Impact of Legal Advocacy on Intimate Partner Homicide in the United States, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 25621)
Principal Investigator(s): Dugan, Laura, University of Maryland. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
This study examined the impacts of jurisdictions’ domestic violence policies on violent behavior of family members and intimate partners, on the likelihood that the police discovered an incident, and on the likelihood that the police made an arrest. The research combined two datasets. Part 1 contains information on police, prosecution policies, and local victim services. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. Data from completed surveys covered 48 cities from 1976 to 1996. Part 2 contains data on domestic violence laws. Data on state statutes from 1976 to 1997 that related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
These data are freely available.
Dugan, Laura. Impact of Legal Advocacy on Intimate Partner Homicide in the United States, 1976-1997. ICPSR25621-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-07-10. doi:10.3886/ICPSR25621.v1
Persistent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25621.v1
This survey was funded by:
- United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (1997-WT-VX-0004)
Scope of Study
Smallest Geographic Unit: city
Geographic Coverage: Albuquerque, Arizona, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, California, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Colorado, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, District of Columbia, El Paso, Florida, Fort Worth, Fresno, Georgia, Hawaii, Honolulu, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Memphis, Miami, Michigan, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Missouri, Nashville, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Orleans, New York (state), Oakland, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, St Louis, Tennessee, Texas, Toledo, Tucson, Tulsa, United States, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Washington, Wisconsin
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation: Part 1: Local police agency by year. Part 2: State by year.
Universe: Part 1: All local police and prosecution policies, and victim services in 48 cities implemented between 1976-1996. Part 2: All state statutes related to protection orders in 50 states and the District of Columbia in place between 1976-1997.
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The study also utilized data from the state level National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for the years January 1992 and June 1998. These state level data are not available as part of this data collection.
Study Purpose: The goal of this research was to understand the influence of jurisdictions? domestic violence policy on violent behavior of family member and intimate partner. There were also two secondary objectives: (1) to test the relationship between policy and the likelihood that the police discover an incident, and (2) to examine how policy relates to the likelihood that the police make an arrest.
Study Design: This study combined data from two parts. For both parts, data were retrieved from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Reports, from the Bureau of Census, or were collected by the researchers. Part 1 contains data on local policy. There were 1,050 cases, one for each jurisdiction for each year. Informants within the local agencies of the 50 largest cities in the United States were contacted and asked to complete a survey inventorying policies and activities by type and year of implementation. The crux of this data collection strategy was to minimize measurement error by identifying the person(s) best positioned in the agency to answer the questions, and by phrasing the questions in standardized format, typically calling for a simple ?yes/no? response. Part 2 contains data on state statutes. A total of 1,122 cases, one for each state by year, were included. Longitudinal data on state statutes related to protection orders were collected by a legal expert for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Sample: For Part 1 (Local Policy Data), information on local policy and Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits (AFDC) was only available for 48 of the largest 50 cities in the United States from 1976 to 1996. Specifically, completed surveys were received with no missing data on prosecutor policies for all 50 cities, police policies for all but New York, NY, and Charlotte, NC, and domestic violence services for all but New York, NY. AFDC benefit levels were adjusted to 1983 dollars using the consumer price index. For Part 2 (State Statutes Data), information on state statutes was available for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the years 1976-1997.
Mode of Data Collection: record abstracts, mail questionnaire
For Part 1 (Local Policy Data), data were collected by the researchers using surveys, and retrieved from the United States Bureau of Census, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Reports, and annual versions of the "green book" compiled by the House Ways and Means Committee (1996). For Part 2 (State Statutes Data), legal experts collected data on state statutes for all 50 states.
Description of Variables: For Part 1 (Local Policy Data), variables on local resources include the number of hotlines in a city, a police index of the characteristics of local police department, a prosecution index of prosecution characteristics that provide support to victims of domestic violence, and the number of Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits (AFDC) adjusted to 1983 dollars. For Part 2 (State Statutes Data), policy variables include five statute provisions and a discretion index which describes the available types of sanction.
Response Rates: Part 1 (Local Policy Data): Completed surveys were received with no missing data on prosecutor policies for all 50 cities in the United States, police policies for all but New York, NY, and Charlotte, NC, and domestic violence services for all but New York, NY. Part 2 (State Statutes Data): Not applicable.
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:
- Standardized missing values.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2009-07-10
Use any of the notification links to add this study to your RSS feed; you will then receive notification if the study is substantively updated.
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.