Showing 1 – 14 of 14 results.
Curated
Restricted
Access to Justice for Adolescents and Young Adults Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: Effectiveness and Accessibility of Civil Protection Orders, Washington, 2015-2024 (ICPSR 39464)
Released/updated on: 2025-12-02
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2015-01-01--2024-12-31
This mixed methods study examined several aspects of the use of civil protection orders (CPOs) by adolescents and young adults (aged 14 to 24 years) in one county in Washington. The first aim examined the effectiveness of CPOs among adolescents and young adults with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) on IPV recidivism rates of: 1) physical IPV; 2) psychological IPV; and 3) IPV-related property crimes. The second aim explored the knowledge, perceptions, and barriers to and facilitators of adolescent and young adult IPV victims' use of CPOs to best identify next steps in improving access and uptake among this population.
The collection includes a survival analysis dataset (DS1) containing data from county court records and CPO filings from IPV events, and documentation from IPV victim interviews (DS2). Demographic information includes victim, offender, and interview respondent ages, and interview respondent gender, race and ethnicity.
Curated
Partially restricted
Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2557)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Colorado, Denver, Delaware, Wilmington
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-12-31
This study was designed to explore whether civil protection orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court processes and service models, the researchers expected that these models would produce various results and that these variations might hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued, contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the petition respondent were also collected.
Curated
Restricted
Criminal Protective Orders as a Critical Strategy to Reduce Domestic Violence, Connecticut, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 36605)
Released/updated on: 2018-07-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Connecticut
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-12-31
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
Criminal protection orders are a critical tool to enhance the safety and protection of victims of domestic violence (DV). However, limited research exists to elucidate the process and outcomes of these orders. The purposes of the study were to (a) elucidate the process of criminal orders as a critical strategy to reduce domestic violence, (b) increase knowledge about how criminal orders influence the daily lives of women, and children, and how they are associated with offender behavior, (c) disseminate findings to practitioners, policy makers, and academics to inform practice, policy, and future research; and (d) document in detail the relevant accounts of the collaboration to inform best practices for collaborations that lead to better policy, practice, and research. The sample is comprised of 298 female victims of DV by a male, intimate partner. Participants were recruited from two geographical area courthouses in an urban and a suburban New England community.
Information was collected in personal interviews and augmented with information from court records. Separate data files contain information about housing events as well as substance use. Qualitative data collected as part of this study are not included in this fast track release.
The collection contains 3 SPSS data files, NIJ-PO-Full-Dataset.sav (n=298; 1299 variables), NIJ-PO-Housing-TLFB-Dataset.sav (n=577; 29 variables) and NIJ-PO-Substance-Use-Dataset.sav (n=8940; 24 variables) and 1 Excel data file Living-Together-Data.xlsx (n=298; 3 variables). The collection also contains transcripts of qualitative interviews with 294 of the 298 respondents, which are not included in this release.
Curated
Evaluating a Collaborative Intervention Between Health Care and Criminal Justice in Harris County, Texas, 2001-2002 (ICPSR 3542)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 2001-01-01--2002-12-31
This study sought to evaluate the Advocacy-Case Management Intervention designed to increase victim safety and the efficiency of the protection order process. The intervention was performed by registered nurses as part of a collaborative partnership between justice and health care agencies. A two-group experimental design using random assignments to control and experimental groups was used. The study subjects were women who qualified for a civil protection order against a sexual intimate. These women were contacted via telephone for initial interviews, as well as for three-, six-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up interviews. Variables were obtained from several instruments used to measure victim safety-seeking behaviors and levels of violence and harassment.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence in the United States, 2001-2009 (ICPSR 33723)
Released/updated on: 2015-06-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-07-01--2008-07-31, 2001-10-01--2007-01-31, 2008-01-01--2009-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-12-31
This study examines the implementation and effectiveness of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring technology to enforce court mandated "no contact" orders in domestic violence (DV) cases, particularly those involving intimate partner violence (IPV). The project has two components: First, a national web-based survey of agencies providing pretrial supervision examined patterns of GPS usage among electronic monitoring (EM) programs for DV cases. Second, a quasi-experimental design study of three sites across the U.S. - referred to as Midwest, West, and South - examined the impact of GPS technology on DV defendants' program violations and rearrests during the pre-adjudication period (referred to as the "short term"), and during a one-year follow-up period after case disposition (referred to as the "long term").
