Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 3382)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) in the borough of Brooklyn, New York, has been operating since June 1996. Its goals were to create an effective and coordinated response to felony domestic violence crimes by bringing together criminal justice and social service agencies, and to serve as a model for other communities across the state and nation. One of the key features of this court model was its emphasis on building partnerships between public and private sector community agencies to coordinate their work and achieve a common set of goals. The key agencies consisted of the court, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings County District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau and Counseling Services Unit, Safe Horizon's Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Unit, the New York City Department of Probation, New York Forensics, Safe Horizon's Alternatives to Violence, and Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime. This study evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court. The study examined questions about how the model of FDVC had changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism.

Study Design View help for Study Design

In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996, before the FDVC was established and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court, were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. The population of the sampled cases was identified by compiling four sources. First, cases were selected from the District Attorney's Office Management Information System, which catalogued cases identified as felony domestic violence in the Early Case Assessment Bureau from 1994 through 1997. Early explorations of this database showed that it included a number of cases that were not in fact domestic violence. This raised the troubling possibility that reliance on this as the sole source could exclude many domestic violence cases, if cases were also mistakenly excluded from the database. Reasons for possible exclusion were unknown, but the researchers feared that any systematic exclusion factors would lead to biased sampling. Second, cases were identified from the District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Bureau log book of pending felonies, a chronological record of felony cases recorded as victims came in to speak with a Domestic Violence Bureau Felony assistant district attorney about testifying before a grand jury. This source had the drawback of excluding cases in which the victim did not come in to prepare for the grand jury. In addition, upkeep of the book ceased partway through 1995. Third, cases were found in the District Attorney's Domestic Violence Bureau trial list of open felony cases that was updated two to three times per week and ran from early 1995 through the end of 1996. Lastly, cases were selected from the Office of Court Administration records of cases that were flagged as domestic violence at arrest, from 1995 through 1997. However, identification of cases as domestic violence may have been incomplete in the early period.

Sample View help for Sample

Convenience sampling.

Universe View help for Universe

Domestic violence cases indicted on felony charges from 1995 to 1997 in Kings County, New York.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

none

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2002-07-11

Version History View help for Version History

Hide