predictors of recidivism domestic violence.pdf

Journal of Interpersonal Violence http://jiv.sagepub.com/ Court Compliance as a Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism for Domestic Violence Offenders Alana Kindness, Han Kim, Stephen Alder, Alison Edwards, Asha Parekh and Lenora M. Olson J Interpers Violence 2009 24: 1222 originally published online 3 September 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0886260508322197 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/24/7/1222 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Additional services and information for Journal of Interpersonal Violence can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/24/7/1222.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 3, 2008 Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on June 4, 2013 What is This? com at University of Bucharest on June 4. two or more warrants issued by the court for noncompliance.com Asha Parekh Salt Lake Area Safe at Home Coalition Lenora M. Law enforcement reports were the strongest predictor of recidivism. and two or more reports to law enforcement of new criminal activity involving the defendant. with an odds ratio of 7.1177/0886260508322197 http://jiv.sagepub.com hosted at http://online. risk assessment. These results illustrate the importance of monitoring multiple dimensions of defendant behavior while under court supervision and of communicating information on noncompliance with victims and advocates to assist in safety planning efforts. partner abuse 1222 Downloaded from jiv.7. Olson University of Utah This study evaluated pre.and postadjudication behavior of 220 male defendants convicted of a domestic violence-related offense using court records and police department data. Keywords: domestic violence. law enforcement.Article Court Compliance as a Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism for Domestic Violence Offenders Alana Kindness Han Kim Stephen Alder Alison Edwards University of Utah Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume 24 Number 7 July 2009 1222-1238 © 2009 SAGE Publications 10.0-19. 2013 . criminal justice.7 and confidence interval of 3. Our goal was the identification of possible predictors for continued criminal behavior that could pose a risk of further harm to victims.sagepub. Factors identified as significant predictors of defendant recidivism were having two or more court reports of noncompliance with domestic violence treatment.sagepub. Department of Pediatrics. and health care (Cattaneo & Goodman. Jacquee Williamson for assistance with data analysis.utah. e-mail: Lenora. Salt Lake City. These specialized courts use measures such as mandatory domestic violence treatment and regular review hearings to monitor defendants’ compliance with court orders while under supervision (Babcock & Steiner.5 million women experience intimate partner violence. 2013 . & Kane. Murphy et al. 2005-WE-AX0025 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women. 2005. The majority of work conducted by Ms. Diffily. 2000). The widespread impact and complex nature of intimate partner violence calls for an integrated response by practitioners and researchers in the fields of criminal justice. 1998). and society as a whole (Goodman. social services. 2003). 2001). Murphy. public health. They also gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the Honorable Judge John Baxter for allowing us access to court staff and court records. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1223 I ntimate partner violence is a serious public health problem in the United States. Olson. Department of Justice.S. Office of Justice Programs. Wendy Isom.Olson@hsc. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lenora M. Examples of this collaborative response can be seen in the establishment of specialized courts that take a “restorative” approach to addressing crime.Kindness et al. Stover. Musser. this has meant developing interventions that attempt to prevent further offenses by changing offender behavior through therapeutic interventions such as counseling and intensive supervision. More than 1. 2005). physical assault. Downloaded from jiv.S. 2006. The estimated cost of meeting the medical and mental health care needs of women who are victimized by an intimate partner is nearly US$4. This work was partially supported by The Salt Lake Area Safe at Home Coalition which is supported by Grant No.1 billion annually (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Department of Justice.sagepub. 1998). and Heather Keenan and Mark Ogea for their reviews of the manuscript and insightful feedback prior to submission. This alarming and pervasive form of violence also has far reaching effects including children who witness the abuse. UT 84108. and Scott Curry for their assistance with data collection. U. Kindness on this project occurred when she was employed by the Salt Lake City Police Department. rape. communities. other family members. 295 Chipeta Way. while also providing services such as shelter and safety planning to victims.. or stalking annually (Tjaden & Thoennes.edu. 1999. In the case of interpersonal violence. & Maton. disproportionately affecting women and resulting in significant morbidity and mortality.