U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Police-Community Partnerships
to Address Domestic Violence
By:
COPS
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Melissa Reuland
Melissa Schaefer Morabito
Camille Preston
Jason Cheney
Police-Community Partnerships
to Address Domestic Violence
By:
Melissa Reuland
Melissa Schaefer Morabito
Camille Preston
Jason Cheney
This project, conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), was supported by Cooperative Agreement # 98
DV-WX-K018 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Points of view
or opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the members of PERF.
Cover Design by Ayonna Johnson, Northrop Grumman Contractor to
U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office
Contents
Contents
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
II. Literature Review .............................................................................................................
Changes in Law Enforcement Responses to IPV ..............................................................
Partnership Response to Domestice Violence ...................................................................
Report Overview ...................................................................................................................
3
3
4
6
III. Mailed Survey .................................................................................................................... 9
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 9
Survey Findings ................................................................................................................ 11
IV. Telephone Interview .................................................................................................... 17
Methods .............................................................................................................................. 17
Interview Findings ................................................................................................................ 17
V. Case Studies ....................................................................................................................... 21
Methods .............................................................................................................................. 21
Partnership Descriptions: Eight Core Sites ...................................................................... 21
Partnership Descriptions: Three Satellite Sites .............................................................. 24
Case Study Findings: Keys to Effective Police Response
To Domestic Violence ......................................................................................... 25
Case Study Findings: Important and Unique Aspects of
Partnerships ......................................................................................................... 29
Case Study Findings: Partnership Resources .................................................................. 33
Case Study Findings: Partnership Goals and Successes ............................................... 33
Case Study Findings: What Have Been the Barriers to
Your Success and How Have you Overcome Them? ...................................... 34
Case Study Findings: What is the Worst Mistake a Police
Department Can Make? ..................................................................................... 36
i.
Contents
VI. Summary ......................................................................................................................... 41
Survey and Interview Findings ..................................................................................... 41
Summary of Case Study Findings ............................................................................... 42
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 44
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 45
VII. References ................................................................................................................... 49
VIII. Additional Resources ....................................................................................... 53
IX. Appendices
Appendix A: Mailed Survey Instrument ................................................. 57
Appendix B: Telephone Interview Sites and
Interview Protocol ................................................................................... 60
Appendix C: Site Visit Interview Protocols ......................................... 68
ii.
I. Introduction
Introduction
I. Introduction
A number of innovative criminal justice system approaches have been developed during the past 15 to 20 years in an
attempt to reduce the number of incidences of domestic violence in the United States. Many law enforcement agencies
now have policies mandating arrest, or stating a preference for arrest, for domestic violence. Prosecutors are also using
a wider array of options to handle domestic violence cases such as no-drop policies, evidence-based prosecution, and
special district attorneys assigned to domestic violence cases. As part of the adoption of community policing across the
country, local law enforcement agencies are also forming partnerships with community organizations to address domestic
violence.
Because there is limited knowledge about how such partnerships coordinate activities to improve response to calls
involving domestic violence, PERF was funded by the COPS Office to explore the nature, function, and impact of
these police-community partnerships to produce guidance for policy makers on partnerships focused on domestic
violence. To learn how the police-community partnerships coordinate their activities and improve their responses to
calls involving domestic violence, PERF studied a broad sample of local agencies that have such partnerships. PERF
investigators collected data in two phases. In the first phase, project staff reviewed existing literature on the connection
between community policing activities and how calls related to domestic violence are handled, interviewed experts on
domestic violence and police-community partnerships, and developed data-collection instruments. In the second phase,
project staff used a mail survey and telephone interviews and case studies to collect data on actual police-community
partnerships.
This report presents a discussion of the literature, describes project methods used and findings of the mail survey,
telephone interviews, and case studies of eleven local law enforcement agencies that had formed police-community
partnerships to address domestic violence. It highlights successful strategies, lists barriers to effective police-community
partnerships, and offers recommendations for overcoming these barriers, as well as providing strategies that can be
replicated by other agencies.
.
II. Literature Review
Literature Review
II. Literature Review
Data from the last 15 years have shown unprecedented declines in crime. Between 1993 and 2002, the rate of violent
crime declined 54 percent (Rennison 2003). During the same period, the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) detected
similar decreases in nonfatal intimate partner violence (49 percent for women and 42 percent for men) (Rennison 2003).
