.1.- .
u: 1!:
5.“ A .7?

2.

xi: 1...:

. z. {:13
‘

_ x I: “u
.:::3§Z; {2.53
1 ‘16.ng

:31... r r!) V.
90.33; VI

 

 

 

 

 

. :Qk..r . . .

 

 

 

 

2.! . 1
2‘! 1

.: .:.I:

 

NWERSI SITY LIBRARIE

IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY = 3129302“
Michigan State
University
This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SURVIVORS' SATISFACTION WITH THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM RESPONSE TO INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

presented by

Ruth Ellen Fleury

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D. degree in Psychology

 

 

4“, 46mm

/Major professor

Date 7-nge “0

MS U is an Afﬁrmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

woo moi-peep.“

 

SURVIVORS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM
RESPONSE TO INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

By

Ruth Ellen F leury

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2000

ABSTRACT

SURVIVORS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM
RESPONSE TO INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

By

Ruth Ellen Fleury

Many survivors of intimate partner violence turn to the criminal justice system for help in
ending the violence against them. In response to this use of the system, an increasing
amount of research has focused on the criminal justice system response to intimate
violence. The current research explores survivors’ satisfaction with the criminal justice
system, taking into account individual differences (e.g., race, economic well-being),
microsystem differences (e.g., level of violence within the relationship, level of social
support), the response of the system itself (e.g., supportiveness of the police, court
outcome) and women’s perceived control over the criminal legal system response. This
study was part of a larger, longitudinal research project examining the long-term effects
of court processes and outcomes in intimate partner violence cases on survivors’ safety,
beliefs about the criminal justice system, and quality of life. A total of 174 participants
from three sites (Boulder, CO; Denver, CO, and Ingham County, MI) were interviewed
after a domestic violence-related court case closed. Cluster analysis revealed four
different patterns of satisfaction with the multiple components of the criminal legal
system (police response, prosecuting attorney, court process, and court outcome).
Multinomial logistic regression was then used to evaluate an ecological model predicting
cluster membership. Findings suggest that characteristics about the survivor and assailant

(e.g., survivor race, assailant drug use), about the criminal legal system response (e. g.,

supportiveness of police, case outcome), and about women’s perceived control over the
criminal legal system are all related to women’s satisfaction. Implications for improving

the criminal legal system response to survivors of intimate partner violence are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This long, long process would not have been possible without the assistance and
dedication of many wonderful people. First and foremost, I need to thank my chair, Cris
Sullivan, for believing that this was possible, even when I didn’t. Her wisdom and
committment to her students and to this ﬁeld is invaluable. Deb Bybee’s insight and
patience with my questions, even the innane ones, was extraordinarily helpful. Merry
Morash and Linda Jackson each provided valuable support and feedback. I am also
grateful for the assistance, support, and sense of humor of my unofﬁcal committee
member, Joanne Belknap. Heather Melton and Amy Leisenring’s energy and dedication
throughout the process made this project possible. This project certainly would not have
been possible without numerous dedicated student interviewers in Michigan and in
Colorado. Service providers like Janet Strahan and Suzanne Eman from C.A.R.E.,
Martha Mitchell and Maria Valail ﬁ'om the Prosecutor’s Office, and Coleen Sootsman,
Jenefer O’Dell, and Dawn Jackson from the Personal Protection Order office took so
much time from their overloaded schedules to assist with the project and provide crucial
understanding of women’s experiences. I also want to thank Cheryl Sutherland her
support and modeling of this process (people really do ﬁnishl), Nicole Allen for keeping
me balanced and well-fed, and Angie Wolf for letting me play with her animals when I
was stressing. And last, but certainly not least, Ann F leury, Patrick Fleury, Karina Gruber
and Ingrid Thorson-Yunck reminded me that there was more to my life than this

dissertation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
Ecological Perspective on Intimate Partner Violence ...................... 2
Current Research on the Criminal Justice System Response to Partner Violence . 5

Arrest Studies ............................................... 5

Prosecution Studies .......................................... 8

Control Over Prosecution .......................................... 10

The Role of Fear. ................................................. 14

What Do Survivors Want? .......................................... 15

The Current Research .............................................. l6
Satisfaction with the System .................................. 17

Factors Impacting Satisfaction ................................. 17
METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 21
Participant Recruitment ............................................ 21
Participants ...................................................... 22
Interviews ....................................................... 25
Interviewer Training ........................................ 25

Interview Accuracy ......................................... 25

Measures ....................................................... 25
Contextual Variables ........................................ 26

Violence Variables .......................................... 27

Criminal Justice System Variables ............................. 33

Control Variables ........................................... 35

RESULTS ............................................................ 36
Women’s Experiences ............................................. 36

The Target Incident ......................................... 36

History of Violence ............................................... 36
Experiences with the Police ......................................... 47
Violence after the Arrest ..................................... 52

Experiences with Court Advocates ................................... 52
Experiences with the Prosecuting Attorney ............................. 56
Women’s Satisfaction with the Criminal Legal System ................... 59
Cluster Descriptions ......................................... 65

Predicting Survivor Satisfaction ..................................... 70
Overall Model Fit ........................................... 84

Utility of Individual Predictors ................................ 85

Predictive Success Indices .................................... 94

Utility of Each Type of Variable ............................... 95

Satisfaction with the Court Outcome .................................. 96

V

DISCUSSION ........................................................ 100

Future Directions ................................................ 109
Summary and Conclusions ........................................ 112
APPENDIX A: Interview ............................................... 1 14
APPENDIX B: Recruitment F lyer ........................................ 173
APPENDIX C: Agency Recruitment Phone Script ........................... 175
REFERENCES ....................................................... 179

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant demographics by site .................................... 23

Table 2: Less severe and severe violence items from the Modiﬁed Conﬂict
Tactics Scale .............................................. 29

Table 3: Comparisons between women who experienced severe violence and highly
severe violence during the incident that led to the court case ......... 31

Table 4: Types of violence women perpetrated against women during the incident
that led to the court case ...................................... 37

Table 5: Types of injuries women received during the assault that led to the court case 39

Table 6: Power and control tactics perpetrated against women during the six months
before the arrest ............................................ 42

Table 7: Types of violence perpetrated against women during the six months before
the arrest ................................................. 45

Table 8: Types of injuries women received during the six months before the arrest . . . 48

Table 9: Actions taken by police ofﬁcers regarding the incident that led to the
court case ................................................. 50

Table 10: Types of violence perpetrated against women after the arrest but before the
case closed ............................................... 53

Table 11: Types of injuries women received after the arrest but before the case closed 55

Table 12: Actions taken by court advocates regarding the incident that led to the

court case (N=127) .......................................... 57
Table 13: Actions taken by prosecuting attorneys regarding the incident that led to the

court case (N=95) ........................................... 58
Table 14: Final case outcomes ............................................ 60

Table 15: Correlations between the four satisfaction variables used to create clusters . 62

Table 16: Final cluster centroids for four cluster solution ....................... 66
Table 17: Descriptive information for each cluster ............................ 67
Table 18: Initial set of variables hypothesized to predict cluster membership ........ 71

vii

Table 19: Utility of all hypothesized predictors in the multinomial logistic regression
model predicting survivor satisfaction ........................... 73

Table 20: Intercorrelations between predictor variables and satisfaction variables
in initial multinomial logistic regression model ................... 79

Table 21: Utility of individual predictors in the reduced multinomial logistic
regression model predicting satisfaction ......................... 86

Table 22: Regression coefﬁcients for the hierarchical multiple regression predicting
satisfaction with the court outcome ............................. 97

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Fusion coefﬁcients by number of clusters ............................ 64

ix

INTRODUCTION

Every year, approximately 1.5 million women are battered by intimate partners or
ex-partners; one in four women will experience at least one physical assault by an
intimate partner during adulthood (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Women are more likely to
be assaulted, raped, or killed by a current or former partner than by any other type of
assailant (Koss etal., 1994; Langan & Innes, 1986). Clearly, woman battering is a major
social problem.

Many survivors1 of intimate partner violence turn to the criminal justice system
for help in ending the violence against them. In response to this use of the system, an
increasing amount of research has focused on the criminal justice system response to
intimate violence. Most of this research has focused speciﬁcally on the police response,
including the potential for arrest to deter future violence (e.g., Berk, Campbell, Klap, &
Western, 1992; Dunford, Huizinga, & Elliot, 1992; Hirschel, Hutchison, & Dean, 1992;
Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman & Berk, 1984; Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992;
Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, & Rogan, 1992). Research has also focused on the attitudes
and behaviors of police ofﬁcers about domestic violence cases and the reluctance of
police to arrest (e.g., Belknap, 1995; Eigenberg, Scarborough, & Kappeler, 1996; Erez &’
Belknap, 1998; Rigakos, 1997). This research focus on the police response may be due in
part to the immediate safety that police intervention can provide (Ferraro, 1993; McCann,

1985). Less research attention has focused on the impact of prosecution than on the

 

lIn legal terminology, these women are victims of a violent crime. However, most
advocates for women with abusive partners prefer the term “survivor” to emphasize
women’s strengths and agency. For this reason, the term “survivor” will be used
throughout this study, even though these women are victims of crime.

1

impact of arrest partially because historically prosecution of intimate partner violence has
been a relatively rare event (Dutton, 1987; Ferraro, 1993).

One reason prosecution rates for intimate partner violence are low is that
survivors of intimate partner violence may be viewed by system personnel as less likely to
want or participate in prosecution than survivors of other crimes. Ferraro and Boychuck
(1992) examined prosecuting attorneys’ reasons for not ﬁling charges in intimate and
non-intimate violence cases. They found that, according to official records, victim
reluctance to prosecute was more likely to be the reason for not ﬁling charges in intimate
violence cases than in non-intimate violence cases. Additionally, they found that if
charges were ﬁled, survivors of violence by intimates were more likely to ask that the
charges be dropped than survivors of stranger violence cases. However, they also found
that survivors of violence by intimates actually were more likely to appear in court than
survivors of violence by strangers. This research, while important, is limited because
only ofﬁcial court records were used. The survivors themselves were not asked about
their situations, experiences, or decisions.

In fact, with few exceptions, much of the previous research on the police and
court response to intimate partner violence has neglected to measure survivors’
experiences and satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Without an in—depth
exploration of survivors’ experiences with both the police response and prosecution,
effective policies and interventions to keep survivors safe cannot be developed.

E l . I E . I . E If. 1
Researchers have found that survivors actively seek assistance from both informal

help sources, such as friends and family, and more formal help sources, such as the police

and court systems (e.g., Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 1985; Dutton, 1996; Gondolf &
Fisher, 1988; Hutchison & Hirschel, 1998). Unfortunately, these systems often do not
adequately meet the needs of survivors, or may even blame them for the violence. Given
that women do seek outside help for the violence, research on intimate partner violence
needs to take into account both individual level variables about the survivor (e. g., her race
and income) and the assailant (e.g., his use of threats and violence) as well as social
system level variables.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed an ecological theory that describes human
behavior as an interaction between an individual and multiple layers of the environment.
These layers of the environment include the microsystem, the exosystem, and the
macrosystem. The microsystem includes the interpersonal relations of the individual.
The exosystem includes “formal and informal social structures that do not themselves
contain the developing person but that nevertheless exert an impact” (p. 327, Belsky,
1980). The macrosystem is the larger cultural context in which both the exosystem and
the microsystem operate (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued that research needs to take into account how
participants in research experience their situation or setting. For women with abusive
partners and ex-partners, then, research needs to examine both women's experiences of
violence and their experiences with social systems that have the potential to help end the
violence. This ecological perspective also assumes that differences between individuals
are necessary and important, but that all individuals still have the right to have access to
basic resources (Davidson & Rappaport, 1979). Rather than assuming that major

psychological differences exist between women who have been battered and women who

have not, and focusing on eliminating those differences, an ecological perspective places
much more emphasis on providing women who have been battered access to settings or
resources they may need to keep them safe. Moreover, an ecological perspective can
address why one resource may be useful to one survivor but not to another (Carlson,
1984; Dutton, 1996). Women’s responses to the violence are shaped by their individual
needs and situations (Mahoney, 1994).

For women with abusive partners, the criminal justice system remains one
potential and widely used resource. The current research explores survivors’ satisfaction
with the criminal justice system, taking into account individual differences (e.g., race,
economic well-being), microsystem differences (e.g., level of violence within the
relationship, level of social support), as well as the response of the system itself. By
understanding how well the criminal justice system is or is not meeting survivors’ needs,
we can begin to improve the criminal justice system response to intimate partner
violence.

A summary of the current research on the criminal justice system responses to
partner violence follows. Much of this research has focused on what police and court
interventions can do to decrease intimate partner violence. However, this research often
does not take into account survivors’ decisions and perspectives. The current study was
designed to address two major questions: (1) How satisﬁed are survivors with the
multiple components of the criminal justice system processes and outcomes? and (2)
What factors about the survivors’ situations and about the criminal justice system impact

that satisfaction?

__U‘! 5‘ .1. 0001’ Ollie .'_ '11,: 90!“..111' WC"

Research on the criminal justice system response to intimate partner violence has
consisted largely of studies of one of two interrelated components: the police response
and the prosecutorial response.

We; Much of the research on the criminal justice system response to
survivors of intimate partner violence has focused on the police response, particularly the
potential deterrent effects of arrest. The Minneapolis Spouse Abuse Experiment
(Sherman & Berk, 1984) was the ﬁrst experimental study of the effects of arrest on
domestic violence. The ﬁnding that arrest in and of itself could be a deterrent led to
funding by the National Institute of Justice for the Spouse Abuse Replication Project
(SARP), a nationwide series of studies. Each of these studies compared arrest to other
police interventions for misdemeanor domestic violence where probable cause for arrest
was present.

Unlike the initial Minneapolis experiment, the results of the SARP studies did not
ﬁnd a clear-cut deterrent effect for arrest. In some cases, the authors found no differences
in later violence (e.g., Dunford et al., 1990) or found what appeared to be an escalation
effect of arrest (Sherman, et al., 1992). Some of the authors (Sherman et a1.) went so far
as to discourage mandatory arrest policies because of the lack of deterrence and the
possibility of escalation. However, given the variability in treatments, outcome measures,
and analyses, the six SARP studies cannot be considered true replications either of the
original Minneapolis experiment or of the other replication studies (Garner, Fagan, &
Maxwell, 1995).

This research on the effects of arrest has three major limitations. First, the

survivors’ experiences and decisions are conspicuously absent from the research. All of
the studies used police records as a measure of subsequent violence. Given the low
reporting rate of intimate male violence against women overall (Koss et al., 1994), it is
likely that there are differences between those survivors who do and do not report
violence to the police (Zorza, 1992). Also, in the reporting process, an ofﬁcer has to ﬁll
out forms and ﬁle them. In cases where an arrest was not made, ofﬁcers may have been
less likely to write out a report of the incident. The ofﬁcers’ behaviors also affect official
records, and ofﬁcer behavior is not the behavior of interest in these studies.

Some of the studies did include survivor interviews about subsequent violence
(e.g., Berk, et al., 1992; Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Sherman & Berk, 1984), but they
tended to have low response rates. For instance, only about half of the survivors whose
assailants were in the Minneapolis study were interviewed six months later. Moreover,
the survivor interviews in the SARP studies did not address survivors’ perceptions of or
satisfaction with the criminal justice system intervention, but only whether or not the
assailant had assaulted them since the arrest.

Violence following arrest is certainly an important variable, but criminal justice
system interventions may impact more than actual violence. For instance, survivors may
change their future help-seeking strategies depending on their experiences with the police
or courts (Lewis, Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 1997; Rigakos, 1998). If the police
response is not helpful, survivors may be less likely to contact the police about any future
assaults (Conaway & Lohr, 1994). Conversely, if survivors ﬁnd the police response
helpful, they may be more likely to contact the police again. This logic may help explain

why some of the SARP studies found what appeared to be an escalation effect of arrest;

those survivors whose assailants were arrested may also be more likely to contact the
police again, with the hope that the police would arrest again. Survivors whose assailants
are arrested may also get the message from the criminal justice system that the abuse is
unacceptable (Bowman, 1992; Lerman, 1992).

One noticeable exception to the lack of research on survivor perception of the
police response to intimate partner violence is a study by Lewis and her colleagues
(1997). They conducted qualitative interviews with women whose assailants had been
convicted of an assault about their use of the criminal justice system. Their study found
that survivors contacted the police either for immediate protection and/or to secure some
form of rehabilitation for their partner. These reasons for police contact were in contrast
to the usual goal of police ofﬁcers: making an arrest that leads to a conviction. These
differences between survivor goals and police goals could impact the interactions
between the survivor and the criminal justice system as the case progresses. Survivors
who are not satisﬁed with the police response, for instance, may be less likely to
participate in the court system (Lerman, 1992).

The remaining limitation of the arrest studies is that the point of arrest is not
simply to deter subsequent assaults. Arrests are a way to bring the perpetrator into the
criminal justice system for prosecution (Buzawa & Buzawa, 1993); sanctions ultimately
come from prosecution (Fagan, 1995). Because the emphasis in these studies was on the
police response, details of prosecution and court outcomes are conspicuously absent. To
truly examine how the criminal justice system can help keep survivors of intimate partner

violence safe, research also needs to focus on what happens after an arrest.

W Much less research has focused on the prosecution of
intimate partner violence. Some of this research has focused on why survivors of
intimate partner violence do not always participate in prosecuting their assailants
(Mahoney, 1991; McLeod, 1983; Smith, 1988). For instance, McLeod (1983) used police
and court records to examine survivors’ decisions to participate in prosecution at four
decision points: police intervention, signing the formal complaint, initial contact with the
prosecutor's office, and the preliminary hearing. Few survivors participated at all four
decision points, and some demographic differences were found. For instance, women
who were assaulted with a weapon were more likely to participate in the prosecution
process. However, McLeod concluded that “no deﬁnitive statements about the dynamics
of survivor cooperation-noncooperation can be advanced at this time” (p. 414). This
absence of a deﬁnitive statement is necessary, given that McLeod only used ofﬁcial
records and did not speak with survivors.

Scant research has looked directly at the effects of prosecution on ofﬁcial reports
of later violence. Tolrnan and Weisz (1995) evaluated a protocol which coordinated the
police department and the prosecutor's ofﬁce. The police had the option of signing a
complaint if the survivor did not. The prosecutor was discouraged from dropping
charges, even if the survivor wanted them dropped. The prosecutor was also proactive in .
getting the survivor to participate. Finally, advocates were available through the
prosecutor to work with survivors. According to official records, they concluded that
arrest had a long-term deterrent effect, but successful prosecution did not.

Other research on coordinating community responses to intimate partner violence

has shown that coordination within the criminal legal system can decrease later violence

(Steinman, 1990; Syers & Edleson, 1992). For instance, Steinman found that police
action combined with court sanctions did act as a deterrent to later arrest. Syers and
Edleson found that court mandated batterer treatment following an arrest also decreased
repeat violence.

One limitation of this research on prosecution, like the research on arrest, is that
the survivors’ perspectives are missing. Tolman and Weisz (1995) only looked at official
records of violence; they did not interview survivors. They point out that this focus on
official records may fail “to take women's perspectives and needs into account” (p. 493).
Steinman (1990) and Syers and Edleson (1992) did interview survivors in addition to
using official records. Unfortunately, the interviews did not include reasons for women’s
decision-making, nor their satisfaction with the system intervention. Ofﬁcial records also
cannot address why survivors did certain things, or what women wanted or expected from
the criminal justice system. For example, survivors who found the police response
helpful may be more likely to call the police again, or to participate in prosecution
(Lerman, 1992). Moreover, the criminal justice system is designed to “enforce society's
rights to sanction activities harmful to the public order” (p. 55, Buzawa & Buzawa,
1990). This design may come as a surprise to survivors who are expecting that their
needs will be central to the decisions made by court personnel. Sentencing decisions, if a
conviction or a guilty plea is obtained, may also be a concern of survivors. Jail time may
send the message to the assailant and the survivor that the violence is unacceptable by
community standards. In addition, an assailant cannot continue to assault while he is
incarcerated. However, some survivors may be more interested in ways to end the

violence rather than ways to punish the assailant. These survivors may be more satisﬁed

with counseling programs as part of probation requirements (Cahn & Lerman, 1991;
Dutton & McGregor, 1991), or if the charges are dropped entirely.

In one of the few studies to ask survivors of intimate partner violence about their
decisions around prosecution, Ford (1991) interviewed twenty ﬁve survivors of intimate
partner violence. Their answers implied that survivors used prosecution as a power
resource. For instance, survivors would decide to pursue or to drop charges if the
perpetrator did certain things, such as stopping drinking or promising to get counseling.
Based on the concept of the ability to pursue or prevent prosecution as a source of power
for survivors, Ford cautions against types of interventions and policies that may end up
disempowering survivors by taking away their choice to pursue prosecution or not.
W911

Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, and Checkoway (1995) explained three components
of psychological empowerment: intrapersonal, behavioral, and interactional. The
intrapersonal component refers to the ways people think about their ability to affect or
control social or political systems. The interactional component of empowerment refers
to the exchange between the individuals and the larger system, such as individuals'
knowledge about the system. The behavioral component consists of those actions one
takes to inﬂuence or affect these systems.

For women who have been battered, the intrapersonal component of
empowerment relevant to the criminal justice system is the way they think about the
inﬂuence they have on the system. The interactional component is the knowledge that
survivors have that links their thoughts to their behavior (e. g., “if I don't testify, then he

won't go to jail”). The behavioral component includes the actions survivors engage in to

10

affect the criminal justice system, such as calling the police, or refusing to testify against
their assailant.

Ford's work (1983; 1991; Ford & Regoli, 1992) has emphasized the role of
survivors' control over prosecution as a form of empowerment. Ford and Regoli
examined the effects of different types of prosecution policies on subsequent violence as
well. They found that those assailants who went through an initial hearing were less
likely to commit later violent acts against the same survivor than those who did not.
Women who had the opportunity to drop charges but did not were less likely to be
assaulted six months later than those who did drop charges. At the time, survivors were
only permitted to drop charges if they had initiated the complaint; if the assailant had
been arrested, then survivors were not able to drop charges. The authors argue that it may
be the “preventive policy impact derives from her power to drop rather than from judicial
action” (p. 204).

In contrast, some areas have experimented with proceeding with prosecution even
without survivor participation. Such policies have received increased support over the
last few years. For instance, a report from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993) states
that “the policies and activities of the prosecutor's ofﬁce are central to any family
violence project” (p. 13). The policies listed included those that “do not place survivors
in the position of initiating and managing their own cases” and those that require
investigators and prosecutors “to be skilled in proving cases in court, even with a hostile
or reluctant survivor or witness” (p. 13).

Lerman (1992; Cahn & Lerman, 1991) also argued that the best way to help

survivors may be to pursue prosecution of assailants whether or not the survivors want

11

prosecution. By arresting and prosecuting the assailant, the criminal justice system sends
the message both to the survivor and to the assailant that the community will not tolerate

the violence. Shifting responsibility for prosecution from the survivors to the prosecutors
may give survivors a better opportunity to control the rest of their lives, to the extent that
prosecution keeps them safer.

It should be noted that there is a difference between survivors having a sense of
control over the criminal justice system and survivors having actual control. Even in
Ford's (1991) work, he points out that it is the criminal justice system personnel who
ultimately make the decisions: whether someone will be arrested, whether someone will
be prosecuted, and what charges will be ﬁled. If charges are ﬁled by a prosecuting
attorney, in many cases a judge has the ultimate power to decide whether the defendant is
guilty (in some cases a jury has this power). Judges also make ﬁnal sentencing decisions.
A discussion of survivor control over the criminal justice system needs to take into
account that perceived control is not the same as actual control. Survivors who perceive
that they have control may be more satisﬁed with the criminal justice system, regardless
of their actual control. Emphasizing perceived control may also be misleading because
changing perceived control without changing actual control ultimately is disempowering
(Riger, 1993).

Empowerment theory also has been criticized for its emphasis on mastery and
power at the expense of cooperation (Riger, 1993). Research involving women with
abusive partners has begun to address empowerment deﬁned as a form of control over the
criminal justice system. However, the role of maintaining connectedeness to others,

including to the assailant as well as to children and other family members who are

12

affected by the violence and the criminal justice system, has not been addressed.
Research needs to address the extent to which their needs to maintain relationships with
children and with the assailant affects the decisions survivors make around the criminal
justice system.

Riger (1993) also argues that a conception of empowerment that assumes
empowered individuals use social supports and social services denies the impact that
certain life circumstances may have on these decisions. She gives the example of two
rape survivors: one middle-class woman and one low-income woman. The middle-class
woman, who coped by turning to ﬁiends and family and who used the criminal justice
system, would be considered empowered by traditional empowerment theory. The low-
income woman in Riger’s example did not choose to use the criminal justice system,
because she feared retaliation against herself and her family. In part because of social
class differences, these two women expected different outcomes from the use of similar
resources. Riger argues that this second woman's decision did not arise out of
disempowerrnent. She simply did not believe that working with the criminal justice
system would help; it would only put her family in more danger. For this woman,
relatedness was more important than control, given the threat of retaliation.

Because of the lack of actual control survivors may have (Ford, 1991) and the
difficulty in measuring actual control and because of the controversies surrounding
deﬁnitions of empowerment (Riger, 1993), the current research did not attempt to
examine survivors’ empowerment with respect to the criminal justice system. Rather, it
examined the amount of control survivors believed they had and their satisfaction with

that control.

13

W Research on crimes in general (e.g., Singer, 1988) as well as on
intimate partner violence speciﬁcally (e.g., Buzawa & Austin, 1993) suggests that
survivors of crime are less likely to utilize the criminal justice system if they fear
retribution from their assailants. For instance, Singer (1988) found that survivors of
felony crimes (not just intimate partner violence) were less likely to report their
victimization to the police if they feared reprisal. This fear was greater in cases where the
survivor was acquainted with the perpetrator.

Survivors of intimate partner violence have legitimate reasons to fear reprisal by
their assailants if they decide to participate in prosecution; they are more likely to be
killed when they are trying to end the relationship or when they are pursuing prosecution
(Browne, 1987; Mahoney, 1991). In addition, assailants may threaten survivors
speciﬁcally to keep them from participating in prosecution (Hart, 1993; Mahoney, 1991;
Smith, 1988). Taking that responsibility for prosecution away from survivors (while still
encouraging participation for survivors who want to), may ultimately keep survivors
safer.

For some women, then, having control over prosecution and deciding to
prosecute may protect them, as Ford (1983; 1991; Ford and Regoli, 1992) has argued.
For other women, making a decision to participate in prosecution may actually put them
in more danger. In such cases, taking that power to decide about prosecution away from
survivors may keep them safe and thus allow them more control over other aspects of
their lives. However, this dilemma cannot be addressed without asking survivors what
decisions they made and what the outcomes were. In the jurisdictions where the current

study took place, prosecution without survivor participation is rare. But by asking

14

f

survivors how satisﬁed they were with the way the system handled the case and how
satisﬁed they were with the amount of control they had, I began to explore the complex
relationship between criminal justice system factors, such as survivor control, survivors'
individual experiences, and satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
W12

Survivors' satisfaction with the criminal justice system process and outcome has
not been previously addressed in the literature (for exceptions, see Lewis et al., 1997;
Erez & Belknap, 1998). A more detailed exploration of survivor satisfaction with the
various components of the criminal justice system process and outcome is crucial. If we
are to be able to improve the system's response to women with abusive partners, we must
ﬁrst know how survivors experience the system. What aspects of the criminal justice
system already work for survivors, and which do not? For example, if survivors are
dissatisﬁed with the way prosecuting attorneys treat them, a different type of intervention
is called for than if survivors are dissatisﬁed with case outcomes.