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Domestic violence courts often employ staff and judges who are well versed in the dynamics of domestic violence (Newmark. Rempel. University of Utah School of Medicine. These professionals are trained to respond to the complex nature of domestic violence–related crime and to collaborate closely with community Authors’ Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Jennifer Owen. the predictive power of these instruments is variable (Cattaneo & Goodman. the collaborative approach of domestic violence courts provides support and resources to victims and their families.sagepub. prosecution. Cattaneo & Goodman. Babcock & Steiner. Shipway. 2004. & Beech. Casey & Rottman.. & Alpert. Heckert & Gondolf. Hilton et al. 2005). 2003. Green. Murphy et al. Heckert & Gondolf. 2003. 2005. 1999. 2004). and victim advocates (Buzawa & Buzawa. Gover. few have demonstrated a significant impact of treatment alone on reducing recidivism (Babcock. MacDonald.. employment status. 2004.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Cormier. and counseling) indicate a possible cumulative effect of a multidimensional intervention associated with lower rates of postadjudication recidivism (Jordan. probation. 2005. Hilton & Harris. Downloaded from jiv. Kaukinen. Rempel. & Fagan. While many studies have examined the impact of domestic violence treatment on offender behavior (Casey & Rottman. Most assessments currently in use require the involvement of a trained evaluator and direct contact with the victim. 2005. In addition to being resource intensive and requiring offender or victim cooperation. 2005). Hilton. Garner. treatment providers. 2013 . 2003. Casey & Rottman. Robie. Research focusing on specialized court programs that combine strict court supervision measures with specialized domestic violence treatment has shown more promising results (Gover et al... 2005. & Lines. & Turinetti. or both to obtain detailed summaries of past or current behavior (Campbell. In addition. 2005). 2005). Maxwell. 2002. 2002). which can potentially increase their safety and security regardless of court outcomes (Buzawa & Buzawa. 2002. 2002. 2004. researchers and practitioners have developed assessment tools that evaluate the potential for reoffense which can enable victims and their advocates to develop appropriate safety plans as a secondary violence prevention measure (Heckert & Gondolf. and criminal history (Bowen. Buzawa & Buzawa. the perpetrator. Recognizing that no intervention has been shown to be completely effective in preventing domestic violence recidivism. Stover. Labriola. 2005. 2005. Other studies assessing predictors of further violence in domestic violence defendants have focused on behavioral and demographic factors such as alcohol use. Werner. 2005). Rice. Gilchrist. Research on the efficacy of domestic violence interventions is still fairly new. & Davis. Exploratory studies of defendant involvement in multiple justice system components (e.1224 Journal of Interpersonal Violence partners such as probation supervisors. Kingsnorth. and effectiveness varies by type of intervention and participant characteristics. 1998).g. The goal of this collaborative approach is to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice response in preventing further violence and victimization through improved monitoring of defendant behavior and swift intervention when recurrence of violent behavior is detected. 2004. 2003). 2003. Casey & Rottman. 2006. Harris. Hendricks. Prior criminal history is one critical factor that has been shown in several studies to be a predictor of recidivism for domestic violence defendants (Bowen et al. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1225 2006. Hilton & Harris. we found a need to identify additional predictors of reoffense that were not reliant on availability of criminal justice records from multiple jurisdictions or participants’ willingness to disclose personal background information. 2005.Kindness et al. Obtaining information on prior criminal behavior is particularly problematic if the defendant has not maintained a stable residence or has lived in multiple jurisdictions (Buzawa & Buzawa.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Victim advocates. and court personnel. 2004. probation supervisors. to the victim. Salt Lake City is the capital of Downloaded from jiv. This information will also be beneficial to researchers and practitioners in developing and evaluating offender management strategies aimed at reducing the risk of further harm to victims of domestic violence. 2003). We hypothesized that we would find a positive correlation between frequency of noncompliance reports during the period of time prior to adjudication and the frequency of reoffense reports during the year following adjudication. 2005).sagepub. records of compliance with court requirements while under supervision can be monitored and evaluated through a coordinated community response.. The specific objective of this study was to evaluate whether defendants’ behavior while under the supervision of a specialized domestic violence court-based intervention is predictive of further violent or harassing behavior. 2013 . 2002. 