Curated
Restricted
Experience of Violence in the Lives of Homeless Persons: The Florida Four City Study, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20363)
Released/updated on: 2010-11-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Orlando, Florida, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-12-31
The primary goal of this study was to develop an understanding of the role of violence in the lives of homeless women and men. The objectives were to determine how many women and men have experienced some form of violence in their lives either as children or adults, the factors associated with experiences of violence, the consequences of violence, and the types of interactions with the justice system. The survey sample was comprised of about 200 face-to-face interviews with homeless women in each of four Florida cities (Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa). In all, 737 women were interviewed. In addition, 91 face-to-face interviews with homeless men were also conducted only in Orlando. For Part 1 (Female Interviews), the data include information related to the respondent's living conditions in the past month, as well as experiences with homelessness, childhood violence, adult violence, forced sexual situations, and stalking. Additional variables include basic demographic information, a self-report of criminal history, information related to how the respondent spent her days and evenings, and the physical environment surrounding the respondent during the day and evening. For Part 2 (Male Interviews), the data include much of the same information as was collected in Part 1. Information from Part 1 not included in Part 2 primarily includes questions pertaining to experience with forced sexual situations, and questions related to pregnancy and children.
Curated
Partially restricted
Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 3382)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--2000-12-31
This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, 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 state 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. 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.
Curated
Restricted
Impact of Proactive Enforcement of No-Contact Orders on Victim Safety and Repeat Victimization in Lexington County, South Carolina, 2005-2008 (ICPSR 25261)
Released/updated on: 2013-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 2005-11-01--2008-06-30
The study focused on domestic violence victims whose alleged batterers were free on bond with a no-contact order (NCO) as a condition of their release in Lexington County, South Carolina between 2005 and 2008. The project involved a prospective, randomized experimental study in which 466 NCO cases were randomly assigned to either the current level of NCO enforcement (the control condition, N=229) or to proactive enforcement (the treatment condition, N=237). An additional 51 interim control cases were enrolled in the study during a coverage gap between the two officers that implemented the treatment condition over the course of the study. The treatment condition involved the following intervention: (1) a special domestic violence investigator assigned by the jurisdiction's sheriff proactively "checked in" with the "treatment" group of victims to verify that they understood the NCO and to monitor compliance; (2) the investigator provided advice on mobilizing law enforcement and collecting evidence to help sanction the offender if the order was violated. Data were collected from official Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD), Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC), and Office of Diversion Programs (ODP) records (Dataset 1, Offender Data). Efforts were made to interview victims at six weeks (Dataset 2, Time 1 Victim Interview Data, N=141) and six months (Dataset 3, Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=100) after the gateway arrest. Dataset 4 (Combined Time 1/Time 2 Victim Interview Data, N=97) include overall measures for respondents who completed both the Time 1 and Time 2 interviews. The victim interviews include measures on background characteristics, life experiences, circumstances surrounding the "gateway incident" which resulted in the case being enrolled in the study, and subsequent victimization experiences and no-contact order compliance levels.
Curated
Restricted
Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Criminal Justice System in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon, 1999-2005 (ICPSR 20358)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-31
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Arizona
Time period: 1999-01-01--2005-12-31
The project goal was to collect data on approximately 100 Unified Family Court (UFC) cases at each of the three selected jurisdictions -- Maricopa County, Arizona, Deschutes County, Oregon, and Jackson County, Oregon -- that have developed systems to address the special needs of families with multiple court cases. The purpose of the study was to examine research questions related to: (1) dependency case processing and outcomes, (2) delinquency case processing and outcomes, (3) domestic relations/probate case processing and outcomes, and (4) criminal case processing and outcomes. The data used in this study were generated from a review of the court records of 602 families including 406 families served by the UFC as well as comparison groups of 196 non-UFC multi-case families. During the study's planning phase, an instrument was drafted for use in extracting this information. Data collectors were recruited from former UFC staff and current and former non-UFC court staff. All data collectors were trained by the principal investigator in the use of the data collection form. The vast majority of all data extraction required a manual review of paper files. Variables in this dataset are organized into the following categories: background variables, items from dependency/abuse and neglect filings, delinquency filings, domestic relations/probate filings, civil domestic violence/protection order filings, criminal domestic violence filings, criminal child abuse filings, other criminal filings, and variables from a summary across cases.