Survivor satisfaction is a complex issue, in part because the criminal justice
system is complex. Survivors may differ in their level of satisfaction with the different
components of the system. For instance, survivors may be dissatisﬁed with the police
response but satisﬁed with the ﬁnal case outcome. On the other hand, dissatisfaction
with the police response may also impact survivor satisfaction with other aspects of the
system; satisfaction with one component may not be entirely independent of satisfaction
with other components. A single scale of “satisfaction,” even if it included all aspects of
the criminal justice system, would mask important information. An exploration of

survivor satisfaction needs to keep satisfaction with different aspects of the system

15

7

separate while allowing for the possibility of overlap. Moreover, the same criminal
justice system processes and outcome may lead to different levels of satisfaction for
different survivors, depending on their individual situations. A survivor who is
economically dependent on her assailant may be much less satisﬁed with a conviction
than a survivor who is not economically dependent, because that conviction will impact
the survivors’ lives in different ways. Changes to criminal justice system actors (e. g.,
police ofﬁcer, prosecuting attorney) through training, to processes (e.g., time spent with
attorney, testifying in court), or to outcomes (e.g., conviction) will not affect all survivors
in the same way. Rather than expecting that survivors should be equally satisﬁed or
dissatisﬁed with the different aspects of the criminal justice system, an exploration of
survivor satisfaction needs to account for both system level factors and individual level
factors.
Wit

Many questions remain regarding the ways the criminal justice system can
potentially best serve survivors of intimate partner violence. To answer these questions,
the current project interviewed female survivors of intimate partner violence about their
decision-making and experiences around prosecution. This research addressed two major
questions:

(1) How satisﬁed are survivors with each of the multiple components of the

criminal justice system process and outcome? These components include the

police response, the way the prosecuting attorney handled the case, the court

system process, and the court outcome.

16

(2) What factors about the survivor’s situation and about the criminal justice

system impact that satisfaction?

W The current research ﬁrst describes survivor
satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Survivors were asked about their
satisfaction with multiple aspects of the criminal justice system, including the police
response, the prosecuting attorney, the criminal justice system process, and the case
outcome.

W The second question the current research
addressed is: What about the context of the assault and about the criminal justice system
impacts survivor satisfaction? Simply describing patterns of survivor satisfaction using
cluster analysis is not enough. These different patterns of satisfaction may be impacted
by different factors. For instance, a survivor may be very satisﬁed with the police
response but may be less than satisﬁed with a prosecuting attorney who ﬁled charges
against the assailant. This pattern may come about either because the survivor did not
want charges ﬁled (she just wanted the police to take the assailant away for the night) or
because she thought the charges ﬁled were not serious enough.

Given the exploratory nature of this research, factors that are expected to impact
satisfaction are detailed. Consistent with ecological theories of intimate partner violence
(e.g., Carlson, 1984; Dutton, 1996) contextual and system factors were expected to
impact survivor satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Contextual (individual and
microsystem) factors included those factors that describe women's’ situations, such as the
violence they have experienced, threats, relationship with the assailant, and economic

dependence. Criminal justice system factors (exosystem), such as the degree to which the

17

police and prosecuting attorneys were supportive of her, and the amount of control that
survivors perceived they had over the criminal justice system were also expected to
partially explain women’s satisfaction with the system.

W5; The violence and injuries survivors experienced were expected
to impact survivor satisfaction with the criminal justice system. The criminal justice
system may take certain forms of violence more seriously than others, particularly if the
violence caused injury. Violence, injuries, and threats also all contribute to survivors’
fear of the assailant and fear of retribution from the assailant.

Demggmphigfagtms; Factors about the survivor, the assailant, and their
relationship were expected to impact survivor satisfaction. Research examining the role
of race in the legal system response to intimate partner violence has found that the system
treats survivors and batterers of Color differently from White survivors and batterers
(Ferraro, 1989; Richie, 1996). Given this racism in the criminal legal system, it was
expected that women of Color and women whose assailants were men of Color would be
less satisﬁed with the system.

Women’s relationships with their assailants was expected to be related to
women’s satisfaction with the system. The criminal legal system sanctions for intimate
partner violence can be more punitive for women who want to maintain intimate
relationships with their assailants. Jail time, no contact orders, and ﬁnes can be more
difﬁcult for women who want to remain in a relationship with their assailants than for
women who want the relationship to end.

Economic dependence on the assailant was also expected to impact survivor

satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Survivors who were economically

18

dependent on their assailants were expected to be less satisﬁed with the criminal justice
system to the extent that the process (e. g., no contact orders) and outcomes (e.g., jail time,
ﬁnes) impacted their economic survival.

Social support, from friends and family and from other agencies, was expected to
increase survivor satisfaction with the criminal justice system. For instance, advocates
may have assisted survivors in negotiating the complexities of the court system, or may
have provided needed emotional support. They also may have worked with survivors
around other issues, like income, thus decreasing the importance of other factors, like
economic dependence, in satisfaction. Similarly, emotional and material support from
family and friends also was expected to increase women’s satisfaction with the criminal
legal system.

WW The amount and quality of the contact with
criminal justice system personnel also was expected to impact survivor satisfaction.
Survivors who spent enough time with the court advocate and the prosecuting attorney
and who were supported by different criminal justice system personnel were expected to
be more satisﬁed with the system.

The actual outcome also was expected to impact survivors’ satisfaction. One of
the stereotypes of battered women is that they do not want their assailants to be
prosecuted or convicted. However, given that the majority of police calls about intimate
partner violence come from the survivors themselves (Langan & Innes, 1986), it was
expected that women whose assailants were convicted would be more satisﬁed with the

system.

19

W Ford’s work (1983; 1991; Ford & Regoli, 1992) implies that
survivors who have some control over the criminal justice system should be more
satisﬁed with the system. However, the work of others (e.g., Lerrnan, 1992) implies that
survivors should be less responsible for the criminal justice system’s handling of their
cases. By taking control away from the survivors and prosecuting with or without
survivor participation, survivors would be safer and, thus, more satisﬁed. Thus, the
amount of control survivors perceive they have over the criminal justice system

procedures and outcomes was expected to impact survivor satisfaction.

20

r

METHODOLOGY

The current study was part of a larger, longitudinal research project examining the
long-term effects of court processes and outcomes in intimate partner violence cases on
survivors’ safety, beliefs about the criminal justice system, and quality of life. A copy of
the Time 1 full interview instrument is attached (see Appendix A).
E . . E . e

Participants were recruited from three sites: Boulder and Denver, Colorado and

Ingham County, Michigan. A multi-site study was conducted in order to maximize the
number of women who could be recruited during a relatively short time period (nine
months). After a domestic violence case was closed, potential participants were mailed a
ﬂyer from the prosecutor’s ofﬁce brieﬂy describing the research, with a phone number to
call for more information, as well as a stamped return postcard (see Appendix B). Closed
cases included both cases where the defendant was guilty (either pled guilty or was found
guilty at trial) on the original or reduced charges, where the defendant pled guilty in
exchange for a deferred sentence, where the defendant was found not guilty, and cases
where the charges were dismissed. By including both a phone number and a postcard in
the recruitment mailing, it was thought that more women would respond. F lyers were
mailed as cases closed in order to avoid making potential participants think that their
participation would affect their cases. To maintain conﬁdentiality, only the individual
doing the mailings (an independent study student in Ingham County; court personnel in
Boulder and Denver) had access to the potential participants’ names and addresses.

Due to low response rates to the ﬂyers, two additional recruitment methods were

employed in Ingham County. First, potential participants were identiﬁed through two

21

I

victim advocacy organizations in Lansing. Both agencies regularly initiate client contact.
Following regular client contacts, a highly trained agency volunteer explained the project
to eligible women and asked if they would be willing to be contacted by a female project
staff member. Women were also told that their decision whether to be contacted and
whether to be interviewed would not affect any services from the agency (see phone script
in Appendix C). In addition, with the help of the court advocates, potential participants
were approached in person at the courts in Ingham County. Women were asked if a
female project staff member could contact them about the project after their case closed.
They were also told that their decision to be contacted or to participate would not affect
their court case or any services from any community agencies.

E . .

Participants were 174 female survivors of intimate male partner violence whose
assailants were charged with a crime against them. The majority of participants were
recruited in Denver (52%), with the remainder recruited from Boulder (26%) and Ingham
County (21%). Half the participants called the ofﬁce after receiving the ﬂyer, while 43%
chose to return the postcard. A smaller number of participants were recruited in person at
the courts in Ingham County (5%) or through victim advocacy agencies in Ingham County
(2%). Overall, the response rates to the mailings was 16%.

Participant demographics are summarized in Table 1. Just over half of the
participants were White (55%), 20% were African American, 17% were Latina, 4% were

of mixed race, and 2% were Native American. Most of the women were involved in a
relationship with the assailant during the six months before he was arrested (75%), but

fewer women reported being in a relationship with the assailant at the time of the arrest

22

Table 1

Participant demographics by site.

 

 

Denver, Boulder Co., Ingham Co., Total
Colorado Colorado Michigan
(N=91) (N=45) (N=38) (N=174)
Race
African American 26% 0 29% 20%
White 38% 89% 53% 55%
Latina 29% 2% 5% 1 7%
Multi-racial 2% 2% l 1% 4%
Native American 1% 4% 3% 2%
Asian American 0 2% 0 1%
Involved w/assailant during 68% 82% 80% 75%
6 months before arrest
Involved w/assailant at time 60% 69% 55% 62%
of arrest
Average age 33 years 35 years 30 years 33 years
(SD) (9.1) (10.3) (10.9) (10.0)
Average number of
children 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.6
(SD) (1.6) (1.2) (1 .6) (1.5)
Have disability 23% 11% 21% 20%
Have high school degree 84% 93% 84% 86%
or higher education
Employed in last 6 months 84% 84% 84% 84%
Average monthly income $1,856 $2,700 $1,561 $2,011
(SD) (1600) (3182) (1 1 10) (2088)

 

23

(62%). The average age of the participants was 33 (SD = 10.0), and this ranged from 18
to 60. The majority of the women had at least one child (72%). One in ﬁve women
(20%) reported having a physical or mental disability. This proportion of women is
similar to the 19% of women ages 15 to 64 with a disability in the United States (U .3.
Census Bureau, 1994). Most of the women had at least a high school degree (86%) and
most had been employed in the six months before the interview (84%). The median
monthly income for the participants was 1,500 dollars, but this ranged from no income at
all to 20,000 dollars per month.

Women recruited from the three sites differed signiﬁcantly on two variables: race
()62 (2) = 30.96, p < .001) and age (E (2, 171) = 3.15, p < .05). Women recruited from
Boulder were more likely to be White than women from Denver (x2 (1) = 30.95, p <.001)
or from Ingham County (x2 (2) = 13.5, p < .001). Tukey’s HSD test revealed that women
from Boulder were also older than women from Ingham County (Boulder M = 35.2, _S_I_)_ =
10.3: Ingham County M = 29.7, SD = 10.9).

Women recruited from Boulder had a signiﬁcantly higher average income than
women from Ingham County (E (2, 172) = 3.69, p <.05; Boulder M = 2700, E = 3181:
Ingham County M = 1561; SD = 1110). However, this income effect was largely due to
the effect of one outlier: a woman from Boulder whose income was $20,000 per month.
With this individual dropped from the analysis, women from the three sites did not differ
signiﬁcantly on income (E (2, 171) = 2.42, NS; Boulder M = 2307, SD = 1799; Ingham

CountyM= 1561;S_D= 1110).

24

lntemiews

Wiring, Survivor interviews were conducted by highly trained
female undergraduate students. Interviewer training lasted approximately eight weeks
and included information on the dynamics of intimate partner violence, the legal system,
diversity issues, interviewing techniques, and the interview instrument. All interviewers
conducted several practice interviews (both with classmates and with project staff) and
received extensive feedback on these practice interviews before conducting any
interviews in the community. As part of this training, each class of interviewers listened
to the same interview responses and was asked to record those responses. In this way,
interviewers were trained to 100% agreement. Undergraduate interviewers have
successfully been used this way in previous research (see, for example, Sullivan & Bybee,
1999). Most interviews were conducted in women’s homes. On average, interviews
lasted just over an hour and a half (M = 104.59 minutes, SD =37.96), but this ranged from
40 minutes to nearly ﬁve and a half hours.

W All interviews were tape recorded to ensure coding accuracy.
After an interview was completed, the interviewer listened to the tape to double-check
coding. In addition, a second person (either another interviewer or a supervisor) listened
to the tape to ensure that the participant’s responses were recorded correctly.
Measures

F our major types of variables were measured in the survivor interviews (see
Appendix A). The ﬁrst type were indicators of the physical and psychological violence in
the relationship, as well as in the speciﬁc assault that led to the court case. The second

type were demographic variables that describe the context of women’s lives, including

25

race, relationship with the assailant, economic dependence and social support. The third
type were variables that described survivors’ experiences and satisfaction with the
criminal legal system (police and court) processes and outcome. The ﬁnal type of
variables were those that described the survivors’ control over the different aspects of the
criminal legal system.

Contexﬂmllatiehles;

Demographics Basic demographics about survivors were collected, including
race, age, disabilities, and number of children (See questions #1 to #7).

, Wm Survivors were asked what their relationship was with
the assailant at the time of the interview, what their relationship was over the six months
before the incident that led to the court case, and what their relationship was when the
assailant was arrested (e.g., married, divorced, living together, dating). Survivors were
also asked if they had ever ended the relationship, how many previous separations there
were, and how long they lasted (See questions #40-41a, #49, #86).

Income For some survivors, arrest and conviction of their assailant can lead to
economic hardship. Survivors were asked if they were employed, how much money they
live on each month, how much of that income they contribute, and how much the
assailant contributes. Because even a small loss of the total income can impact survivors’
lives, survivors were asked to rate how important the economic contribution of their
assailant was on a four point Likert-type scale (“not at all important” to “very important”)
(See #8-8d). This importance scale was used as an indicator of economic dependence on

the assailant.

26

I

S_ni_al_saap_m1 Previous research has examined how a coordinated community
response to intimate violence can help protect survivors (e.g., Gamache, Edleson, &
Schock, 1988; Syers & Edleson, 1992). Additional research has documented that most
survivors of intimate partner violence seek help from informal sources of support (i.e.,
family and friends) (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988). Survivors were asked if friends, family,
and agencies or systems (e.g., domestic violence shelters, religious leaders, hospitals)
knew about the violence, and if so, how supportive those people or agencies were of them
(0 = “very unsupportive” to 5 = “very supportive”) (See #64a-f, h-j, l-p).

If I If . 1 l _

Wand An extended version of the Conﬂict Tactics Scale
(CTS) (Straus, 1979) was used to examine the frequency of 22 different violent acts
toward the survivor (see #5 8a-v). Survivors were asked how often in the six months
before the arrest (0 = “never” to 7 = “every day”) the assailant committed particular types
of violence against them. One item (“shot”) was dropped from the scale because none of
the participants had been shot. A second item (“drove recklessly”) was dropped because
of low reliability. The ﬁnal scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 with corrected item-total
correlations ranging from .36 to .81. This scale was also used to measure the frequency
of violence after the arrest but before the court case closed.

In addition to mean score scales, frequency-severity scales of violence for
violence during the six months before the arrest and for violence after the arrest were also
created using these items. For this scale, 0=No violence, 1 = Less severe violence only

(e.g., pushed, slapped), 2 = Lower frequency (once a month or less) severe violence (e.g.,

27

kicked, beat up, threatened with a knife), and 3 = Frequent severe violence (more than
once a month) (Sullivan & Bybee, 1999). Less severe and severe violence items are listed
in Table 2.

In addition to questions about the frequency of violence during the six months
before the arrest, survivors were asked to indicate (yes-no) which of these twenty types of
violence occurred during the incident that led to the court case (See #5 8a-v). A scale of
the number of types of violence women experienced during that assault was created
which had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85, with corrected item-total correlations ranging from
.16 to .58.

A severity scale for the incident that led to the court case was also created, with 0
= No violence, 1 = Less severe violence (e.g., pushed, slapped), and 2 = Severe violence
(e. g., kicked, beat up). Items in the less severe and severe violence categories were
identical to those used to create the categories for violence over the six months before the
target incident. However, examination of the severity items for the assault that led to the
court case showed that the violence against nearly three out of four women (72%) fell
into the “Severe” category. To spread out the distribution of this variable, a fourth
category was created: 3 = highly severe violence (choked, threatened with a knife,
threatened with a gun, and stabbed). This category is consistent with Straus’s (1979)
factor analysis of the CTS; threats with a weapon and use of a weapon formed a separate
factor from the other physical violence items. Straus argued that this ﬁnding was due to
the potential lethality of these items relative to the other items. Choking/smothering was

not an item on Straus’s CTS, but due to the severity of this item as well, the decision was

28

Table 2

Less severe and severe violence items from the Modiﬁed Conﬂict Tactics Scale.

 

How often in the six months before the arrest did he:
Less severe:

Break your glasses or tear your clothing?
Push or shove you?

Grab you?

Slap you with an open hand?

Pull your hair?

Throw something at you?

QMPP’NI‘

Severe:

7. Bite you?

8. Hit you with a ﬁst?

9. Kick you?

10. Hit you with an object?

11. Try to hit you with an object?

12. Twist your arm or leg?

13. Burn you?

14. Tie you up or physically restrain you in some way?
15. Beat you up?

16. Force sexual activity?

17. Choke you or try to smother you?
18. Threaten you with a knife?

19. Threaten you with a gun?

20. Stab you?

’4.

 

29

made to include it with weapon threats and use in the highly severe violencecategory.

To examine the validity of this coding, a series of t-tests were conducted
comparing women who experienced “severe” violence with women who experienced
“highly severe” violence. Means and standard deviations are listed in Table 3. Women
who experienced highly severe violence during the assault that led to the court case had
more injuries from that assault than women who experienced severe violence (1(123) = -
2.08, a < .05). Not surprisingly, then, women who experienced highly severe violence
were also more likely to seek medical treatment from that incident (x2 (125) = 4.42, a <
.05). Women who experienced highly severe violence during the target assault
experienced somewhat more violence over the six months before that assault (t (121) = -
1.66, a < .10) and experienced signiﬁcantly more injuries (1 (123) = -2.20, a < .05) than
women who experienced severe violence during the target assault. Women who
experienced highly severe violence during the target assault were also more likely to have
been threatened with death over the six months before the target assault (t (123) = -3.90, a
< .001).

The modiﬁed version of the CTS was selected in part because it has been used
extensively in previous research. This measure is not without limitations, however. The
Straus (1979) version asks about the use of violence as a way to settle disputes, and may
thus miss violence that is not used in the context of an argument. Moreover, the original
CTS does not include questions that address the larger context in which the violence
occurred (e.g., the' use of violence in self-defense) or the impact of that violence (e.g.,

fear, injuries; Morse, 1995). In the current study, however, these limitations were

30

Table 3

Comparisons between women who experienced severe violence and highly severe
violence during the incident that led to the court case.

 

Women who experienced Women who experienced

 

 

severe violence during highly severe violence 1
target assault during target assault

Variable

Mean no. of

injuries during

target incident 3.08 4.05 -2.08*
(SD) (2.24) (2.95)

Mean violence

over prior 6 mos. 2.40 2.56 -1.66’
(SD) (.53) (.50)

Mean no. of

injuries over

prior 6 mos. 4.30 5.46 -2.20*
(SD) (2.80) (3.12)

Mean frequency

of death threats

over prior 6 mos.

(0=never to 7=

every day) .84 2.02 -3.90**
(SD) (1.19) (2.08)

' p < .10

"' p < .05

**p<.01

addressed. Survivors were asked about their partner’s use of violence regardless of the
“reasons” for the violence. Additional questions in the interview about threats, control,
and injuries contributed to the knowledge about the larger context of the violence.

Coanalljagmham In addition to physical violence, survivors were asked about
psychological violence from their assailant. Items were developed from the Index of
Psychological Abuse (Sullivan, Parisian, & Davidson, 1991), the Violence Assessment
Index and Controlling Behavior Index (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998), and
the Stalking Behavior Checklist (Coleman, 1997). Participants were asked how oﬂen (0
= “never” to 4 = “oﬁen”) their assailants used 34 different forms of psychological abuse
and control against them. The scale includes items such as “refused to talk to her;” “tried
to control her activities,” and “followed her or watched her” (See 50a—hh). One item was
dropped from this scale due to low reliability (“abuse or threaten to abuse pets to hurt
her”). This scale was highly reliable, with a Chronbach’s alpha of .92 and corrected item-
total correlations ranging from .21 to .69

Ihnataaadfear Measuring physical and psychological violence may not be
enough to capture women’s experiences of abuse. Survivors were asked to indicate on a
seven point scale (0 = “never” to 7 = “every day”) how often in the last six months the
assailant threatened them in any way, threatened to kill them, and threatened their friends
or family in any way. They were also asked how often they or their family or friends
were threatened after the arrest but before the case closed, and how often those threats
were intended to keep them ﬁ'om participating in the court process.

Iaiadgs Survivors were asked to indicate on an eight point scale (0 = “never” to 7

32

= “every day”) how oﬂen inthe six months before the arrest the assailant’s violence
caused each of seventeen injuries, such as soreness without bruising, black eyes, and
broken bones. Participants were also asked which injuries resulted from the assault that
led to the court case (See #61a—r).

2"11'5 1:.“_

There are two major components of survivors’ experiences with the criminal
justice system: the police and the courts. Within each of these domains, survivors were
asked about what happened as well as their satisfaction with what happened.

Belicesnntactjxaeriences Survivors were asked multiple questions about the
speciﬁc police contact and arrest that led to the court case. They were asked who called
the police in that incident, when the police were contacted (e.g., during the assault,
several hours later), how many ofﬁcers responded, how many ofﬁcers were female,
whether she was questioned within earshot of the assailant, what action was taken against
the assailant when the police arrived (e.g., arrested at the scene, ﬁled a complaint so that a
warrant could be issued for his arrest), and what information and support was offered to
the survivor (e.g., took photos of injuries, gave written information) (See #75). Survivors
also were asked to indicate on a ﬁve point scale how supportive the police were of them
(0 = “very unsupportive” to 4 = “very supportive”) (See #75).

W Survivors were asked to indicate on a five
point scale how satisﬁed they were with the police response to that incident (1 = “very

dissatisﬁed” to 5 = “very satisﬁed”).

33

WW Survivors were asked multiple questions

about what happened in the court process. They were asked to indicate when their
assailant was arrested and when the court case closed (see #47-48). All survivors were
asked if they ever wanted the charges against their assailant dropped and, if so, what (if
any) steps they took to get the charges dropped (e.g., not go to court, ask the prosecutor’s
office to drop them) (see #82-85).

All survivors were asked if they had any contact with the prosecuting attorney’s
office, if they received a subpoena to appear in court, and if they went to a hearing or the
trial. They were also asked if they ever talked directly to the prosecuting attorney and
how much time they spent talking with him/her. Those survivors who went to a hearing
or trial were asked if they testiﬁed and if so, whether they testiﬁed for or against the
assailant. All survivors were asked the ﬁnal outcome of the case (e. g., assailant plead
guilty, charges dismissed) and, if applicable, what sentence the assailant received (see
#96-99a, #106-106c, #110-110a, #113-114a).

Survivors were asked to indicate whether the prosecuting attorney engaged in each
of several supportive and unsupportive behaviors, such as “listened to your side of the
story” and “blamed you for the violence.” They were also asked to indicate on a ﬁve
point scale how supportive the prosecuting attorney was of them (0 = “not at all
supportive” to 4 = “very supportive”) (see #107-108, #112).

MW Survivors were asked to indicate on a ﬁve point scale
how satisﬁed they were with the way the prosecuting attorney handled the case (1 = “very

dissatisﬁed” to 5 = “very satisfied”). They were also asked to indicate on a ﬁve point

34

scale how satisﬁed they were with the court process (the way things were done in the
hearings and/or trial) and how satisﬁed they were with the outcome of the case (1 = “very
dissatisﬁed” to 5 = “very satisﬁed”).
Centrelladahles

For each of the four components of the criminal legal system (the police response,
the way the prosecuting attorney handled the case, the court process, and the court
outcome), participants were asked how much control they felt they had.
Survivors were asked to indicate on a four point scale how much control they felt they
had over the police response to that incident (0 = “no control” to 3 = “a lot of control”).
Using that same scale, women also were asked how much control they felt they had over
the way the prosecuting attorney handled the case, how much control they felt they had

over the court process, and how much control they felt they had over the court outcome.

35

RESULTS
III , E .

mm For 86% of the women, the incident that led to the court case
was a physical assault. Among these women, 83% had severe violence perpetrated against
them; for 41%, the assault included at least one act of highly severe violence. Table 4
lists the types of violence perpetrated against women during the assault that led to the
court case. Nearly three out of four women (73%) were grabbed, more than a third (39%)
were beat up, and almost one in three (30%) were strangled during that incident.

Most of the women (87%) who were assaulted during the target incident were
injured by the assault. Table 5 lists the percentage of women who sustained each injury.
More than half of women (59%) had cuts, scrapes, or bruises and the same number
(59%) had soreness without bruising. One in ﬁve women (18%) had a concussion or
other head injury, and one in ten (11%) lost consciousness.

The remaining women were not assaulted during the incident that led to the court
case. Most of these cases were about harassment (42%; n = 10) or about a protection
order violation (21%; n = 5). A handful of cases were about property damage (8%; n = 2)
and a handful of participants insisted that no crime was committed; the assailant was
wrongly arrested (13%; n = 3) .

W

Cdanglliagbgaanga All of the assailants engaged in some form of controlling

behavior against the women in the six months before the target incident. The most

common controlling behaviors included calling her names (97%), ridiculing or criticizing

36

Table 4

Types of violence perpetrated against women during incident that led to court case.

 

 

 

Type of violence % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) during the incident that led to court
case (N = 150)
Grabbed 73% 88%
Pushed or shoved 70% 81%
Beat up 39% 45%
Slapped 37% 43%
Punched 34% 39%
Physically restrained 30% 35%
Strangled 30% 34%
Twist arm or leg 28% 32%
Hair pulled 27% 31%
Object thrown at 26% 31%
Tried to hit w/object 25% 29%
Kicked 24% 27%
Tom clothing 24% 27%
Hit w/object 20% 23%
Threatened w/knife 7% 8%
Threatened w/ gun 7% 8%
Forced sexual activity 6% 7%
37

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

 

 

Type of violence % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) during the incident that led to court
case (N = 150)
Bitten 6% 7%
Stabbed 2% 3%
Burned 2% 2%
38

I

Table 5

Types of injuries women received during the assault that led to the court case.

 

 

Type of injury % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) during the incident that led to court
case (N = 150)

Soreness without bruising 59% 69%

Cuts, scrapes, bruises 59% 68%
Nausea/vomiting 28% 3 1%
Strains/sprains 2 1 % 24%

Concussion or head injury 18% 21 %

Bald spots or hair loss 17% 19%

Black eye 16% 18%

Permanent scarring 13% 15%

Loss of consciousness 1 1% 13%

Burns, incl. rug burns 9% 10%

Broken bones 6% 7%

Internal injuries 5% 6%

Bite wounds 3% 4%

Dislocated joints 3% 4%

Pregnancy complications/ 3% 4%
miscarriage“

39

‘l‘

Table 5 (cont’d).

 

 

Type of injury % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) during the incident that led to court
case (N = 150)
Knife or gunshot wound 2% 2%
Loose or broken teeth 1% 1%

 

*Percent of total sample. 67% (n = 6) of pregnant women experienced pregnancy
complications or a miscarriage.

40

her (91%) and lying to her (88%). Table 6 lists the percentage of women subjected to
each controlling behavior and the percentage who described each behavior as happening
“often” during the six months prior to the target incident.