2004. Based on a review of the research cited above. While such information is often not available to victims. Ventura & Davis. Maxwell et al. 2003 and December 31. or to those who are assisting the victim in determining risk and safety planning. To our knowledge. but past offense information is often unavailable to law enforcement.. Gondolf. judges. advocates. Kyriacou et al. 2005. Method Study Population The 220 cases in this study involved male defendants charged with a misdemeanor level offense that was prosecuted in the specialized Domestic Violence Court program of the Salt Lake City Justice Court between the dates of January 1. 1999). this is one of the first published studies to examine compliance with court orders as a predictor of postadjudication recidivism.. and others working with defendants and victims can use the resulting information to help assess the potential for reoffense in domestic violence defendants. 2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Because the focus of our study was men who offended against their female intimate partner. Case selection was based on date of original charge. domestic violence treatment providers. or in-laws. Cases that did not result in conviction or had not been adjudicated by February 28. The following partners are involved in the operation of the specialized court program: court staff. with a population of approximately 180. law enforcement–based victim advocates. and jail time. 2% Black or African American. prosecution-based victim/witness coordinators. with a median age of 32 years. Adjudication is defined as the closure of a case. and nature of the relationship between defendant and victim (intimate partner cohabitating.sagepub. Indications of noncompliance including lack of participation in treatment or nonappearance for review hearings can result in court sanctions issued against the defendant. gender of defendant (male) and victim (female). This study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. We did not gather race or ethnicity information on individual subjects as this data was not consistently available from Salt Lake City Police Department Records. 4% Asian. or separated).1226 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Utah. the Domestic Violence Court program processed all charges filed at the infraction or misdemeanor B or C level in the Salt Lake City Justice Court in which the relationship between the defendant and victim qualified as “cohabitant” under the Utah State Code definition.000 and a racial distribution of 79% White. we excluded cases involving violence between roommates. Measures Data were collected from Salt Lake City Justice Court records by trained court staff and from Salt Lake City Police Department records by trained Downloaded from jiv. Domestic violence defendants who are found guilty by plea or trial are placed on probation for a period of 12 months and required to complete a treatment program with a certified domestic violence treatment provider. Age of defendants ranged from 18 to 89 years old. warrants issued for the defendant’s arrest. with 19% of Hispanic or Latino origin. 2013 . which currently are charged as domestic violence offenses under state code. and 1% American Indian or Native Alaskan. 2006 were excluded from the sample. blood relatives. married. and probation supervision agents. after which point the court has no further authority over the defendant. Sanctions include extension of the probation period. During the study period. Defendants are required to return to court periodically for review hearings at which their compliance with court orders is assessed. Date of adjudication was defined as the date the case was disposed of by the judge and no longer subject to further action of the court. The outcome variable of recidivism was defined as report to law enforcement of defendant involvement in criminal or harassing behavior (excluding minor traffic offenses) during a 1-year period following adjudication. AK) reviewed the abstracted data. 2013 . Statistical Analysis Case characteristics of the sample were compared between recidivismbased groups using Fisher’s Exact Test and logistic regression. only one confounder was included. Three separate measures of noncompliance with court mandates prior to adjudication were used to define the predictor variable. date of sentencing. and one or more new offenses reported to the Salt Lake City Police Department in which the defendant was listed as subject or suspect. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1227 police department staff.sagepub. date. Conviction was defined as determination of guilt based on the defendant’s plea or trial outcome. date of adjudication (case closure). These variables were considered as potential confounders in further multivariable logistic models. See the appendix for a list of offenses included in the reports. These measures included the following: one or more failures to comply with domestic violence counseling (as reported to the court by treatment providers). and location of new offenses within 1 year following adjudication within Salt Lake City Police Department’s jurisdiction.com at University of Bucharest on June 4.and postsentencing. Two of the study’s co-authors (LMO. Information on recidivism was gathered from Salt Lake City Police records and included any report (domestic violence or not domestic violence related) filed during the specified time frame in which the defendant was listed as a suspect or subject responsible for the threatening or harassing behavior.Kindness et al. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of recidivating for those who exhibited any preadjudication noncompliance compared to Downloaded from jiv. and time. Characteristics found to be significantly different between the two groups were tested for associations with any preadjudication noncompliance. The defendant’s first domestic violence–related charge in Salt Lake City Justice Court during the specified time frame was labeled as the original offense (or index case) regardless of whether the subject had prior cases that pre-dated the study period. dates of new offenses pre. one or more warrants issued by the court for failure to comply with court orders or conditions of probation. Other information abstracted included date of case filing. regardless of whether the report resulted in formal charges. to control for correlated covariates. 1228 Journal of Interpersonal Violence the odds of recidivism in those who did not. Those defendants that did recidivate (18%. Downloaded from jiv.sagepub. After adjusting for the number of hearings.1. 2013 . The measures of preadjudication noncompliance found to be significantly associated with recidivism were grouped by frequency of noncompliant events and regressed to determine whether increased incidence of noncompliance was associated with increased likelihood of recidivism. Table 2 shows the association between the predictor variable of having at least one indicator of any of the three types of preadjudication noncompliance and the outcome variable of recidivism. n = 40) spent more than the standard 12 months ordered under court supervision (p = . the odds of recidivating for defendants who exhibited any measure of noncompliance prior to adjudication was four times the odds of recidivating for defendants who exhibited no indicators of preadjudication noncompliance (aOR = 4.2-14.7). Defendants who recidivated were also more likely to have had more than one report of treatment noncompliance (p = .014).03). 84% nonrecidivating).044) and had more review hearings scheduled (p = . the majority (82%. 95% CI = 1. Defendants who had two or more incidents of treatment noncompliance and who had two or more warrants issued by the court while on probation were not more likely to recidivate as those who had no incidents of treatment noncompliance or warrants issued during that time.2. we found that the odds of recidivism for defendants who had two or more incidents of law enforcement preadjudication noncompliance were over seven times the odds of recidivism for defendants who had none (95% CI = 3. when controlling for the number of hearings. Results Table 1 illustrates the distribution of case characteristics by recidivism status. n = 180) did not recidivate. more than one warrant issued (p = .6).012) compared to those who did not recidivate. and more than one law enforcement offense (p < . The majority of cases in each group were sentenced between 1 and 6 months from the date of report for the offense for which they were charged (78% recidivating. We did not find any significant differences in age of the defendants or months from index case to sentencing between the two groups. Among a total of 220 cases. when each of the three separate measures of preadjudication noncompliance was stratified according to number of noncompliant incidents recorded. As shown in Table 3. Data were managed in Excel and analyzed using SAS 9.0-19.0001) prior to adjudication than those who did not recidivate.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. 5 51 29 33 24 21 22 5 84 67 10 14 38 94 48 13 35 98 25 9 28.1 52.0 5.3 11.2 19.3 16. 2013 .1 1.4 (continued) Downloaded from jiv.5 20.5 12.5 22.0 7.5 10.0 37.5 136 30 9 2 3 75.2 26.5 12.5 10.2 5.9 5.com at University of Bucharest on June 4.5 7.7 5.5 12. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1229 Table 1 Case Characteristics (N = 220) Recidivating (n = 40) n Variable Age of defendant (years) 25 and Under 9 26-30 3 31-35 8 36-40 9 41-45 6 Over 45 5 Months from index case to sentencing 0 3 1-3 22 4-6 9 7-9 5 10 or more 1 Months from sentencing to adjudication* Less than 12 9 12 13 More than 12 18 Number of review hearings* 0 2 1-3 4 4-6 16 7-9 15 10 or More 3 Measures of preadjudication noncompliance Treatment noncompliance* (Reported by treatment providers to Salt Lake City Justice Court) 0 25 1 5 2 5 3 4 4 or more 1 Number of warrants issued* (Reported by Salt Lake City Justice Court) 0 13 1 12 2 8 3 3 4 or more 4 % Nonrecidivating (n = 180) n % 22.0 40.9 8.1 4.0 10.6 16.6 7.7 32.5 15.5 13.0 62.0 2.5 45.7 23.8 21.0 1.4 54.0 22.1 18.0 20.0 102 43 16 11 8 56.5 30.8 46.7 7.0 12.7 37.3 13.5 32.2 2.5 7.6 12.5 55.Kindness et al.0 22.5 7.9 6.5 2.sagepub. 