more than one door, go to the one that most logkally would 

be used by visitors; 

. . .show regard for peoples' property and homes; 

. . .tell victims how important they are and that no one can be substituted 

for them; 

. . .be flexible and show a willingness to reschedule to suite the victim's 

schedule; 

[If the interviewer senses that the victim will refuse]. . . try to end the 

interaction before the victim firmly rehscs. Pave the way for a hture 

contact that may be more successful; 

= 

. . .maintain a pleasant, courteous manner and thank the victim 

for whatever time she has given the interviewer. 

13 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
1: , To gain cooperation, these are some things the interviewer should avoid doing: 

Do not wear dark glasses- they are a bamer between the intekiewer and 

the victim. They may also arouse suspicion. . -- 

Do not chew gum- it will affect the way an interviewer sounds and detracts 

from the interviewer’s professional appearance. 

Do not wear visible jewelry that symbolizes a political or religous 

affiliation- it may offend some people and be the cause for refusals. 

Do not smoke while you are interviewing. 

Do not attempt to sell anything or conduct any other business while you 

are at the assigned household. 

Do not discuss anything that happens in one household with people in any 

other household. Both the interview and the interviewing situation are to 

be confidential. 

Refbsals 

Even the best interviewers may get an occasional rehsal despite their experience 

and skill. Some of those rehsals will be converted by having a different interviewer go 

back on a different day when the victim is in a better frame of mind. Other refusals will be 

converted after the coordinator calls the household. For this study, a high response rate is 

essential so we will employ all of those tactics and any others that may prove hifil. 

Every interviewer will probably be reassigned other interviewers’ refisals - they are part 

of the interviewer assignment. The project manager is an excellent resource for 

suggestions about refusal conversions. In addition, the interviewer’s motivation, belief in 

the study’s value and persuasive skills should increase the interviewer success at this task. 

In general, interviewers should listen carehliy to what the hesitant victim is saying 

and then respond to her concerns. Some of the most common reasons victims give for 

refusihg - and some suggested responses -- are: 

“I’m too busv, I don’t have the time.” 

“I understand how valuable your time is. I’ll be glad to wait until you finish what 

you’re doing.” Or say, ‘‘I can come later or tomorrow. Which would you prefer?” 

Note: Always suggest more than one possible re-scheduling time so the victim can 

choose one of them or suggest another that is more convenient. 

14 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
“I’m not interested in the studv” or ‘‘I don’t want to be bothered” 

“I can understand how you might feel that way. Perhaps I haven’t explained how 

important the study is, and how important you are to the study’s success’’ 

_. - 

“What’s in it for me’’’ 

“You will receive $8 for your participation. You will also have the satisfaction of 

making an important contribution in a study that helps other families. I really hope 

you will participate. It is important to me and I think you will find it interesting.’’ 

“I don’t feel welJ enough to do this” 

“I’m sorry. Of course I understand that you wouldn’t want to be interviewed now. 

Shall I call you in a day or two?” 

Victim Does Not Keep an Amointment 

You may arrive at the victim’s home at the appointed time and find that she is not 

there. It’s a good idea to wait at least 15 minutes, since she may have been unavoidably 

delayed. If the victim is not there, phone later and mention that you were sorry to miss 

her when you were there and assume’responsibility for any misunderstanding about the 

tinie. Set up another appointment, 

avoiding you, consider it a refbsal, describe the situation on the Assignment Sheet and 

discuss the case with the project manager. 

If the victim continues to break appointments, and you feel she is deliberately 

CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW 

Materials for the Interview 

You will need the following materials to conduct the interview: 

the Face Sheet; 

the Introduction to questionnaire; 

the Questionnaire (have an extra copy in case there is a printer’s error); 

Answer Sheets; 

Informed consent; 

Victim information card; 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
two number 2 pencils (you need one; the victim will need the other, which you should 

take back.at the end of the interview). Having extras is essential, since all scanning 

sheets must be done in pencil; 

0 one very large return envelope in which to place all the information from one 

completed case; 

another large envelope where the confidential answers that are completed by the 

victim will be placed and sealed by the victim; 

a Recontact Sheet; 

$8 and a Receipt Pad; 

Interviewer M&ual( to-use as a reference) 

Starting the Intervicw 

Find or suggzst a comfortable place, preferably at a table or desk, opposite the 

victim. so that you will have space for your materials and a surface to write'on. It is 

important that the interview be conducted in private, so that the victim can answer 

candidly and not be influenced by the presence of any other household member. 