Homicides by intimate partners have not declined as rapidly: the rate of women who were killed by an intimate partner
fell only 22 percent during that period. Continued vigilance on the part of criminal justice and advocacy community is
needed to maintain—or ideally further—these declines.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a multidisciplinary concern because victims often are simultaneously involved with
the police, the courts, emergency medical services, shelter providers, and counselors. For instance, victims may petition
the courts to grant a restraining order, rely on the police to enforce it, and be dependent on social service providers to
help them find a safe place to live. To prevent gaps in acquiring these services, these varying tasks require coordination
among agency leaders and front-line personnel. As a result, addressing domestic violence effectively must be a shared
priority for criminal justice practitioners, health care professionals, and social service providers.
The research proposed here aims to develop a better understanding of how these various stakeholders combine their
energies to improve the response to IPV. This research focuses on IPV, but is guided by the literature reviewed below on
family violence, domestic violence, and interpersonal violence, which can include family members who are not intimate
partners. For this project, an intimate partner is defined as a former or current spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend (Rennison
and Welchans 2000). Same-sex relationships are also considered as part of this working definition. The following
literature addresses law enforcement and prosecution responses to domestic violence and demonstrates that emerging
trends in partnerships are promising improvements that require further exploration.
Changes in Law Enforcement Responses to IPV
Prior to 1970, societal norms dictated that police treat domestic violence as a family matter, not as a problem for the
police. While law enforcement agencies were the government body primarily responsible for intervening in family
violence (Buzawa and Buzawa 1992), they often had no official recourse when responding to calls for service involving
abuse. In fact, police officers were directed not to make an arrest unless there was severe injury to the victim or they
personally witnessed the crime (Buzawa and Buzawa 1992). As a result, noninterference was the primary response of law
enforcement to these incidents (Giacomazzi and Smithey 2001).
In the early 1980s, the National Institute of Justice funded the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment to explore the
relationship between arrest and repeat domestic violence (Sherman and Berk 1984). In the study, police officers used one
of three options at random when responding to domestic violence incidents: arrest, mediation, or separation. Investigators
measured batterer recidivism by tracking repeat calls for service and conducting interviews with the victims. Study
results indicated that arrest was a more effective deterrent of recidivism for batterers than informal response techniques
(Sherman and Berk 1984). Several replications studies, however, found mixed results (Pate and Hamilton, 1992;
Dunford, Huizinga, and Elliott 1989; Sherman et al. 1992; Loue 2000). Specifically, arrest did not reduce recidivism if
the batterers were unemployed and may, in fact, have increased violent incidents (Loue 2000).
.
Literature Review
Despite the conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of arresting batterers, it quickly became the preferred response
of police agencies, at least when the batterer was present. By the mid-1980s, the criminal justice response to domestic
violence had changed dramatically, with many agencies shifting away entirely from mediation toward preferred arrest
policies (Kane 1999). In some states, mandatory arrest laws require officers to arrest batterers regardless of whether the
victim is willing to testify. Advocates lauded the mandatory arrest laws because victims no longer had to press charges
against the batterer.
In other areas, police officers are given the authority to make misdemeanor domestic violence arrests even if they have
not witnessed the act personally (Kane 1999). Some large and mid-sized police agencies created Domestic Violence or
Family Violence Units to address interpersonal violence (Reuland 2001), while other departments instituted new training
policies or looked to the advocate community for assistance in developing an effective response.
Evidence suggests that arrest or prosecution programs alone may not prevent recidivist violence (Johnson et al. 1994;
Iovanni and Miller 2001). Consequently, many police agencies are looking beyond internal resources to enhance their
responses to domestic violence victims. These new approaches often involve partnerships with the community and
other criminal justice agencies that focus on reducing the negative consequences of criminal justice system practices by
making victim safety a priority.
Partnership Response to Domestic Violence
During the past few decades, the community policing philosophy has fundamentally changed the nature of American
policing. Partnership building and problem solving are among the core components of the community oriented policing
philosophy (Cordner 2001). The form and function of partnerships may differ among and within communities, depending
on the problems to address and available resources. Practitioners and researchers both have expressed that a collaborative
approach could enhance existing services to victims of domestic violence (Belknap and McCall 1994). These predictions
have been supported by evaluations of domestic violence partnerships (Zweig 2003; Whetstone 2001; Buzawa and
Buzawa 2001).