BriaLphysinlgidlgan, Nearly all of the women (98%) had been threatened

and/or assaulted during the six months before the incident that led to the court case. On
average, women were threatened approximately two to three times per month (M = 3.1,

SD = 2.1 where 0 = “never” and 7 = “every day”). About half of the women (51%) were
threatened with death at least once over that six month period. In addition, 49% of the
assailants had threatened women’s family members and/or friends during that six months
as well. More than half the women who were threatened (57%) indicated that they were
somewhat or very afraid that their assailants would follow through on their threats.
During the six months before the arrest, 97% (N =1 68) of the women had been
assaulted at least once. Nearly all of the women who were assaulted (90%) had had at
least one severe act of violence perpetrated against them (e. g., threatened with a weapon.
forced sexual activity). For 40% of the assaulted women, these assaults had been both
severe and frequent (more than once a month). Table 7 lists the percentages of women
who had had each type of violence perpetrated against them for the total sample and for
the subsample of women who had been assaulted during the six months before the arrest.
The majority of women who were assaulted during the six months before the
arrest (89%) were injured by the violence. The most common injuries were cuts, scrapes,
or bruises (74%) and soreness without bruising (70%). One in four women suffered a
concussion or head injury (24%) and nearly one in ﬁve (18%) lost consciousness. On

average, women experienced 4 different injuries during the six months before the target

41

Table 6

Power and control tactics perpetrated against women during the six months before the
arrest.

 

 

Type of control % reporting this % reporting this
happened in prior happened “often”
6 months

Called her names 97% 50%

Ridiculed or criticized her 91% 51%

Lied to her 88% 62%

Accused her of being irrational 88% 54%

or crazy

Acted like he owned her 86% 55%

Tried to control her activities 82% 49%

Tried to humiliate her 79% 37%

Checked up on her 78% 44%

Accused her of having/ 77% 43%

wanting other relationships

Threatened or harmed her 71% 26%

new partner"I

Broke or destroyed something 67% 26%

important to her

Refused to talk to her 65% 25%

Joked about/pretended to 65% 23%

hurt her

42

Table 6 (cont’d).

 

 

Type of control % reporting this % reporting this
happened in prior happened “often”
6 months

Made unwanted calls to her 61% 35%
home/work/school

Tried to control her money 61% 31%
Discouraged her contact 61 % 26%
w/family or friends

Told her she was a bad or unﬁt 60% 24%
motherb

Followed or watched her 60% 24%
Came unwanted to her 58% 27%
home/work/school

Threatened to end relationship 56% 18%

if she didn’t do what he wanted‘

Told her she was not lovable 54% 20%
Leﬁ unwanted phone/pager 53% 28%
messages

Threatened to commit suicide 47% 10%

Harassed her family/friends 48% 14%
Forced her to leave her home 45% 13%
Stole or read her mail 44% 18%
Forbid her from leaving 43% 19%
her homec

43

Table 6 (cont’d).

 

 

Type of control % reporting this % reporting this
happened in prior happened “often”
6 months

Threatened to take children 40% 14%

away from herb

Broke into her home or car 36% 1 1%

Punished or deprived children 35% 7%

when he was angry at herb

Sent her unwanted gifts/photos/ 28% 8%

letters

Left her somewhere with no 28% 5%

way to get home

Tried to get her ﬁredd 22% 8%

 

"Among women who had a new partner (N =34).

bAmong women who had children (N = 124).

cAmong women who were in a relationship with the assailant (N = 134).

dAmong employed women (N = 145).

44

Table 7

Types of violence perpetrated against women during the six months before the arrest.

 

Type of violence

% of total sample

% of women who were assaulted 6

 

(N = 174) months before the arrest (N = 168)
Grabbed 88% 91%
Pushed or shoved 85% 88%
Object thrown at 59% 61%
Beat up 52% 54%
Slapped 52% 54%
Punched 52% 54%
Tried to hit w/object 48% 50%
Strangled 45% 47%
Physically restrained 45% 47%
Twisted arm or leg 44% 45%
Pulled hair 43% 45%
Tom clothing 42% 44%
Kicked 37% 39%
Hit with object 36% 38%
Forced sexual activity 22% 23%
Threatened w/knife 22% 23%
Threatened w/ gun 16% 16%

45

Table 7 (cont’d).

 

 

Type of violence % of total sample % of women who were assaulted 6
(N = 174) months before the arrest (N = 168)

Bitten 11% 12%

Burned 6% 6%

Stabbed 3% 4%

 

46

t.

incident, but this ranged from no injuries to 14 different injuries (M = 3.9, SD = 3.1).
The percentage of injured women who experienced each type of injury is listed in Table
8. About 1 in 3 of the women who were assaulted (3 6%) sought medical treatment for
their injuries.

Expendansmthjaeadhn Over the six months before the target incident, more
than half of the women (55%) had contact with the police because of the assailants’
crime(s) against them. In addition, two thirds of the women (66%) had at least one

incident where they needed the police assistance but did not contact the police. The
average number of times they needed additional police contact was 8.9 (SD = 16.1), but
this ranged from once to 99 times.

All but one woman had contact with the police about the target incident; the
remaining woman’s assailant turned himself in to his probation officer. In the majority of
cases, women contacted the police themselves (71%) or asked someone else to contact
the police (9%). In one in ﬁve cases (20%), someone else contacted the police without
being asked. Most often, the police were contacted immediately after the incident (56%)
or during the incident (28%). The police were contacted a day later or longer after the
incident in 10% of the cases.

In most cases, two or three ofﬁcers responded (M = 2.83, w = 2.08). In over a
third of the cases (34%) at least one female ofﬁcer responded. Variables describing what
actions the police took are listed in Table 9. In most cases, women reported that the
police listened to them (94%) and believed them (82%). One in four women (27%) said
that the police acted bored and one in ten reported that the police blamed her for the

violence. In fact, 2% of the women were arrested themselves for the violence, and 2%

47

fr

Table 8

Types of injuries women received during the six months before the arrest.

 

 

Type of injury % of total sample % of women who were assaulted 6
(N = 174) months before the arrest (N = 168)
Cuts, scrapes, bruises 74% 76%
Soreness w/o bruising 70% 72%
Nausea/vomiting 39% 40%
Sprains or strains 33% 34%
Black eye 26% 27%
Concussion/head injury 24% 25%
Bald spots 21% 22%
Permanent scarring 20% 21%
Loss of consciousness 18% 18%
Burns, incl. rug burns 17% 18%
Broken bones 14% 15%
lntemal injuries 9% 9%
Bite wounds 9% 9%
Dislocated joints 7% 8%
Pregnancy complications/ 5% 5%

miscarriage“

48

Table 8 (cont’d).

 

 

Type of injury % of total sample % of women who were assaulted 6
(N = 174) months before the arrest (N = 168)

Knife or gunshot wound 4% 4%

Loose or broken teeth 3% 4%

 

*Percent of injured women. 38% (n = 9) of pregnant women experienced pregnancy
complications or a miscarriage.

49

1

Table 9

Actions taken by police ofﬁcers regarding incident the that led to the court case.

 

 

Action taken % of incidents
Listened to her 94%
Believed her 82%
Supported her decisions 73%
Told her what was going to 60%
happen next

Did something that made her 58%
feel safer

Gave written info about 40%

community resources

Gave written info about 34%
the legal system

Took pictures of her injuries 30%
at the time"

Acted bored 27%
Tried to pressure her into 24%

pressing charges

Blamed'or scolded her for not 21%
following through on prior charges"

Did something that made her 19%
feel more in danger

Said there was nothing they 13%
could do

50

Table 9 (cont’d).

 

Action taken % of incidents

 

Took pictures of her injuries 12%
at a later date*

Took pictures of the assailant’s 11%
injuries“
Blamed her for the violence 10%

Told her to “patch things up” with 6%
the assailant

Discouraged her from continuing 5%
with the case

Threatened her 2%
Arrested her for the violence 2%
Arrested her for other charges 2%

 

*Among those with visible injuries.
"Among those with prior police or court contact

51

were arrested on other charges. In general, women thought the police were between
neutral and somewhat supportive when they handled the case (M = 2.79, SD = 1.32).

mm The majority of assailants (70%) were released on bail
or bond, and in most cases the judge issued a no contact order (66%). All women were
asked when their assailant was arrested and when the ﬁnal case outcome was decided.
About half the participants (47%) were able to give exact dates for both the arrest and for
the case closing; the rest were only able to give a month and year. Ten women were
unable to recall the month for either the arrest or for the case closure. Nearly two-thirds
of the cases (64%) lasted between two and six months; the remainder lasted less than two
months (27%) or between six and ten months (9%).

During the time between the arrest and the court case closing, almost half the
women (47%) reported that their assailant followed, watched, or checked up on them.
More than two thirds of assailants (69%) attempted to talk the women out of cooperating
with the courts. Over one third of women (37%) were threatened after the arrest but
before the case closed. One in ﬁve women (20%) were assaulted after the arrest, and
most of those assaulted (70%) were injured. Table 10 lists the types of violence
perpetrated against women after the arrest, and Table 11 lists the injuries that resulted.
Many of the assaults were severe; one third of the assaulted women (32%; n = 11) were
beaten up and 15% were sexually assaulted. The most common injury was cuts, scrapes,
or bruising (75%); one in ﬁve of the assaulted women (18%) suffered a head injury and
the same number (18%) lost consciousness.

BMW The majority of women received a subpoena to

appear in court (71%) and nearly two thirds of the women did go to at least one hearing or

52

Table 10

Types of violence perpetrated against women after the arrest but before the case closed.

 

 

Type of violence % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) after arrest, but before case closed
(N = 34).
Grabbed 14% 74%
Pushed or shoved 13% 65%
Object thrown at 10% 50%
Tried to hit w/obj ect 9% 44%
Beat up 6% 32%
Pulled hair 6% 32%
Slapped 6% 32%
Strangled 6% 32%
Physically restrained 6% 32%
Punched 6% 29%
Threatened w/gun 6% 29%
Kicked 6% 29%
Tom clothing 5% 27%
Hit with object 5% 27%
Forced sexual activity 3% 15%
Twist arm or leg 2% 12%
Threatened w/knife 2% 12%

53

1

Table 10 (cont’d).

 

Type of violence

% of total sample

% of women who were assaulted

 

(N = 174) aﬁer arrest, but before case closed
(N = 34).
Bitten 2% 12%
Stabbed 1% 3%
Burned 1% 3%

 

54

Table 1 1

Types of injuries women received after the arrest but before the case closed.

 

 

Type of injury % of total sample % of women who were assaulted
(N = 174) after arrest, but before case closed
(N = 34).

Cuts, scrapes, or bruises 10% 53%

Soreness without bruises 10% 50%

Nausea/vomiting 7% 32%

Concussion/head injury 3% 18%

Loss of consciousness 3% 18%

Black eye 3% 18%

Broken bones 3% 15%

Permanent scarring 3% 15%

Bald spots or hair loss 3% 15%

Strains/ sprains 2% 1 2%

Bite wounds 2% 9%

Burns, incl. rug burns 1% 6%

Dislocated joints 1% 3%

Pregnancy complications/ 1% 3%

miscarriage"

Internal injuries 1% 3%

Knife or gunshot wound 1% 3%

 

*Percent of total sample. 33% (n = l) of the pregnant women had complications or a

miscarriage.

55

1-

trial (62%). Of the women who went to court, more than half (61%) had at least one
instance where the hearing or trial was cancelled or rescheduled after they had gotten to
court. Almost three quarters of the women (73%) talked to a victim advocate from the
prosecutor’s office. On average, women who talked to an advocate spent nearly an hour
with her before the case went to court, but this ranged from no time at all2 to eight hours
(M = 53.1, SD = 79.5). Not surprisingly, the more time women spent with an advocate,
the more satisﬁed they were with the amount of time they spent (1 = .19, a < .05).

Table 12 lists the kinds of things that the advocates did. Most women reported
that the advocate listened to what they had to say (91%) and believed them (93%). Some
women did report that the advocate acted bored (16%) and 3% of advocates blamed the
women for the violence. Overall, most women reported the advocate as being at least
somewhat supportive (M = 3.12, SD = 1.19).

BMW Just over half of the women talked
directly to the prosecuting attorney (5 5%). On average, women spent about half an hour
with the prosecutor before the case went to court, but this varied from no time" to four
hours (M = 32.7, SD = 44.1). Women who spent more time with the prosecuting attorney
were also more satisﬁed with the amount of time they spent with him or her (r = .32, a <
.001).

Table 13 lists some of the things prosecuting attorneys did for the women with
whom they had contact. Most of the prosecuting attorneys listened to what women said

(79%) and believed what they had to say (79%). Only 4% of the prosecuting attorneys

 

sz0 women talked to an advocate only after the case had closed.
3Three women spoke to the prosecuting attorney only after the outcome was decided.

56

Table 12

Actions taken by court advocates regarding incident the that led to the court case
(N=127).

 

 

Action taken % of incidents
Believed her 93%
Listened to her 91 %
Supported her decisions 85%
Told her what was going on 84%
Did something that made her 47%
feel safer

Tried to persuade her to testify 28%
against the assailant

Acted bored 16%

Said there was nothing she 14%
(advocate) could do

Blamed or scolded her for not

following through on prior 14%
charges“
Did something that made her 7%

feel more in danger

Discouraged her from continuing 5%
with the case

Blamed her for the violence 3%

Told her to “patch things up” with 1%
the assailant

 

*Among women with prior police or court contact

57

Table 13

Actions taken by prosecuting attorneys regarding incident the that led to the court case (N
= 95).

 

 

Action taken % of incidents
Listened to her 82%
Believed her 82%
Told her what was going on 81%
Supported her decisions 69%
Did something that made her 30%
feel safer

Tried to persuade her to testify 27%

against the assailant

Said there was nothing she/he 22%
(prosecutor) could do

Blamed or scolded her for not

following through with prior 16%
charges"
Acted bored 15%

Discouraged her from continuing 10%
with the case

Did something that made her 10%
feel more in danger

Blamed her for the violence 4%
Told her to “patch things up” 2%

with the assailant

 

*Among women with prior police or court contact

58

blamed the women for the violence. Overall, women who talked to the prosecuting
attorney thought that she or he was somewhat supportive of her (M = 2.92, SD = 1.46).

Wm; About half of the women (47%) did want the charges
dropped at some point aﬁer the arrest. Less than half the women who wanted the charges
dropped (43%) actually took steps to try to get them dropped. Overall, then, only one in
ﬁve women (20%) tried to get the charges dropped. Final case outcomes are listed in
Table 14. Most assailants pled guilty (62%) or the charges were dropped (19%). A
handful of women (5%) did not know what the ﬁnal outcome was. Only 3% of the
assailants were found not guilty.

, . . . . . l e

Women were asked to indicate on a ﬁve point scale how satisﬁed they were with
four aspects of the criminal legal system (1 = “very dissatisﬁed” to 5 = “very satisﬁed”):
the police response to the target incident, the prosecuting attorney, the court process, and
the court outcome. Overall, women were between neutral and somewhat satisﬁed with
the police response (M = 3.47, SD = 1.52). Similarly, on average women were neutral
about the way the prosecutor handled the case (M = 3.11, SD = 1.57), the court process
(M = 2.93, SD = 1.40), and the court outcome (M = 3.23, SD = 1.57).

Women did not differ across site on three of the four satisfaction variables:
satisfaction with the police response (E (2, 171) = .08, NS), satisfaction with the way the
prosecutor handled the case (E (2, 168) = .56, NS), or satisfaction with the court process
(E (2, 173) = .94, NS). However, a site difference was found for satisfaction with the
court outcome (E (2, 162) = 4.15, a < .05). Post hoc testing (Tukey’s HSD) revealed that

women in Boulder were less satisﬁed with the court outcome (M = 2.66, SD = 1.61) than

59

Table 14

Final case outcomes.

 

 

Outcome % of cases
Pled guilty to original charge(s) 25%
Pled guilty to lesser charge(s) 24%
Charges dropped 20%
Pled guilty - received deferred sentence 10%
Convicted of original charges at trial 5%
Don’t know case outcome 5%
Pled guilty - don’t know charges 3%
Found not guilty after trial 3%
Convicted of lesser charges at trial 1%
Convicted after trial - don’t know charges 1%
Pled no contest ° 1%

 

60

women in Denver (M = 3.47, SD = 1.49). One obvious explanation for this difference
would be a difference in actual outcome; however, there was no difference in conviction
rates between Boulder and Denver (x2 (l) = .24, NS).

It was expected that participants would have different levels of satisfaction with
the different components of the criminal legal system. Cluster analysis was used to
explore participants’ different patterns of satisfaction. It was also expected that these
patterns of satisfaction could be predicted from factors about the target assault, about the
individual survivor and assailant, about the police and court response, and about the
amount of control the survivor had over the legal system response.

Cluster analysis was used to explore participants’ satisfaction with the different
aspects of the criminal legal system rather than creating a linear satisfaction score in order
to capture (1) individual women’s different levels of satisfaction with the different
components of the system (police, prosecuting attorney, court process, court outcome)
and (2) differences in these patterns across groups. A woman who was very satisﬁed
with the police response and very dissatisﬁed with the court outcome would appear to be
neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed overall if her answers were averaged into a linear scale.
Moreover, a second woman with the opposite pattern of responses (very dissatisﬁed with
the police and very satisﬁed with the outcome) would appear identical to the ﬁrst woman
using a linear satisfaction scale. Cluster analysis can be used to distinguish subgroups
based on multivariate proﬁles (Aldenderfer & Blashﬁeld, 1984; Rapkin & Luke, 1993).

Cluster analysis was conducted on the four items measuring survivors’

satisfaction with different aspects of the criminal legal system response. Intercorrelations

between these four variables are listed in Table 15. The cluster analysis was conducted in

61

Table 15

Correlations between the four satisfaction variables used to create clusters.

 

Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
w/ police w/ prosecutor w/ court w/ court
process outcome

 

Satisfaction ---
w/ police

Satisfaction .33M ---
w/ prosecutor

Satisfaction .31 ** .55M ---
w/ court
process

Satisfaction .19* .46" .53** ---
w/ court
outcome

1:.

 

*a<.05
**a<.01

62

two stages. First, an agglomerative clustering method was used to determine initial
groupings since there was no theoretical or empirical basis to determine the initial cluster
centers (Aldenderfer & Blashﬁeld, 1984). Ward’s Method was chosen because it
minimizes within-cluster differences and maximizes between-cluster differences (Rapkin

& Luke, 1993). Second, the resulting cluster centroids were used as the starting point for

an iterative clustering procedure (K-means). This step was done in order to minimize the
misassignment of cases common with agglomerative methods (Mowbray, Bybee, &

Cohen, 1993).

More than 90% of participants (n=17) had complete data for all four items. Of
those participants with missing data, most did not know the ﬁnal court outcome and thus
were not asked about their satisfaction with the court outcome (n=1 1). Four women
insisted that they did not know how satisﬁed they were with the way the prosecutor
handled the case. One woman did not have direct contact with the police (after the
assault she contacted her assailant’s probation ofﬁcer and the assailant turned himself in
to authorities), and thus was not asked about her satisfaction with the police response.
The initial agglomerative clustering was done without these 17 cases. These cases were
then added back in to the iterative clustering procedure and were assigned to clusters
based on the items for which they had data.

The number of clusters was decided upon using four techniques. First, the
resulting plot of fusion coefﬁcients showed a marked ﬂattening between four and three
clusters (see Figure 1). The resulting dendograrn also showed that a four cluster solution
ﬁt the data. In addition, the four cluster solution also yielded the most even distribution

of cases across clusters (39%, 24%, 21%, and 17%). Finally, the four cluster solution

63

No. of Clusters

140 ~

120 >

Figure 1

Fusion Coefﬁcient by Number of Clusters

160 .

150 -

130 -

l-lO -

100

8

80-

70»

 

50
40 -
30 »
20

10-

 

 

 

I

150

F

300

T

450

I I

600 750 900

Fusion Coefﬁcient

64

f

1050

I

1200

T

1350

1

1500

yielded interpretable clusters.

Qldsteadescﬂatjdas, Table 16 presents the cluster centroids for each of the
clusters. Descriptive information for each of the clusters is summarized in Table 17. The
ﬁrst and largest cluster was called “Somewhat Satisﬁed” because it was characterized by
the highest levels of satisfaction across all four components of the criminal legal system.
This cluster was the largest, containing 39% of the sample. Women in this cluster
overall were somewhat satisﬁed with the police and the court process and were between
somewhat and very satisﬁed with the prosecuting attorney and the case outcome. This
cluster was distinguished by several variables reﬂecting their experiences with the courts.
This cluster had the lowest percentage of women who tried to get the charges dropped
(12%). This cluster also had the highest percentage of assailants who pled or were found
guilty (87%). Surprisingly, all of the women who were also arrested for the incident that
led to the court case were in this cluster.

The second largest cluster, containing 24% of the women, was called “Let Down.”
The women in this cluster were satisﬁed with the police response, were neutral about the
prosecuting attorney and the process, and were dissatisﬁed with the ﬁnal court outcome.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this cluster also had the lowest conviction rate (52%). Women
in this cluster had strikingly high levels of violence perpetrated against them; 95%
experienced severe violence during the six months before the arrest. This cluster had the
highest percentage of assailants with an alcohol and/or drug problem (79%).

The third cluster was called “Satisfactory Outcomes” because the women in this
cluster were neither dissatisﬁed nor satisﬁed with the police, were somewhat dissatisﬁed

with the prosecuting attorney and the court process, but were somewhat satisﬁed with the

65

Table 16

Final cluster centroids for four cluster solution (1 = “very dissatisﬁed” to 5 = “very

 

 

satisﬁed”).

Cluster Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
w/police w/prosecutor w/process w/outcome

Somewhat Satisﬁed 3.92 4.62 3.91 4.60

Let Down 4.46 2.93 2.69 1.66

Satisfactory Outcomes 3.11 1.91 2.69 4.03

Somewhat Dissatisﬁed 1.48 1.38 1.31 1.45

 

66

 

c _ .e Ram {one {so _ gem {chm woeconmoc

coo—be vacuum

“mote «a 8:22.»

$6 fawn $3 $3 foam 3mm 23% bawE

woocotoaxm

mote 8&3 .08 0

name seem $2. fomw $3 $3 8:203 238

woueotomxm

8038a was SE5

ammc $2. Xemm fawn $3 $3 3:83 we; Bazaars

emote

36 came {emu fame gem {own He Hem—Emma
\3 e029»:— ,

36 3mm $8 $8 foam $3 5803 833

9.: u 5 am I 5 em I 5 A? u 5 5 n 5
ax 38H woummﬁmma centraoﬁom 888:5 becommmcem EEO Hog Begum «230.com

 

.8336 :80 SM conga—£3 oiﬁtomoa

2 of;

67

 

at: $8 $3 $2 $3 $2 Baas
. meme—Eu cow 3 was.
$2 $3 $S $3. $8 $2 8388a 9 35
3: $$ $2 $3 $E $$ 38%?
goo 3 vex—ah.

a: $3 $8 $2 $2 $2 833582

B23958 :58

623%? m0
8. $8 $8 $wm $8 $8 58 5 503894
Dame—o Q amp—.8 533
ohm $2 $3 $2 $v~ $2 8533 233
nooeotoaxm

2.: n 25 am I 5 em I 5 as. u 5 5 u 5
ax ~88. wowmzemma “33088 88880 begoﬂmumm EEO BA vommcmm 223085

 

.5585 : 02¢

68

Eva:
wave.
2.qu

.o 55 $2 86:252.“ @2898 we: 38 mo $mm SE: 208 8:83 82:28 on So: 2:8 8:33-20 9622 ”2:2

 

 

I- $N o o o $m E2205 :8
e285 :2: 5:83
13w.— 2 $2. $m.\. $mw $mm $5 883:8 :o
bzsw BE E22334

8:22.»

I- $3 $3 o o $w 82:25::

30:58“

6238ch
23 $3 $wm $_ _ $3 $m_ 8:58.

9.: n 5 am I 5 Gm n 5 A? n 5 AS I 5
«X .88. eoamzmmma “23088 88850 becoﬂmmﬁm :BoD 81— :ocmumm 323088

 

.8255 2 25¢

69

court outcome. About 20% of the sample was in this cluster.

The fourth and ﬁnal cluster was called “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” because it was
characterized by the lowest levels of satisfaction across all four aspects of the system.
This was the smallest cluster, with 17% of the sample. Women in this cluster were
between somewhat dissatisﬁed and very dissatisﬁed with the police response, the
prosecuting attorney, the court process, and the court outcome. This cluster had the
lowest percentage of assailants with a substance abuse problem (5 5%), as well as the
lowest percentage of women who experienced severe violence during the six months
before the arrest. This cluster also had the highest percentage of women who attempted
to get the charges dropped (3 8%).

E 1. . S . S . E .

It was expected that four types of variables would be related to women’s patterns
of satisfaction: the target incident itself, factors about the survivor and the assailant,
factors about the police and court response, and the amount of control women perceived
they had over the police and court response.

Since the dependent variable was cluster membership, a categorical variable with
four levels, multinomial logistic regression was used to test the predictive utility of these
four types of factors. Table 18 shows the initial set of variables expected to predict
cluster membership. F our types of variables were selected to predict cluster membership:
characteristics of the incident (severity of the violence, number of injuries), demographic
characteristics (site, survivor race, assailant race, relationship involvement over the six
months before the incident that led to the court case, social support, economic

dependence), system characteristics (supportiveness of the police, whether any of the

70

Table 18

Initial set of variables hypothesized to predict cluster membership.

 

Incident variables
Severity of violence at incident that led to the court case
Number of injuries from incident that led to the court case

Demographic variables

Site (Ingham County, MI/Boulder, CO/Denver, CO)

Survivor race (Woman of Color/White)

Assailant race (Man of Color/White)

Assailant drug and/or alcohol use (has problem/no problem)

Relationship with assailant over six months before incident that led to the court
case (involved/not involved)

Economic dependence on the assailant

Social support

Criminal legal system response variables
Did a female ofﬁcer respond (yes/no)
Supportiveness of police
Time spent with prosecuting attorney
Time spent with court advocate
Was there a guilty plea or conviction (yes/no)

Control variables
Amount of control over police response
Amount of control over the court process
Amount of control over the court outcome

 

71

responding ofﬁcers were female, time with the prosecuting attorney, time with the court
advocate, and whether there was a conviction), and women’s perceived control over three
components of the criminal legal system (the police response, the court process, and the
court outcome).

Two problems arose when this model was tested. First, one of the potential
predictor variables - whether the woman was involved in a relationship with the assailant
over the six months before the incident that led to the court case — could not be tested in
this model due to a complete separation problem. All of the women in the “Somewhat
Dissatisﬁed” cluster were in a relationship with their assailant during the six months
before the incident that led to the court case, leaving one cell (Somewhat Dissatisﬁed -
not involved) empty. This model failed to converge, even after changing delta for the
model from 0 to .5. To address this issue, the decision was made to examine involvement
at the time of the arrest instead of involvement over the six months before the target
incident. Involvement at the time of the arrest could be expected to have a similar
impact on the police and court response because the relationship at the arrest would be
the closest in time to when the system became involved. In addition, for most women
(80%), involvement was the same six months before the target incident as at the arrest.