Curated
Restricted
The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A Rural and Urban Multiple Perspective Study of Protective Order Violation Consequences, Responses, and Costs, 2006-2008 (ICPSR 30341)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Kentucky
Time period: 2007-06-01--2008-04-30, 2006-06-01--2007-08-31
This project examined civil protective orders in Kentucky from multiple perspectives in order to examine rural and urban jurisdictional differences in the protective order process, protective order outcomes, and costs of protective orders, as well as potential avoided costs to society due to the protections that protective orders are supposed to provide. Although partner violence can be perpetrated by both men and women, the vast majority of serious partner violence and protective order use is for cases of male violence against female partners. Thus, this project focused on women victims of partner violence. The study was comprised of three substudies.
The first substudy examined rural and urban key informant perceptions along with court records and other secondary data to provide an in-depth picture of jurisdictional differences in the protective order process.
The second substudy provided a picture of women's self-reported experiences with violence and the protective order system and its outcomes. This substudy not only provided a description of those who obtain protective orders, but also provided a detailed look at the process of obtaining a protective order as well as the sacrifices and barriers that women experience in obtaining protective orders and trying to get them enforced. This substudy also provided detailed information about protective order effectiveness and enforcement outcomes.
The third substudy examined the social and personal costs of abuse and violence, the costs of protective orders, and the potential avoided costs due to the protection protective orders provide. These costs were provided for the sample of women interviewed and were also extrapolated from the sample to the population of victims who obtained protective orders issued in 2007 in Kentucky in order to expand the policy implications of the findings from this substudy.
The data file for Part 1 (Key Informant - Substudy 1) contains 188 cases and 502 variables. The data file for Part 2 (Interview data - Substudies 2 and 3) contains 213 cases and 14,644 variables.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Survey of the Court's Capacity to Provide Protection Orders to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Battered Women, 2003-2006 (ICPSR 33969)
Released/updated on: 2012-09-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2006-12-31
The primary goal of the research project was to collect national-level information on the provision of protection orders for non-English speaking applicants. There were six objectives: (1) To determine the extent of Limited English Proficient (LEP) women seeking protection orders on a national scale with documentation of languages represented and geographic distribution; (2) To assess current policies and procedures regarding LEP requests for protection orders; (3) To estimate the courts' current level of language services and assistance to LEP women seeking protection orders; (4) To identify and assess court collaborations with local community-based organizations; (5) To examine budget, staffing, and coordination issues that facilitate delivery of services to LEP clients; and (6) To develop national service and delivery models based on promising local practices. The multi-method study design included a national survey of courts, an intensive survey of a select group of courts and community-based organizations within their jurisdictions, and the assessment of selected sites that can serve as national models. The national survey, based on a systematic sample of counties stratified by population and state resulted in a nationally representative sample of courts. The overwhelming majority of courts were general jurisdiction courts that handled a variety of criminal, civil, and/or family matters. The national survey was followed by an intensive survey of a subset of courts, and local community-based organizations (CBOs) that served domestic violence victims. Courts selected for this phase had promising practices, such as language assistance plans in civil cases and the use of certified interpreters. The intensive survey included telephone interviews of court and CBO representatives and a fax survey for CBOs. Finally, three case studies were conducted to develop promising practices. The Part 1 (Phase I Data) data file contains 158 cases and 203 variables. The Part 2 (Phase II Quantitative Data) data file contains 81 cases and 81 variables. Part 3 (Phase II Qualitative Data) contains 123 interviews.