Researchers and practitioners cite several conditions crucial for partnership success including shared ownership and equal
responsibility for decision making; carefully determined organizational structures; education or training about domestic
violence; clearly defined roles and responsibilities; and mechanisms for effective information sharing (Giacomazzi
and Smithey 2001). Three major partnership models—coalitions, coordinated community responses, and response
partnerships—have been identified in the literature. These partnerships vary in scope (including both public and private
sector participants) and focus (the batterer, the victim, or the entire family unit) (Giacomazzi and Smithey 2001).
Partnership activities include creating new arrest policies, providing follow-up support for victims, prosecuting offenders,
monitoring system activity, developing intervention programs, or strengthening civil remedies, (Shepard et al. 2002)
among others. In most communities, partnerships are formed to develop a safety net that ensures victims do not go
unnoticed or unassisted (Pollitz Worden 2001) and to improve the function of the criminal justice system. Each form of
partnership is described below.
Coalitions. Also called task forces or coordinating councils, coalitions are large, multijurisdictional task forces of
30 to100 people who typically meet monthly to discuss large-scale problems such as policy and legislative changes.
Coalition members include representatives from a wide range of systems including criminal justice, health care,
education, and social services. Some coalitions focus on coordinating different components of the criminal justice system
(Hart 1995), while others address the provision of community-based services. In 1980, for example, activists pioneered
the Duluth Domestic Violence Intervention Project to influence interagency reform. The resulting well-known Duluth
Model involved practitioners from a wide range of agencies who partnered with the goal of maintaining victim safety
(Pence and McMahon 1999).
.
Literature Review
For some communities, coalitions also serve as a springboard for additional response activities. Coalition meetings
provide planning time to discuss or develop coordinated community responses or co-response interventions (Karan et al.
1999). Some coalitions are used as a starting point for conducting safety audits to determine what, if any, gaps exist in
the current system (Lee et al. 2000). Regular interaction during meetings can also serve as an impetus to share resources
or enter into a more defined collaboration.
The wide range of participants typical of coalitions can allow them to have far-reaching effects. Effective coalitions are
able to set the minimum community resource standards necessary to protect victims of domestic violence, to promote
understanding of the problem, to assess current practices, and to create mechanisms for information sharing (Witwer and
Crawford 1995). Furthermore, coalition activities can provide a forum from which community leaders are able to educate
the public about domestic violence.
Conversely, large numbers of participants can be detrimental to effective policy change and can be unwieldy and
ineffective. Furthermore, some coalitions use a top-down approach to addressing domestic violence (Smithey and
Giacomazzi 1999), with chief executives and agency directors involved in discussions and meetings, while front-line
personnel are removed from the process. As a result, effecting policy changes can be difficult because buy-in and input
are lacking from the front-line workers who are to implement the responses. Some evidence suggests that communities
relying on widespread coalition participation as the primary response to domestic violence create less effective safety
nets than jurisdictions that use other methods. When combined with other activities, however, task forces can be an
integral part of a domestic violence response that is helpful to victims and their families (Pollitz Worden 2001).
Coordinated Community Responses. The Coordinated Community Response (CCR) models represent collaborative
undertakings by two or more agencies to coordinate assistance procedures for domestic violence victims and their
families (Stark 2001). CCRs are often grass-roots efforts of one jurisdiction to bring together relevant people to develop
and implement policy and training to close gaps in service (Uchida et al. 2001) or to ensure more uniform treatment
of victims and offenders in the criminal justice system (Shepard et al. 2002). Participants may also assess problems or
manage cases. Participants may include criminal justice practitioners, health care personnel, and social service providers.
Based on an area’s needs, participants try to maximize available victims’ resources and to prevent recidivism.
The Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department initiated a CCR in conjunction with the victim-witness assistance program
located in the Commonwealth of Virginia Attorney’s office, the courts, and the Virginia Department of Mental Health
(Orchowsky 1999). The goal was twofold: to hold offenders accountable and to enhance victim services. To identify
victims, the victim-witness assistance program staff review all police incident reports to find any evidence of domestic
violence that had been overlooked. A program evaluation revealed that while the police department must improve
procedures to link more victims to services, those victims who had been assisted felt better served and protected as a
result of the CCR (Orchowsky 1999).