6 1.8-4.4 Table 3 Logistic Regression Predicting Postadjudication Recidivism by Degree of Preadjudication Noncompliance (n = 220) Variable Treatment noncompliance 0 1 2 or more Number of warrants 0 1 2 or more Law enforcement offenses preadjudication 0 1 2 or more OR 95% CI 1.7 Ref (0.com at University of Bucharest on June 4.8 2.0 0.0 2. % Nonrecidivating (n = 180) N % 37 3 92.0 12.1 7.6).3-2.9 2.0 1.7 10.9 21.5 35.5 15.5 7.9-8.8) (0.2-14.2 95%.3) Ref (0.0 9.7-6.3) (0.0 5.7 1.7) Downloaded from jiv.0 97 39 18 9 17 53.0) Ref (0.9-7.0-19.5 127 53 70. 2013 .0 20.sagepub.05.6) (3. CI = (1.6 29.4 *Significant association with outcome variable of recidivism at p < . Table 2 Adjusted Odds of Recidivism for Cases Showing Any Form of Preadjudication Noncompliance (n = 220) Recidivating (n = 40) n Preadjudication Noncompliance = Yes Preadjudication Noncompliance = No Note: aOR = 4.1230 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Table 1 (continued) Recidivating (n = 40) n Law enforcement offenses preadjudication* (Reported by Salt Lake City Police Department) 0 1 2 3 4 or more % Nonrecidivating (n = 180) n % 7 6 8 5 14 17. 1999). Such communication could increase victim safety by supporting an institutional Downloaded from jiv. Defendants who were reported to have had at least one incident of any form of preadjudication noncompliance were four times as likely to recidivate as those for whom no noncompliance was reported.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. and communication between police agencies.. 2006. we found that defendants who had two or more reports of law enforcement noncompliance preadjudication were the most likely to have reports of law enforcement involvement postadjudication. Kyriacou et al. and this likelihood increased with the number of law enforcement– related noncompliance incidents observed. we found a trend that was not statistically significant for defendants with two or more reports of noncompliance related to treatment and number of warrants to be more likely to recidivate. prosecuting agencies. 2002. Heckert & Gondolf. 2004. the potential for reoffense can be evaluated by observing defendant behavior during the course of their participation in the court system. Our results also illustrate the importance of considering multiple sources of information on defendants’ noncompliant behavior and of communicating this information to all agencies that have a role in maintaining offender accountability and increasing victim safety. our findings indicate that when a coordinated community response is employed in the form of a specialized domestic violence court program.. the court and court advocates could be alerted when a second warrant is issued or new police reports are filed indicating a defendant’s involvement in criminal or harassing behavior. Hilton et al. 2005. especially in the area of law enforcement noncompliance and including these factors in the development of risk assessments for defendants under supervision. 2004. This method of evaluation requires thorough tracking of defendants’ behavior. While prior studies assessing predictors of further violence in domestic violence offenders have focused on either demographic factors or past offender behavior outside of the court setting (Bowen et al. Second. and the court. Kingsnorth. These reports can then be considered in determining the necessary level of defendant supervision.. First. For instance.Kindness et al. These findings indicate the potential value of documenting the frequency and type of noncompliance with court orders. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1231 Discussion Our study has three main findings regarding the value of monitoring preadjudication noncompliance as a predictor of risk for postadjudication recidivism in domestic violence defendants. defendants who were reported to have had at least one incident of any form of preadjudication noncompliance were more likely to recidivate than those for whom no noncompliance was reported. 2013 . Finally. Kaukinen.sagepub. One possible interpretation of this finding that merits continued study is that additional incidents of noncompliance were prevented by sanctions imposed by the court in response to the defendant’s initial incident of noncompliant behavior. the parameters for types of offenses included in our law enforcement recidivism measure both pre. or may be unaware of new offenses that do not directly involve them. the explanation most strongly supported by prior criminal justice research is that the best predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal behavior (Bowen et al. 2005. While there are several possible interpretations of this observation. 2004).sagepub. We found that defendants with two or more reports of law enforcement noncompliance preadjudication were the most likely to have reports of law enforcement involvement postadjudication. and that this likelihood increased with the number of law enforcement–related noncompliance incidents observed. This is important because victims may not know how to notify the court of new offenses. Another limitation is that while we defined recidivism as any report of law enforcement involvement. Hanson & Wallace-Capretta. We were also limited in our data collection on noncompliance indicators and postadjudication recidivism to cases within one jurisdiction. there are limitations that must be considered. one warrant issued for noncompliance with court orders. and thus we may have conservatively estimated this effect on defendant