Item Details

Print View

Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994 [electronic resource]

Donald Rebovich, Bonney Adams, Martha Weist
Format
Computer Resource; Online
Published
Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000
Edition
2006-03-30
Series
ICPSR
ICPSR (Series)
Access Restriction
AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
Abstract
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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1
Contents
  • Prosecutors' Survey Data
  • Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data
  • Case File Data
  • Victim Interview Data
Description
Mode of access: Intranet.
Notes
Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
Series Statement
ICPSR 2556
ICPSR (Series) 2556
Other Forms
Also available as downloadable files.
Copyright Not EvaluatedCopyright Not Evaluated
Technical Details
  • Staff View

    LEADER 05684cmm a2200577la 4500
    001 ICPSR02556
    003 MiAaI
    006 m f a u
    007 cr mn mmmmuuuu
    008 160211s2000 miu f a eng d
    035
      
      
    a| (MiAaI)ICPSR02556
    040
      
      
    a| MiAaI c| MiAaI
    245
    0
    0
    a| Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994 h| [electronic resource] c| Donald Rebovich, Bonney Adams, Martha Weist
    250
      
      
    a| 2006-03-30
    260
      
      
    a| Ann Arbor, Mich. b| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] c| 2000
    490
      
      
    a| ICPSR v| 2556
    516
      
      
    a| Numeric
    538
      
      
    a| Mode of access: Intranet.
    500
      
      
    a| Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2016-02-11.
    536
      
      
    a| United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice c| 93-IJ-CX-0039
    506
      
      
    a| AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.
    530
      
      
    a| Also available as downloadable files.
    522
      
      
    a| California
    522
      
      
    a| Minnesota
    522
      
      
    a| United States
    522
      
      
    a| Washington
    520
    3
      
    a| 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.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1
    505
      
      
    t| Prosecutors' Survey Data
    505
      
      
    t| Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data
    505
      
      
    t| Case File Data
    505
      
      
    t| Victim Interview Data
    567
      
      
    a| 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.
    650
      
    7
    a| attorneys 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| battered women 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| case management 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| case processing 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| domestic violence 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| pretrial procedures 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| program evaluation 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| prosecution 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| victim services 2| icpsr
    650
      
    7
    a| victims 2| icpsr
    653
    0
      
    a| NACJD V. Courts
    653
    0
      
    a| ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System
    653
    0
      
    a| NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women
    700
    2
      
    a| Rebovich, Donald u| American Prosecutors Research Institute
    700
    2
      
    a| Adams, Bonney u| American Prosecutors Research Institute
    700
    2
      
    a| Weist, Martha u| American Prosecutors Research Institute
    710
    2
      
    a| Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
    830
      
    0
    a| ICPSR (Series) v| 2556
    856
    4
    0
    u| http://proxy.its.virginia.edu/login?url=http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02556.v1
    999
      
      
    w| WEB l| INTERNET m| UVA-LIB t| INTERNET
▾See more
▴See less

Availability

Access Online