Remember - the interview is not to take place if there is a teenage child or any other adult 

present. Conduct yourself in a relaxed manner, remembering at all times that you are a 

guest in the victim's home. Also remember that you are trained to conduct the interview, 

while the victim has not been trained to be a victim. You must be the one who is in 

control of the entire interviewing situation. 

Marking the questionnaire 

IMPORTANT 

Before you begin, please enter the case number in the upper right hand comer of 

the aflswer sheet. This is the only way the responses from the interview can be linked to 

any other data - such as the responses from the next interview or data fiom the other 

criminal justice agencies. Please make sure these numbers are on each answer sheet 

before YOU start. 

date on the first page. 

At the same time, please mark your name below the case number and enter the 

ConfidentialiQ 

Keeping all information on victims confidential is a must! Nothing about any 

specific family is to be discussed with anyone other than the research st&. Documents 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
that have family names on them should be CarehIly guarded and secured at all times. 

Confidentiality, however, will not be maintained in the event you learn of child abuse, if a 

family member intends to harm herhimself or others, or ifinformation is subpoenaed by a 

court of law. -- 

Abuse reuortinrr requirements and ~rotocol 

The need for reporting suspected child abuse or neglect should be minimal. But in 

the event you suspect or witness the occurrence of child abuse or that child neglect poses 

an imminent danger to the child’s well being the State Offices for Services to Children and 

Families (SCF) in Multnomah county must be contacted at (503) 73 1-3 100. The protocol 

we will follow for reporting suspected abuse or neglect includes these steps: 

1. Contact the project manager immediately after the interview when you suspect 

a need to report. If the project manager is not available, contact the principal 

investigator. During the evenings, or weekends, the project manager can be 

contacted at home at 903-248 1 or the principal investigator at 228-5 194 

2. We will discuss your concerns and determine whether or not a report should be 

made. 

3. If after discussing your concerns with the project manager it is determined 

necessary to make a report, call the intake worker on duty at SCF. The best 

approach is to describe the situation as a “hypothetical” case, allowing the SCF 

personnel to decide whether or not the situation is reportable. If it is 

reportable, provide the information requested by SCF. 

4. The principal investigator will be informed about any concerns or reports made 

to SCF. Please read the Oregon Child Abuse Reporting Law provided in the 

Appendix of this manual. 

Keeping participants on track and dealing with emotional issues 

When you are interviewing victims, remember to keep their perspective in mind. 

Some people Will be nervous, might feel they need to lead the conversation. or may need 

someone to talk to and will want to tell you all about their situation. You want to let each 

participant tell some of their story, but you will need to prevent the victim from going on 

a tangent aftk each question. 

social/emotional issues which arise during the interview, and the need to conduct the 

interview. While you want to be sensitive to the victim. you are there to collect data. 

Because of the data collection role, the nature of the interviewer-victim relationship is 

somewhat professionally distant. You should try to approach the relationship building 

process in the same way with each victim while of course taking into account their 

individual differences. 

A common problem of the interview process occurs when there is conflict between 

LkmI Arm\ Inimw?ro \4muaI 17 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Safetv issues 

A SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION: If, at any time, you encounter a situation in which 

you do not feel safe being in a victim’s home,. do not hesitate to end your conversation 

with her and leave immediately. Tell the victim that you would like to reschedule the 

interview for another day or that you will be contacting her at a later time. This may 

become necessary if the victim responds in a hostile manner or is under the influence of 

alcohol or drugs or if someone comes into the intervjew situation. The interview must be 

carried on in private. We do not want anyone feeling compelled to remain in a dangerous 

situation in order to collect data or continue to meet the needs of the research project. 

Your safety comes first! If you feel threatened, you should review the situation with the 

project manager so the next step can be decided. 