behavior. which could account for this being the category of noncompliance with the highest incidence rates. may be fearful of doing so because of safety concerns.. Casey & Rottman. we know that law enforcement records tend to underestimate the actual occurrence of new criminal behavior. While the findings of our study are significant. While the majority of defendants were observed to have one report of treatment noncompliance.and postadjudication were fairly broad. Demographic factors unique to the population of Salt Lake City and systematic factors unique to the city’s Justice Court and Police Department may limit the applicability of these results to other populations. or one report of involvement with law enforcement. In addition. We also did not differentiate between those offenses included in the outcome variable that were domestic related and those which were not. or those which were violent offenses and those which were Downloaded from jiv.1232 Journal of Interpersonal Violence shift away from relying on victim participation to hold perpetrators accountable. 2005. Our analyses indicated that when observing noncompliance indicators separately.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. having one indicator of noncompliance alone did not indicate a trend or appear to be associated with recidivism. therefore open cases in other jurisdictions were not captured. 2013 . while having only one incident reported was not. having two or more reports of any single measure of noncompliance could indicate an increased likelihood of recidivism. It is possible that a larger sample size would show a statistically significant finding regarding noncompliance for number of warrants and treatment.sagepub. level of education. following this same population for longer than 1 year postadjudication would show whether predictions would hold true over a longer period of time. the behavioral factors identified in this study could be instrumental in strengthening the predictive power of existing risk assessments. although prior research indicates that involvement in any unlawful behavior is positively associated with perpetration of violence in domestic violence offenders. Conclusion Our study results illustrate the importance of establishing protocols for tracking treatment and probation compliance as well as conveying this information to victims and victim service providers. type of relationship with victim. the validity of the current findings could be extended by collecting additional demographics and background information through victim and offender surveys such as residential history. For instance. Downloaded from jiv. With further research and validation.. evidence of substance abuse. Follow-up interviews with victims to assess their feelings of safety to determine whether or not victims’ perceptions are associated with indicators of reoffense could yield valuable information. and employment status. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1233 nonviolent violations of the law. This could potentially yield more specific information regarding risk of violence to past or new victims. 2003. 2013 . 2003). The coordination of defendant tracking activities across multiple agencies and jurisdictions often requires additional personnel and resources that many courts do not have access to (Buzawa & Buzawa. The development and validation of new tools designed specifically to predict risk in offenders that have been sentenced and are under court supervision is important as victim advocates could use this information to help victims assess their level of danger when limited information is available on defendant background and history.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Gover et al. Further studies are justified to enhance our understanding of the interaction of various defendant and case characteristics in predicting further offenses. Finally. In addition. our sample size was limited by the number of defendants seen in the domestic violence court during our study period. but our study shows that coordination is critical to maintaining current information on risk factors for reoffense which can assist victims and their advocates in safety planning. This information could be used to assess whether the strength of our predictor variables are consistent between offenders with differing characteristics.Kindness et al. Gondolf. While this study does not measure the impact of intervention.sagepub.1234 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Meta-analysis of existing research on criminal justice and therapeutic interventions with domestic violence offenders indicates the need for further research on interaction between dynamic factors such as court sanctions while defendants are on probation and other independent variables such as defendant history in determining future recidivism (Bowen et al. 2005). 2005. 2013 . Stover. 2005. 