DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02556.v1
title: Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994
title: Version 1

description: The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of
 domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to
 promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of
 information. The project sought to identify and connect local
 attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on
 the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic
 violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a
 survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess
 prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1,
 Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low
 response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey
 (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those
 jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three
 sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution
 programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San
 Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then
 conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence
 cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female
 victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4,
 Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site
 evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they
 interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem,
 domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the
 domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The
 qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in
 the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors'
 Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and
 charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial,
 sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and
 jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic
 violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence
 prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and
 no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and
 collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence
 cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs,
 victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support
 programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data,
 deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained,
 weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim
 cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and
 restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview
 Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history,
 number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges
 against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution
 strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support
 from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and
 performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice
system.
description: The purpose of this project was to evaluate the
 level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States
 and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination
 of information. The project sought to identify and connect local
 attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on
 the most effective prosecution methods. The general objectives of the
 study were to: (1) assess the state of domestic violence prosecution
 programs, both formal and informal, throughout the United States, (2)
 identify the domestic violence prosecution needs of local prosecutors,
 (3) contrast the results of the national assessment with case study
 examinations of a sample of leading specialized programs for domestic
 violence prosecution, and (4) place the findings culled from local
 prosecutors against the backdrop of experiences of domestic violence
 victims whose cases have been processed through these modernized
programs.
description: In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution
 in the United States, the researchers mailed a self-administered
 national survey on domestic violence prosecution to a representative
 cross-section of local prosecutors' offices nationwide (Part 1,
 Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low
 response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey
 (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those
 jurisdictions. From these surveys, three sites with pioneering,
 specialized domestic violence prosecution programs were identified:
 Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco,
 California. Next, case file data were collected from a random sample
 of cases disposed from these three sites. Information was gathered on
 discovery and report, violation and charging, case processing,
 disposition and sentencing, and defendant and victim
 characteristics. Victim interviews were also conducted in King County
 and San Francisco. Victims were chosen from a random sample of
 disposed cases for which case file data were collected. Those
 respondents willing to participate in telephone interviews were asked
 questions about their demographic characteristics, experiences with
 the criminal justice system, victim safety issues, and level of
 interaction with criminal justice and other professionals. Victim
 interviews were not conducted at the Duluth site because of
 difficulties in locating potential respondents. In addition, the
 researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized
 programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the
 domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the
 impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and
 recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from
 these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this
collection.
description: Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors' Surveys, contain
 variables about case management, case screening and charging, pretrial
 release policies, post-charge diversion, trials, sentencing options,
 victim support programs, and office and jurisdiction
 demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic violence
 prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence prosecution, ways
 to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and no-drop policies,
 protection orders, types of evidence used, and collaboration with
 other organizations to prosecute domestic violence cases. In addition,
 Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs, victim noncompliance,
 substance abuse problems, victim support programs, and plea
 negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data, deal with
 reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained, weapons
 used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim
 cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and
 restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview
 Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history,
 number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges
 against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution
 strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support
 from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and
 performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice
system.
description: Response Rates: For the prosecutors' surveys, the response rates
 were 68 percent for Part 1 (large jurisdictions) and 48 percent for
 Part 2 (small jurisdictions). For the victim surveys, Part 4, the
 response rate was 82 percent in King County, Washington, and 38
percent in San Francisco, California.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Parts 1 and 2 used stratified random sampling and Parts 3
and 4 used random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Prosecutors' Survey Data
DS2: Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data
DS3: Case File Data
DS4: Victim Interview Data
description: Parts 1 and 2: All prosecutors in the United States. Part
 3: Domestic violence cases prosecuted in Duluth, Minnesota, King
 County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. Part 4: Victims of
 domestic violence in King County, Washington, and San Francisco,
California.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The
 PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be
 accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat
 Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is
provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.