National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 (ICPSR 25924)

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.

Access Notes

  • One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (How to apply.)

    Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Dataset(s)

DS0:  Study-Level Files
DS1:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Batterer Intervention Program Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS2:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Court Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS3:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Law Enforcement Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS4:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Outreach Worker's Advocacy and Services Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS5:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Community Supervision Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS6:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, Victim Advocacy and Services Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS7:  Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS8:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Batterer Intervention Program Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS9:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Victims Served (Governmental) Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS10:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Victims Served (Non-Governmental) Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS11:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Law Enforcement Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS12:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Probation Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS13:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Prosecution Data (File 1 of 2)
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS14:  Washtenaw County, Michigan, Prosecution Data (File 2 of 2)
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS15:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Batterer Intervention Program Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS16:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Court Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS17:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Law Enforcement Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS18:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Probation Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS19:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Victim Services
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS20:  Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.

Study Description

Citation

Harrell, Adele, Jennifer Yahner, Lisa Newmark, and Christy Visher. Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004. ICPSR25924-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2011-04-29. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25924.v1

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (1999-WT-VX-K005)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   abuse, battered women, court cases, courts, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, law enforcement, victimization, victims, violence against women

Smallest Geographic Unit:   none

Geographic Coverage:   Dorchester, Lowell, Massachusetts, Michigan, Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

Time Period:  

  • 1997--2004

Date of Collection:  

  • 2003--2005

Unit of Observation:   month/year (Parts 1-6, 9, 10, and 12-19), individual (Part 7), month by year by program type (Part 8), month by year by law enforcement type (Part 11), incident (Part 20)

Universe:  

For Parts 1-6, all intimate partner violence cases in Dorchester, Massachusetts, reaching disposition from January 29, 2003, to November 11, 2004, and all intimate partner violence cases in Lowell, Massachusetts, reaching disposition from January 29, 2003, to August 27, 2004.

For Part 7, all intimate partner violence cases in Dorchester, Massashusetts, reaching disposition from January 29, 2003, to November 11, 2004, and all intimate partner violence cases in Lowell, Massachusetts, reaching disposition from January 29, 2003, to August 27, 2004. Additionally, all intimate partner violence cases in Washtenaw County, Michigan, reaching disposition from February 14, 2003, to April 4, 2003, and from November 21, 2003, to October 29, 2004, and all intimate partner violence cases in Ingham County, Michigan, reaching disposition from March 12, 2003, to March 12, 2004.

For Parts 8-14, all intimate partner violence cases in Washtenaw County, Michigan, reaching disposition from February 14, 2003, to April 4, 2003, and from November 21, 2003, to October 29, 2004, and all intimate partner violence cases in Ingham County, Michigan, reaching disposition from March 12, 2003, to March 12, 2004.

For Parts 15-20, offenders in the Consolidated Court Automated Program records in Milwaukee who had been sentenced to probation for intimate partner violence either from October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999, or from January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002.

Data Types:   administrative records data, survey data

Methodology

Study Purpose:   The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism; and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence.

Study Design:  

Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. A comparison site was selected for each Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) site: Lowell, Massachusetts, for Dorchester; and Ingham County, Michigan, for Washtenaw County. Intimate partner violence (IPV) cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response.

Data for this impact evaluation included: in-person interviews conducted two months after case disposition or sentencing and again nine months later, criminal history records from state and local law enforcement records on arrests before and after the sampled IPV case, and data on JOD victim services and probation supervision.

Interviews were completed with 1,034 victims (526 from JOD sites, 508 from comparison sites) 2 months after case disposition and with 914 victims 11 months after case disposition. Further, interviews were completed with 454 offenders (229 from JOD sites, 225 from comparison sites) 2 months after case disposition and with 366 offenders 11 months after case disposition.

The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD and before JOD. This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors' records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders.

The analyses compare two samples of offenders: (1) a JOD sample of 333 offenders who were found guilty of IPV between January 1, 2001, and May 21, 2002; and (2) a pre-JOD sample of 289 offenders who were found guilty of intimate partner violence between October 8, 1997, and December 21, 1999.

Sample:  

In Dorchester, Massachusetts (Parts 1-7), and Washtenaw County, Michigan (Parts 7-14), all intimate partner violence (IPV) cases reaching disposition during the sampling periods were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response.

In Milwaukee (Parts 15-20), eligible sample members were identified from Consolidated Court Automated Program (CCAP) records for consecutive cases in which the offender had been sentenced to probation for IPV. Consecutive cases that met the following criteria were included in the samples: (1) the incident involved IPV (not other types of domestic violence, such as violence between siblings or parents and children); (2) the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of case disposition; and (3) the case was disposed in a Milwaukee Domestic Violence Trial Court or the Domestic Violence Commissioner's Court. Some cases were eliminated from the sampling frame because the files could not be located, the offender had multiple cases (only the first case was sampled), or a review hearing was held before the official start of JOD. Only cases that had a review hearing scheduled no later than 122 days after sentencing were included.

Mode of Data Collection:   record abstracts, face-to-face interview, telephone interview

Data Source:

In Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, criminal history records were compiled from state and local law enforcement records on arrests before and after the sampled IPV case.

In Massachusetts, criminal history records were requested from the Massachusetts Criminal History Systems Board (CHSB).

In Michigan, criminal history records were requested from the Michigan State Police Department of Information Technology.

Milwaukee Data were gathered from the Consolidated Court Automated Program (CCAP), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and prosecutor and probation files.

Description of Variables:  

The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19).

The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. Baseline information includes trial information, sentencing information, demographic information for the offender, and violence which occurred during the incident. It also contains information related to the offender's experience with the police and the judicial system, any social services the offender received, and the offender's drug use. Demographic information for the victim was obtained along with violence which occurred during the incident. The victim also gave information relating to their experience with police and the judicial system and any social services they received.

For the follow-up survey, the offender gave information related to the results of the court case, any violence which may have occurred since the first interview, their satisfaction with the legal system, and any social services they received. At the follow-up survey the victim reported on any violence since the first interview and any social services they received. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Vicim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information.

The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed.

Response Rates:   For Massachusetts and Michigan (Parts 1-14), response rates for victims and offenders exceeded 80 percent in both the JOD and comparison samples. Of the sample members eligible for a followup interview, about 90 percent of the victims and 84 percent of the offenders completed the follow up survey. Response rates for Milwaukee (Part 15-20) were not available.

Presence of Common Scales:   None.

Extent of Processing:  ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Created variable labels and/or value labels.
  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Related Publications ?

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.