Interviewing Techniques 

1 Interview in privacy. 

Interviewer instructions on the questionnaire are in itaIics. They are not to be 

read to victims. 

Read each-question slowly and distinctly, exactly as it is worded and in the 

order in which it appears in the questionnaire. 

H When the stem or lead-in to a question ends with a colon or dots, read all the 

answer categories up to the question mark, pausing briefly after each one. 

When a question ends with a question mark, stop at that point, without reading 

any categories that might follow unless directed to read in italics. 

H Fill in the correct bubble on the answer sheet, being carehl not to create lines 

outside of the correct bubble. 

When a response does not fit into any category given and an “other” category 

has not been provided, the question is to be answered in terms of the 

categories given. If necessary, repeat the categories and encourage the victim 

to choose one of them. 

H Record everything in the questionnaire at the time of the interview and don’t 

wait until later to mark any information. When the interview is concluded, 

briefly check the questionnaire to make sure you have asked and recorded 

answers to all appropriate questions. This can be done while the victim is 

filling out the last answer sheet on her child. Try to get any items that are 

skipped or incomplete. 

18 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Be sure to have the victim put the answer sheet that she filled out on her own 

in an envelope and have her sed it. 

The Re-contact Sheet 

Af the end of the interview, explain that the study design calls for a second 

interview with the victim. Then complete the Re-contact Sheet. Verify the victim’s 

current address and phone number, and then ask the victim to ghe you the names, 

addresses and phone numbers of two persons who would know how to reach her if she 

moves. If asked, you can assure the victim that the study will not be discussed with the 

persons listed. 

Place the Re-contact Sheet in your file. 

Victim Pavments 

Give the victim the $8 payment and ask her to sign a receipt. Be sure to list the 

case # from the top of the interview on the receipt. Attach the receipt to the completed 

questionnaire. 

.At the end 

This is how things should be: 

Victim has the large, sealed envelope. In the envelope are the answer 

sheets to the child questions, which have been completed and put in the 

envelope one at a time. 

You should have the Face Sheet, the filled-out interview form, the 

recontact sheet, and the receipt. 

0 Note: Be sure you have written the case number on the first page, in 

the upper left-hand comer. 

J 

This is how you finish up: 

Ask the victim to give you the large sealed envelope with the child answer sheet 

inside. 

Attach the payment receipt to the Re-contact Sheet: 

Put the interview form which you are holding into the second, larger envelope with 

the answer sheets. Seal the second envelope in the presence of the victim. 

Put the Re-contact Sheet in your file next to the Face Sheet. 

19 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
After leaving the household: 

Attach the Re-contact Sheet to the back of the Face Shed with a paper clip. 

Record your time spent and the case number of the completed interview on your 

- current Time Sheet. 

20 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Ouestions about the interview 

1. While a victim is filling out the self-administered questionnaire.on one of her 

children, what if she has a question about it? Can I k”?? 

- - Yes, you can help, but only if the victim requests help. However, stay on 

your side of the room and do not look at the Victim’s copy. Be sure to 

have an extra copy for yourself, so you can find the place that the victim 

has a question about. 

2. Is it possible to leave the self-administeredmswer-sheets or anything else with 

the victim to fill out by herself and then come back for it? 

No. No exceptions. An identical procedure has to be followed with every 

victim in order to get reliable results. You have to be present while all 

parts of the interview are being completed. 

.. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 

Time Sheets: 

Your total hours for the month include time spent scheduling interviews. traveling to and 

from interviews, conducting interviews, completing paperwork, and participating in 

traininss and meetinss. Hours should be recorded on a daily basis, rounded off to the 

nearest quarter of an hour. Signed time sheets are due in the project manager’s mailbox 

by the 1 5Ih of each month. Payday is the last working day of each month. 

1 ntervi ewer Evaluations 

After completing your 5* interview, the project manager will discuss your progress in 

conducting interviews and following the research and scheduling protocols. This will be 

an informal opportunity to give and receive feedback. 

21 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Re fer enc e s 

Elliott, Debra (1992). interviewer training manual used for the Family Connections 

Project. Regional Research Institute, Portland State University. Portland. 

Oregon. 