2004. Appendix Salt Lake City Offense Codes and Descriptions Code Rape/sexual assault 1103-0 Robbery 1202-0 1205-0 Assault 1301-0 1302-0 1305-0 1312-0 1313-0 1316-1 1316-2 1316-3 1316-4 1316-15 1316-16 1399-0 1399-2 1399-4 Burglary 2203-0 2205-0 Larceny 2303-0 2305-0 2308-0 2399-0 Description Sexual assault—Rape strong-arm Robbery—Business Id weapon Robbery—Street Id weapon Assault aggravated—Family gun Assault aggravated—Family Id weapon Assault aggravated—Nonfamily Id weapon Assault aggravated—Police officer strong-arm Assault aggravated—Family strong-arm Assault—Intimid/written/electronic Assault—Intimid/threats/physical Assault—Intimid/threats/telephonic Assault—Intimidation/stalking Assault—Threat to bomb Assault—Threat to burn Assault—Threats free text Assault—Workplace violence/threats Assault—Violation of a stalking injunction Burglary—Force entry nonresident Burglary—No force entry nonresident Larceny—Shoplifting Larceny—From motor vehicle Larceny—From building Larceny—Free text (continued) Downloaded from jiv.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Cattaneo & Goodman. it does illustrate the association between preadjudication noncompliance and postadjudication indicators of recidivism and presents the groundwork for further analysis of the interaction between variables that may affect defendant behavior.. sagepub. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1235 Appendix (continued) Code Auto theft 2499-16 Fraud 2604-0 Damaged property 2902-0 2902-1 2999-0 Drugs 3512-0 3532-0 3542-0 3543-0 3550-0 3562-0 3599-1 3599-2 Sex offenses 3605-1 3699-0 Family offenses 3801-0 3802-0 3802-1 3806-0 3899-0 3899-8 3899-9 3899-10 3899-11 3899-12 Liquor violations 4104-0 Obstructing police 4801-1 4802-0 4803-0 4805-0 Flight/escape 4902-0 Weapons offenses 5203-0 Description Stolen vehicle—Breach of trust Fraud—Impersonation Damaged property—Private vehicle Damaged property—Private Damaged property—Free text Drug—Heroin possession Drug—Cocaine possession Drug—Synthetic narcotic possession Drug—Synthetic narcotic free text Drug—Narcotic equipment possession Drug—Marijuana possession Drug—Found narcotics equipment Drug—Found/surrendered Sex offense—Indecent exposure child Sex offense—Free text Family offense—Neglect of family Family offense—Cruelty to child/abuse Family offense—Abuse adult Family offense—Neglect child Family offense—Free text Family offense—File of protective order Family offense—Violation of protective order Family offense—Domestic criminal nature Family offense—Domestic violence noncriminal Family offense—Violation of no contact order Liquor—Possess illegally Obstructing police—Failure to stop for police Obstructing police—Criminal investigation Obstructing police—Making false report Obstructing police—Dissuade witness Escape—Warrants all in state Weapons—Explosive use (continued) Downloaded from jiv.Kindness et al. 2013 .com at University of Bucharest on June 4. CA: Sage. E.. 23. 35-56. Problem solving courts: Models and Trends.. 189-209. 10.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. and recidivism of battering: A program evaluation of Seattle’s coordinated community response to domestic violence.sagepub. E. Justice System Journal. (2005). 4. 653-672. Clinical Psychology Review. C. 1023-1053. Downloaded from jiv. B. (2003). challenges. E.. S. Thousand Oaks. Journal of Family Psychology. Bowen.. G. C. Babcock.. Legal and Criminological Psychology. & Robie. J. Buzawa. R. R. C... P. D. (2005). A. 46-59. Campbell. incarceration. (2004). The relationship between treatment. A. (1999). Assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases: History. 26. Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. (2005). J. E.1236 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Appendix (continued) Code Public peace 5309-0 5311-0 5399-12 5399-23 5399-28 Traffic offenses 5401-0 5499-5 5499-7 5499-12 5499-44 Invasion of privacy 5707-0 Public order crimes 7399-1 7399-3 7399-5 7399-11 7399-17 7399-26 7399-28 7399-40 Description Public peace—Harassing communication Public peace—Disorderly conduct Public peace—Disturbing the peace Public peace—Mentally ill subject Public peace—Suspicious activity Traffic—Hit and run Traffic—Moving traffic violation Traffic—Reportable accident Traffic—Impound/abandon vehicle Traffic—Alcohol in or about a vehicle Privacy—Trespass Public order—Ambulance sick calls Public order—Civil cases Public order—Found property Public order—Suicide attempt Public order—Business license Public order—Public intoxication Public order—Community action team Public order—Citizen assist References Babcock. & Rottman. & Beech. Green. & Buzawa. Casey. C. 2013 . Does batterers’ treatment work? A metaanalytic review of domestic violence treatment. and opportunities. C. J. Gilchrist. & Steiner. M. An examination of the impact of communitybased rehabilitation on the offending behaviour of male domestic violence offenders and the characteristics associated with recidivism. Criminology and Public Policy. C. 13. Report Submitted to the Center for Court Innovation and the National Institute of Justice. (1999). C.. A. Shipway. 66. MacDonald. Specialized felony domestic violence courts: Lessons on implementation and impacts from the Kings County experience. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. Hanson.. Z. Hendricks. U. Domestic violence research: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. C. (2004). (2002). Psychology. G. Kyriacou. W. Rempel. Downloaded from jiv. 2013 . 51-80. Status compatibility.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. 24. Heckert. L. H. 1412-1434. 