Table 19 lists the results of this initial multinomial logistic regression model using

involvement at the time of the arrest, and Table 20 lists the intercorrelations between

these predictor variables. Since the outcome variable had four levels (cluster
membership), six sets of contrasts were performed (one for each pair of clusters), as well
as an overall test for each predictor variable. Because of the exploratory nature of this

research, the decision was made to explore trends as well as statistically signiﬁcant

72

f

“mobs 8 =58me

 

:2 8. T om. Ema 3. T 3... co. 3.- 3. \B 3302:
8039a

mu. 5w. 3mm “2: mm. 7 S. .53“ SN- m _. ms Ham—Emm<
C200 mo 58$ ”8.33”:

3. war mm. mo. 2.. om. MK. 5.- mm. 88 E253<
Coﬁoo .8 §Eno M823":

St. NE- 9.. acme.“ 3.7 2. mm. 3.. . mo. 88 “55653
S. ow. 9V.— mmg E.— mm.m EL «.2 mm. 00 .3225
9mm Kg- 2. m: mar um. cm. on; on. =2 .60 Emnwﬁ
2622: an

S. 8.- Ma. ”2 M:- S. 3. 3.- a. 895:0 a
2822:

a coco—05>

mo. mm- mm. Rex,” E. oﬁm cm. mm. N: .«o £53m
Em? Eamon-Sou 0:8 £60 235 Emma-toad 0:8 mvno Em? 830580 2:2 $55 86%on

.55533 “255%.. Ea
.aéaam “2305813580

:38830 beam-«magma Ea
:vommzmm 3:32:09. 58:80

hogan Hoqov ﬁg
585% “2328.. $580

 

dozen-«3mm 835m @5233 E58 :oRmboc ozmmwe 38823: 05 5 £80an woﬁmoﬁoq? =a mo @2me

a 2an

73

 

“mots
8 28.3mm“
vmw _m. NV. 34 NN._ oar hm. «ova 3.7 mm. \3 339::
80305
.1 8. 2 $06 9% 2w: Ema EN 3%? mm. mm. mm; mac Emzmmm<
C200 mo game 3:55":
vw. oo. 8. 2: mm. mm. @9— ov. cm. 3: 88 ~§_mwmm<
C200 .8 §Eo3uo HES/iv
86 mo._ Nb.— mad no. omr mn. “mod om. 7 cm. 88 Eamomtmm
-- mm. 5.- 3. mm. 2. 7 mm. mm; 9:... mm. 00 .8225
.36 av. MK.- ov. 32 5.7 cm. we. mm- mm. :2 :00 SEES
E0205 8
x: ow. 3. n: ow. 2. N: we. mo: mo. mom-5.850 u
3022:
a 3:203
36 wmd our NV. 9... cv.- 3. mm; 3. am; .«o £55m
285 5205000 0:8 mayo 285 5065000 0:8 $60 255 283580 0:8 ago 88:55

Nxmq acne-magma “£30809. 28 :vommummma “9.3088: 98 $08850 boaoﬁmumm: Ea

amen—08:0 boﬁﬁﬁﬁm: “mm-ago

agon wed: «mmUEOU

2:309 84.. 88:80

 

.3258 2 28d-

74

30003 5.00

 

00; 0». Rd 0.2% o: S...“ Rad 3. 00d :0>0 30:00
00:0000: 00:00

m0. 9. mm._ m _ ._ mm. Eu.— Nv. mm. 0m; :0>0 30:00
mo. mo; 20m 5. 00.- N0. 100.0 KN mod “03:00
85000000

3.3 3.- 00. 3; mo. 80 mm. 3.- am. \3 08:.
0000300

0m. 00. co; 5. oo. co._ co. co. 2: \3 08:.
03:00:00

.16.: mm; ~00 mm; 3. 3; mm; 3... 00. 00:00
mo. Q. m: Ewe mm; 3.0 am. :0. _m._ 0050 035$
mm. 3. 504 34 our on. no; 00.- mm. E0003 _0_00m
00:00:0000

0m.m 00. cod S. 2.- mm. mm. 0m. cm; 280:000
035 8065000 000: 0000 0003 #:0800000 000: 0000 033 6065000 000: m000 000000000

.303300 023088.. Ea
asamﬁm 02308813080

:0080050 boaommmcam: 0:0
:00mm00m 023080? 000::00

..:30Q ~04: 0::

.0205 023.05%: 08280

 

.6083 2 22¢

75

0000000 E50

 

000.0 N_. vmr 2.. .00. Q.- 00. 00. Z. N: 00>0 30:00
00:0000: 00:00
N0; 00. 00. 00._ mm. _m. 0N; 0m. 0_. w _ ._ 0.6 30:00
.00.: w: m: 00.0 2..— vm._- 0m. .0000 0m.m- 00. 33:00
33000000
*m_.0 ......0N.0 00.- 00. 00d 00.- 3. v0.m 00. 00; \3 08:-
0000000
00. um. 00. 00; 00. 00. S.— _0. 00. 00._ \3 08:-
03.000000
......00.0N ...00.0 00. 00.N 1.00.00 mm: 00.0 00—0 00. N0.m 00:00
00.0 .2: 00. T E. 00. 0a.- 00. N050. :2 00.0 0000-3 20:00.0
00.0 $0.0 Zn.— 00.0 «000 0: 000 S. 00.- 00. 000000 .0300
00:00:0000
00 .0 .m0.m N0. EN 00. 00. 00.0 E. 00.- 00. 00:0:000
203 3002-0000 000: 0000 20>» #:0300000 000: 0000 0.03 3065000 000: 0000 0000305

$33 :000000005 00:30:00? 0:0 :000000005 00030800.. 0:0 :0080030 000000000? 0:0

:0080030 000000000? 0000:00

angog H01?» wgcoo

agog «01—: Hahn—00

 

.5280 e 0300

76

S. V a:

00. V a _..

S. v a.

.000 :00 005 y: __0._0>0_

:5. v a 00.0: n 0.00 ”x 0: .082 H.052

 

000.0 00.0 00.0

00. no. 00.—

080050
0_. 00. 0: H0:630:00

 

035 080.080 008 0000
00000800 02305000.. Ba

.0030 023050.. 080.50

20>? 3200-0000 000: 0000
:0080030 0800,0000? 000

.0030 02308813080

20? #:0300000 000: 0000 00000005
.0300 00-0.. 0:0
..00m000m 00:30:00.0: 0000:00

 

00:80 a use.

77

No.0

N000

«00.0 0mg _0.0

2; 0500080 20.. 0200
.0000020 0230500.. 05
20050050 08005003100050

L00 0_._ 2.0

003 222-080 209 0000
.0008205 .2350: 05

:EOQ Hod: awn-aﬂoo

S. V at.

09va*

S. v a.

.020 :00 ”X MA __0._0>0_

.80. v a 00.0.: n 0.00 ”X 0.: 0022 082 ‘

050050
00. 00.- 00. 00>0 35:00

20>» 5035000 000: 0000 00530.5

:0080050 0000000000.. 0:0
..:300 00-0.. 000500

.5080 a 2.0.0

78

05030.5
080 0.000
-- 00.- 2.- 00.- 0_. 1.00. 1.3. 500000.00

0030 .3 :05no ”005310 000:
-- 1.00. 1.00. 00.- 00.- 00. 50:000< .0

0030 3 :0503u0 ”05.0510 000:
2.0.. 8.- .0:- 21535500

00 0005000

-- 1.10.31.00.- 1._m.- ”0:0 .0
.00 50003

-- 0.. 1.0—. ”00m .0

50035 5
1100.35.85 0 .N

50035
00 00:03?
.8 00300 ._

 

.N_

 

.3005 :0_000:w0: 00052 3:50:25: 325 :_ 0030:? 500050000 0:0 003050.» 0030005 :003000 500035000005

00 030.0

79

 

-- 00.- 00. 2. 20.- 00. 00.- 00. 2. 00.- 00.- _0.- 02.- 00. 00.- 003090.02
0000000000
-- *02. 02. *02. 00. 00. 00.- 00.- 00. 00. L0. 00.- 00. 00.- 050000.02
0089,00
-- 00. 02. 00.- 00.- 00.- 00. 0_. *0_. *02. 00.1.0. 02. 050000.0—
03000000
-- 00.- *02. 00.- 2.- 02. 00.- 00. 00.- 00. 00.- 00. 00:00.02
000000000
002-00
-- 00.- 00. 20.- 02.- *00. 02. 1.00. 00.- 00. 00. 20800.2
0000000
tam.- ..o~.- 2. 8.- 8.- is. 8.- 8.- 8.- 380.2
0000000000.
-- 100.100.- 00. 0.02. 02. 00.- 2.- 00.- 000000000 .0
0000.8
00000000083
-- 02- 00. 2. 00. 00... 00. 02. 00202: .0
.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .2 .02 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2

 

.5080 on 2000

80

o_.- 1.00.-

300. 00.

00.- 1.20.- 1.02.

02.- ..:..00.-

000000023
0 2 {0000000000 .00

0000000 000005
00. 0000000000 .0

00000000000:
20. 0000000000 .00

0000005
00. 0000000000 .0—

0800000 00>0
00.- 20.0000 .0—

0000000 .
0.500 00>0

00. 200000 .0—

00000 00>0
20.- 20.0000 .0—

 

 

.0000000 00 0300.

81

20. V91.
mo. VQ...

 

0000000005
0000000000 .00

0000000 000005
0000000000 .20

000000000005

0000000000 .00

0000005
0000000000 .0—

00000000
00>0 3.0000 .02

 

:00. :00. *2. :80. :8.
:00. :00. :00. :00.

:00. :8. :00.

:. :00.

:00.

.8 00 .00 .2 .00 .:

 

.9080 cm 0300

82

relationships, at the risk of being overly inclusive rather than prematurely discounting
potentially important relationships.

The second problem that arose testing the initial model was that ﬁve variables did
not exhibit any signiﬁcant or trend relationships for any of the contrasts: number of
injuries, site, assailant race, time spent with the advocate, and control over the police
response. Hosmer and Lemshow (1991) recommend dropping variables with no
predictive value and running a smaller model, assuming that dropping those variables
does not signiﬁcantly impact the coefﬁcients for remaining variables. Retaining variables
that have no predictive value can artiﬁcially increase the goodness of ﬁt values. The
decision was made to retain site in the model as a control, especially given that women in
Boulder were less satisﬁed with the case outcome than women in Denver. Thus, the four
remaining variables which neither exhibited a signiﬁcant relationship with cluster
membership nor exhibited a signiﬁcant relationship or trend in any contrast were
examined as potential suppressor variables.

Following Hosmer & Lemshow (1991), the reduced model was explored for
possible suppressor effects of the four removed variables. Each variable was added back
into the equation, and the changes in coefficients, Wald statistics and odds ratios were
examined. Neither time spent with the advocate nor control over the police response
appeared to act as suppressors.

Injuries was found to be a suppressor for violence; once the impact of injuries
from the incident was accounted for, women who experienced more violence were more
likely to be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” Once the variance

shared by violence and injuries was accounted for, the remaining variance in violence was

83

related to women’s experiences and satisfaction. Thus, the decision was made to leave
both injuries and violence in the model.

A confounding effect was also found for assailant race. Without assailant race in
the model, women in lngharn County, MI were less likely to be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed”
than in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” relative to women in Denver. When assailant race was
added to the model, this effect for site disappeared. Univariate analyses suggested that '
assailant race was related to site (£0) = 36.09, p < .001). Moreover, the criminal justice
system has been criticized for treating White assailants and assailants of Color differently
(e.g., Ferraro, 1993; Richie, 1996; Richie & Kahuna, 1997). This difference in treatment,
in turn, could be expected to be related to women’s satisfaction with the system. Once
the variance shared between assailant race and site was accounted for, however, neither
showed a relationship with satisfaction. Thus, the decision was made to retain assailant
race in the model due to its relationship with the control variable site.

Four sets of criteria were used to examine the reduced model. First, the overall ﬁt
of the model was considered. Second, the utility of individual predictors to differentiate
cluster membership was examined. Third, the degree to which the model accurately
classiﬁed cases into the correct cluster was considered. Finally, the utility of each type of
variable (incident, demographics, system response, and perceived control) to predict
variance in cluster membership was examined.

QxeralLMQdiLEit

First, the overall ﬁt of the model was examined. The model showed a good ﬁt to

the data, as indicated by the likelihood ratio statistic for the goodness of ﬁt test for the

overall model: LRx2 (48, N = 130) = 132.42, p < .001. McFadden’s rho squared was

84

equal to .38, which also indicated that the model resulted in signiﬁcant ﬁt relative to the
null model; values between .2 and .4 are generally considered acceptable (Hensher &
Johnson, 1981).

Next, the utility of individual predictors to explain differences in patterns of
satisfaction was examined. Table 21 presents the Wald tests and odds ratios for each
contrast in the ﬁnal reduced model. Two of the demographic variables, three system
response variables, and one control variable showed a relationship overall with cluster
membership. Whether the assailant had a substance abuse problem distinguished the
clusters (er2 (3) = 11.30, p < .05). Whether the assailant was a man of Color or White
showed a trend with cluster membership (er2 (3) = 7.63, p < .10). Variables about the
system response distinguished between the clusters: the supportiveness of the police
(LRx2 (3) = 37.48, p < .001), time with the prosecuting attorney (LRx2 (3) = 10.51, p <
.05), and whether the assailant was convicted (LRx2 (3) = 11.32, p < .05). Finally, the
amount of control women believed they had over the court process distinguished the
clusters (LRX2 (3) = 10.31, p < .05).

Because of the exploratory nature of this study, predictors which differentiated
individual clusters were also explored, even if those predictors were not signiﬁcant
overall. The amount of violence women experienced and several variables about the

legal system response and about the amount of control women perceived they had

85

 

0003000

00. mm. RN 009m 0m. T 3. 0.90.0 mod- m0. 000 00000030
00.00 .00 008Nomo023n0

S. 00.- S. 5. mo: mm. mm. 00.- mm. 0000 00000030
0200 .00 000003uom0003n:

8. mm: mm. .000 00. T 3. o0. 0%- wm. 0000 000000000000
no. M2. on; 3. 00.0 wwd 3.0 mm; 006 O0 .000_00m
wmd KA- E. 00. Sr m0. mo. 3.. cm. :2 :00 0000?:
00000000

No. me: ma. 3.0 3.. S. m: 00- mm. 00 0000.000
00000000

0 0000.000

3. 00.- 00. :00 00. 00.0 2.. 00. 00.0 00 00250
203 000000-0000 0000 0000 20>» 000000-0000 0000 0000 0003 000000-0000 0000 0000 000000000

2000000000 00030800.. 05
20000000 00030800.. 0080

:000000000 000000000? 000
..000000m 00030000? 00000000

.0550 3.. Es
0200000 0230800.. 000080

 

0000000000 003200 000000000 _00000 000_w0_ 0000000000 0000000 000 00 0000000000 000000005 .00 5002

.m 030,—-

86

{h

 

0003000 000
.50: .0000 wmd m2: .306 SN 3.: mm. 00. 00.0 00000000000
00—00 00 008uom000§>u0
mm. co. 3.- 00. mm. 3. 00.0 om. mm. 9.0 0000 0:0—0000.00
0200 .00 00803Hom00§u0
“mos wed 00.0 _ 0.0 co. 00.. 00.0 000.0.“ N0. T 0m. 0000 00000009000
-- m0. 3.. NV. 00. om. T om. no. mm; mm. 00 000—000
Ewe 00. 0m: m0. mm; 00. 7 mm. 0m. 8.. mm. :2 :00 0000300
00000000
mud _m._ 00. 3.0 m0. 3. m: m0 3.. mo. 00 0000.000
00000000
00 0000—00,
mow mmN 5.- m0. mm. cm; 3.. 00.0 S. 00.0 .00 >000>0m
20>» 000000-0000 0000 0000 20>? 000000-0000 0000 0000 203 000000-0000 0000 0000 000000000

0095 0000000000 00030000? 000 :000000005 000050008.. 0000 :000000000 000000000? 000

:000000000 0000000000? 00000000

.0560 00.0.. .8080

0.000509 wot—3 #35600

 

00.0080 00 030,0

87

0000000 00000

 

m _ .N a. va *Nm0 om; Nmm. 0.0006 :0.— EN 00>0 300000
mm; 2.0 _N.m 5. N0- mm. 1.30.0 NNN. 3.0 003000
0000000000

.0me mo: 3. 2.0 No. no.0 0.x. 5.- 00. \3 00000-
0>0000000

1.00.2 om._ 20.0 “wma 0m. mm; 00.— 00.- 00. 00:00
mo. 3. 2.0 0.3.0 5.0 .20 cm. 00. mm; 000000 200000
00. m0. 0m; 0m; 00.- cm. 00.0 mm; 0m. 0000000 _0000m
0000000000

Qu— mm. 3..— wm. 00.- mm. 0m. mm. 3.0 0000080
000000 00

mm; war am. .36. mm;- mm. 5. 00. 00.0 0000002000
203 0000000000 0000 0000 0.03 00000-0000 0000 0000 203 0000000000 0000 0000 000000000

2800000000 0230800.. 05
0000000 0230800100050

..0000000000 0000000000? 000
:000000m 00030000? 00000000

ongoa “0400 U5

0000000 0230800.. 000080

 

00.0080 00 0500.

88

102

*Nm.:

0.3.2

100.5.

5%

09m

Mam

om.m

0000000 00:00

0 0. 0_. $0 00>0 000000
0.9.0 00m- 2. 0002000
0000000000

«EN 3. 3.0 \3 080%
0000000000

.188 3. 09m 00000
wm.m om; wad 0000.00 20800
3. 00.. 8. 080:0 E80
00000000000

SW. 3.- 00. 00000005
000000 00

.00. m m0. 0- 0N. 0008030200

 

0000

0035 05000080 002 030
00000300 0230500.. Ea

:000000000 000000000? 000000000

203 0500.080 208 0200
280003.000 025800.. Ea

:EOQ «01—: «8.30000

20>» 0000000000 0000 0000 0000000000
:0000000000 0000000008: 0000

.0300 00410000000

 

000.0080 00 203

89

—o. V9.2.
00va*
00. v0,
.000 00.0 ~03: _

.08. v 0 .9000 n 0000 N00 0.0 .08: 00oz

 

*omé mm; 0m.m

we. no. we;

0800030

cm. 0 _. w _ .0 00>0 3000000

 

203 05020080 2.8 0200
.00320 0230800.. 05

28000000 02308000.. 002080

203 00000000000 0000 0000
:0000000000 0000000009. 000

:000000m 00030851000050

00005 0000000000 0000 0000 000000000
.0300 00H. 0:0
:000000m 00:30:00? 0000000

 

00.00000 0 m 03¢

90

Sh

.Om.m 2; 00m

.mw.m 0Q— wwN

_o.vu..:..
mo. V a ...
o0.vq.
.0000 00.0 0033.

.08. v 0 .0300 n 0000 .x 00 00052 082

08002.0
8. 8.- 00. 005 020.80

 

.09:

0003 0000000000 0000 0000
:000000005 0003080? 0000
200800000 0.0000000081000000

203 05020080 20. 0200
.8000300 0.03200: B...

..:300 00.0: 00000000

0003 0000000000 0000 0000 000000000
2008000000 0000000009. 000

2:300 00.0.. 00000000

 

0.0.080 00 2.000

91

distinguished the ﬁrst cluster - “Somewhat Satisﬁed” from the other clusters. Women
who experienced more severe violence during the target incident were more likely to be
in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 2.11). Women
who felt supported by the police were 4.47 times more likely to be in “Somewhat
Satisﬁed” than in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” and were somewhat (but not signiﬁcantly)
more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio =
1.75, p < .10). Women whose assailants were convicted were 9.18 times more likely to
be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than in “Let Down.” Women who felt they had control over
the court system and over the outcome also were more likely to be in the “Somewhat
Satisﬁed” cluster than in the other clusters. Women who perceived themselves to have
more control over the court process were more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than
in “Let Down” (odds ratio = 2.74) and than in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio =
3.32). Finally, women who perceived themselves to have more control over the court

outcome were more likely to be in the “Somewhat Satisﬁed” cluster than in “Somewhat

Dissatisﬁed” (odds ratio = 3.39).

Perhaps not surprisingly, the second cluster - “Let Down” - was distinguished
from the other three mainly by the police response and the court outcome. Women who
reported feeling supported by the police were more likely to be in “Let Down” than in
“Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” (odds ratio = 6.45) or “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio =
2.64). Women who spent more time with the prosecuting attorney were somewhat (but
not signiﬁcantly, p < .10) more likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Satisfactory
Outcomes.” However, women whose assailants pled guilty or were convicted were .11

times less likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” and were .10 times

92

less likely to be in “Let Down” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” Women whose
assailants had a drug and/or alcohol problem were more likely to be in “Let Down” than
in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” (odds ratio = 17.57) or “Somewhat Satisﬁed” (odds ratio =
7.75).

The third cluster - “Satisfactory Outcomes” - was distinguished from the other
clusters by demographic variables, as well as by incident and system response variables.
Women who were involved with their assailant at the time of the arrest were somewhat
(but not signiﬁcantly) more likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Let Down”
(odds ratio = 4.18, p < .10) or than in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” (odds ratio = 3.95, p < .10).
White women were 7.09 times more likely to be in this cluster than in “Somewhat
Satisﬁed” and 4.12 times more likely to be in this cluster than in “Let Down.” Women
whose assailants had a substance abuse problem were more likely to be in “Satisfactory
Outcomes” than in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed (odds ratio = 10.75) and were somewhat
more likely to be in this cluster than in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” (odds ratio = 4.74, p < .10).
A trend for economic dependence was also found; women who said that the assailant’s
income was important were somewhat more likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than
in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” (odds ratio = 2.16, p < .10). Additionally, women who had a
female ofﬁcer respond were .16 times less likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than in
“Somewhat Satisﬁed” and somewhat (but not signiﬁcantly) less likely to be in
“Satisfactory Outcomes” than in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” (odd ratio = .19, p < .10).

The ﬁnal cluster - “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” was distinguished from the other
three clusters mainly by system variables and by control variables. Women who felt the

police were supportive of them were less likely to be in this cluster than in the other three

93

clusters (“Somewhat Satisﬁed” odds ratio = .22; “Let Down” odds ratio = .15;
“Satisfactory Outcomes” odds ratio = .39). In addition, women who reported less social
support in general were somewhat more likely to be in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” than in
“Satisfactory Outcomes”(odds ratio = .32, p < .10) or “Let Down” (odds ratio = .34, p <
.10). Women who spent more time with the prosecuting attorney were more likely to be
in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes” (odds ratio = 1.06) or
“Somewhat Satisﬁed” (odds ratio = 1.03). Women who felt they had more control over
the outcome were less likely to be in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” than in the other three
clusters (“Somewhat Satisﬁed” odds ratio = .29; “Let Down” odds ratio = .35, p < .10;
“Satisfactory Outcomes” odds ratio = .32, p < .10).

The third way the multinomial logistic regression model was evaluated was by
examining how successfully the model could predict cluster membership. The prediction
success indices indicated that this model could successfully classify 72% of the cases in
the “Somewhat Satisﬁed” cluster, 64% of “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed,” 55% of “Satisfactory
Outcomes,” and 53% of “Let Down.” Overall, this model was able to classify 62% of the

cases correctly; chance prediction for this model was 39%.

94

In addition to examining the utility of each individual variable in predicting
cluster membership, the utility of each type of variable was examined as well in order to
more fully explore the ecological model. An ecological perspective suggests that factors
about the incident, the individual survivors and assailants, and about the system response
should all be useful in predicting women’s satisfaction. The ﬁrst block of variables
entered into the regression were about the target incident: the severity of the violence at
the incident that led to the court case and the number of injuries that resulted ﬁ'om that
incident. The target incident block was not related to cluster membership (x2 (6) = 6.80,
NS).

The second group of variables entered into the equation was demographic
characteristics about the survivor and the assailant (site, whether she was White or a
woman of Color, whether the assailant was White or a man of Color, assailant drug use,
relationship at the time of the arrest, social support, and economic dependence). The
addition of this block improved the model somewhat, but not signiﬁcantly (x2 (24) =
34.78, p_ < .10).

The third group of variables entered into the equation was characteristics of the
legal system response (whether a female officer responded, supportiveness of the police,
time with the prosecuting attorney, whether the assailant was convicted/pled guilty). This
block signiﬁcantly improved prediction of cluster membership (x2 (12) = 66.66, p <
.001)

The ﬁnal group of variables entered was about the amount of control the survivor

believed she had over the court process and the court outcome. The addition of this block

95

to the model also improved prediction of women’s patterns of satisfaction (x2 (6) = 24.18,
p < .001).
S . E . . l l C E

In order to more fully explore women’s satisfaction with the criminal legal
system, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted on women’s satisfaction with
the court outcome using the same four blocks of predictors (incident, demographics,
system response, and control). Satisfaction with the outcome was chosen over the other
satisfaction variables because the outcome may in turn determine whether women
ultimately choose to use the criminal legal system again about any future violence.

The regression coefﬁcients are summarized in Table 22. The severity of the
violence during the target incident and the number of injuries were not related to
satisfaction with the court outcome (Echange = .81, NS). The second block of variables
entered, the demographics, improve prediction somewhat but not signiﬁcantly (Echange
= .1.91, p < .10). The third block of variables, factors about the system response, also
improved prediction of women’s satisfaction with the outcome somewhat but not
signiﬁcantly (Echange = 2.04, p < .10). Two predictors from this block showed trends in
the ﬁnal, full model. Increased time with the prosecuting attorney was somewhat related -
to decreased satisfaction with the outcome (0 = -.14, p <.10). Whether the assailant was
convicted also showed a trend; women whose assailants were convicted were slightly
more likely to be satisﬁed with the outcome (0 = .14, p < .10).

The addition of the ﬁnal block of variables, control over the process and control
over the outcome, signiﬁcantly improved prediction (Echange = 12.33, p < .001). Not

surprisingly, the amount of control women perceived they had over the outcome was

96

Table 22

Regression coefﬁcients for the hierarchical multiple regression predicting satisfaction
with the court outcome.

 

Em Final

B SE8 [3 B SEB [3 Adj.R2 R2 change

 

Block 1 - Incident -.003 .011

Severityof -.18 .15 -.12 -.18 .14 -.11
violence at
incident

Number of .01 .06 .02 -.Ol .05 -.08
injuries from
incident
Block 2 - Demographics .045 .0993
Ingham Co., M1 .02 .33 .01 -.14 .31 -.O4

Boulder, CO -1.03 .38 -.29** -.53 .39 -.15

Participant -.03 .30 -.01 .01 .28 .00
race
Assailant -.17 .31 -.05 -.23 .29 -.07
race
Assailant drug -.13 .31 -.04 -.17 .28 -.05

problem

Involvement .34 .28 .11 .20 .26 .06
at arrest

Economic .13 .14 .09 .15 .12 .ll
dependence

Socialsupport .33 .19 .15 .11 .18 .05

97

Table 22 (cont’d).

 

E110: E101

B SEB [3 B SE3 0 Adj.R2 R2 change

 

Block 3 - System Response .07 .05‘1

Female ofﬁcer .15 .29 .05 .05 .27 .02

Police .18 .10 .15" .12 .09 .10
supportive
Time w/ -.00 .00 -.07 -.01 .00 -.14"
prosecutor
Convict .56 .31 .15" .53 .29 .14“
Block 4 - Perceived Control .21 .13"

Control over .29 .17 .19’I --- --- -..-
court process

Control over .35 .15 .25*
outcome

 

Note: Full model E(16, 147) = 3.42, p < .001
“ p < .10

*p< .05
"p < .01

98

related to increased satisfaction with the outcome ([3 = .25, p < .05). The amount of
control women perceived they had over the court process showed a trend; women who
perceived they had more control over the process were slightly more satisﬁed with the
outcome ([3 = .19, p < .10). Overall, the full model did signiﬁcantly improve prediction
(Adjusted R2 = .21, E (16, 147) = 3.42, p < .001).

