DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03382
title: Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000
title: Archival Version

description: This study examined the ways in which the model of the
 Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way
 cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on
 outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the
 implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected
 three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons
 on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony
 domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the
 FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state
 Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison
 group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very
 few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole
 or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of
 the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September
 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early
 period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented)
 and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was
 selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or
 in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order
 violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been
 indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without
 application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September
 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal
 contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme
 Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this
 law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning
 in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in
 which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony
 charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during
 the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts
 as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers
 to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from
 the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled
 differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were
 designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for
 criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order
 violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain
 information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated
 for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and
 post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug
 treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition,
 indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or
 other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and
 probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of
 abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months,
 history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and
 medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional
 variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before
 the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past
 domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims,
 weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical
 attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the
 defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases
 during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the
 victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with
 children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim
 and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the
 defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether
 the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
 trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
 pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
 violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
 victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
 income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
 Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
 prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
 charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
 charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
 arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
 indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
 disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.
description: The Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court
 (FDVC) in the borough of Brooklyn, New York, has been operating since
 June 1996. Its goals were to create an effective and coordinated
 response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together
 criminal justice and social service agencies, and to serve as a model
 for other communities across the state and nation. One of the key
 features of this court model was its emphasis on building partnerships
 between public and private sector community agencies to coordinate
 their work and achieve a common set of goals. The key agencies
 consisted of the court, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings
 County District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau and
 Counseling Services Unit, Safe Horizon's Brooklyn Felony Domestic
 Violence Unit, the New York City Department of Probation, New York
 Forensics, Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence, and Treatment
 Alternatives to Street Crime. This study evaluated the implementation
 and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence
 Court. The study examined questions about how the model of FDVC had
 changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of
this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism.
description: In order to evaluate the implementation and
 effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court, the
 researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed
 data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and
 outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to
 early 1996, before the FDVC was established and adjudicated by various
 parts of the state Supreme Court, were studied. These pre-FDVC cases
 provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with
 the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order
 violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated
 the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went
 into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated
 by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model
 was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the
 pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment
 charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt
 charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were
 cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the Supreme
 Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third,
 because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order
 violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of
 cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the
 Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases
 adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was
 selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order
 violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would
 not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so
 would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The
 inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the
 protection order violation cases were different from the general
 population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by
 the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only"
 because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the
 law under which felony protection order violations were charged. The
 population of the sampled cases was identified by compiling four
 sources. First, cases were selected from the District Attorney's
 Office Management Information System, which catalogued cases
 identified as felony domestic violence in the Early Case Assessment
 Bureau from 1994 through 1997. Early explorations of this database
 showed that it included a number of cases that were not in fact
 domestic violence. This raised the troubling possibility that reliance
 on this as the sole source could exclude many domestic violence cases,
 if cases were also mistakenly excluded from the database. Reasons for
 possible exclusion were unknown, but the researchers feared that any
 systematic exclusion factors would lead to biased sampling. Second,
 cases were identified from the District Attorney's Office Domestic
 Violence Bureau log book of pending felonies, a chronological record
 of felony cases recorded as victims came in to speak with a Domestic
 Violence Bureau Felony assistant district attorney about testifying
 before a grand jury. This source had the drawback of excluding cases
 in which the victim did not come in to prepare for the grand jury. In
 addition, upkeep of the book ceased partway through 1995. Third, cases
 were found in the District Attorney's Domestic Violence Bureau trial
 list of open felony cases that was updated two to three times per week
 and ran from early 1995 through the end of 1996. Lastly, cases were
 selected from the Office of Court Administration records of cases that
 were flagged as domestic violence at arrest, from 1995 through
 1997. However, identification of cases as domestic violence may have
been incomplete in the early period.
description: Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain
 information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated
 for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and
 post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug
 treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition,
 indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or
 other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and
 probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of
 abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months,
 history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and
 medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional
 variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before
 the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past
 domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims,
 weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical
 attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the
 defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases
 during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the
 victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with
 children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim
 and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the
 defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether
 the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
 trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
 pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
 violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
 victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
 income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
 Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
 prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
 charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
 charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
 arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
 indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
 disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: none
description: Convenience sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Recidivism Data
DS2: Top Charge Data
description: Domestic violence cases indicted on felony charges from
1995 to 1997 in Kings County, New York.