The literature suggests that the more avenues for help that are available, the more likely it is that a victim of domestic
violence will seek assistance (Hart 1995). A CCR can offer many doorways to a community’s resources. Some
evaluations suggest that the CCR model may be the best way to keep victims safe because it can have a significant
impact on reducing repeat violence (Crowell and Burgess 1996). Research also suggests that coordinating police action
with other criminal justice and social service efforts can have a deterrent effect (Tolman and Weisz 1995).
Response Partnerships. Response partnerships are characterized by two entities (usually law enforcement and service
providers) combining efforts to respond to individual cases. Typically, agency personnel co-respond to calls for service,
usually once the situation has been secured by police officers. They either ride to the scene with the law enforcement
officer or arrive separately. In some jurisdictions, co-response is part of the investigation follow-up. This integrated
approach can provide immediate services to victims, when they are most likely to be receptive to and in need of
assistance. Co-responses can also enhance investigations, evidence collection, and victim referrals (Brann 1998).
.
Literature Review
In addition to on-scene responses, some police departments employ domestic violence advocates on staff, provide
physical space to house advocates employed by other agencies, or work closely with advocates employed by and
located at a local social service agency. For example, in Knoxville, Tennessee, officers are co-located in the police
department with advocates from the YMCA to investigate and follow up on all domestic violence calls for service
within 48 hours. Advocates are available for walk-in assistance and a community advisory committee was established
to centralize procedures (Broyles 2000). A University of Tennessee evaluation revealed that intervention enhanced
the safety of victims of domestic violence (Broyles 2000).
The Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department developed a well-documented, comprehensive example of a
co-response to enhance safety for victims of domestic violence. The COPS-funded Domestic Violence Enhanced
Response Team (DVERT) reviews cases referred by any of the partner agencies, not only the police, and selects those
where the victim is exposed to imminent danger. DVERT team members from criminal justice, social service, and
community-based programs conduct outreach and provide services to the victim (Uchida et al 2001). An evaluation
revealed that DVERT staff modified policies and procedures as necessary to ensure that victim needs are being met
(Uchida et al. 2001).
Report Overview
The literature on police-community partnerships suggests the emergence of an important trend in criminal justice
system response to intimate partner violence that required further exploration. The current research assessed the
nature of police-community partnerships that address domestic violence and documented them to allow other
communities to replicate promising approaches. The project used primarily qualitative data collection methods, such
as telephone interviews and site visits, to prepare policy recommendations for law enforcement and community
organizations on developing effective partnerships.
The project addressed the following research questions:
1. What types of partnerships are formed between law enforcement and community organizations to address
domestic violence?
2. How do these partnership arrangements assist law enforcement in addressing domestic violence?
3. What are the goals of various approaches and how well do jurisdictions perceive they are reaching these
goals?
4. What are the most important and unique aspects of the partnerships?
5. What barriers and challenges restrict these arrangements and how have they been overcome?
6. What are the worst mistakes that a police department can make?
.
III. Mailed Survey
Mailed Survey
III. Mailed Survey
This section presents descriptive data collected from departments around the nation that have
partnered with the community to address domestic violence. The survey was sent to two groups
of departments: 1) those that received funding from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (the COPS Office) in 1996 to create partnerships to address domestic violence, and
2) those that were nominated either by the directors of the Regional Community Policing
Institutes1 (RCPI) or state domestic violence coalitions.
The goal of the brief survey was to learn what the agencies were doing and to gather enough
information to help determine which departments should be selected for in-depth telephone
interviews. From these agencies, eleven sites were selected for on-site case study. This section
presents the descriptive information gathered from the survey.
Methods
Survey development. Ten subject experts from the fields of law enforcement, domestic
violence support services, and advocacy were identified, through a snowball process, beginning
with those known to the authors of this report and identified through the literature review
as knowledgeable and experienced in developing partnerships in this area. Subject experts
were interviewed about their experiences with police-community partnerships to identify
important variables for inclusion in the forthcoming surveys and site visits. Further, these
interviews helped identify terms that would be most inclusive because the researchers wanted
to capture the full range of partnership arrangements. The survey used the terms “partner” and
“collaborate” and did not provide a definition, and also the term “domestic violence,” which
pretesting had determined was the broadest term used by police.