This model also revealed a mediator effect; the control variables mediated the
effect of site. When the dummy-coded site variables were entered, an effect for the
contrast between Boulder and Denver was found; women in Boulder were less satisﬁed
with the outcome than women in Denver. This effect was consistent with the univariate
ﬁndings (E (2, 162) = 4.15, p < .05). However, when the control variables were entered
in the ﬁnal block, this effect for site disappeared, suggesting that control over the process
and control over the outcome mediated the site difference in satisfaction with the court

OUtCOI'DC.

99

DISCUSSION

Women in this study had a wide variety of experiences, both of violence and
experiences with the police and courts. As expected, there were distinct patterns of
satisfaction with four components of the criminal legal system: the police response, the
way the prosecutor handled the case, the court process, and the court outcome. These
patterns of satisfaction were related to factors about the system response, the amount of
control women perceived they had over the system, and, to a lesser extent, factors about
the women and their assailants.

The majority of the women in this sample experienced severe violence during the
incident that led to the court case. Even more women experienced severe violence during
the six months before the target incident; the assault that led to the court case was not an
isolated incident. Moreover, despite No Contact orders imposed by the judges in many of
these cases, two thirds of assailants attempted to talk women out of taking part in
prosecution, nearly half the assailants stalked the women, and nearly one in ﬁve women
was assaulted while the target case was pending. Despite these clear attempts by
assailants to prevent survivors from taking part in prosecution, the majority of women did
use the court system. Three out of four women talked to the court advocate, two thirds
went to court and just over half talked to the prosecutor. Only one in ﬁve women
attempted to have the case dropped.

As expected, women were not uniformly satisﬁed (nor dissatisﬁed) with the
criminal legal system. Across the entire sample of women, the average scores for each
satisfaction variable was near the scale midpoint: neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed.

Looking at the mean for each satisfaction score would have lost valuable information. As

100

expected, distinct patterns of satisfaction across women could be found in the data.
Moreover, many women had different levels of satisfaction with the different components
of the legal system. Two of the four clusters (“Somewhat Satisﬁed” and “Somewhat
Dissatisﬁed”) were each made up of women who were relatively satisﬁed or relatively
dissatisﬁed with all the components of the legal system. The two remaining clusters
(“Satisfactory Outcomes” and “Let Down”) each included women who were satisﬁed
with some aspects of the system and dissatisﬁed with other aspects. Clearly, women can
and do differentiate between the different aspects of the criminal legal system.

Additionally, only 38% of women were in a cluster that was satisﬁed with all
aspects of the system (“Somewhat Satisﬁed”). Over half were less than satisﬁed with at
least one aspect of the system. Consistent with an ecological perspective on intimate
partner violence (Carlson, 1984; Dutton, 1996), it was expected that these patterns of
satisfaction could be explained by four different types of variables: the incident,
demographics, the system response, and perceived control over the system. The system
response and demographics were each marginally related, while perceived control was
found to be strongly related to satisfaction.

Both the supportiveness of the police and whether any of the responding police
ofﬁcers was female were related to women’s satisfaction with the police response.
Women who felt the police were supportive of them were more likely to be in clusters
that were somewhat satisﬁed with the police response (“Somewhat Satisﬁed” or “Let
Down”). In addition, women who had a female ofﬁcer respond were more likely to be in
“Somewhat Satisﬁed” than in “Satisfactory Outcomes.” This effect for female police

ofﬁcers may be related to gender differences among police ofﬁcers in attitudes toward

101

intimate partner violence (Belknap, 1995). However, having a female ofﬁcer respond in
and of itself is not enough to guarantee satisfaction with the police response, as illustrated
by the contrast between “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” and “Satisfactory Outcomes.” Women
in “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” were somewhat less satisﬁed with the police response, but
were more likely to have had a female ofﬁcer respond. Clearly, in order for women to be
satisﬁed with the police response to intimate partner violence, they need to feel supported
by the police.

The actual court outcome was also related to women’s patterns of satisfaction.
Women whose assailants were not convicted were more likely to be in the “Let Down”
cluster. In addition, women whose assailants were convicted were more likely to be
satisﬁed with the court outcome (“Somewhat Satisﬁed” or “Satisfactory Endings”).
Contrary to the commonly-held stereotype of battered women as forgiving and wanting
their assailants to be released, many women in this study wanted their assailants to be
convicted of the crime against them. Moreover, the majority of women in this study did
go to court and most did not attempt to get the charges dropped. The “Let Down” cluster
had the highest rate of appearing in court, the second lowest rate of requesting charges be
dismissed, and the highest rate of violence while the case was pending. Yet this cluster
also had the lowest conviction rate. This ﬁnding is consistent with Ferraro and
Boychuk’s (1992) ﬁndings. When survivors do appear in court and do desire
prosecution, there is still no guarantee of conviction. Thus, interventions to increase
battered women’s participation in the court system is no guarantee of an increase in
conviction rates. Future interventions to increase conviction rates, then, need to focus on

the police and courts themselves, rather than simply attempting to increase the number of

102

battered women who appear in court. Steps like more detailed reporting by police
ofﬁcers and use of additional evidence in court (e. g., witness testimony, photographs,
medical reports) have the potential to increase conviction rates.

Surprisingly, those women who spent more time with the prosecuting attorney
were more likely to be in the cluster “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed,” which included women
who were dissatisﬁed with the way the prosecuting attorney handled the case, the court
process, and the court outcome. Perhaps these women spent additional time with the
prosecutor as a way to change the way the prosecutor handled the case or in order to
communicate their dissatisfaction. Clearly, simply increasing the time women and
prosecuting attorneys spend together will not automatically lead to increased satisfaction
for survivors; the quality of that interaction must also be addressed.

The only system-level variable that was not related to survivor satisfaction was the
amount of time women spent with the advocate from the prosecuting attorney’s office.
Again, it may be the quality of that interaction and the resulting ﬁt between women’s
needs and the court response, rather than the amount of time spent with the advocate, that
is related to women’s satisfaction with the system. Future research needs to examine
more closely women’s perceptions of and interactions with court advocates, along with
advocates’ actual behavior.

Consistent with an ecological perspective on intimate partner violence,
characteristics of the survivor and the assailant were also related to survivors’
satisfaction. Women who were involved with the assailant at the time of the arrest and
White women were more likely to be in “Satisfactory Outcomes” than “Let Down” or

“Somewhat Satisﬁed.” Perhaps women who were involved with their assailants at the

103

time of the arrest were perceived by police to be more “responsible” for the violence by
not leaving the relationship (e.g., Erez & Belknap, 1998). Thus, the police may have
been less supportive of these women, leading to their decreased satisfaction with the way
they were treated.

The role of race is more challenging to interpret. Prior research has suggested that
the police and courts are less likely to support women of Color than White women
(Ferraro, 1989). Moreover, women of Color report that they may not call the police
because of fear that their assailants (men of Color) will be treated harshly by a racist
judicial system (Richie, 1996; Richie & Kanuha, 1997). Thus, the ﬁnding that women of
Color were less likely than White women to be in the “Satisfactory Outcomes” cluster is
somewhat inconsistent with prior research. This cluster was characterized by
dissatisfaction with the police response, the prosecuting attorney, and the court process.
Perhaps women of Color had lower expectations of system personnel than White women,
leading to White women’s greater dissatisfaction with the way they were treated.
Additionally, all of the assailants in this study had been arrested; thus this study cannot
address possible race differences in arrest rates.

Contrary to expectations, the race of the assailant was not related to women’s
satisfaction with the system over and above its relationship with site. Moreover, the
linear regression on satisfaction with the outcome did not reveal that satisfaction with the
outcome was impacted by the survivors’ race or the assailant’s race. Again, this null
ﬁnding may be due to race differences in expectations of the criminal legal system;
women may have expected that if their assailants were men of Color, then the assailants

would be treated more harshly by the criminal legal system. Additional research needs to

104

explore in more detail the relationship between survivors’ expectations of the criminal
justice system, survivor race, assailant race, and survivor satisfaction with the court
outcome.

Economic dependence and social support were both only marginally related to
survivor satisfaction. Women who were “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” were somewhat less
likely to report that their assailants’ income was important than women in “Satisfactory
Outcomes.” The measure of economic dependence used, however, was economic
dependence at the time of the interview, not the time of the incident that led to the court
case nor the time of the court outcome. A different measure of economic dependence
may have yielded different results. Alternatively, women who are economically
dependent on their assailants may be less likely to have police contact about assaults in
the ﬁrst place because they know that their income will be affected. Since women who
had not had legal system contact were not eligible for the current study, these
economically dependent women may be seriously underrepresented. Future research
needs to examine in more detail the impact of economic dependence on women’s
decision to contact the police and to take part in prosecution.

Women who were “Somewhat Dissatisﬁed” were also slightly more likely to
report that they had less social support than women in “Satisfactory Outcomes” and
women in “Let Down.” It was expected that women who had more social support might
be more satisﬁed with the criminal legal system because of the extra support and
assistance in decision-making and navigating the system. However, this does not appear
to be the case; those women who reported slightly more social support were in two

clusters that did not have positive experiences with the prosecuting attorney and the court

105

process. Given the exploratory nature of this research and that this difference on social
support was a trend, it is possible that this ﬁnding may be a statistical artifact, rather than
a true difference. Alternatively, women with more social support may have had higher
expectations that they would be supported by the system than women without other
sources of social support. Additional research asking women directly about how their
social support network affected their decisions about using the criminal legal system and
their experiences within the system is necessary to explore this ﬁnding in more detail.

The last demographic variable that was related to women’s satisfaction with the
system was drug and/or alcohol abuse by the assailants. Women whose assailants had a
substance abuse problem were more likely to be in “Let Down.” Perhaps the court
personnel took the violence less seriously because of the assailant’s substance abuse
problem. If they attributed the violence to the substance abuse, rather than to the
assailant, they may be less likely to take the survivor seriously or to vigorously pursue
prosecution. Since substance abuse does not cause intimate partner violence (Limandri &
Sheridan, 1995; Miller & Wellford, 1998), court personnel may need additional education
on the role of substance abuse in intimate partner violence.

It should be clariﬁed that these demographic characteristics that are related to
women’s satisfaction may not directly cause satisfaction. Rather, each of these variables
either impacts the actions of legal system personnel (survivor and assailant race,
relationship, assailant drug use), or at least impacts what survivors want from the system
(economic dependence, social support). These actions by system personnel, in turn,

impact women’s satisfaction.

106

Overall, variables about women’s perceived control over the criminal legal system
were related to women’s patterns of satisfaction. Two of three control variables were
related to women’s satisfaction: control over the court process and control over the court
outcome. Women who were in the “Somewhat Satisﬁed” cluster felt like they had more
control over the court process than women in the other clusters. Women in “Somewhat
Dissatisﬁed” felt like they had somewhat less control over the outcome than did women
in the other three clusters. Control also mediated the site difference in satisfaction with
the outcome; this site difference appears to be due to a difference in perceived control.
Women who felt like they had control, then, were more satisﬁed with the criminal legal
system response. This effect for control is consistent with Ford’s (1983; 1991; Ford &
Regoli, 1992) work, which suggests that women who have the option to drop charges but
decide not to are safer over time, relative to women who decide to drop charges and
women who are not given this choice.

The distinction between perceived control and actual control in this study is
crucial. The current study simply asked women how much control they believed they had
over the system, because measuring women’s actual control was not possible. Changes
within the system that increase women’s perceived control but do not increase their
actual control ultimately would be misleading and disempowering (Riger, 1993). A great
deal of future work will be needed to disentangle the relationship between perceived
control, actual control, and satisfaction. How closely does women’s perceived control
match their actual control? How closely related is actual control and satisfaction for
women? Are there particular situations where women would be more satisﬁed with less

control, as suggested by proponents of evidence-based prosecution?

107

Control over the police response, however, was not related to satisfaction. This
null ﬁnding may be due to the sample selected for this study: only those women whose
assailants had been charged were eligible. In all but one case, someone contacted the
police and an arrest was made. While the police varied in their supportiveness of women
and in other actions (e. g., taking photographs, providing information), they did make
arrests for crimes against women in the sample. Future research needs to address
perceived control in cases where an arrest was not made.

Contrary to expectations, the effects of incident characteristics were weak. It was
expected that severity of the violence and the resultant injuries would be related to
satisfaction because the system may take cases of severe violence more seriously, thus
leading to increased satisfaction. This did appear to be the case; women who experienced
more severe violence were more likely to be in “Somewhat Satisﬁed” than in
“Satisfactory Outcomes” (once the impact of injuries was controlled for). However, it
should be noted that women who had experienced life threatening assaults and women
who had not been physically assaulted at all were in all four clusters.

At ﬁrst glance, there appears to be a conﬂict between women having control over
the criminal legal system (which is related to women’s increased satisfaction) and
evidence-based prosecution policies, which remove the responsibility for prosecution
from survivors. For those women who believe the system can help end the violence
against them, evidence-based prosecution policies will not affect their control over or
participation in the system. Evidence-based prosecution does not preclude women from
talking with court personnel or testifying in court. The dilemma remains, however, for

women who want control over the system because they want charges dismissed.

108

Additional community supports for the survivor (e.g., ﬁnancial support) and protection
from the assailant could decrease women’s reliance on control over the system to stay
safe. Evidence—based prosecution as part of a larger, coordinated community response
could decrease women’s perceived control over the system without decreasing her
satisfaction with the criminal legal system. Additional research is needed to explore the
relationship between evidence-based prosecution, perceived control, and satisfaction in
jurisdictions which consistently use evidence-based prosecution.

Was

The current research added to our knowledge base by examining women’s
satisfaction with the system’s response to their victimization. Knowing what aspects of
the system women ﬁnd satisfactory, however, is not the same as understanding what will
keep women safe. Future longitudinal research needs to explore how this experience with
the criminal legal system impacts women’s actual safety over time.

Moreover, future research needs to examine how assailants experience the
criminal legal system. Understanding what survivors want from the system and what
their experiences are is only part of the picture. Assailants’ violent behaviors need to stop
if we are to end violence against women. What is it about the criminal legal system, and
about other community responses to violence that can prevent and deter assailants’
violence? Understanding how assailants experience the legal system is critical to
developing policies and procedures to end violence against women.

In addition, this research only explored satisfaction among women whose
assailants had been arrested and criminal charges had been ﬁled. Future research needs to

address satisfaction with the system in those cases where the police are contacted but an

109

arrest is not made and cases where an arrest is made, but the prosecuting attorney does
not ﬁle criminal charges. Many of the women in the current research expressed mixed
feelings about criminal prosecution, yet women whose assailants were convicted were
more likely to be in a cluster characterized by satisfaction with the ﬁnal case outcome
(“Somewhat Satisﬁed” or “Satisfactory Outcomes”) than in “Let Down.” This ﬁnding
contradicts the commonly held stereotype that women with abusive partners do not want
the criminal legal system involved or do not want their assailants convicted. Clearly,
conviction is important to many women.

The response rate for this study was low enough to raise concerns about the
representativeness of the sample. Most importantly, women who were not safe enough
to respond to the ﬂyer or to in-person recruitment could not be interviewed. However,
the sample did include women from a wide range of racial and ethnic backgrounds, ages,
and incomes. Future research needs to explore how representative the current group of
women was of women who have domestic violence-related court cases.

Additionally, the sites selected for this study differed from each other, both in
population and in the legal system processes. Women in Boulder were more likely to be
White and were more likely to have White assailants than women in Ingham County
Michigan or women in Denver. This racial difference in sample is consistent with the
populations of the three sites. This racial difference may also impact the way the legal
system treats women and/or their expectations of the system. If women of Color have
low expectations of the system, then they may be satisﬁed in situations where White
women would not be. Clearly, this role of expectations and race needs to be explored

further.

110

These sites also differ somewhat in legal system procedures. Women in Ingham
County, MI are subpoenaed to pre-trial hearings as well as to trials; in the Colorado sites,
women are only subpoenaed to trials. In Colorado, arrest in domestic violence cases is
mandatory; in Michigan arrests is preferred. Because criminal charges had to have been
ﬁled in order for a woman to be eligible for the study, the women in Colorado may have
had slightly different experiences than women in Michigan. Speciﬁcally, there may have
been women in Michigan whose assailants were not arrested (making them ineligible for
the study) but whose assailants would have been arrested in Colorado.

The policies and procedures in these three jurisdictions may also differ in
important ways from other communities. For instance, evidence-based prosecution
procedures and strong coordination between multiple community agencies (including the
police and courts) could impact both what survivors want from the legal system and how
survivors are treated. Deferred prosecution policies, which defer prosecution on the
condition that the defendant complete some form of probation and/or counseling, could
impact the prosecution and conviction rate, thus impacting how survivors feel about the

process.

111

Ssunmmdmglusigm

Overall, this study demonstrates the complexity of women’s experiences: both
their experiences of violence and other crimes by their intimate partners and their
experiences with the criminal legal system. The criminal legal system is only one of
multiple systems with the potential to assist women with abusive partners and to hold
assailants accountable for their actions. Appropriate, coordinated responses by multiple
systems are necessary to adequately address violence against women. Nonetheless,
understanding survivor satisfaction with the criminal legal system is a crucial ﬁrst step to

improving the way this system addresses intimate partner violence.

112

APPENDICES

113

APPENDIX A

Interview

114

MSU Prosecution Project
Initial Interview

As we talked about on the phone, this interview will take approximately 2 hours to complete. The information you give me today will be
used to tell us how the police and court system can better help women. Since you are the expert, any information you give us will be
extremely helpful. Everything you tell me will be kept conﬁdential from everyone and will gm affect any services you receive from any
law enforcement agency or from the court system. If any of the questions make you uncomfortable or don‘t apply to you, just let me
know.

When you last Spoke with us. you said: you didn‘t have a phone
your phone number was:

 

ls this information still right? YES NO (CURRENT PHONE STATUS: )

CONFIRM NAME (esp. spelling) AND CURRENT ADDRESS:

 

 

 

 

Name Address

City Zip

Do you plan on living at this address for the next three months? YES NO DON’T KNOW
(IF NO or DON‘T KNOW) Do you know where you might be living during the next three months?

(phone)
If we were unable to get in touch with you, who would be most likely to know how we could contact you? When we talked with you on
the phone, you mentioned these people (READ PREVIOUS CONTACTS). Are they still okay for us to contact if we can‘t reach you
at the address you gave? (GET RELATIONSHIP TO HER FOR ALL CONTACTS) (HAVE HER SIGN RELEASE FORM FOR
ALL CONTACTS).

W r vi ma
a. b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

still appropriate? YES NO
b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

still appropriate? YES NO—

 

When are the best times to contact you? (GET SPECIFIC DAYS & TIMES)
Weekdays Weekends

 

Are there times that are unsafe or less safe for us to contact you?

 

When we contact you again in three months. what should we say when someone answers the phone? (e.g., ask for her. leave
message from Prosecution Study, from MSU, from women’s health study)

 

 

Is it all right if we leave a message with the person who answers the phone? YES NO

Who should we say is calling?

Is it all right if we leave a message on an answering machine? YES NO Who should we say is calling?

Throughout this interview I will be asking questions about the person who was arrested for physically harming you. The reason 1'" be
asking these questions is so that we can better understand your circumstances as well as the effect this person‘s violence and the court
case have had on your well-being. Because these are personal questions, it may seem less awkward for me to refer to this person by

name. What is this person's name?

(GET FIRST AND LAST NAME & SPELLING)

 

115

 

Interviewer ID:
Date of interview:
Time started:

 

(TURN ON TAPE RECORDER)
First, I’d like to ask you some general questions so that we can get some background information for the
women we are talking with.

1. What is your race or ethnic background?

 

 

AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK ................. 1
WHITE/CAUCASIAN ............................. 2
LATINA/CHICANA/HISPANIC ..................... 3
ASIAN/ASIAN-AMERICAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER ..... 4
NATIVE AMERICAN ............................. 5
MIXED ( ) ................... 6
OTHER ( ) ................... 7
2. What is your date of birth?_/___/_ (age ___)

3. How many children do you have?
(INCLUDE STEPCHILDREN IF SHE HAS MOTHER-TYPE RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR THEM)
(IF SHE HAS NO CHILDREN, GO TO #4)

3a. What are their ages?
(INDICATE NUMBER FOR EACH AGE RANGE)

UNDER 3 YEARS OLD .................
3 TO 5 YEARS OLD ....................
NO CHILDREN = 88 6 TO 12 YEARS OLD ...................
13 TO 18 YEARS OLD ..................
OVER 18 YEARS OLD ..................

3b. How many of your children are currently living with you? .......................

 

(IF NONE, GO TO #4) (She has no children ............. 88)
3c. Is (A) a biological or adoptive parent to any of your minor children?
YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable - No Minor Children) ................. 8

116

4. Do you have any kind of disability? (IF YES) What kind of disability is it?

 

NO DISABILITY ................................. 0
VISUALLY IMPAIRED ........................... 1
Specify all: HEARING IMPAIRED ............................ 2
PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED ......................... 3
LEARNING DISABILITY .......................... 4
OTHER MENTAL IMPAIRMENT ................... 5
MORE THAN ONE OF THE ABOVE ................ 6
OTHER ......................................... 7

5. In the last six months, have you been employed?

(GO TO #5:!) YES, PART TIME (less than 35 hrs/week) ............. 1
(GO TO #5:!) YES, FULL TIME ................................ 2
(GO TO #6) NO ............................................ 0

5a. Are you currently employed?

YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
6. What’s your education level?
LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL ....................... 1
HIGH SCHOOL GRAD/GED ....................... 2
TRADE SCHOOL ................................ 3
SOME COLLEGE ................................ 4
ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE .......................... 5
COLLEGE GRADUATE ........................... 6
PROFESSIONAL DEGREE ........................ 7

7. Are you receiving any governmental assistance, such as SS1, Section 8, or Food Stamps?

YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0

117

8. I know that sometimes it can be uncomfortable to talk about incomes, but it can help us to understand
more about your life if we know how much money you make or get on a monthly basis. Could you tell me
what your current monthly income is? That is, based on the income you get before taxes are taken out. (IF
SHE NEEDS A REFERENCE, ASK ABOUT THE LAST MONTH OR TWO.)

(THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING SHE GETS FROM HER JOB EARNINGS, JOB EARNINGS
OF HER PARTNER OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE HOUSEHOLD, STOCK DIVIDENDS, TAN F,
WIC, FOOD STAMPS, RENT/UTILITIES SUBSIDIES, SECTION 8, CHILD SUPPORT, AND
ALIMONY, if applicable)

(MAKE NOTES IN THE MARGIN/ADD IT UP IF NECESSARY)

 

(EXACT AMOUNT)

 

8a. Is your current monthly income different from your monthly income for the last six months?
Would you say your income has (READ EACH OPTION)

DECREASED A LOT ............................. 0
DECREASED A LITTLE .......................... 1
STAYED ABOUT THE SAME ...................... 2
INCREASED A LITTLE ........................... 3
INCREASED A LOT .............................. 4

8b. How many people does your current monthly income support?

 

8c. How much of this income do you bring directly into the home rather than another adult? This
includes any child support, W1C, food stamps, or any other government aid you may get. (READ

EACH OPTION)
NONE OF THE INCOME .......................... 0
% OF THE INCOME OR LESS ...................... 1
BEMEN. V. AND ‘/2 OF THE INCOME ............. 2
'/2 OF THE INCOME .............................. 3
BETWEEN '/2 AND 3/4 OF THE INCOME ............. 4
3/4 OR MORE OF THE INCOME BUT NOT ALL ....... 5
ALL OF THE INCOME ............................ 6
(MARK 8d “0” & 8e “8” & GO TO #9) (Not Applicable - has no income) ..................... 8
8d. How much of this income does (A) bring in?

 

(IF SHE BROUGHT IN ALL INCOME, DOUBLE CHECK AND MARK THE QUESTION “0”)
(CHILD SUPPORT DOES N_QI COUNT)

(READ EACH OPTION)
(GO To #9) NONE OF THE INCOME .......................... o
v. OF THE INCOME OR LEss ...................... 1
W v. AND v. OF THE INCOME ............. 2
v. OF THE INCOME .............................. 3
W V: AND 3/. OF THE INCOME ............. 4
v. OR MORE OF THE INCOME BUT NOT ALL ....... 5
ALL OF THE INCOME ............................ 6

118

(IF (A) HAS BROUGHT IN ANY OF THE INCOME, ASK)

8e. How important is the money that (A) brings in to you and your family?
By important, I mean how easy would it be for you or your family to get by without it. Would you
say that it is:

NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT ........................ 1
A LITTLE IMPORTANT ........................... 2
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT ........................ 3
VERY IMPORTANT .............................. 4
(Not Applicable - brought in none) ................... 8
(#9-17)
In this section of the interview, I want to ﬁnd out how you feel about various parts of your life. Please tell
me the feelings you have now —- taking into account what has happened in the MEI—8.01m and what you
expect in the am.

On this GREEN card are the answers that I’d like you to give me. I’ll be asking you about a list of things.
After I ask you each question, please tell me what phrase on this card gives the best summary of how you
feel: either “VERY HAPPY,” “HAPPY,” “MOSTLY SATISFIED,” “EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
DISSATISFIED,” “MOSTLY DISSATISFIED,” “UNHAPPY,” or “VERY UNHAPPY,” depending on
how you feel about that part of your life.

If you feel that a question doesn’t apply to you, or is uncomfortable for you to answer, just let me know.

VERY HAPPY ................................... 1
HAPPY ......................................... 2
MOSTLY SATISFIED ............................. 3
MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED/DISSATISFIED) ...... 4
MOSTLY DISSATISFIED .......................... 5
UNHAPPY ...................................... 6
VERY UNHAPPY ................................ 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
No Answer (Explain Why!) ......................... 9

9. First, a very general question. How do you feel about your life overall? .....................
10. In general, how do you feel about yourself? ...........................................
11. How do you feel about your personal safety? ..........................................
12. How do you feel about the amount of fun and enjoyment you have? ........................
13. How do you feel about the responsibilities you have for members of your family? .............

14. How do you feel about what you are accomplishing in your life? ..........................

15. How do you feel about your independence or freedom - that is, how free do you feel to live the kind of
life you want? ......................................................................

16. How do you feel about your emotional and psychological well-being? ......................

17. How do you feel about the way you spend your spare time? ..............................

119

Now, I have a list of some ways you might have felt, or things you might have done in the last wogk. We
are asking these questions to get an idea of how you’re feeling lately. I’d like to know how oﬁen you have
felt any of these ways in W- Using this PURPLE card, during the past week, how often:

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

NEVER ................................

RARELY (less than a day) .................

A LITTLE (1-2 days) .....................

SOMETIMES (3-4 days) ..................

MOST OR ALL THE TIME (5-7 days) .......

(Not Applicable - Explain Why!) ............

No Answer - Explain Why! ................
Were you bothered by things that don’t usually bother you? ..............................
Did you not feel like eating, or have a poor appetite? ....................................
Did you feel that you could not shake off the blues even with help from family or friends? ......
Did you feel like you were just as good as other people? .................................
Did you have trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing? ........................
Did you feel depressed? ..........................................................
Did you feel like everything you did was an effort? .....................................
Did you feel hopeful about the future? ...............................................
Did you think your life had been a failure? ............................................
Did you feel fearful? .............................................................
Was your sleep restless? ..........................................................
Were you happy? ...............................................................
Did you talk less than usual? .......................................................
Did you feel lonely? .............................................................
Were people unfriendly? ..........................................................
Did you enjoy life? ..............................................................
Did you have crying spells? .......................................................
Did you feel sad? ................................................................