Harrell, Adele (1 99 1). Interviewer manual used for the Evaluation of court-ordered 

treatment for domestic violence offenders. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC. 

Sherman, Lawrence, and Berk, Richard (1 984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for 

domestic assault. American Socioloeical Review, 9 (2); 261-272. 

Sherman. Lawrence (1 992). Policine domestic violence: exDeriments and dilemmas. New 

York: The FreejPress. 

U. S. Department of Justice (1 984). U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Family 

Violence. Office of Justice Programs. Washington, D.C. 2053 I 

Zorza, Joan and Woods, Lauri (1 994). Analysis and Policy Implications of the New 

Domestic Violence Police Studies. National Center on Women and Family Law. 

J 

! 

22 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendices 

Script for initial telephone > contact 

Informed consent - English 

lnformed mnsent - Spanish 

Face Sheet 

Recontact Sheet 

Payment Receipt Form - English 

Payment Receipt Form - Spanish 

lnformation Form 

Oregon child abuse reporting laws 

23 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
(Directions are in italics and are not to be read allowed) 

SCRIPT FOR wru TELEPHONE CONTACT 

(Initial interview) -- 

! 

Can I please speak with [victim first name]. [When victim identfles herselfon the 

phonijMy name is [schedulersfirst name]. I am calling on behalf of Portland 

State University to talk to you about a research project on how domestic violence 

is being handled by the Portland Police Bureau. This will help us improve the 

quality of police services to Victims of domestic violence. 

ASK: “Is this a safe time for you to talk with me” YES=[ 1 J NO=[2] 

Q‘N#, ask “When would be a good time for me to call you back? 

ASK: “Do you need an excuse for this call?” YES=[ 11 NO=[2] 

Q’YES, sq “We are were doing a survey on women’s cosmetics”. 

lf‘ii is a sa@ tinte for Ihe victim to talk now, proceed.. . . . . ” 

Our records show that you were the victim in a recent domestic conflict and that 

your partner was arrested on 

a moment ago, we are trying to find out what the police can do to help women 

who are victims of domestic violence. Because you have had a recent experience 

with the police when they arrested your partner, we believe that your opinion on 

how police can best help victims can be very important in helping us help other 

women who are in similar situations. 

as a result of that conflict. As I mentioned 

As part of this study we are interviewing 800 women who have had a partner 

arrested for domestic assault. We want to know how you are doing and we want 

your view of what happened. Your answers will be completely private and 

confide<tial. They will be combined with the answers of other women to provide 

an understanding of how women feel. As thanks for your help in this important 

project, you will be given $8.00 at the end of the interview. Would you be wiiling 

to have an interviewer come to your home at your convenience, or you may chose 

to come to Portland State and talk with an interviewer, for about an hour? 

YES=[ 1 J N0=[2] 

lfN0 say: “I understand how you might feel that way. I know this must be an 

upsetting time for you right now and I don’t want to make it any more difficult. 

Would it be all right if I called you back in a few day to see how you are doing?” 

YES=[ 13 NO=[?] 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Ij”0 say: “Thank you for your time”, and hang up 

VYES say: Great, I’ll call you back in a few days to see how you are doing. . Is 

there a good time for me to call? 

/flhe responden2 agrees to be interviewed say: “I’m pleased that you are willing to 

be apart ofthis project. It’s important that when you talk With an interviewer that 

no other adults or teenage children are present. This is to insure that you can speak 

freely. Is there a time this week that would be most convenient for you to have an 

interviewer meet with you privately? 

I would like to ask you just a few questions now to verify your address and any 

other phone numbers where we might be able to reach you. What is your 

address ? 

Do you have a work phone where it would be O.K. for me to call you? 

If you decide that you need to leave home to keep yourself safe, is there a fiend or 

relative that I might be able to call so that I can still reach you? 

Phone 

Thank you again for your willingness to be apart of this research. An interviewer 

will call you in a few days to confirm that the appointment time is still convenient 

for- you. In the mean time, you can reach me by calling my pager at 903-248 1, and 

1 will call you right back. Again, my name is 

Please don‘t hesitate to call if you think of any questions you might have before 

the interview. 