Curated
Partially restricted
Portland [Oregon] Domestic Violence Experiment, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3353)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Portland (Oregon)
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews, conducted approximately six months after the study case victimization occurred. Variables in Part 11 and Part 12 cover the victim's experience six months before the study case arrest and six months after the study case arrest. Demographic variables in both files include victim's and batterer's race and ethnicity, employment, and income, and relationship status between victim and batterer. Information on childhood experiences includes whether the victim and batterer felt emotionally cared for by parents, whether the victim and batterer witnessed violence between parents while growing up, and whether the victim and batterer were abused as children by a family member. Variables on the batterer's abusive behaviors include whether the batterer threatened to kill, swore at, pushed or grabbed, slapped, beat, or forced the victim to have sex. Information on the results of the abuse includes whether the abuse led to cuts or bruises, broken bones, burns, internal injury, or damage to eyes or ears. Information was also collected on whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the abuse events. Variables on victims' actions after the event include whether the victim saw a doctor, whether the victim talked to a minister, a family member, a friend, a mental health professional, or a district attorney, whether the victim tried to get an arrest warrant, went to a shelter to talk, and/or stayed at a shelter, whether the victim asked police to intervene, tried to get a restraining order, talked to an attorney, or undertook other actions, and whether the event led to the batterer's arrest. Variables on victim satisfaction with the police and the DVRU include whether police or the DVRU were able to calm things down, recommended going to the district attorney, informed the victim of her legal rights, recommended that the victim contact shelter or support groups, transported the victim to a hospital, and listened to the victim, whether police treated the victim with respect, and whether the victim would want police or the DVRU involved in the future if needed. Variables on the victim's emotional state include whether the victim was confident that she could keep herself safe, felt her family life was under control, and felt she was doing all she could to get help. Other variables include number of children the victim had and their ages, and whether the children had seen violence between the victim and batterer.
Curated
Restricted
Statewide Profile of Abuse of Older Women and the Criminal Justice Response in Rhode Island, 2002 (ICPSR 22740)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-18
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States
Time period: 1979-01-01--2007-12-31
This study examined the often overlooked and under reported issue of elder abuse. The research focused on female victims of domestic abuse over 50 years of age. The data were also compared to similar data on women under the age of 50. The data were collected in Rhode Island for several reasons, including the state's relatively broad definition of domestic violence and the large number of reports. Researchers examined every domestic violence report made to state and local law enforcement across Rhode Island in 2002 involving women victims 50 years of age and older. These reports include every incident, whether or not police ultimately arrested the alleged suspect, that meets the statutory definition of "domestic violence." The source of the report information was the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Reporting Form (DV/SA). Data were also collected about the past criminal activity of the suspects and any charges made after the study incident(s) occurred. The data were found in the Rhode Island Courts' central repository called CourtConnect. The purpose of the study was to better understand the characteristics of the victims and their abusers, the circumstances of the incidences of abuse, and the police response to the reports of domestic abuse. Data collected consisted of independent variables which are organized into conceptual clusters including those relating to victim characteristics, abuser characteristics, the nature of the incident, and the state's response to the incident. The victim characteristics included demographics and abuse history, if any. Abuser characteristics included demographics and criminal history. Incident characteristics described the abuse incidence in detail. Criminal justice response variables outlined how police and courts responded and reacted to the abuse. There were two dependent outcome variables in this study consisting of re-victimization and re-abuse. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate relationships, and multiple logistic regression. This study primarily focused on the response of the criminal justice system to elder abuse, the effect of age of victim, and re-abuse and re-victimization in order to gain a clearer picture into the realities of domestic abuse of elderly women.
Curated
Restricted
Supervised and Unsupervised Parental Access in Domestic Violence Cases in New York City, New York, 2002-2005 (ICPSR 4583)
Released/updated on: 2009-02-27
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2002-01-01--2005-12-31
The purposes of this study were (1) to examine factors associated with New York City Family Courts' visitation decisions and conformity to the provisions of the Model Code of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges when there was a history of abuse of the mother by the father, (2) to compare the different visitation conditions in regard to reabuse -- both psychological and physical, and (3) to examine children's psychological well-being as measured by maternal report on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), given their exposure to abuse.
Two hundred forty-two participants were recruited from the Family Courts and supervised visitation centers in the five counties in New York City. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. There were two interviews with the mother, with an average interval of six months between interviews. Baseline interviews were conducted in person, at the court, or visitation center from 2002 to 2004. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 168 of the participants from 2003 to 2005 and were conducted over the phone, except on the rare occasions when a participant requested an in-person interview.
Information in the the baseline interview included demographic information on the participant as well as on the father of the child(ren), information on the level of physical violence and the children's exposure, how often particular acts of violence took place, threats and coercion, an injury index, information regarding court orders, information regarding custody petitions, information regarding visitation orders, and visitation experience. The follow-up interview asked about abuse since the previous interview and included updates, changes, and modifications to the information provided in the baseline interview.