120

..0
..l
..2
..3
..4
..8
..9

NEVER ........................ ’ .......... o

RARELY (less than a day) ................... l
A LITTLE (1-2 days) ....................... 2
SOMETIMES (3-4 days) .................... 3
MOST OR ALL THE TIME (5-7 days) ......... 4
(Not Applicable - Explain Why!) .............. 8
No Answer - Explain Why! .................. 9
36. Did you feel like people disliked you? . . . . . . . . , ...................................... _
37. Did you feel like you could not “get going?” .......................................... __
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about your relationship with (A) . If you don’t

 

want to answer any of these questions - or if you want to stop at any time, just let me know. You don’t
have to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

 

38. How long have you known (A) ? ..................................
(MONTHS)
39. How long were you, or have you been in a relationship with (A) ? ..........
(MONTHS)
40. How would you describe your £03211! relationship with (A) ? Would you say you are:
MARRIED, LIVING TOGETHER ................... 1
MARRIED, SEPARATED (not living together) ......... 2
DIVORCED (not living together) ..................... 3
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, LIVING TOGETHER ............ 4
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, NOT LIVING TOGETHER ....... 5
EX-GIRLFRIEND, EX—BOYFRIEND ................. 6
DATING, BUT NOT GIRL/BOYFRIEND ............. 7
OTHER ( ) ................. O

 

41. From the time your relationship started until now, how many separations have you had from
(A) ?

(SEPARATION IS DEFINED BY AT LEAST AN OVERNIGHT SEPARATION WHERE YOU
THOUGHT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER OR ENDING)

(INCLUDES IF CURRENTLY SEPARATED)
(IF “0” GO TO #43) (ACTUAL #)
(IF “1” OR MORE GO TO #41a)
41a. How long did your Last separation last?
[NO SEPARATIONS = 88888] (# OF DAYS)
W CURRENT SEPARATION)

(IF LIVING TOGETHER, SKIP TO #46)

121

(ASK IF THEY ARE NOT LIVING TOGETHER)
(IF SHE HAS m5, SKIP TO #43)

(NOTE: IF (A) IS NOT A PARENT TO HER KIDS AND SHE SAYS THE QUESTIONS DO NOT
APPLY, SKIP TO #43)

 

42. Does (A) have court-ordered visitation rights?
YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

42a. Using the Pink Card can you tell me about how oﬁen in the past six months has
(A) spent time (visited) with your children?

NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

42b. Some men use custody or visitation issues to harass the women they have been involved with.
Using the answers on this WHITE CARD, to what extent, if at all, has

 

(A) used custody or visitation to:

NOT A VERY

AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
STAY IN YOUR LIFE . ...... O ........... 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
HARASS YOU ............. 0 ........... 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
INTIMIDATE YOU ........... 0 ........... 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
KEEP “TRACK” OF YOU ..... 0 ........... 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
DEMEAN YOU IN FRONT .
OF THE KIDS .............. O ........... l ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
FRIGHTEN YOU ............ 0 ........... l ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
TRY TO TURN THE
KIDS AGAINST YOU . ...... 0 ........... I ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
ANYTHING ELSE? .......... 0 . . . . ..... l ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8
(Specify: )

 

122

(ASK IF NOT LIVING TOGETHER) (IF LIVING TOGETHER, GO TO #46)
43. Now, I’d just like to know about the whereabouts of (A) . For instance, is he in this
area, in another city, in jail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THIS AREA .................................. 1
DIFFERENT CITY, SAME STATE .................. 2
DIFFERENT STATE .............................. 3
DIFFERENT COUNTRY ........................... 4
IN JAIL OR PRISON .............................. 5
OTHER ( ’ ) .................. 6
DON’T KNOW .................................. 7
(Not Applicable - living together) .................... 8

(ASK IF NOT LIVING TOGETHER)

44. Does (A) know where you are living now?
YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(DON’T KNOW) ................................. 7
(Not Applicable - living together) .................... 8

(IF SHE IS IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH (A) GO TO #46)

(ASK ONLY IF SHE IS 1101 IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH (A) 1

45. Separating from someone is sometimes a difﬁcult process. About how oﬁen would you say you have

seriously considered getting back together with (A) since your Last separation? (HAND

PARTICIPANT PINK CARD)
NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

(ASK ONLY IF SHE IS HQ]: IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH (A) I
45a. How often has (A) tried to encourage you to get back together with him

since your last separation? (Includes through the mail or through other people.)

(CONTINUE USING PINK CARD)

NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... I
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

123

(ASK ONLY IF SHE IS NQI IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH (A) )

45b. How often has (A) tried to harass or intimidate you to get back together with
him since your last separation? (Includes through the mail or through other people.)
(CONTINUE USING PINK CARD)

 

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

(IF NO CHILDREN, GO TO #46)

45c. How many times in the past six months has (A) used the children (for

example - said they needed him or threatened to hurt them or take them away from you) to
convince you to get back together with him?
(CONTINUE USING PINK CARD)

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(IF NO CHILDREN, ‘8’) (Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(ASK EVERYONE)
46. Would you say that (A) has or used to have an alcohol and/or drug problem?
(GO TO #47) NO PROBLEM ................................... O
ALCOHOL ONLY ................................ 1
DRUG ONLY .................................... 2
ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROBLEM ................. 3
RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC (SOBER) .............. 4
RECOVERING ADDICT (CLEAN) .................. 5
RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC/ADDICT ............... 6
(MARK #46a-c “7” AND SKIP) (DON’T KNOW) ................................. 7

(IF SHE THINKS (A) HAS ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUG PROBLEM, INCLUDING
“RECOVERING” ASK)
46a. Is he currently receiving any type of treatment for this problem? (INCLUDES AA)

(GO TO #46b) YES ............................................ 1

(GO TO #47) NO ............................................ 0

(MARK #46b & c “7” AND SKIP) (DON’T KNOW) ................................. 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

124

(IF YES)
46b. What type of treatment is he in?

 

OUTPATIENT TREATMENT (Includes AA) ........... l
INPATIENT TREATMENT ........................ 2
OTHER ( ) ....................... 3
(MARK #46c “7” AND SKIP) (DON’T KNOW) .............................. .. . . 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

46c. Was the treatment mandated (i.e., did a judge tell him to get treatment)?

YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(DON’T KNOW) ................................. 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
47. Now I’ve got some questions about your relationship with (A) during the six months

 

before he was arrested. We sent you a letter a little while after the court case closed. Can you tell me when

he was arrested for those charges? (GET AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE; AT LEAST THE MONTH AND
YEAR)

 

48. When did the court case close? That is, when was the outcome - like conviction or dismissing the
charges - decided? (GET AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE; AT LEAST THE MONTH AND YEAR)

 

49. What was your relationship with (A) during the six months before the arrest? (IF
HER RELATIONSHIP CHANGED, USE RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS TRUE FOR MOST OF THE
TIME THE VIOLENCE WAS OCCURRING DURING THE SIX MONTHS)

MARRIED, LIVING TOGETHER ................... l
MARRIED, SEPARATED (not living together) ......... 2
DIVORCED (not living together) ..................... 3
GIRL/BOYFIREND, LIVING TOGETHER ............ 4
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, NOT LIVING TOGETHER ....... 5
EX-GIRLFRIEND, EX-BOYFRIEND ................. 6
DATING, BUT NOT GIRL/BOYFRIEND ............. 7
OTHER ( ) .................. 0

 

125

50. Now, I'm going to ask some questions about some things partners and ex-partners do to harm us or
make us feel bad about ourselves. These are emotional kinds of things that can happen in any relationship.
Using this card (SHOW YELLOW CARD), could you tell me how often in the six months before he was
arrested (A) did any of these things to annoy or hurt you?

(IF SHE WAS INVOLVED WITH ASSAILANT IN 6 MONTHS BEFORE ARREST, SKIP THE
ITEMS MARKED WITH - AND MARK “8”)

(IF SHE WAS HQ]: INVOLVED WITH ASSAILANT IN 6 MONTHS BEFORE ARREST, SKIP
THE ITEMS MARKED WITH’"Ir AND MARK “8”)

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
RARELY ....................................... 2
SOMETIMES .................................... 3
OFTEN ......................................... 4
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9

a. How often has he refused to talk to you? ............................................. _
b. How oﬁen has he accused you of having or wanting other sexual relationships? ..............
c. Tried to control your money? ......................................................
d. Tried to control your activities? ....................................................
e. Lied to you or deliberately misled you? ..............................................
f. Called you names or sworn at you? ..................................................
g. Ridiculed or criticized you? .......................................................
-h. (ASK IF NOT INVOLVED) Threatened, harmed, or attempted to

harm your new partner? ......................................................

(If no new partner, mark N/A = 8)
i. Harassed your family or friends in some way? .........................................
j. Discouraged your contact with family or friends? .......................................
k. Tried to humiliate you? ...........................................................
I. Came unwanted to your home, work, or school? ........................................
m. Broken or destroyed something important to you? .....................................
n. Broke into or attempted to break into your home or car? .................................
0. Do you have or have you had pets in the last six months? (IF YES)

Abused or threatened to abuse pets to hurt you? ..........................................
(If no pets, mark N/A = 8)

p. Punished or deprived the children when he was angry at you? .............................
(If no children, mark N/A= 8)

126

How often in the six months before he was arrested has (A)

 

NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... l
RARELY ....................................... 2
SOMETIMES .................................... 3
OFTEN ......................................... 4
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9
q. Threatened to take the children away from you? .......................................
(If no children, mark N/A= 8)
r. Left you somewhere with no way to get home? ........................................
"s. Threatened to end the relationship if you didn’t do what he wanted? ......................
t. Stole or read your mail? ...........................................................
u. Tried to force you to leave your home? ..............................................
v. Made unwanted calls to your home or work? ..........................................
w. Threatened to commit suicide? .....................................................
x. Accused you of being irrational or crazy? ............................................
y. Left you unwanted phone or pager messages at home or work? ............................
z. Tried to get you ﬁred from your job? ................................................
(If no job, mark N/A = 8)
aa. .10de about or pretended to hurt you? ...............................................
bb. Checked up on you? ............................................................
cc. Followed you or watched you? ....................................................
dd. Sent you unwanted gifts, photos, or letters? ..........................................
ee. Told you that you are not lovable? .................................................
ff. Told you that you were a bad or unﬁt mother? ........................................
(If no children, mark N/A= 8)
gg. Acted like he “owned” you? ...................................................... _
"”" hh. Forbid you from leaving your home? ............................................ __
ii. Do something else I haven’t mentioned? ............................................. _
(Specify: )

 

127

51. (SHOW PINK CARD) How often in the 6 months before he was arrested did
(A) threaten you in any way? By that I mean said or did things that made you feel scared or in
danger, whether in person, over the phone, through the mail, or through other people. Would you say:

 

(GO TO #52) NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7

51a. (SHOW PINK CARD) How often in the 6 months before he was arrested has

(A) threatened to kill you? Would you say:
NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable - never threatened) ................... 8

52. Do you think (A) is capable of killing you? (ASK EACH)

DEFINITELY YES ............................... l
PROBABLY YES ................................. 2
PROBABLY NO ................................. 4
DEFINITELY NO ................................ 5
(Insists she doesn’t know) .......................... 3

53. Does (A) have easy access to a gun? (Includes hunting rifles)

YES, BUT NOT IN THE HOUSE OR WITH HIM ....... 1
YES, IN THE HOUSE OR WITH HIM ................ 2 .
NO ............................................ 0
(Don’t Know) .................................... 7

54. (SHOW PINK CARD) How often in the six months before he was arrested did

(A) threaten your children, friends, or family in any way? By that I mean said or did things
that made you or them feel scared or in danger, whether in person, over the phone, through the mail, or
through other people. Using the answers on this PINK CARD, would you say:

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7

128

(IF SHE HAS M1]: BEEN THREATEN ED AND IF HER FAMILY/FRIENDS HAVE ME BEEN
THREATENED, MARK #55 AND #56 “NOT APPLICABLE” AND SKIP TO #57.)

55. (IF SHE OR HER FRIENDS/FAMILY HAVE BEEN THREATENED M) If you were to
compare the number of times (A) has threatened you or your Woods since his
arrest to the 6 months before the arrest, would you say the threats have been:

LESS FREQUENT ................................ 1
AS FREQUENT .................................. 2
MORE FREQUENT ............................... 3
NO THREATS SINCE THE ARREST ................ 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

56. (IF SHE OR HER FRIENDS/FAMILY HAVE BEEN THREATENED ML) How afraid are
you that he will follow through or make good on his threats? Would you say you are:

NOT AT ALL AF RAID ............................ 0
A LITTLE BIT AFRAID ........................... 1
SOMEWHAT AF RAID ............................ 2
VERY AFRAID .................................. 3
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(ASK EVERYONE)
Now I’d like to talk about the violence you’ve experienced from (A) . First, I have

 

some speciﬁc questions to ask, but then we can talk a little more informally about what happened if you
want, okay?

57. How long after you became involved with (A) did he ﬁrst physically harm you?

 

(IF NEVER HARMED = 88888) (ACTUAL # OF DAYS)

129

58. I have a list of different types of physical violence that women have experienced from their partners

and ex-partners. Could you tell me, to the best of your recollection, how often (A)

did any

of these things to you in the six months before he was arrested? You can use the answers on the PINK
CARD. Then I’ll just ask you “yes” or “no” whether this happened during the assault that led to the court

C358.

So, how often in the six months before the arrest did he:

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

During the assault that led to the court case, did (A)

 

YES ...................... 1
NO ....................... 0
(Not Applicable) ............ 8
LAST 6 AT
MO. ARREST

a. Break your glasses or tear your clothing? ................................
b. Push or shove you? .................................................
c. Grab you? ........................................................
d. Slap you with an open hand? .........................................
e. Pull your hair? .....................................................
f. Bite you? .........................................................
g. Hit you with a ﬁst? .................................................
h. Kick you? ........................................................
i. Throw something at you? .............................................
j. Aside from throwing something, how often did he hit you with an object? ......
k. Try to hit you with an object? .........................................
l. Twist your arm or leg? ...............................................
m. Drove recklessly in order to scare you or hurt you? .......................

n. Choke you or try to smother you (including drowning)? ....................

130

So, how often in the six months before the arrest:

NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

During the assault that led to the court case, did (A)

 

YES ...................... 1

NO ....................... 0

(Not Applicable) ............ 8

LAST 6 AT

MO. ARREST

0. Burn you (including cigarette burns)? ................................... __ __
p. Tie you up or physically restrain you in some way? ........................ __ _
q. Beat you up? ...................................................... _ _
r. Force sexual activity? ............................................... _ _
s. Threaten you with a knife? ........................................... __ __
t. Threaten you with a gun? ............................................. _ __
u. Stab you? ......................................................... _ _
v. Shoot you? ....................................................... __ __
w. Do something else I haven’t mentioned? ( ) ................ __ ____'_

 

(IF SHE HAS NOT BEEN HARMED AT ALL - ITEMS 58 A TO W ARE ALL “0"- SKIP TO #62)

59. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALALL) Have you been pregnant in the six months before the
arrest?

(GO TO #59a) YES .................................... 1
(GO TO #60) NO ..................................... 0
(Not Applicable - never harmed) .............. 8
59a. Did (A) harm you while you were pregnant during the six months before the
arrest?
YES .................................... 1
NO ..................................... 0
(Not Applicable) ........................... 8

131

60. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ML) During the time of the violence over the six months

 

before the arrest, were you involved with (A) ? (READ EACH)
YES .................................... 1
NO ..................................... 0
ONLY FOR SOME OF THE VIOLENCE ....... 2
(Not Applicable) ........................... 8

61. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALLALL) Now I’m going to go through a list of abuse-related
injuries. Please tell me how often in the six months before the arrest (A) ‘s violence toward
you has caused any of the injuries I mention. (USE PINK CARD AGAIN)

After I ask about an injury, then I’m going to ask if that injury happened at the time of the assault that led
to the arrest and court case. You can just answer “yes” or “no,” whether you had that injury from that
assault. Okay?

 

So, how often in the six months before the arrest did (A) ‘s violence toward you cause:
NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9

Did you have (injury) from the assault that led to the court case?

 

 

YES ...................... 1

NO ....................... 0

(Not Applicable) ............ 8

LAST 6 AT

MO. ARREST
a. Cuts, scrapes or bruises? .............................................
b. Soreness without bruises? ............................................
c. Burns, including rug burns? ..........................................
d. Loose or broken teeth? ..............................................
e. Bite wounds? ......................................................
f. Bald spots or hair loss? ..............................................
g. Black eye(s)? ......................................................
h. Broken bones or fractures? ...........................................

132

How often in the six months before the arrest that led to the court case did

 

 

 

(A) ‘s violence toward you cause:

NEVER ......................................... 0

ONCE .......................................... 1

ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2

2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4

3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5

5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6

EVERY DAY .................................... 7

(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9

Did you have (injury) from the assault that led to the court case?

YES ...................... 1

NO ....................... 0

(Not Applicable) ............ 8

LAST 6 AT

MO. ARREST
i. lntemal injuries? ...................................................
j. Nausea or vomiting? ................................................
k. Strains or sprains? ..................................................
l. Dislocated joints? ...................................................
m. Concussion or other head injury? ......................................
n. Loss of consciousness (passing out)? ...................................
0. Pregnancy complications or miscarriage? ................................

(NO PREGNANCY = 8)
p. Knife or gunshot wound? ............................................
q. Permanent scarring? ................................................

r. Any other injuries I haven’t mentioned? ................................. __ _

(Specify

)

133

(IF SHE HAS NOT BEEN INJURED AT ALL, GO TO #62)

(IF SHE HAS BEEN INJURED, ASK)
61aa. How many times in the six months before (A) was arrested did you seek medical
treatment because of his violence against you?

 

(EXACT #)
(N/A = 888)
6lab. Did you seek medical treatment from the assault that led to the court case?
YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
62. (USING PINK CARD) How many times in the six months before (A) was arrested did

 

he physically harm you or attempt to harm you? (MAKE SURE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH HER
ANSWERS TO THE ASSAULT ITEMS)

(GO TO #65) NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

134

63. For some people, when someone has been violent, we change our behavior when around that person.
Using the WHITE CARD again, how much do you think (A) ‘s violence has made you
more likely to:

 

NOT A VERY
AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
TRY TO KEEP HIM FROM
GETTING MAD ........... O ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 8
TRYTOKEEPHIMHAPPY... ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 8
LET HIM HAVE HIS OWN WAY ...... O ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
AVOID HIM AT CERTAIN
TIMES (when he’s been
drinking, after work) . . . 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
AVOID DISAGREEING
WITH HIM ................. 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 8
AVOID TALKING ABOUT
CERTAIN THINGS
(e.g., money, children) . ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
AVOID TALKING TO FRIENDS ..... O ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
AVOID TALKING TO FAMILY ..... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
ANYTHING ELSE?
(Specify: J....0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ...8

 

135

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your most recent court involvement and about your
thoughts and experiences. Once again, everything you tell me will be kept conﬁdential, and will not affect
any services you receive from the police department or the prosecutor’s office.

64. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALALL) First, I’m going to ask who, if anyone, knows about the
violence. Then, I’m going to ask how supported you felt by each of the people or organizations who know.

 

So, who knows about (A)’s violence against you? Does...
YES ............................. 1
NO .............................. 0
(Insists she’s not sure) ............... 7
(Not Applicable) ................... 8

(FOR EACH PERSON/GROUP TOLD, ASK2) Thinking about the most recent court case,
overall, how supportive was/were of you? Using the answers on this TAN
CARD would you say they were (READ EACH OPTION)

 

 

VERY UNSUPPORTIVE ........................... 0

SOMEWHAT UNSUPPORTIVE ..................... l

NEUTRAL ...................................... 2

SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE ....................... 3

VERY SUPPORTIVE ............................. 4

(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

KNOW SUPPORT
a. A Relative ........................................................
b. A Friend .........................................................
c. A Neighbor .......................................................
d. A Co-Worker or Classmate ...........................................
e. A Doctor/Nurse ....................................................
f. Religious Leader ...................................................
g. The Police ........................................................
h. CARE Staff/Volunteers ..............................................
i. CADA/Other Shelter ................................................
j. PPO Office ........................................................
k. Prosecuting Attorney ................................................
1. Other Attomey/Legal Advisor .........................................
m. Therapist or Counselor ..............................................
n. Other ( ) ..........................................

 

136

f

Does know?

YES ............................. 1
NO .............................. 0
(Insists she’s not sure) ............... 7
(Not Applicable) ................... 8

Overall, how supportive was/were of you? You can use the answers on the TAN

CARD.
VERY UNSUPPORTIVE ........................... O
SOMEWHAT UNSUPPORTIVE ..................... l
NEUTRAL ...................................... 2
SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE ....................... 3
VERY SUPPORTIVE . . . .’ ......................... 4
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
KNOW SUPPORT
o. Other ( ) ..........................................

 

 

 

p. No One (If She Has Told Anyone, Mark 0) ..............................

(IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED OR THREATENED AT ALL)
65. How many times in the six months before (A) was arrested did you need
police assistance because of his violence or threats, MM?

(IF “0” GO TO #66) (ACTUAL #)
65a. Women often have many reasons for not calling the police. Using this WHITE CARD,

please tell me how much each of the following reasons inﬂuenced your decision to not call the
police. How much did you not call because:

NOT A VERY

AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
YOU HAD NO PHONE ....... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
(A) PREVENTED YOU 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU WERE AFRAID OF HIM . 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU DIDN’T THINK POLICE
WOULD HELP .............. 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU DIDN’T WANT (A) _
TO GET IN TROUBLE ....... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU DIDN’T WANT PEOPLE
TO KNOW ................. 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU THOUGHT POLICE
MIGHT BLAME YOU FOR
THE VIOLENCE .................... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8

137

How much did you not call because:

 

NOT A VERY

AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
YOU DIDN’T WANT
CHILDREN TO SEE ARREST . . ..... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8
YOU WERE AFRAID OF BEING
ARRESTED YOURSELF FOR
THE VIOLENCE .................... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8
YOU WERE AFRAID OF BEING
ARRESTED YOURSELF
FOR SOMETHING ELSE ............. 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8
YOU DEPENDED ON HIM
FOR INCOME OR CHILDCARE ..... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8
(includes other beneﬁts from his job, e.g., insurance)
ANY OTHER REASON?
(Specify: ) . ..... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ..... 3 . . . 8

66. How many times in the six months before (A) was arrested have the police been

 

contacted by you or anyone else because of his violence or threats against you?

(INCLUDE CONTACT THAT LED TO COURT CASE) (ACTUAL #)
(IF “0", CONFIRM AND GO TO #80)

138

66a. How many of those times did you contact the police (rather than someone else)?

(ACTUAL #)
(N/A = 88)
66b. How many of those times did you ask or tell someone else to contact them?

(ACTUAL #)
(N/A = 88)

66ba. Who did you ask or tell? (GET ALL WHO CONTACTED POLICE, AND
RELATIONSHIP TO HER. IF CHILD, GET AGE) (INCLUDE ONLY THOSE WHO
DID CONTACT POLICE)

 

66c. Who else contacted the police? (GET ALL WHO CONTACTED, AND RELATIONSHIP
TO HER. IF CHILD, GET AGE)

 

66ca. How many times did he/she/they contact the police?
(ACTUAL #)
(N/A = 88)
(MAKE SURE TOTAL OF 66 a, b, ca ADDS UP TO #66)

66d. Which departments were contacted?

 

(IF SHE NEVER CONTACTED POLICE AND NEVER ASKED SOMEONE ELSE TO, GO TO
#68)

67. Using the WHITE CARD, can you tell me how much each of the following reasons inﬂuenced your
decision to call the police (have someone else call the police)?

 

NOT A VERY

AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
TO GETHIM HELP .......... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 8
TO SEND HIM TO JAIL ..... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO GET HIM TO STOP/
PROTECT YOURSELF ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO GET HIM OUT OF
THE HOME ................. O ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO KEEP HIM FROM HURTING
THE CHILDREN ............. 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO TEACH HIM A
LESSON ................... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
YOU WERE AFRAID
OF HIM .................... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
ANY OTHER REASON?
(Specify: ) 0 ........... 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 ........... 8

139

(IF THE POLICE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYONE IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE
ARREST THAT LED TO THE COURT CASE)

68. How satisﬁed, in general, have you been with the police response when they’ve been called? Using this
ORANGE CARD, would you say:

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

Now, I’m going to ask you some questions about the arrest and the court case that we contacted you
after.

69. Who reported that incident to the police? Did you contact them, did you ask someone else to contact
them, or did someone else contact them?

(GO TO #70) SHE CONTACTED THEM ......................... 1
(GO TO #69a) SHE ASKED SOMEONE ELSE TO .................. 2
(GO TO #693) SOMEONE ELSE CONTACTED THEM .............. 3
(GO TO #80) (NEVER REPORTED TO POLICE - PROS. ONLY) ..... 8

69a. (ASK IF SHE DID NOT CONTACT POLICE) Who contacted the police?
(GET RELATIONSHIP TO HER. IF A CHILD, GET AGE AT THE TIME)

 

70. At the time that the police were contacted, how much did you want each of the following things to
happen? Using the answers on this WHITE CARD, how much did you want:

NOT A VERY
AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
HIMARRESTED ............ O ............ 1......2 ............ 3 ...8
HIM TO LEAVE ............. 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
HELP FOR YOU
TO LEAVE .......... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
HIM TO CALM DOWN
OR STOP ........... 0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
THE POLICE TO TELL HIM
HEWASWRONG....0 ............ l ............ 2 ............ 3 ...8
HIMTOGOTOJAIL.. ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 8
SOMETHING ELSE?
(Specify: ) ..... O ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 8

 

140

71. When were the police contacted?

 

 

DURING THE ASSAULT ........................................ 1
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSAULT ........................... 2
SEVERAL HOURS LATER ....................................... 3
THE DAY AFTER THE ASSAULT OR LONGER ..................... 4
(Reported to Prosecutor Directly (Not Police)) ......................... 5
DON’T KNOW ................................................. 7
72. How many ofﬁcers were involved? .............................................
(ACTUAL #)
(DON’T KNOW = 77)
(N/A = 88)
72a. How many of the ofﬁcers were female? ...................................
(DON’T KNOW = 77)
(N/A = 88)
72b. How many witnesses were there to the assault? .........................
(DON’T KNOW = 77)
72c. Who were the witnesses?
HER CHILD(REN) ...............
(INDICATE (No children = 88)
EXACT #) OTHER FAMILY ................
FRIENDS .......................
(N/A = 88) NEIGHBORS ....................
STRANGERS ....................
OTHER .........................
(Specify: )

 

(MAKE SURE TOTAL ADDS UP TO #72b)

 

73. When the police talked to you, could (A) hear what you were saying?
YES ................................................... 1
NO .................................................... 0
DON’T KNOW .......................................... 7
(GO TO #76) DIDN’T TALK TO POLICE, BUT THEY WERE CALLED ...... 8
(Reported Directly to Prosecutor) ............................ 9

74. Which of the following things did the police do that time? Did they:

YES N 0 N/A
GIVE YOU WRITTEN INFO ABOUT THE
LEGAL SYSTEM .......................... l ............ O ................... 8
GIVE YOU WRITTEN INFO ABOUT OTHER
RESOURCES ............................. 1 ............ 0 ................... 8

141

 

Which of the following things did the police do that time? Did they:

 

 

YES NO
TAKE PHOTOS OF YOUR INJURIES AT THE TIME . . . 1 ............ 0 ..........
(if she didn’t have injuries, code as “8”)
TAKE PHOTOS OF YOUR INJURIES LATER ON ..... 1 ............ 0 ..........
(e.g., the next day) (if she didn’t have injuries, code as “8”)
TAKE PHOTOS OF (A) ’S INJURIES ..... 1 ............ 0 ..........
(if he didn’t have injuries, code as “8”)
HELP YOU LEAVE THE PREMISES ................. l ............ 0 ..........
(if she didn’t want to leave, code as “8”)
ARREST YOU FOR THE VIOLENCE ................. l ............ O ..........
(If yes, ﬁnish this question and go to #74a)
ARREST YOU FOR SOMETHING ELSE ..... ' ......... l ............ 0 ..........
(If yes, ﬁnish this question and go to #74a)
LISTEN TO YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY ............. 1 ............ O ..........
SEEM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID .............. 1 ............ 0 ..........
SAY THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO ..... 1 ............ 0 ..........
IGNORE THAT YOU HAD A PROTECTION ORDER . . . 1 ............ 0 ..........
(if she didn’t have one, code as “8”)
SUPPORT YOUR DECISIONS ...................... 1 ............ O ..........
BLAME YOU FOR THE VIOLENCE ................. 1 ............ O ..........
ACT BORED ..................................... l ............ O ..........
DISCOURAGE YOU FROM
CONTINUING WITH THE CASE ............. 1 ............ O ..........
TELL YOU TO “PATCH THINGS UP”
WITH (A) ................. 1 ............ 0 ..........
DO ANYTHING THAT MADE YOU FEEL SAFER ..... 1 ............ 0 ..........
DO ANYTHING THAT MADE YOU
FEEL MORE IN DANGER ................... 1 ............ 0 ..........
TRY TO PRESSURE YOU INTO PRESSING CHARGES . 1 ............ 0 ..........
THREATEN YOU ................................. l ............ O ..........
TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT . . . 1 ............ 0 ..........
BLAME OR SCOLD YOU FOR NOT FOLLOWING
THROUGH WITH PRIOR CHARGES .......... 1 ............ O ..........
DO ANYTHING ELSE? (Specify: ) ....... l ............ 0 ..........

 

142

N/A

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

......... 8

(IF THE WOMAN WAS ARRESTED FOR ANYTHING, GO TO #74a.)
(IF THE WOMAN WAS N_QI ARRESTED, GO TO #75)

(ASK ONLY IF THE WEB FOR ANYTHING)

74a. You said that the police arrested you for (the violence/something besides the violence). Can
you tell me what the outcome of that case is? For instance, were you convicted, or were the

 

 

charges dropped?
PLED GUILTY, GOT DEFERRED SENTENCE ...................... l
PLED GUILTY, ORIGINAL CHARGE .............................. 2
PLED GUILTY, LESSER CHARGE ................................ 3
PLED GUILTY, DON’T KNOW CHARGES ......................... 4
PLED NO CONTEST ............................................ 5
CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, ORIGINAL CHARGE .................. 6
CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, LESSER CHARGE .................... 7
CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, DON’T KNOW CHARGE ............... 8
FOUND NOT GUILTY .......................................... 9
CHARGES DROPPED .......................................... 10
OTHER (Specify: ) .............................. 1 1
CASE IN PROGRESS (Not over yet) ............................... 12
DON’T KNOW ................................................ 77
(Not Applicable - Not arrested) .................................... 88

(ASK ONLY IF THE W FOR ANYTHING)

74b. Can you tell me more about how being arrested yourself has affected your life? For instance.
how has it affected the case against (A) ? Has it made you more or less likely to
contact the police in the future?

Is there any other way that your life has been affected?

 

 

 

 

 

(ASK EVERYONE)
75. Overall, how supportive were the police of you when they dealt with the assault against you? Using the
answers on this TAN CARD, would you say they were:

VERY UNSUPPORTIVE ........................... O
SOMEWHAT UNSUPPORTIVE ..................... l
NEUTRAL ...................................... 2
SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE ..................... 3
VERY SUPPORTIVE ............................. 4
(Not Applicable -police not contacted) ................. 8

143

76. Now using the answers on this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed were you with the police response to
that incident?

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Not Applicable -police not contacted) ................. 8

76a. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?

 

 

 

77. How much control do you feel like you had over the police response to that incident? By control, I
mean, how much of a say do you feel like you had in the way the police handled things?

NO CONTROL ................................... 0
A LITTLE CONTROL ............................. 1
SOME CONTROL ................................ 2
A LOT OF CONTROL ............................. 3
(Not Applicable -police not contacted) ................. 8

78. (ORANGE CARD) How satisﬁed are you with the amount of control you had over the police
response?

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Not Applicable - police not contacted) ................ 8

79. Did someone from CARE (Capital Area Response Effort) come out to your house? (ASK OPEN-
ENDED AND PROBE TO SEE IF ANY CONTACT)

YES, WE TALKED ............................... 1
YES, WE DIDN’T TALK, BUT LEFT WRITTEN
MATERIAL ..................................... 2
DIDN’T COME OUT, BUT CALLED ................ 3
MAILED INFORMATION ......................... 4
(GO TO #80) NO ............................................ 0
DON’T KNOW/DON’T REMEMBER ................ 7
(Not Applicable - police not contacted) ................ 8

144

79a. (STILL USING ORANGE CARD) How satisﬁed are you with the CARE response to that

incident?
VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Not Applicable - no CARE contact) .................. 8
(ASK ALL)

Now, I’m going to ask you some questions about the court system. First, I’m going to ask about what you
wanted to have happen, and then I’m going to be asking about what actually took place. Okay?

80. Think back to the time when (A) was arrested. (GIVE TIME ANCHOR) (NOTE: If
reported directly to prosecutor, ask: “... to the time when the assault was reported to the prosecutor.”)

At that point in time, imagine that you could have had anything happen. What did you mm to happen
next? Using the answers on this WHITE CARD, how much did you want

 

 

(A) :
NOT A VERY
AT ALL LITTLE SOME MUCH N/A
TO BE ARRESTED BUT
NOT GO TO JAIL? ........... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TOSTAYAWAYFROMYOU? ..... 0 ............ 1.......2 ............ 3 ...8
TO GO TO COUNSELING? ........... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO BE ARRESTED AND
PUT IN JAIL JUST OVERNIGHT? ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
TO BE ARRESTED AND GO TO
JAIL FOR A LONGER TIME? . . ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
SOMETHING ELSE TO HAPPEN? ..... 0 ............ 1 ............ 2 ............ 3 . . . 8
(Specify: )

 

145

81. When (A) was arrested, what did you 9202.021 to have happen to him? Did you expect that
(A)____ :

 

YES NO N/A

WOULD BE RELEASED
WITHIN A DAY? ........................ 1 ............ o ................... 8
WOULD BE PROSECUTED? .......... 1 ............ o ................... 8
WOULD BE CONVICTED? .................. r ............ o ................... 8
WOULD STAY IN JAIL FOR A
FEW DAYS? .............................. 1 ............ o ................... 8
WOULD BE SENTENCED TO JAIL
FOR A LONG TIME? . . ................ 1 ........... o ................... 8
WOULD BE SENTENCED TO
COUNSELING? ........................... 1 ............ o ................... 8
DID YOU NOT KNOW WHAT
TO EXPECT? . ........................... 1 ............ o ................... 8
DID YOU EXPECT SOMETHING ELSE
WOULD HAPPEN?

(Specify: ) . . ...... 1 ........... o ................... 8

 

82. Sometimes women want charges like this against their (husband, boyfriend, etc.) dropped. Using this
WHITE CARD, how much did you want the charges against (A) from this incident to be
dropped? (CHARGES FROM THIS INCIDENT ONLY)

(GO TO #86) NOT AT ALL ..................... 0
A LITTLE ........................ 1
SOME ............................ 2
VERY MUCH ..................... 3

146

83. (1F SHE WANTED THE CHARGES DROPPED AT ALL) (USE WHITE CARD) Women often have
many different reasons for wanting the charges dropped. Using this WHITE CARD, how much did you
want the charges dropped because:

 

 

NOT AT ALL ............................. 0
A LITTLE ............................... 1
SOME ................................... 2
VERY MUCH ............................ 3
(Not Applicable) ........................... 8
a. You cared about/loved him? ......................................................
b. You depended on him for income? .................................................
(includes other job beneﬁts e.g., insurance)
c. You depended on him for housing? ................................................
(I. You depended on him for help with children? ........................................
(NO MINOR KIDS = 8)
e. You didn’t want to upset the children? ..............................................
(NO KIDS = 8)
f. You didn’t want him to go to jail? ..................................................
g. You didn’t want him to lose his job? ...............................................
(HE HAD NO JOB = 8)
h. He agreed to go to counseling? ....................................................
i. You were afraid he would be more violent? ..........................................
j. You were threatened by (A) ? ......................................
k. You didn’t want to have to go to court yourself to testify? ...............................
1. You didn’t think charges would make a difference? ....................................
m. You felt pressure from your family or friends to get charges dropped? .................... _
n. You felt pressure from 1115 family or friends to get charges dropped? ......................
0. You wanted it to just be over? .....................................................
p. Other reason? (Specify: ) ........................................
(IF SHE DID WANT THE CHARGES DROPPED)
84. Sometimes women who want charges dropped will do different things to get them dropped.
Did you ever do anything to try to get the charges from this assault dropped?
YES ............................................ 1
(GO TO #86) NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

147

 

(IF SHE DID ATTEMPT TO GET THE CHARGES DROPPED)

85. Can you tell me about the things you did in order to get the charges dropped? Did you:

 

 

 

YES NO N/A
ASK THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE TO
DROP THEM? .................................... 1 ............ O ................... 8
NOT GO TO COURT? ............................. 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
CHANGE YOUR STORY TO THE
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? ......................... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
CHANGE YOUR STORY AT A HEARING
OR THE TRIAL? .................................. 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
TALK TO OR TRY TO TALK TO (A) ‘S
ATTORNEY OR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER? ........... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
ASK ANOTHER AGENCY OR ATTORNEY (NOT
THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE) TO HELP YOU
GET THEM DROPPED?
(SPECIFY: ) ................... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
ANYTHING ELSE?
(SPECIFY: ) ............ 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
(ASK EVERYONE)
86. How would you describe your relationship with (A) at the time of the arrest? Would
you say you were:
MARRIED, LIVING TOGETHER ................... 1
MARRIED, SEPARATED (not living together) ......... 2
DIVORCED (not living together) ..................... 3
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, LIVING TOGETHER ............ 4
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, NOT LIVING TOGETHER ....... 5
EX-GIRLFRIEND, EX-BOYFRIEND ................. 6
DATING, BUT NOT GIRL/BOYFRIEND ............. 7
OTHER ( ) ................. O

 

148

 

 

87. Was (A) released on bail or bond? (Includes released on bail, on own recognizance,
etc.)
YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
DON’T KNOW .................................. 7

88. Was there a no contact order imposed by the judge?

YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
DON’T KNOW .................................. 7

89. (USING THE PINK CARD) Think about the time between when (A) was arrested and
when the court case was over. (INTERVIEWER: GIVE TIME ANCHOR) How often did (A)

follow you, watch you, or check up on you when you did not want him to, after the arrest, but before the
case closed?

NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
89a. Did (A) attempt to contact you after the arrest but before the case closed,

 

including through the mail, by phone, or through other people?

(GO TO #92) NO ..................................... o

90. Using this PINK CARD, how often did (A) try to talk you out of cooperating with the
prosecutor’s ofﬁce, including by trying to make you feel sorry for him, or promising never to do it
again?

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable - has had no contact) ................. 8

149

 

 

91. (CONTINUE USING PINK CARD) How often did (A) threaten you, or. say anything
that made you fear for your safety or the safety of your family, after the arrest but before the case closed?

(GO TO #92) NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable - has had no contact) ................. 8

(IF SHE HAS BEEN THREATENED AT ALL)
91a. (CONTINUE USING PINK CARD) How often did (A) make these threats
in order to keep you from cooperating with the prosecutor’s ofﬁce?

 

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(ASK ALL)
92. During that time after the arrest but before the case closed, did you have any contact with
(A) where he could have touched you? (INCLUDES BOTH VOLUNTARY AND NON-
VOLUNTARY CONTACT)
(GO TO #92a) YES ............................................ 1
(GO TO #93) NO ............................................ 0

150

92a. I’m going to go through that list of different types of physical violence that Women have
experienced from their partners and ex-partners again. Could you tell me, to the best of your

 

recollection, how often (A) did any of these things to you in the time after he was
arrested but before the case closed? (GIVE TIME ANCHOR) You can use the answers on the
PINK CARD.

So how often after the arrest but before the case closed did he...?

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS . ' ....................... 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

a. Break your glasses or tear your clothing? ...........................................

b. Push or shove you? ............................................................

c. Grab you? ...................................................................

d. Slap you with an open hand? ....................................................

e. Pull your hair? ................................................................

f. Bite you? ....................................................................

g. Hit you with a ﬁst? ............................................................

h. Kick you? ...................................................................

i. Throw something at you? ........................................................

j. Aside from throwing something, how often did he hit you with an object? .................

k. Try to hit you with an object? ....................................................

l. Twist your arm or leg? ..........................................................

m. Drove recklessly in order to scare you or hurt you? .................................. __

n. Choke you or try to smother you (including drowning)? ...............................

0. Burn you (including cigarette burns)? ..............................................

p. Tie you up or physically restrain you in some way? ...................................

q. Beat you up? .................................................................

r. Force sexual activity? ..........................................................

151

So how often after the arrest but before the case closed did he...?

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... l
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

s. Threaten you with a knife? ......................................................

t. Threaten you with a gun? ........................................................

u. Stab you? .................................................................... I‘

v. Shoot you? ..................................................................

w. Do something else I haven’t mentioned? ( ) ...........................

 

 

(IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN HARMED AT ALL DURING THAT TIME - #9288 - aw are all “0” - GO
TO #95)

93. Still using the PINK CARD, how many times after (A) was arrested but
before the case closed did he physically harm you or attempt to harm you? (MAKE SURE THIS IS
CONSISTENT WITH HER ANSWERS TO THE ASSAULT ITEMS)

(GO TO #95) NEVER ......................................... O
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable - Not banned) ....................... 8

93a. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALALL) If you were to compare the number of times
(A) has physically harmed you between the arrest and the case closing to, say, 6
months before the arrest, would you say the violence has been:

LESS F REQUENT ................................ 1

READ AS FREQUENT .................................. 2

EACH OPTION MORE FREQUENT ............................... 3
(No Violence since the Arrest) ....................... 7

(Not Applicable - No contact) ....................... 8

152

93b. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALALL) If you were to compare the severity of
(A)’s violence between the arrest and the case closing to, say, 6 months before
the arrest, would you say the violence has been:

LESS SEVERE ................................... 1

READ AS SEVERE ..................................... 2

EACH OPTION MORE SEVERE .................................. 3
(No Violence since the Arrest) ....................... 7

(Not Applicable - No contact) ....................... 8

94. (IF SHE HAS BEEN HARMED ALALL) Now I’m going to go through a list of abuse-related
injuries. Please tell me how often after the arrest but before the case closed

 

 

(A)’s violence toward you has caused any of the injuries I mention.
(GIVE TIME ANCHOR)

(USE PINK CARD AGAIN)

So, how often after the arrest but before the case closed did (A) ‘s violence toward you

cause:
NEVER............. ............................ 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9

a. Cuts, scrapes or bruises? ........................................................

b. Soreness without bruises? .......................................................

c. Bums, including rug burns? .....................................................

(1. Loose or broken teeth? .........................................................

e. Bite wounds? .................................................................

f. Bald spots or hair loss? .........................................................

g. Black eye(s)? .................................................................

h. Broken bones or ﬁactures? ......................................................

i. lntemal injuries? ..............................................................

j. Nausea or vomiting? ...........................................................

k. Strains or sprains? .............................................................

l. Dislocated joints? ..............................................................

m. Concussion or other head injury? .................................................

153

So, how often after the arrest but before the case closed did (A) ‘s violence toward you
cause:

NEVER ......................................... 0
ONCE .......................................... 1
ONCE A MONTH OR LESS ........................ 2
2 OR 3 TIMES A MONTH ......................... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........................ 4
3 OR 4 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 5
5 OR 6 TIMES A WEEK ........................... 6
EVERY DAY .................................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8
(Declined to Answer) .............................. 9

11. Loss of consciousness (passing out)? ..............................................

0. Were you pregnant after the arrest but before the case closed? (IF YES)

 

 

 

Pregnancy complications or miscarriage? ......................................
(NO PREGNANCY = 8)
p. Knife or gunshot wound? .......................................................
q. Permanent scarring? ...........................................................
r. Any other injuries I haven’t mentioned? ............................................
(Specify )
(ASK ALL)
95. Did (A) ’s lawyer ever contact you, or try to contact you before the case closed?
YES, BY MAIL .................................. 1
YES, BY PHONE ................................. 2
YES, MAIL AND PHONE .......................... 3
YES, IN PERSON ................................ 4
YES, IN PERSON AND (MAIL OR PHONE) .......... 5
NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable - he never had a lawyer) ............... 8

96. Did anyone from the prosecutor’s ofﬁce ever contact you, or try to contact you before the case closed?

YES, BY MAIL .................................. 1
YES, BY PHONE ................................. 2
YES, MAIL AND PHONE .......................... 3
YES, IN PERSON ................................ 4
YES, IN PERSON AND (MAIL OR PHONE) .......... 5
(GO TO #97) NO ............................................ 0
96a. How many times?
(MAIL) (PHONE) (IN PERSON)
mm = 88) (N/A = 88) (N/A = 88)

154

97. Did you ever contact or attempt to contact the prosecutor’s ofﬁce after the arrest but before the case
closed?

YES, ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT .................. 1
YES, CONTACTED ............................... 2
NO ............................................ 0

98. Did you ever get a subpoena to appear in court?

YES ............................................ 1
NO ............................................ 0
DON’T KNOW .................................. 7

99. How many times did you ever go to a hearing or trial, including times when you went but then it was
rescheduled?
(PROBE TO MAKE SURE THIS INCLUDES ALL THE TIMES SHE WENT)

(EXACT #)
(IF “0” GO TO #102)

99a. How many times did you go, only to ﬁnd out it had been cancelled or rescheduled?

(EXACT #)
(N/A = 88)

99b. Did any of the following people ever go to a hearing or the trial with you, including times it
was rescheduled?

YES NO MA

A FRIEND ......................... l ............ 0 ............ 8
YOUR CHILD(REN) ................ 1 ............ 0 ............ 8

(No Kids = 8)
ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER ....... l ............ 0 ............ 8
A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY ........ 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
VICTIM ADVOCATE FROM

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ..... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
VICTIM ADVOCATE FROM

COMMUNITY AGENCY ..... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8

(e.g., shelter, CARE, PPO ofﬁce)
ANYONE ELSE?

(Specify: ) ..... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8

 

155

(IF SHE WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL, EVEN WHEN IT WAS RESCHEDULED) ’
100. Can you tell me about why you went to the hearing/trial(s)? Using this WHITE CARD, how much did
you go to any because:

NOT AT ALL ..................... 0
A LITTLE ........................ 1
SOME ............................ 2
VERY MUCH ..................... 3
(Not Applicable) ................... 8

a. You got a subpoena? ...........................................................

b. You wanted to get help for him? ..................................................

c. You wanted him to go to jail? ....................................................

d. You wanted to teach him a lesson? ................................................

e. You felt pressure from your family or friends to go? ..................................

f. You thought that legally you had no choice? ........................................

g. You felt like you should be there? ................................................

h. You wanted him to stop hurting you? ..............................................

i. You wanted to get the charges dropped? ............................................ __

j. You were afraid of him? ........................................................

k. Any other reason? (Specify: ) ..........................................

 

101. (IF SHE WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL) Sometimes, going to a hearing or trial can be difﬁcult
to do. Still using the WHITE CARD can you tell me how much each of the following made it more difficult
for you to go to the hearing/trial?

 

NOT AT ALL ..................... O
A LITTLE ........................ 1
SOME ............................ 2
VERY MUCH ..................... 3
(Not Applicable) ................... 8
a. You had trouble getting childcare? ................................................
(No minor kids = 8)
b. You had trouble getting transportation? ............................................
c. You couldn’t get time off from work? .............................................
(Not working = 8)
d. You wanted to work things outwith (A) ? .............................
e. You had prior bad experiences with the court? .......................................
f. You felt pressure from your family or friends to not go? ...............................
g. You felt pressure from hjs family or friends to not go? ................................

156

NOT AT ALL ................

A LITTLE ...................
SOME .......................
VERY MUCH ................
(Not Applicable) ..............
h. You were afraid of him? ........................................................
i. You were afraid of being arrested yourself for something else? ..........................
j. Any other reason? (Specify: ) ......................................

 

(IF SHE WENT TO A HEARING/TRIAL, INCLUDING RESCHEDULED, GO TO #103)
(IF SHE W TO A HEARING/TRIAL, GO TO #102)

102. Did you ever know about a hearing and/or trial in advance (before it happened)?

(GO TO #102a) YES ........................
(GO TO #103) NO .........................
(Not Applicable - she went) ......

..... 2
..... 3
..... 8

..... l
..... O
..... 8

102a. (IF SHE NEVER WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL, BUT KNEW ABOUT IT) Can you
tell me about why you decided not to go to a hearing or trial? Using the WHITE CARD, how

much did you not go because:
NOT AT ALL ................
A LITTLE ...................
SOME .......................
VERY MUCH ................
(Not Applicable) ..............
a. You didn’t know you could go? ...........................................

b. You wanted the case dropped? ............................................

c. You were afraid of him? .................................................

<1. You had trouble getting childcare? .........................................
(No minor kids = 8)

e. You had trouble getting transportation? .....................................

f. You didn’t know where to go? ............................................

g. You couldn’t get time off from work? ......................................
(Not working = 8)

h. You depended on him for money or a place to live? ...........................
(Includes insurance/other job beneﬁts)

i. You didn’t want him to go to jail? ..........................................

j. You wanted to work things out with (A) ? ......................

k. You didn’t think prosecution would help? ...................................

1. You felt pressure from you; family or friends to not go? ........................

m. You felt pressure from his family or friends to not go? .........................

157

..... 2

.,
..... J

..... 8

 

How much did you not go because:

NOT AT ALL .................
A LITTLE ....................
SOME ........................
VERY MUCH .................
(Not Applicable) ...............

n. You had prior bad experiences with the courts? ...............................
0. You didn’t want to go? ..................................................

p. Any other reason? (Specify: ) ...............................

103. Did you ever talk to the victim advocate from the prosecuting attorney’s ofﬁce?

YES ........................................
(GO TO #103c) NO ................................................
(GO TO #106) (Don’t know) ........................................

103a. Was the advocate male or female?

MALE ......................................
FEMALE ...................................
(Don’t know - no contact) ......................

2
3
8

 

...l
0
7

...1
2
7

103b. How much time did you spend talking to the victim advocate before the case went to court?

(IF NO CONTACT, TIME = 888) (MINUTES)

103c. Using this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed are you with the amount of time you Spent with
the victim advocate from the prosecuting attorney’s office? (ASK EVEN IF SPENT NO TIME)

VERY DISSATISFIED ........................
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ..................
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED ......
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .....................
VERY SATISFIED ............................

(IF NEVER TALKED TO ADVOCATE FROM PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, SKIP TO #106)

158

....l
2
3
4
5

104. Could you tell me more about how the victim advocate from the prosecuting attorney’s office treated

you? Did he or she:

 

YES NO N/A

SEEM TO LISTEN TO YOUR SIDE

OF THE STORY? ................................. 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
SEEM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID? .................. 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
SAY THERE WAS NOTHING HE/SHE COULD DO? .......... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
SUPPORT YOUR DECISIONS? .......................... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
BLAME YOU FOR THE VIOLENCE? .................... l ............ 0 ............ 8
ACT BORED? .......................................... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
DISCOURAGE YOU FROM

CONTINUING WITH THE CASE? ................... 1 ............ O ............ 8

(Includes encourage to drop)
TELL YOU TO “PATCH THINGS UP”

WITH (A) ? .................. 1 ............ O ............ 8
BLAME OR SCOLD YOU FOR NOT FOLLOWING

THROUGH ON PRIOR CHARGES? ............... l ............ O ............ 8
DO ANYTHING TO MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER? ........... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8
DO ANYTHING THAT MADE YOU

FEEL IN MORE DANGER? ......................... 1 ............ O ............ 8
TRY TO PERSUADE YOU

INTO TESTIFYING AGAINST (A) ‘7 ......... 1 ............ O ............ 8
TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON? .................... l ............ O ............ 8
DO ANYTHING I HAVEN’T MENTIONED? ............... 1 ............ 0 ............ 8

(Specify: )

 

105. Overall, how supportive of you was the victim advocate from the prosecuting attorney’s ofﬁce? You

can use the answers on this TAN CARD.

VERY UNSUPPORTIVE ........................... O
SOMEWHAT UNSUPPORTIVE ..................... l
NEUTRAL ...................................... 2
SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE ....................... 3
VERY SUPPORTIVE ............................. 4
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

159

 

105a. Using this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed are you with the victim advocate from the
prosecuting attomey’s oﬁice?

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

105b. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?

 

 

 

106. Did you ever talk directly to the prosecuting attomey?

(GO TO #106a) YES ...................... 1
(GO TO #106c) NO ....................... 0
(GO TO #109) (Don’t know) ............... 7
106a. Was the prosecuting attorney male or female?
MALE .................... 1
FEMALE .................. 2
(Don’t know - no contact) ..... 7

106b. How much time did you spend talking to the prosecuting attorney before the case went to
court?
(IF NO CONTACT, TIME = 888) (MINUTES)

106C. Using this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed are you with the amount of time you spent with
the prosecuting attorney? (ASK EVEN IF SPENT NO TIME)

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... _4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5

160

 

 

(IF NEVER TALKED TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, SKIP TO #109)

107. Could you tell me more about how the prosecuting attorney treated you? Did he or she:

 

 

N/A

..... 8

..... 8

..... 8

..... 8

..... 8

..... 8

..... 0
..... l
..... 2
..... 3
..... 4

YES NO
SEEM TO LISTEN TO YOUR SIDE
OF THE STORY? ................................. 1 ............ 0 .......
SEEM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID? ................... l ............ 0 .......
SAY THERE WAS NOTHING HE/SHE COULD DO? .......... l ............ 0 .......
SUPPORT YOUR DECISIONS? ............................ 1 ............ 0 .......
BLAME YOU FOR THE VIOLENCE? . . ................. 1 ............ O .......
ACT BORED? ........................................ 1 ............ 0 .......
DISCOURAGE YOU FROM
CONTINUING WITH THE CASE? ................... 1 ............ 0 .......
(Includes encourage to drop)
TELL YOU TO “PATCH THINGS UP”
WITH (A) ? .................. 1 ............ 0 .......
BLAME OR SCOLD YOU FOR NOT FOLLOWING
THROUGH ON PRIOR CHARGES? ............... 1 ............ 0 .......
DO ANYTHING TO MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER? ........... 1 ............ 0 .......
DO ANYTHING THAT MADE YOU
FEEL 1N MORE DANGER? ......................... 1 ............ 0 .......
TRY TO PURSUADE YOU
INTO TESTIFYING AGAINST (A) ? ......... 1 ............ 0 .......
TELL YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON? .................... 1 ............ 0 .......
DO ANYTHING I HAVEN’T MENTIONED? ................ 1 ............ 0 .......
(Specify: )
108. Overall, how supportive was the prosecutor of you? You can use the answers on this TAN CARD.
VERY UNSUPPORTIVE ......................
SOMEWHAT UNSUPPORTIVE ................
NEUTRAL .................................
SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE ..................
VERY SUPPORTIVE ........................
(Not Applicable) .............................

161

..... 8

109. Using the answers on this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed were you with the way the prosecutor
handled the case? Would you say you were:

VERY DISSATISFIED ............................ 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ...................... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED .......... 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ......................... 4
VERY SATISFIED ................................ 5
(Don’t know) .................................... 7

1093. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?