Good by 

-. - 

a 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
INFORMED CONSENT 

My name is 

State University Domestic Violence Study. 

call Dr. Annette Jolin at PSU. Her number is 725-5 166. 

, and I am one of the interviewen with the Portland 

If you have any questions about the mdy, you may 

The pudose of this research is to talk to women who have been involved io domestic disputes 

where the police have gotten involved. We are uying to find out if what the police do helps reduce , 

further lsputes and assaults. This research may not be of help to you personally at th~s time, but 

hopefully it will help us find ways to cut down on the problem of domestic violence in the future. 

Your part in the study involves an interview now and another interview in six months. A different 

person may call you'for the second interview. This interview will last about an hour, and you \\ill 

be paid $8.00 for your time. Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary. If any of 

the questions or the inteniew itself make you uncomfortable, please tell me: you are free to skip 

an). questions you don't like or even to cancel the interview after we have started. 

The intervie\\ includes questions about the time the police were here, how they may have tried to 

hclp !.ou. your rsperknces with the man who was arrested when the police were here. and your 

csperiences \vi& other agencies that you may have contacted to get help for problems with Four 

p anncr . .. 

Whatever ?.ou tell me uill be held in total confidence. After I turn in this interview to the 

rcscarchors. the cover sheet with your name is tom off and kept in a locked file. Your answers are 

rhcn assigned 3 number. As a result your answers are no longer connected to your name. If !*ou 

clioosc not to participate in this study. your decision will not affect the services you receive from 

thc Portland Police Bureau. When reports are written. your answers will be combined with those 

of lots of people so it is not possible to know who gave what answers . We can guarantee the . 

confidentialit!, of your answers except for the follouing information which by law must be reportcd 

to thc propcr authorities: 

( I) Information subpoenaed by a court of law( Le.. demanded by a court of law). 

(2) Suspected cases of abuse or neglect under Oregon law., 

(3) Information that individuals intend to harm themselves or others. 

I have read and understand this information and agree to participate in the Portland State 

bniversit:. Doniestic Violence Study. I have a right to have a copy of thls form, but can get a COP\. 

of it at the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at PSU. 

DATE SIGN A TURE 

1 ~mvc (give up) mi. right to keep a copy of the informed consent. Signature 

For concerns about your treatment as a research participant, you may phone the Chairperson of the 

Human Subjects Research Review Committee. Portland State University, 725-3417. If you would 

like 10 spcak with a counselor. please call the Portland Women's Crisis Line at (503) 232-975 1. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Consentimiento Informado 

Mi nombre es 

entrevistas en el eshadio de violencia doniestica en la Universidad Estakl de Portland. 

Si Ud tiene prepzitas sobre el estudio, se puede Uamar Dr. Annette Jolin. Su numem 

de telcfono es 725-5 166. 

, y soy uno/a de 10s que van a conducir las 

EI objective de esta bivestigacion es hablar con rnujeres que han estado envucltas en 

disputas domestics donde se ha envuelto la policia Estamos tratando de apxnder si lo 

que hace la policia ayuda a duck otras disputas y ataques. ~sta investigacion talvez 

no ayudara personalmente en cste tiempo, peru con optimismo va a ayudarnos a 

cncoiitrar maneras en disminuir el problema, y el problem de abuso domestico en el 

futuro. 

Su parte en la izwestigacion incluye una entrevista ahora y otra entrevisla en seis 

mcses. Una persona diferente talvez Ie Uamara para la segunda entrevista. Esta 

entrevista durara una hora, y Ud recibira $8.00 por su tiempo. Su participation en la 

entrtvista es completamente voluntaria. 

Si algunas de las preguntas o la cnhvista se hace sentir incomoda, por favor digamclo 

y Ud es Iibre de saltar preguntas que no le pste c tambien st puede cancelar la 

entrevista inmediatamente. 

e 

~a entrevista incluye preguntas sobx el tiempo que la policia cstuvo alIi, como 

trataban a ayudarle, sus expenencia con el hombre que estaba detenido cuando la 

policia estuvo alli, y sus experieicias con otras agencias que, talvez Ud ha contactado 

pOr ayuda con 10s problemas con su pareja. 