The short survey for law enforcement agencies was designed to collect basic descriptive
information on the type of partnership arrangement in which the agency is engaged (task force,
coordinated community response, response team2); how long it had been active; how often the
partners meet; who participates; the target area (multijurisdictional, a single region, part of a
region); the partnership activities (provide training, respond to calls, assist in referral services);
and successes. The survey is provided in Appendix A.
1. In 1997, COPS
funded the creation
of the only national
training network of
Regional Community
Policing Institutes
(RCPI) to provide
comprehensive and
innovative community
policing education,
training, and technical
assistance to COPS
grantees throughout the
nation. To learn more
about the RCPIs, visit
COPS Online at www.
cops.usdoj.gov.
2. Task forces are
characterized by
periodic meetings to set
policies, procedures,
and develop training.
Coordinated
community responses
typically involve
coordinating existing
resources, case
management, problem
solving, information
exchange, and resource
sharing. Response
teams partner police
with a service provider
to provide walk-in
support, referrals,
information, and
counseling to victims
and batterers.
Survey Sample and Response. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) surveyed 345
agencies funded by the COPS Office to develop community-policing partnership responses
to the problem of domestic violence. Surveys were sent to either the attention of the agency
representative who coordinates the domestic violence grant or the chief executive. Three waves
of surveys were sent and 272 surveys were returned for a 79 percent response rate.
.
Mailed Survey
PERF also surveyed 63 departments nominated either by the RCPIs or state domestic violence coalition directors as
having promising domestic violence partnerships. Two waves of surveys were sent resulting in 57 surveys returned
for a 90 percent response. The combined response for the two sets of surveys (329 and 408) was approximately 81
percent.
Figures 1 and 2 show that the responding departments represent small, medium, and large departments from across
the nation.
Figure 1. Population of Responding Departments (n=329)
Frequency
Population
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Fewer than 25,000
87
26.4
27.0
27.0
Between 25,000 and 49,999
47
14.3
14.6
41.6
Between 50,000 and 74,999
38
11.6
11.8
53.4
Between 75,000 and 99,999
22
6.7
6.8
60.2
Between 100,000 and 149,999
29
8.8
9.0
69.3
Between 150,000 and 249,999
33
10.0
10.2
79.5
More than 250,000
66
20.1
20.5
100.0
322
97.9
100.0
7
2.1
329
100.0
Total Valid
Missing
Total
Figure 2. Region of the Nation of Responding Departments
Region
Percent
Valid Percent
Northwest
24
7.3
7.4
7.4
Southwest
45
13.7
13.8
21.2
North Central
72
21.9
22.1
43.3
South Central
35
10.6
10.7
54.0
Northeast
88
26.7
27.0
81.0
Southeast
62
18.8
19.0
100.0
326
99.1
100.0
3
.9
329
100.0
Total Valid
Missing
Total
0.
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent
Mailed Survey
Survey Findings
Data analyses were directed at answering the following research questions:
1.
What terms do departments use to describe their partnerships? Figure 3 demonstrates that the majority of
respondents (41.9 percent) describe their partnerships as Coordinated Community Responses (CCR) alone or
in combination with other types (14.9 percent). Some respondents (16.9 percent) selected more than one term,
most often choosing task force in combinations with CCR.
Figure 3. Partnership Type For All Respondents
Frequency
Percent
53
13.0
17.6
17.6
126
30.9
41.9
59.5
40
20
9.8
13.3
72.8
4.9
6.6
79.4
6
1.5
2.0
81.4
CCR and RT
10
2.5
3.3
84.7
TF and CCR and RT
15
3.7
5.0
89.7
Other committee or team
26
6.4
8.6
98.3
5
1.2
1.7
100.0
Total
301
73.8
100.0
Missing
107
26.2
408
100.0
Type
Task force only
CCR only
Response Team only
TF and CCR
TF and RT
Other shared staff
2.
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
In what activities do partnerships engage? Figure 4 shows the frequency of various partnership activities
as reported by the respondents in an open-ended format. The activities were coded and combined into the
listed categories. The complete set of codes and typical responses included in each are provided at the end
of Appendix A. The most frequently listed activities (41.3 percent) were coded as victim assistance or
outreach, which included coordinating victims’ services and providing additional service such as counseling.
Many respondents (37.1 percent) also cited their participation in coalitions, task forces, teams, or planning
committees.
.
Mailed Survey
Figure 4. Partnership Activities for all Respondents
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Percent*
72
21.9
Victim assistance or service
136
41.3
Coalitions or teams
122
37.1
On-scene responses
40
12.2
Special DV unit/review
65
19.8
Policies/procedures general
43
13.1
Offender services
10
3.0
Training/outreach
* percent of total respondents (329)
3.
What activities are listed for each partnership type? An analysis of listed activities for each partnership type
reveals that the terms selected generally are consistent with activities mentioned. For example, approximately
62 percent of the task force partnerships mentioned participation in coalitions or teams and almost 60 percent
of the CCR partnerships listed victim services. This consistency was not clear, however, for the response team
partnerships. For these departments, on-scene responses were mentioned by only 42 percent of the cases. This
group mentioned on-scene responses more frequently from the other groups. The activity measure was coded
from open-ended responses, so it is not wholly reflective of all activities of the partnership (Figures 5, 6, and 7).
Figure 5. Activities Listed for Task Force Respondents
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Training/outreach
25
26.6
Victim assistance or service
35
37.2
Coalitions or teams
58
61.7
On-scene responses
9
9.6
Special DV unit/review
11
11.7
Policies/procedures general
11
11.7
6
6.4
Offender services
* percent of 94 task forces
responding to the question
2.
Percent*
Mailed Survey
Figure 6. Activities Listed for Coordinated Community Response Respondents
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Percent*
Training/outreach
46
29.9
Victim assistance or service
92
59.7
Coalitions or teams
80
51.9
On-scene responses
14
9.1
Special DV unit/review
40
30.0
Policies/procedures general
24
15.6
6
3.9
Offender services
* percent of 154 CCRs
replying to the question
Figure 7. Activities Listed for Response Team Respondents
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Percent*
8
12.7
Victim assistance or service
39
61.9
Coalitions or teams
28
44.4
On-scene responses
27
42.9
Special DV unit/review
15
23.8
Policies/procedures general
8
12.7
Offender services
2
3.2
Training/outreach
* percent of 94 task forces
responding to the question
.
Mailed Survey
4.
How long, on average, do these partnerships last? For the full sample, the partnerships length ranged from 4
to 258 months, with a mean of 57.63 and a standard deviation of 40.88. Figure 8 expresses the mean number
of months for each type of partnership and shows no differences.
Figure 8. Mean Number of Months for Partnership Types
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Northwest
24
7.3
7.4
7.4
Southwest
45
13.7
13.8
21.2
North Central
72
21.9
22.1
43.3
South Central
35
10.6
10.7
54.0
Northeast
88
26.7
27.0
81.0
Southeast
62
18.8
19.0
100.0
326
99.1
100.0
3
.9
329
100.0
Total Valid
Missing
Total
5.
Percent
How many partnerships have continued beyond COPS funding? The majority of agencies (65 percent) have
continued their partnership arrangements beyond the external funding provided by COPS (Figure 9). This
finding is of particular interest as federal agencies grapple with making the most out of limited program
resources. It appears that once COPS funds were used to encourage partnerships (and for 134 agencies with
partnerships in existence today, the partnerships began with COPS funding), the positive outcomes of these
arrangements were sufficient to impel agencies to maintain them using internal resources (Figure 10).
Figure 9. Is the Partnership Still in Existence?
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No
99
24.3
30.3
30.3
Yes
214
52.5
65.4
95.7
14
3.4
4.3
100.0
327
80.1
100.0
81
19.9
408
100.0
Not known
Total
Missing
.
Percent
Mailed Survey
Figure 10. For Those Still in Existence Today:
Was the Partnership in Existence Prior to 1996?
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
No
134
62.6
62.6
62.6
Yes
59
27.6
27.6
90.2
Not known
21
9.8
9.8
100.0
214
100.0
100.0
Total
6.
Who from the criminal justice system participates in the partnership (Figure 11)?
Figure 11. Criminal Justice System Participants
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Percent*
Police
314
96.0
District Attorney’s Office
233
71.3
Judge
123
37.6
Probation or parole
148
45.3
67
20.5
Other
* Percentage of valid responses (327)
7.
Who from the community participates in the partnership (Figure 12)?
Figure 12. Community Participants
(These categories are not mutually exclusive)
Frequency
Percent*
Advocacy Groups
267
81.7
Victim’s Shelter
285
87.2
Medical Professionals
134
41.0
Counseling Services
233
71.3
Treatment Services
196
59.9
67
20.5
Other
* Percentage of valid responses (327)
.