2. (2002). T. et al. J. S.. K. / Court Compliance as Predictor of Postadjudication Recidivism 1237 Cattaneo. (2006). M. 889-903. 21. 6. & Maton. DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States.. 20. E. C. R.Kindness et al. (2004).sagepub. and emotional abuse in intimate relationships.. Murphy. 3.. & Harris.. Kaukinen. 13.. T. Rempel.. Gondolf.. Trauma. and theory.S.. (2005). 10. & Wallace-Capretta. 917-935. D. (2005). P. Psychological Assessment. 16. 9. The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: Research. M. G. T. Harris. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 263-284. & Davis. Werner.. Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: Results from a randomized trial at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court. Z. Violence. Crime & Law. M. Predictors of criminal recidivism among male batterers. & Kane. The relationship between intimate partner violence and other forms of family and societal violence. Goodman. N. P. Stone. Criminology and Public Policy. K. Risk factors for injury to women from domestic violence. Predicting wife assault: A critical review and implications for policy and practice. Rice.. Taliaferro. Hilton. J. Garner. 12. Labriola.. Journal of Marriage and Family. 448-454. Diffily. E. K. 109-132. 703-716. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Cormier.. & Goodman. J. A. (2004). A. & Abuse. G. Predicting levels of abuse and reassault among batterer program participants (Grant No. Jordan. GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E. A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario domestic assault risk assessment... D. Musser.. 141-175. E. & Gondolf. 19. C. physical violence. J. 3-23. Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Department of Justice. Coordinated community intervention for domestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism.. B. L. 605-631. Violence. (2006). A. L. L. C. S. 413-427.. L. (1998). M. Gover. R. DC: National Institute of Justice. A. E. Hilton. & Abuse. Newmark. policy. & Turinetti. 6. Trauma. Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examination of the interface. Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. (2005). Maxwell. & Lines. (2005). M. W. Violence Against Women. Kingsnorth. Linden. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2001). Criminology and Public Policy. Washington. (2003).. M.. & Alpert. Washington. J. (2004). 98-WT-VX-0014). 452-471... R. T. Atlanta. Stover. C.. G. N. Intimate partner violence: Predictors of recidivism in a sample of arrestees. Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. (2004). Journal of Family Violence. 267-275. C. S. D. I. (2006). A. (2003). Recidivism among spousal abusers: Predictions and program evaluation. P. K... New England Journal of Medicine. D. Tubb. N. K.. H. C. J. & Fagan. R. 1892-1898. 25. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Anglin. B. She has 10 years of experience in the domestic violence field. particularly malaria and HIV/AIDS. Seattle. L. (2005). A. nature. department of family and preventive medicine. University of Utah in Salt Lake City. She has 10 years of experience as an advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and as a trainer on criminal justice response to violent crime. MStat. is currently the executive director of the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault. as well as global health issues. Department of Justice. Alana Kindness. 2007.htm Ventura. G. Alison Edwards. is an epidemiologist and assistant professor in the Public Health Program. from www. 255-277.. is an associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah and codirector at the Intermountain Injury Control Research Center at the University of Utah. PhD. N. He received his doctorate in epidemiology at the University of Washington. Previously she was the program coordinator for the Victim Resource Center of the Salt Lake City Police Department.sagepub. and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Publication No. Washington. LCSW. Downloaded from jiv. She has been an author/coauthor on more than 50 peer-reviewed articles in injury control and intimate partner violence. department of pediatrics.S. Olson.. Asha Parekh. MSPH.usdoj. in 2002. He has a background in social ecology with a specific focus on biostatistics and epidemiology.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867. is the associate director of the Public Health Program at the University of Utah School of Medicine. Stephen Alder. 2013 . Lenora M. DC: U.ojp. PhD.1238 Journal of Interpersonal Violence Tjaden. Han Kim. is the director of the Salt Lake Area Safe at Home Coalition Project administered by the YWCA of Salt Lake City. PhD. is a statistician at the Intermountain Injury Control Research Center located at the University of Utah. Domestic violence: Court case conviction and recidivism. Extent. 11. and epidemiologic methods. & Davis. NCJ 181867). MSPH.com at University of Bucharest on June 4. Violence Against Women. & Thoennes. P. His research interests include social factors of disease. (2000). public health education. Retrieved August 8. providing advocacy and case management services and special expertise working with diverse populations.