Todo lo que me dice Sera en total confianza. Despues que entrege csta entrevista a 10s 

investigadorrs, la copia con su nombre sera quitada y matenida en un archivo cerrado. 

Entonces,ms respuestas estan asignadu con un numeru. Como consequencia, sus 

respuestas ya no estaran conectadas a su nombrc. Si Ud elige a no participar en este 

estudio, su decision no afectara 10s seMcos que mik del Bum de la Policia de 

Portland Cuando 10s reportcs csten escritos sus respuestas Seran combinadas con las 

de muchas personas, entonccs no sera posiblc saber quien dio tales respuestas. 

Podemos garantizar la confianza de sus respuestas con la cxcepcion de la siguiente 

infomion que por ley es absolutamente necesario nportar a las autoridades 

apropiadzs. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
( I ) Iitformacion citada a orden judicial. 

(2) Casos sospcchados de atuso o negligencia bajo la ley de Oregon. 

_- 

(3) Iiiformacion que alguien se quitn hacer dano a si mismo o a otms. 

-He leido y enticndo esta infonnacion y consicnto a participar en el cstudio de violencia 

domestica de la Utu'vcrsidad Estatal de Portland Yo tengo el dcrecho de tener una 

copia de csfc formulano, y ped0 obtencr una copia en la Office of Research and 

spiisored Projects at mu. 

FCCHA: Flw: 

p' 

Yo renuncio mi derccho a tener una copia del conscnhicnto idormada. 

FIM 

como partkipante fie dicho estudio se pede hmar a1 presidcntt del Human Subjects 

Re.cearch Review Commitfee, Fortland State University, 725-341 7. Si aUd. le gusfaria 

habIar con un consejcro, por favor llame a Is linea de crisis de Mujeres en Portland 

(503) 232-4448. Sc habla espanol. 

. Para preocupaciones acemi de su h-atamiento 

a' 

51 

! 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
FACE SHEET 

Offender DOB 

Assignment date 

_- 

Victim name Case ID ## 

DOB 

Offender name 

Address 

Victim Home phone number 

Phone number of victim’s fiiend/family member 

/west date 

111 teiviewer’ name 

Inteiview completion date 

Additional information 

Victim Work phone 

Attempted contact by interviewer 

Date Time Outcome 

Date Time Outcome 

Date Time Outcome a 

Footnote: 

1. Face sheet given to interviewer (date). 

2. Face sheet returned to RRI and checked (date) 

3. Face sheet given to PI (date) 

4. Face sheet given to data collection person (date). 

5. Face sheet returned to P/I (date). 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
'. 

Victim name 

Interviewer's name 

Case ID # 

RE-CbNTACT SHEET 

CLOSING SUMMARY FOR INITIAL INTERVIEW 

Thank you very much for participating in this interview. You have helped us a lot 

and we appreciate your time. Here is a small token of OUT appreciation for your 

help. Please sign this receipt to show that you have received the $8 for this initial 

interview. 

Someone from the research project will be contacting you in about six months to 

schedule a follow-up interview. It is important to us to know how you are doing. 

We will need to know if there are any changes in your name, address or phone 

number during these six months. You can call Evelyn Morley, the project 

manager, at the phone number listed on this referral form if there are any changes. 

She can also answer any questions you may have about the interviews or the 

research project. h case we have any trouble getting in touch with you, is there a 

family member and perhaps a fiiend who would always know where you are living 

whom we could call? 

Kame Relati onship 

Telephone # (Home) (Work) 

Name Relationship 

Telephone # (Home) (Work) 

Again, thank you for your time. I have enjoyed talking with you. 

t! 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
1 Have received $8.00 for doing an initial / follow-up (circle one) interview with the 

Domestic Violence Research Project. 

Res e arch 1 n t eivi e w er 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
u -- 

hi ti a1 s I ID# 

He recibido $8 por hacer una entrevista iniciaVconsiguiente (encirre Ud. Con ciculo 

cud corresponde) con la Proyecto Domestic Violence Research. 

Entre vis tador Ln ve stigativo Fecha 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
lnfonnation Form 

Women's Crisis Line 332-9751 

Mcvo Crisis he 223-6161 

PSL' Lmnneaion 903-248 1 

Mulmornah County Courlhou~~ Poctlmd, Or. 

