Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Specialized Domestic Violence Units on Case Processing

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study involves an evaluation of an innovative approach to the handling of domestic violence (DV) cases in the city of Cleveland, Ohio that includes (1) a DV Project composed of specially trained police detectives, prosecutors and victim advocates for investigating and prosecuting domestic violence cases involving adult female victims who are married to, cohabitating with, or have a child with the defendant; and (2) a Dedicated Domestic Violence Docket that involves two Municipal Court judges hearing all of the domestic violence cases that are handled by the DV Project. We collected data on six months of domestic violence cases occurring in the latter half of 2008 (N = 1388), by linking records from the Cleveland Police Department, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Municipal Court. We found that very few victims in police districts lacking the DV Project follow up with a prosecutor to pursue the case further, indicting that specialized DV units in police departments can have a significant impact on the number of DV cases that move forward through the criminal justice system. DV Project cases were slightly less likely to result in charges issued by prosecutors (OR = .499) but more likely to result in dismissals (OR = 2.545) and referrals to DV treatment programs (χ2 = 3.88).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Estimates at the police district level were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census and the American Community Survey, 2007–2011, and were produced by the Northern Ohio Data & Information Service (NODIS), Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University.

  2. Although we would have liked to collect information to measure economic status, such as income, this was not available in the files.

  3. Domestic violence conviction χ2 (1, N = 235) = 0.26, p = .87; assault conviction χ2 (1, N = 235) = 3.377, p = .07; conviction for other offenses χ2 (1, N = 235) = 3.170, p = .08; prison sentence length t(72) = −0.507, p = .61; probation sentence length t(210) = 0.742, p = .46.

  4. Unfortunately we did not have information on whether defendants sentenced to attend batterer’s intervention actually successfully completed the program.

References

  • Auchter, B., & Backes, B. L. (2013). NIJ’s program of domestic violence research: Collaborative effects to build knowledge guided by safety for victims and accountability for perpetrators. Violence Against Women, 19, 713–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcok, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J., Hartman, J. L., & Lippen, V. L. (2010). Misdemeanor domestic violence cases in the courts: A detailed description of the cases. In V. Garcia & J. E. Clifford (Eds.), Female victims of crime: Reality reconsidered (pp. 259–278). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, L., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner: A victim perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 761–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, A. (1997). Violence in marriage: Until death do us part? In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 48–69). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, A. D. (2008). Courting domestic violence victims: A tale of two cities. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 671–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E. S., Buzawa, C. G., & Stark, E. (2012). Responding to domestic violence: The integration of criminal justice and human services. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E. S., Hotaling, G. T., Klein, A., & Byrne, J. (1999). Response to domestic violence in a pro-active court setting: Final report. Lowell: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, S. (2012). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, J., & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of studies with implications of research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C., O’Sullivan, C. S., Farole Jr., D. J., & Remple, R. (2008). A comparison of two prosecution policies in cases of intimate partner violence: Mandatory case filing versus following the victim’s lead. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 633–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. (1997). Prosecuting domestic violence cases with reluctant victims: Assessing two novel approaches in Milwaukee. Report to the National Institute of Justice.

  • Dawson, M., & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3, 187–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37, 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessments of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Final report for the National Institute of Justice, grant number 96-WT-NX-0008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 184752.

  • Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friday, P. C., Lord, V. B., Exum, M. L., & Hartman, J. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a specialized domestic violence police unit, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, V., & McManimon, P. (2011). Gendered justice: Intimate partner violence and the criminal justice system. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H., & Dawson, M. (2011). Violence against women in Canada: Research and policy perspectives. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A., & Belknap, J. (1999). Police responses to battering in a progressive pro-arrest jurisdiction. Justice Quarterly, 16, 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karan, A., Keilitz, S., & Denaro, S. (1999). Domestic violence courts: What are they and how should we manage them? Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labriola, M., Bradley, S., O’Sullivan, C. S., Rempel, M., & Moore, S. (2009). A national portrait of domestic violence courts. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen, J. L., Owens, J. G., Planty, M., Rand, M. R., & Truman, J. L. (2012). New methods for counting series victimizations. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K., & Kane, K. M. (2001). Specialized felony domestic violence courts: Lessons on implementation and impacts from the kings county experience. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orchowsky, S. J. (1999). Evaluation of a coordinated community response to domestic violence intervention: The Alexandria domestic violence intervention project. Final report. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. R. (2008). Reducing intimate partner violence: Moving beyond criminal justice interventions. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. L., & Maxwell, C. D. (2008). The challenge to respond effectively to violence against women in a global context. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32, 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, D. E. (2007). The current state of domestic violence courts in the United States, 2007. National Center for State Courts White Paper.

  • Sigler, R. T., Crowley, J. M., & Johnson, I. (1990). Judicial and prosecutorial endorsement of innovative techniques in the trial of domestic abuse cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, S. I. (1988). The fear of reprisal and the failure of victims to report a personal crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C. (2008). Editorial introduction to coordinated community response to intimate partner violence. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 489–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Baxter, C. (2005). Law enforcement response to domestic violence calls for service. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 99-C-008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice NCJ 215915.

  • Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2016). Criminal Victimization, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursel, J., & Hagyard, C. (2008). The Winnipeg family violence court. In J. Ursel, L. M. Tutty, & J. Lemaistre (Eds.), What’s law got to do with it? The law, specialized courts, and domestic violence in Canada (pp. 95–119). Toronto: Cormorant Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venture, L., & Davis, G. (2005). Domestic violence: Court case conviction and recidivism. Violence Against Women, 11, 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, M., Lauritsen, J. L., & Heimer, K. (2012). Intimate partner violence in U.S. metropolitan areas: The contextual influences of police and social services. Criminology, 50, 961–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Anthropology, & Sociology, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, RT 1724, Cleveland, OH, 44115-2214, USA

    Wendy C. Regoeczi & Dana J. Hubbard

Authors
  1. Wendy C. Regoeczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dana J. Hubbard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy C. Regoeczi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Regoeczi, W.C., Hubbard, D.J. The Impact of Specialized Domestic Violence Units on Case Processing. Am J Crim Just 43, 570–590 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9435-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9435-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation