DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03319
title: Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000
title: Archival Version

description: This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the
justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted
to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation
was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing
a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer
dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions
where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a
plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and
(4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed
to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to
increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without
victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes,
researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and
resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred
between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett,
Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha,
Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence
cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted
in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the
four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under
the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1
include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was
sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the
counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal
history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between
the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2
include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution,
defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the
victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts
testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent
psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables
for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant,
relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes,
whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there
was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the
defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the
victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the
defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic
surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other
general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between
victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be
arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs,
or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away
from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court
system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense
attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with
the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the
defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the
victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables
on the victim include race, income, and level of education.
description: During the late 1980s and 1990s, the law
 enforcement response to domestic violence changed substantially. Legal
 impediments to police officers' making warrantless arrests for
 misdemeanors they did not witness were removed. The old system was
 replaced by presumptive arrest statutes (under which police were
 encouraged to make arrests) or statutes making arrest mandatory when
 probable cause existed. Many victim advocates supported these changes,
 arguing that taking the decision to arrest away from victims shielded
 them from possible retaliation by batterers. The changes in police
 practices regarding domestic incidents were paralleled by changes in
 the prosecution of these cases. Many jurisdictions changed their
 prosecution policies to (1) assure that all legally sufficient
 domestic cases would be prosecuted whether or not victims were fully
 cooperative, (2) drop the requirement that victims sign a complaint,
 and (3) forbid victims from dropping charges once filed. Other
 jurisdictions facilitated the process of obtaining restraining orders,
 established special domestic violence courts staffed with personnel
 specially trained in handling the complications of domestic cases, or
 established better coordination among police, prosecution, judicial,
 and probation agencies. Some prosecutors adopted a policy that
 paralleled mandatory arrest policies of the police. So-called
 "no-drop" or "evidence-based" prosecution was pioneered in places like
 Duluth and San Diego as a response to the high dismissal rate of
 domestic violence cases. Until that time, it had been the practice of
 most prosecutors and judges to dismiss domestic cases in which the
 victim was unwilling to come to court or to testify against the
 defendant. Since many victims failed to cooperate for a variety of
 reasons, domestic violence cases had dismissal rates many times higher
 than other crimes. This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
 policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice
 system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to
 determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was
 feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a
 no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals,
 (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop
 was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases
 in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4)
 prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
 defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy.
description: Researchers identified sites where the Office of
 Justice Programs (OJP) had awarded funds for no-drop prosecution
 (under the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) grant program) to
 encourage arrest policies. From the handful of grantees who had been
 awarded funds to implement no-drop, researchers chose Everett,
 Washington, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Omaha, Nebraska. These three
 sites seemed the most committed to implementing a strong no-drop
 policy. Researchers also added San Diego in order to examine the
 effects of two state laws favorable to prosecutors. These statutes
 were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and
 thereby increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials
 without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of the statutes,
 researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
 violence cases (with disposition occurring between 1996 and 2000)
 resulting in no trial (Part 1) and cases (with disposition occurring
 between 1996 and 1999) which resulted in a trial (Part 2). Even though
 San Diego had not applied for funds under the arrest policies grant
 program, researchers believed it was important to include it. San
 Diego was not only the first place to try no-drop, but it was also
 widely considered to have been the most successful at implementing the
 policy. In the remaining three sites, Everett (Part 3), Klamath Falls
 (Part 4), and Omaha (Part 5), researchers collected data on all
 domestic violence cases (with disposition occurring between 1996 and
 1999) resulting in a trial. Researchers had hoped to gather samples
 of domestic violence case files from before and after the
 implementation of the no-drop policy. This would have enabled them
 to determine how these policies affected conviction rates, sentences,
 trial rates, and trial verdicts. However, researchers were only able
 to obtain pre- and post-no-drop data in Everett (Part 5). Researchers
 also conducted telephone interviews with domestic violence victims
 from the four sites who had a domestic violence case resolved under
 the no-drop policy (Part 6). The survey asked victims about (1) what
 they believed should have been done with the case (from dropping
 charges to sentencing batterers to jail terms), (2) their willingness
 to cooperate with criminal justice officials, (3) their contact with
 victim advocates, (4) their belief that their views were heard and
 considered by criminal justice officials, (5) their satisfaction with
 officials (police, prosecutor, and judge) and with the case outcome,
 (6) their beliefs about whether the criminal justice outcome had
 increased or decreased their safety, and (7) the level of violence
 experienced after the case was resolved in court. Extensive efforts
 were made to reach victims. First, researchers attempted to make
 contact using the phone number provided by the prosecutor's office. If
 the number was disconnected or the victim no longer lived at that
 address, an interviewer called a telephone directory/information to
 obtain the new number listed for the victim. To encourage victim
 participation, victims were monetarily compensated. For victims who
 refused to participate, interviewers tried to alleviate any concerns
 about the interview and made assurances that confidentiality would be
maintained.
description: Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender,
 court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail,
 or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batter, drug, or
 anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges,
 and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also
 included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome,
 witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police,
 whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the
 weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and
 whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling
 are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the
 victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top
 charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types
 of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if
 any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the
 prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the
 disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence
 included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse
 counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include
 relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted
 the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment
 for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the
 defendant to stay away from the victim, if the victim spoke to anyone
 in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim
 advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The
 victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the
 justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten,
 damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also
 included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income,
and level of education.
description: Response Rates: Parts 1-5: Not applicable. The response rate for
Part 6 was 18.4 percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used in Part 6.
description: Convenience sampling and random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: San Diego Non-Trial Case Data
DS2: San Diego Trial Case Data
DS3: Everett Case Data
DS4: Klamath Falls Case Data
DS5: Omaha Case Data
DS6: Victim Interview Data
description: Part 1: Domestic violence cases in San Diego, California,
with disposition dates between 1996-2000 resulting in no trial. Parts
2-5: Domestic violence cases in San Diego, California, Everett,
Washington, Kalmath Falls, Oregon, and Omaha, Nebraska, with
disposition dates between 1996 and 1999 resulting in trial. Part 6:
Domestic violence victims in San Diego, California, Everett,
Washington, Kalmath Falls, Oregon, and Omaha, Nebraska, whose cases
were resolved under a no-drop policy.