 

 

 

(IF SHE NEVER WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL, OR IF SHE ONLY WENT WHEN IT WAS
RESCHEDULED, MARK 110, 111 & 112 “8” AND GO TO #113)

110. Did you ever testify in court?

(GO TO #1 10a) YES ............................................ 1
(GO TO #111) NO ............................................ 0
(Not Applicable - never went to court) .......... 8
(IF SHE TESTIFIED)

1 10a. Sometimes women feel like they should testify for someone who really did hurt them, or
testify in a way that makes it sound like they weren’t assaulted even when they were. Other
women don’t feel that way. Did you testify that (A) didn’t assault you, even though he
did? Remember, this is conﬁdential, just between us.

YES .................................... 1
NO ..................................... 0
(She wasn’t assaulted) ...................... 2
(Not Applicable - never testiﬁed) .............. 8

(IF SHE EVER WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL THAT WAS NQI RESCHEDULED)
1 1 1. Was the judge male or female?

MALE ................................... 1
FEMALE ................................ 2
(Don’t know) ............................. 7

(IF SHE EVER WENT TO A HEARING OR TRIAL THAT WAS NQI RESCHEDULED)
112. Now, I’d like you to tell me more about how the judge treated you in court. Did he/she:

YES NO N/A
LISTEN TO YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY? ............ l ............ O ................... 8
SEEM TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID? .............. l ............ 0 ................... 8
BLAME YOU FOR THE VIOLENCE? ................ 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
ACT BORED? .................................... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8

162

YES NO ' N/A

DISCOURAGE YOU FROM
CONTINUING WITH THE CASE? ............ 1 ............ O ................... 8
(Includes encourage to drop)

TELL YOU TO “PATCH THINGS UP”

 

 

WITH (A) ? ................... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
BLAME OR SCOLD YOU FOR NOT FOLLOWING

THROUGH ON PRIOR CHARGES? ........... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
DO ANYTHING TO MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER? ....... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
DO ANYTHING THAT MADE YOU

FEEL MORE IN DANGER? .................. l ............ 0 ................... 8
TRY TO PURSUADE YOU

INTO TESTIFYING AGAINST (A) ? . . . 1 . . . . . ....... O ................... 8
SAY THERE WASN’T ENOUGH EVIDENCE? ......... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8
DO ANYTHING I HAVEN’T MENTIONED? ........... 1 ............ 0 ................... 8

(Specify: )

 

163

 

 

 

(ASK ALL)

113. What was the ﬁnal outcome of the case? (LET HER ANSWER IN HER OWN WORDS)

 

(GO TO #114) PLED GUILTY, GOT DEF ERRED SENTENCE ........ 1
” “ PLED GUILTY, ORIGINAL CHARGE ............... 2
“ “ PLED GUILTY, LESSER CHARGE .................. 3
“ “ PLED GUILTY, DON’T KNOW CHARGES ........... 4
“ “ PLED NO CONTEST .............................. 5
“ “ CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, ORIGINAL CHARGE . . . . 6
“ “ CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, LESSER CHARGE ...... 7

“ “ CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL, DON’T KNOW
CHARGE ................................ 8
(GO TO #115) FOUND NOT GUILTY ................................... 9
(GO TO #113a) DV CHARGES DROPPED ............................... 10
OTHER (Specify: ) ................ 1 1
(GO TO #115) DON’T KNOW ......................................... 77

113a. (IF THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED) Why were the charges for the violence against
you dropped? (LET HER ANSWER IN OWN WORDS)

WOMAN DIDN’T GO TO THE TRIAL ............... l
WOMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN’T HURT HER . . 2
THE PROSECUTOR SAID THEY COULDN’T

PROVE THE CASE, EVEN W/HER

 

 

TESTIMONY ............................. 3
THERE WAS A PLEA BARGAIN/ HE PLEAD

TO SOMETHING ELSE

(Specify ) ................... 4
(A) WAS IN PRISON FOR

SOMETHING ELSE ALREADY ............. 5
SOME OTHER REASON

(Specify: ) ........... 6
DON’T KNOW .................................. 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

I64

 

 

 

 

(ASK IF HE WAS CONVICTED OF ANYTHING FROM THIS INCIDENT)
114. Do you know what sentence he received?

YES ............................................ 1
(GO TO #115) NO ............................................ 0
(GO TO #115) NOT SENTENCED YET ........................... 7
(Not Applicable) .................................. 8

114a. What was the sentence? (PROBE: WAS THERE JAIL TIME? LENGTH? LENGTH OF
PROBATION? COUNSELING? BATTERER VS. ALCOHOL/DRUG COUNSELING?)
(INCLUDES CONDITIONS OF DEFERRED SENTENCE)

 

(ASK ALL)

115. Using the answers on this ORANGE CARD, how satisﬁed are you with the court process? By
process, 1 mean the way that things were done, like the time everything took, the charges that were ﬁled,
and the questions that the attorneys and judge asked. In other words, the “process” is the way that
everything was done related to court. Would you say you are:

 

VERY DISSATISFIED ..................... l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ............... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED . . . 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .................. 4
VERY SATISFIED ........................ 5

1 15a. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?

 

 

 

(ASK ONLY IF SHE KNOWS OUTCOME)
116. (CONTINUE USING ORANGE CARD) How satisﬁed are you with the outcome of the case (the
conviction/dismissal)? Would you say you are:

VERY DISSATISFIED ..................... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ............... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED . . . 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .................. 4
VERY SATISFIED ........................ 5
(Not Applicable - Doesn’t know outcome) ...... 8

1 16a. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?

 

 

 

 

 

165

(ASK ALL)
117. How much control do you feel like you had over the court process? That is, how much of a say do you
feel like you had in the way things were handled around the court case. Would you say that you had:

NO CONTROL ................................... 0
A LITTLE CONTROL ............................. 1
SOME CONTROL ................................ 2
A LOT OF CONTROL ............................. 3

(ASK ALL)
118. (USING ORANGE CARD) How satisﬁed are you with the amount of control you had over the court
process (i.e. the way things were handled)?

VERY DISSATISFIED ..................... l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ............... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED . . . 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .................. 4
VERY SATISFIED ........................ 5

(ASK IF SHE KNOWS OUTCOME)
119. How much control do you feel like you had over the court outcome (e.g. the conviction or
dismissal/acquittal)? Would you say that you had:

NO CONTROL ........................... 0
A LITTLE CONTROL ...................... 1
SOME CONTROL ......................... 2
A LOT OF CONTROL ...................... 3
(Not Applicable - doesn’t know outcome) ....... 8

(ASK IF SHE KNOWS OUTCOME)
120. (USE ORANGE CARD) How satisﬁed are you with the amount of control you had over the criminal
justice system outcome (i.e. the conviction/dismissal)?

VERY DISSATISFIED ..................... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ............... 2
NEITHER DISSATISFIED NOR SATISFIED . . . 3
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .................. 4
VERY SATISFIED ........................ 5
(Not Applicable - doesn’t know outcome) ....... 8
121. How do you think that your experience with the police and court will affect (A) ‘s violence
against you in the future? Do you think it will:
DECREASE THE VIOLENCE ............... 1
NOT CHANGE THE VIOLENCE ............. 2
INCREASE THE VIOLENCE ................ 3
(Don’t Know) ............................. 7

122. How many times, if any, have you asked for or applied for a restraining order (personal protection
order) against (A) ?

INDICATE EXACT NUMBER ..............................
(IF “0” GO TO #123)

1228. How many of these were for temporary protection orders? ..................
(N/A = 88)

 

166

122b. How many of these were for permanent protection orders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(N/A = 88)

 

122e. How many times did you Legoiyo a protection order? ......

 

 

(TEMP) (PERMANENT)
(N/A = 88) (N/A = 88)
(IF NEVER RECEIVED ONE, GO TO #123)

122d. (IF RECEIVED ANY) Do you have one in effect now?

YES ............................. 1
NO .............................. 0
(Don’t Know) ...................... 7
(Not Applicable) ................... 8
122e. (IF ANY) Did you have one in effect at the time of the assault that led to the court case?
YES ............................. 1
NO .............................. 0
(Don't know) ...................... 7
(Not Applicable) ................... 8
122f. Has (A) ever violated a protection order or restraining order that you’ve

 

had against him?

YES, ONLY DURING THE ASSAULT THAT LED TO CASE . . . 1

 

 

YES, ONCE (DIFFERENT TIME) .......................... 2
YES, MORE THAN ONCE ................................ 3
NO .................................................... 0
(Not Applicable - never had one) ............................ 8

123. Have you had any contact with (A) where he could have touched you since the court

case closed?
(GO TO #123a) YES .................................... 1
(GO TO #124) NO ..................................... 0
123a. Has (A) hurt you or tried to hurt you since the court case closed?

(GO TO #123b) YES .................................... 1
(GO TO #124) NO ..................................... 0
(Not Applicable - No contact) ................ 8

123b. Have you contacted the police about that assault?

(GO TO #123c) YES .................................... 1
(GO TO #124) NO ..................................... 0
(Not Applicable - No assault) ................. 8

123c. Has the Prosecutor’s Ofﬁce or the court been contacted about that assault?

YES .................................... 1
NO ..................................... 0
(Don’t know) ............................. 7
(Not Applicable - No assault) ................. 8

167

(ASK ALL)

124. How likely is it that (A) will be violent against you in the future? Using the answers
on this BLUE CARD, would you say:

 

 

DEFINITELY NOT ........................ 0
PROBABLY NOT ......................... l
PROBABLY WILL ........................ 2
DEFINITELY WILL ....................... 3
(Insists she doesn’t know) ................... 7
125. (STILL USING BLUE CARD) If (A) were ever to assault you again, how likely is it
that you would contact the police again?
DEFINITELY NOT ........................ 0
PROBABLY NOT ......................... 1
PROBABLY WILL ........................ 2
DEFINITELY WILL ....................... 3
(Insists She doesn’t know) ................... 7
126. (STILL USING BLUE CARD) If (A) were ever to assault you again, how likely is it
that you would want the prosecutor or court involved again?
DEFINITELY NOT ........................ 0
PROBABLY NOT ......................... 1
PROBABLY WILL ........................ 2
DEFINITELY WILL ....................... 3
(Insists she doesn’t know) ................... 7

127. I’d like to know what you think about the criminal justice system’s ability to protect you from

(A) . Still using this BLUE CARD, please tell me whether any of the following actions will
“DEFINITELY NOT,” “PROBABLY NOT,” “PROBABLY WILL,” OR “DEFINITELY WILL” keep him
from eyo: harassing, threatening, or assaulting you again.

 

 

DEFINITELY NOT ........................ 0
PROBABLY NOT ......................... I
PROBABLY WILL ........................ 2
DEFINITELY WILL ....................... 3
(Insists she doesn’t know) ................... 7

a. Personal protection order .................................................

b. Mandatory counseling ....................................................

c. Police arresting him .....................................................

d. Prosecutor pressing charges ...............................................

(prosecuting him)

e. Spending a night or two in jail .............................................

f. Spending a long time in jail ................................................

g. Anything else? (Specify: ) ............................

h. Anything else? (Specify: ) ............................

 

168

128. Just so we have a little information on the men who get charged with these kinds of crimes, how old
was (A) when he was arrested?

 

 

 

(Actual Age)
128a. What is (A) '5 race or ethnic background?
AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK ................. 1
WHITE/CAUCASIAN ............................. 2
LATINO/CHICANO/HISPANIC ..................... 3
ASIAN/ASIAN-AMERICAN/PACIF 1C ISLANDER ..... 4
NATIVE AMERICAN ............................. 5
MIXED ( ) ................... 6
OTHER ( ) ................... 7

 

169

 

129. Can you tell me more about how the arrest and court case has affected your life overall? For instance,
what has changed about your life because of the court case? (PROBE: RELATIONSHIP TO
ASSAILANT, RELATIONSHIP TO CHILDREN AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS, FEELINGS OF

SAFETY, ECONOMIC WELL-BEING)

Is there any other way your life has been affected by the court case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170

130. AS I said at the beginning, the information from all the interviews we are doing will be used to try to
improve the community’s response to violence against women. What kinds of changes would you like to
see? What could the police and courts do better? What could the community do better? (PROBE TO
INCLUDE POLICE, COURTS, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS/THE COMMUNITY)

Are there any other changes you’d like to see?

1.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

 

131. Finally, I’d like to get an idea about why you decided to answer the mailing and why you’re interested
in participating in the study. What were the reasons that you decided to respond to the flyer?

Are there any other reasons?

1.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

171

 

Thank you for answering all of these questions. Is there anything else you’d like to mention or talk about
right now?

PAY HER, AND HAVE HER SIGN THE REIMBURSEMENT VOUCHER MAKE SURE PAYMENT
IS TAPE RECORDED.

GIVE HER BUSINESS CARD - WRITE APPROX. 3 MONTH CONTACT AND 6 MONTH
INTERVIEW DATES ON BACK.

REMIND HER THAT SOMEONE FROM THE PROJECT WILL BE CONTACTING HER IN THREE
MONTHS TO MAKE SURE WE STILL HAVE HER ADDRESS/PHONE NUMBER.

COMMENTS:

Time Oral Interview ended:
Length of Oral Interview in Minutes:

 

 

172

 

APPENDIX B

Recruitment F lyer

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

We want to hear what you have to say!

The MSU Prosecution Project wants to know what female crime
victims think about the police and the courts. We want to know
what happened, and what you wanted the police and courts to do.
How did the police and courts help you? What could they have
done better?

*You will be paid for your time.
*We will meet you at a time and place that works for you.

*We will keep what you tell us private. Anything you tell us will
not change any services you receive from the police or the courts.

Interested? Have questions?

*Call the MSU Prosecution Project at 432-4661 or 1-800-
313-0021 between 10 am and 4 pm. weekdays (or call
anytime and leave a message). We will accept collect calls.

OR

*Fill out and return the postcard. Tell us good times to reach f
you and what we should say when we call you.

Your opinions and experiences matter - please take
the time to share them with us.

The Ingham County Prosecutor’s Office assumes no responsibility for this study. The Michigan
State University Prosecution Project assumes full responsibility for this study.

 

 

174

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Agency Recruitment Phone Script

175

 

Prosecution Project

Before I let you go, do you have a few minutes so I could tell you a little bit about a study
going on at Michigan State University?

(IF SHE SAYS “NO,” TELL HER THAT’S OKAY, AND ASK IF IT WOULD
BE OKAY TO CALL HER BACK AT SOME POINT. IF IT IS ALL RIGHT,
GET PHONE #, TIME/DAY, IF IT’S OKAY TO LEAVE A MESSAGE, AND

W.)

(IF YES) This is a group of women at MSU. They want to hear about women's
experience with the court system, good and bad, so they can give this information back to
the police and courts. They really want to make sure women get what they need from the
legal system. They think that your opinions and experiences can help them do that. They
are interviewing women who were listed as victims in misdemeanor domestic violence
cases so that women can tell them about their experiences with the police and court
system. The reason they’re doing this study is because a lot of researchers have made
assumptions about what it’s like to go through the process, but few even ask women
about their experiences. These women think it’s important to ask other women about
their experiences with the police and courts because your opinions and experiences let
them recommend better ways for the police and courts to meet women’s needs.

First, let me tell you a little more about the study. If you do want to take part, you will be
interviewed three times: a week or two after your court case closes, and then six months
and one year from when the case closed. Each of the interviews will take about two and a
half hours, though they may be a bit longer, depending on your individual circumstances.
During the interviews you will be asked about your quality of life, your experiences with
the police and courts, and any violence you may have experienced.

Do you have any questions so far? (Pause)

Okay, since you are the expert and these women from MSU value any information you
can give them, you will be paid for taking the time to talk to them. So, if you decide you
want to be in the study, you will receive $40 for the ﬁrst interview, a week or two after
the case closes, then you will receive $50 for the second interview, which will be about
six months after the case closes, and another $50 for the last interview, which will be
about a year after the case is over.

Everything you tell them will be kept completely private. No one will ever be able to
match your name to the answers you give, and they won’t tell anyone you’re participating
in this study without your permission.

Just to be clear: your decision whether or not to will not affect any services you receive
from CARE, from the police or from the courts. So, if you decide not to be in the study,
that won’t affect any services from CARE, from the police, or from the court system. If
you do decide to be in the study, then any information you give them will not affect any

176

services you receive from CARE, from the police or from the courts.

Also, I want to let you know that these women don't provide services or referrals, like
CARE does. They just want to talk to you about your experiences once the court case is
over.

Now, because the case isn't closed yet, I'm not asking if you do want to be in the study or
not. All I'm asking is whether it would be all right if I set up a time where you could talk
some more to one of the women from the project. This meeting should only take about
15 or 20 minutes. They just want to tell you more about the study and answer any
questions you have.

First, do you have any questions for me about the study or anything? (Pause)

Would you be interested in meeting with a woman from MSU?
(IF "NO", THANK HER FOR HER TIME AND REMIND HER THAT SHE
CAN CALL THE CARE OFFICE ANYTIME IF SHE CHANGES HER MIND,
OR IF SHE WANTS TO TALK MORE. RECORD IN THE LOG BOOK THAT
SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE CONTACTED ABOUT THE PROJECT.)

(IF "YES") Let's go ahead, then, and set up a time you can meet with them.

177

REFERENCES

178

 

REFERENCES

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashﬁeld, R. K. (1984). mm Newbury Park,
NJ: Sage.

American Psychological Association. (1996). Wily.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Belknap, J. (1995). Law enforcement ofﬁcers' attitudes about the appropriate
responses to woman battering. International Review of Victimology, 4, 47-62.

Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. Amorioan
28331191921302; 320-335.

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrence effect
of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A bayesian analysis of four ﬁeld experiments.

WW 698-708.

Bowman, C. G. (1992). The arrest experiments. A feminist critique. loumalof
WM 201-209

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). WWW Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Browne, A. (1987). WWW . New York: The Free Press.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1993). Family violence: Interventions for the
justice system. (NCJ 144532).

Buzawa, E. S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police response to domestic
violence victims. WWW 610- 623.

Buzawa, E. 8., & Buzawa, C. G. (1990)._Ilomestic_vtolence:1he_criminaljus_ti§e
W Newbury Park: Sage.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1993). The impact of arrest on domestic
violence: Introduction. W 558- 574.

Cahn, N. R., & Lerman, L. G. (1991). Prosecuting woman abuse. In M.
Steinman (Ed.,) WW Cincinnati, OH: Anderson
Publishing.

Campbell, R., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S., 11. (1995). Women who use
domestic violence shelters: Changes in depression over time. Rsyohologuﬂﬂomen

179

 

W, 237-255-

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence: An
ecological analysis. Sooialjoryiooﬂoyim (December), 569-587.

Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence.
MW 420-432-

Conaway, M. R., & Lohr, S. L. (1994). A longitudinal analysis of factors

associated with reporting violent crimes to the police. WWW
CriminologLJﬂ. 23- 39

Davidson, W. S., & Rappaport, J. (1978). Advocacy and community psychology.
111G H Weber& G J McCa11(EdS) WWW
applieddiscinlmes (pp 67- 97)

Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R., & Cavanagh, K. (1985). The contact between battered

women and social and medical agencies. In J. Pahl (Ed) Priyate_iolenoe_andpuhlic
policy (pp. 142-165). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (1998). Separate and
intersecting realities: A comparison of men’s and women’s accounts of violence against

women. MAW 382-414.

Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliot, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in
domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. W 183-206.

Dutton, D. G. (1987). The criminal justice response to wife assault. mo
Humanﬂehaxionil. 189-206.

Dutton, D. G., & McGregor, B. M. S. (1991). The symbiosis of arrest and
treatment for wife assault: The case for combined intervention. In M. Steinman (Ed.),

MW (pp. 131-154). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Dutton, M. A. (1996). Battered women’s strategic response to violence: The role

of context. In J. L. Edleson & Z. C. Eisikovits (13$),me
2000010008010: (1313105 124)

Eigenberg, H. M., Scarborough, K. E. & Kappeler, V. E. (1996). Contributory
factors affecting arrest in domestic and non-domestic violence assaults. Amonanlournal

MN- 54

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s

assessment of the criminal processing system’s response. WM 251-
268.

180

Ellis, D. (1992). Woman abuse among separated and divorced women: The

relevance of social support. In E. C. Viano (Ed), W
W (pp. 177-189). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing.

Fagan, J. (1995, July). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and
limits. Presented at the Annual Conference on Research and Evaluation sponsored by the
National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.

Ferraro, K. J. (1989). The legal response to woman battering In the United States.

In WW®P 155- 134)
London: Routledge.

Ferraro, K. J. (1993). Cops, courts, and woman battering. In P. B. Bart & E. G.
Moran (Eds), MWQp 165-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ferraro, K. J ., & Boychuk, T. (1992). The court's response to interpersonal
violence: A comparison of intimate and nonintimate assault. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G.

Buzawa (Eds), MW (913- 209-
225). Westport, CN: Auburn House.

Ford, D. A. (1983). Wife battery and criminal justice: A study of victim
decision-making.E_auu1y_Rolations,_3_2, 463-475.

Ford, D. A. (1991). Prosecution as a victim power resource. A note on

empowering women in violent conjugal relationships. MW 313-
334.

Ford, D. A. & Regoli, M. J. (1992). The preventive impacts of policies for
prosecuting wife batterers. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds) Qomostioyioionoo;

WW Wesvort CN Auburn House

Gamache, D. J., Edleson, J. L., & Schock, M. D. (1988). Coordinated police,
judicial, and social service response to woman battering. A multiple-baseline evaluation
across three communities. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A.

Straus (EdS) Copingmthfamilwolence. Newbury Park Sage

Garner, J., Fagan, J., & Maxwell, C. (1995). Published ﬁndings from the spouse

assault replication program: A critical review. WM
3- 28.

Gondolf, E. W. ,with Fisher, BR. (1988). WAIT
W New York: Lexington Books

Hart, B. (1993). Battered women and the criminal justice system. Amerigan
W 624- 638.

181

Hensher, C., & Johnson, L. W. (1981). WWW
London: Crook Helm.

Hirschel, J. D., & Hutchison, I. W. (1992). Female spouse abuse and the police

response: The Charlotte, North Carolina experiment. WWW
Cnmrnologxﬁl. 73-119

Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W, & Dean, C. W. (1992). The failure of arrest to
deter Spouse abuse Iowmloﬂiesearshanﬁmngandnehnguenma 7- 23

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). AndiedJogisn'orogLession, New
York: Wiley.

Hutchinson, I. W. & Hirshel, J. D. (1998). Abused women: Help-seeking
strategies and police utilization. mmmgﬂommﬁ, 436-456.

Koss, M. P. ,Goodman, L. A, Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F, Keita, G. P. ,&
Russo, N. F. (1994). u -_ : - ' .. -
oommnnity, American Psychological AssociatiOn: Washington, D. C.

 

Langan, P. A.,&Innes, C. A. (1936)_ Bialzenting l . . | ,

women, (Bureau of Justice Statistics Rep. No. NCJ-102037). U. S. Department of
Justice.

Lerman, L. (1992). The decontextualization of domestic violence. ,[gnnngiof
MW; 217- 240.

Lewis, R., Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (1997, November).
Protection, prevention, rehabilitation, or justice?: Women using the law to challence

domestic violence. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminolgy meetings,
San Diego, CA.

Limandri, B. J. & Sheridan, D. J. (1995). Prediction of interpersonal violence:

An introduction In J Carnpbell (Ed) Asmangﬁangemusnesaiolensmsexual
WWO (pp 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mahoney, M. A. (1991). Legal Images of battered women: Redeﬁning the Issue
of separation MW 1-94

Mahoney, M. A. (1994). Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives, violence,
and agency. In M. A. F Ineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds) WWW
yioionoo, New York: Routledge.

McCann, K. (1985). Battered women and the law: The limits of the legislation. In

J 31‘0th & C Smart (5618) W

182

(pp. 71-96). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

McLeod, M. (1983). Victim noncooperation in the prosecution of domestic

assault. Criminologynzl, 395-416.

Miller, S. L. & Wellford, C. F. (1997). Patterns and correlates of interpersonal

violence. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.,) Violenoo netwoon imimaie pannoijs; Eanoms, 9212595.
andoffeets (pp. 16-28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mowbray, C. T., Bybee, D., & Cohen, E. (1993). Describing the homeless

mentally ill. Cluster analysis results. WWW
67- 93.

National Research Council. (1996). Understanding 11919119: against 1mm“:
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. j

Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to
domestic violence: The Dade county spouse assault experiment. Amonoonﬁooiologioai

Royiow w, 52, 691-697.

Rapkin, B. D., & Luke, D. A. (1993). Cluster analysis In community research:
Epistemology and practice AmericaniournanLCQmmuniuLBsxsholongL 247- 277

Richie, B. (1996). Commﬂodjoorime, New York: Routledge.

Richie, B. E., & Kanuha, V. (1997). Battered women of color in public health care
systems. In M. BacaZinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Ed.,) Ihmnghjho
- ° . . -: 6. Boston, MA: Allyn&Bacon.

 

Rigakos, G. S. (1997). Situational determinants of police responses to civil and
criminal injunctions for battered women. _iolonooAgainsLWomonJ, 204- 216.

Riger, S. (1993). What's wrong with empowerment. Amonmioomaiof
WWO), 279-292.

Sherman, L. W. (1992). The inﬂuence of criminology on criminal law: Evaluating

arrests for misdemeanor domestic violence. WWW;
1-45.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984) The speciﬁc deterrent effects of arrest for
domestic assault AmeﬁmSosioIoaisalEeximAZ 261-272

Sherman, L. W. ,.Schmidt,J D. ,R,ogan D. P., Smith, D. A. Gartin, P. R., Cohn,
E., Collins, D. J., & Bacich, A. R. (1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal

careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Jonmaiofﬁnminﬂmano

183

000910081. 137-169.

Sherman, L. W, Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D, &Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime,
punishment, and stake In conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence.

AmencanﬁocroloarsaLEeerLiZ. 680- 690

Singer, S. I. (1988) The fear of reprisal and the failure of victims to report a
Personal crime ImmalonuantitatiYeﬁnminoloexA 289-302.

Smith, B. E. (1988). Victims who know their assailants: Their satisfaction with
the criminal court's response. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A.

Straus (EdS) WWWOP 133-
192). Newbury Park, NJ. Sage.

Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conﬂict and violence: The Conﬂict
Tactics (CT) Scales JoumalofManiasmdjhaEamilY. 75- 88

Steinman, M. (1990). Lowering recidivism among men who batter women.

IoumﬂofEQliceScienseaniAdminimtionJl 124-132

Sullivan, C. M. Campbell, R. ”Angelique H. Eby, K. K, & Davidson, W. S. 11.
(1994). An advocacy intervention for women with abusive partners: Six month follow-

UP Americanloumaloﬂommumﬂﬂxsholm 101-122

Sullivan, C. M., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S. II. (1991, August). Index of
Psychological Abuse: Development of a measure. Presented at the American
Psychological Association meetings, San Francisco, CA.

Syers, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated

criminal justice intervention in woman abuse. loomnloﬂmomozsonaiﬂiolonooi 490-
502.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevelance, incidence, and consequences of
violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women survey.
(N CJ 172837).

Tolman, R. M., & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated community intervention for
domestic violence: The effects of arrest and prosecution on recidivism of woman abuse

Perpetrators. Cdmﬁﬂeﬁnmmﬂ. 481-495-

Zimmerman, M., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further
explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological
empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 707-727.

184

Zorza, J. (1992). The criminal law of misdemeanor violence, 1970-1990. Journal
oanmmalLauLMnmmologYJl. 46-72.

185

 

 

"Illllllllllllltllllll’