1021 SW4rtL Roorn211B 2483943 

2483860 

Reslrrining Ordcr Momtian 

Domestic Violence Unit 

Mulmomah County Counhow 

Districi .4xomey-lntdce 1921 sw3r4 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
appendix F 

I Total 

TIME TO FAILURE ANALYSIS 

We examined four variables that represented the elapsed time from the entry 

event to a subsequent officially recorded criminal event. These are 

the times wtil the first reported revictimization incident, the first 

recorded revictimization custody, the first reported reoffense, and 

the first recorded reoffense custody. 

TIME UNTIL REPORTED-REVICTIMIZATION 

Given the differences between the treatment and control group in reported 

revictimizations and reported reoffenses, we were interested in 

whether other differences would be exhibited in the subsequent 

(6 months) recorded criminal events of the two groups. Of 

particular interest to us was the issue of timing h how quickly 

these subsequent events occurred. In order to address such issues, 

we chose to utilize Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The data for 

the analysis came from our compilation of relevant police data 

(see Appendix D for a copy of the Police Record Form). In this 

analysis, victims who were removed from the study during the 

six-month observation period were retained for this part of the 

analysis if their first reported revictimization occurred prior to 

their removal. The Gnumber censored0 refers to the number of 

victims who had no records of revictimization within the sixmonth observation period. The Log Rank statistic was used to test 

the hypothesis of no difference between groups. In addition to the 

statistical tests, graphic results are displayed which show the 

cumulative experiences of each group over time, known as the 

cumulative survival rate. In this instance, the notion of survival 

refers to absence of either reported revictimization or absence of 

another recorded allegation. 

Treatment I 400 

Control I 497 

Overall I 897 

Numbe Number 

r Censored 

Events 

138 759 

Censored 

84.62 I 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Statistic 

Log Rank 11.65 

There was a sigxuficant difference between the treatment and control groups, 

with the treatment group having a higher and more rapid 

revictimization reporting rate. That is, the time until reported 

revictimization was shorter in the treatment group. 

df Sigdicance 

1 .0006 

Survival Functions 

Treatment 

Control 

Overall 

1.1 

10 

.9 

.8 

Cum 

Total Numbe Number Percent 

r Censored Censored 

Events 

399 46 353 88.47 

497 35 462 92.96 

896 81 815 90.96 

-100 0 lo0 

time until revictimization 

Log Rank 

Time until reported revictimization involving custody of alleged offender 

Statistic Df Sigruficance 

5.62 1 .0178 

There was a sigruficant difference between the treatment and control groups, 

with the treatment group having both a higher rate of reported 

revictimization which involved custody, and those events 

occurring more rapidly following the entry event. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Survival Functions 

Treatment 

Control 

Overall 

time until revic custody 

Total Numbe Number Percent 

r Censored Censored 

Events 

400 86 314 78.50 

497 58 439 88.33 

897 144 753 83.95 

Time until any recorded reoffense by alleged offender 

Log Rank 

Statistic Df Sigmficance 

17.23 1 .oooo 

There was a sigruficant difference between the treatment and control groups, 

with the treatment group having both a higher percent with a 

recorded reoffense and having a more rapid occurrence of the 

recorded reoffense. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
Survival Functions 

Total 

II 

IO 

E 

.a 

Cum 

Numbe Number Percent 

Events 

r Censored Censored 

-100 0 IW 2 

time until reoffense 

L 

Treatment 399 49 350 87.72 

Control 497 34 463 93.16 

Overall 896 83 813 90.74 

Time until any recorded reoffense by alleged offender that resulted in 

physical custody 

Log Rank 

Statistic Df Sigruficance 

8.00 1 .OM7 

There was a sigmficant difference between the treatment and control groups, 

with the treatment group having a lower survival rate. 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.
102. 

100, 

ma 

96. 

94. 

92. 

w, 

88 , 

culms 

CODE 

- l-,, 0 bnuol 

+ brrmJ-earrorad 

\& -:-<-en, 

+ trunnentamorrd 

-100 0 IW 200 

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Justice.