IV. Telephone Interviews
Telephone Interviews
IV. Telephone Interviews
The investigators had planned to use data from the mailed survey to select sites for the case study. Several of the
survey items lent themselves to site selection criteria. For example, case study sites would still have to be in existence.
Surprisingly, though, this information limited the sample slightly—to only 214 agencies. To select sites from these 214,
the investigators determined that 59 partnerships had preceded the COPS funding and assessed the number and type of
activities, looking for jurisdictions that go beyond providing training and holding meetings, for example. Ultimately, the
summary nature of the survey data enabled the investigators to determine that in-depth telephone interviews were needed
to further reduce the sample and select sites that were engaged in comprehensive partnerships.
Methods
Agencies that engaged in more than one activity (Question 2, above), for example both training and on-scene response,
were identified for the telephone interviews. This strategy yielded 48 agencies (see list in Appendix B). Respondents
who had completed the mailed survey were recruited to participate in an hour-long telephone interview (see Appendix B)
to gather additional information about their partnerships. Forty-one agencies agreed to participate.
Interview Findings
Using the information gathered in the telephone interviews, project staff prepared one-to-three-page summary
descriptions for each partnership. The project team rated these partnerships on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 was poor and
5 was excellent) on the following dimensions: strength of the partnership, availability and variety of response, resources
allocated, improvements since inception, and extent of self-measured success. These dimensions are defined as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Partnership strength: Includes the number and variety of partnering agencies and the police department’s
frequency of interaction with program partners.
Availability and variety of response: Is response available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for all domestic
violence calls and do the advocates provide or at least refer victims to all needed assistance?
Resource allocation: Does the department have a domestic violence unit or do all officers have contact with
advocates; are the appropriate number of people and resources allocated to response to calls for service?
Improvement since program inception: Has the police department identified areas needing improvement and
made necessary changes for improvement?
Extent of self-measured success: What are the methods of measuring success and the extent to which
successes match program goals?
The ratings for each question were combined for each site and the sites were ranked overall. The project team
discussed sites within the top rankings, and selected those representing a range of city sizes and regions of the country.
The agencies interviewed by telephone have very strong partnerships, many of which have already been studied in
the literature (see literature review). To reduce the number of sites for case study, the project team considered how
comprehensive the partnerships were, whether they were victim centered, their use of advocates (either as department
personnel or not), whether they had been studied previously (if so, they were not included), the use of volunteers (who
ride in patrol cars with police) and colocation of partners. Although the investigators had planned to conduct only eight
site visits, three additional sites that were in close proximity to the eight core sites were also visited. These three sites
were referred to as satellite sites and fewer people were interviewed.
7.
Telephone Interviews
The following eleven sites were selected for case study (* indicates a satellite site):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
8.
Arlington (Texas) Police Department
Broward County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office
Fort Worth (Texas) Police Department*
Fort Smith (Arkansas) Police Department
Huntsville (Alabama) Police Department
Indianapolis (Indiana) Police Department
Manchester (Connecticut) Police Department
Nassau County (New York) Police Department*
Santa Barbara (California) Police Department*
Westminster (California) Police Department
Xenia (Ohio) Police Division
V. Case Studies
Case Studies
V. Case Studies
Methods
Teams of two project staff visited each site for two days to collect data from the participants of the police-community
partnerships. Data were collected during individual interviews (an example interview is in Appendix C) and focus
groups composed of relevant law enforcement and partner personnel, as well as from police records and reports.
If possible, project staff also observed the work of the partnerships. For example, if the partnership involved a
coordinated response to calls for service, the staff did ride alongs on the calls.
The goal of these site visits was to document in detail a wide range of promising types of partnerships, better
understand the factors that promote success, and assess the relative effects of these different arrangements on the
domestic violence problems identified by each site. The site visit data were analyzed primarily by qualitative methods
because the sample size was too small to merit quantitative approaches. The findings, described below, illuminate
important elements of the partnership arrangements and interrelationships between the study variables.
Partnership Descriptions: Eight Core Sites
Arlington, Texas
This partnership is a coordinated on-scene collaboration between the Arlington Police Department and The
Women’s Shelter that aims to reduce domestic violence incidents, educate domestic violence victims, serve children
who witness domestic violence, and to break the cycle of domestic violence and repeat victimization. The police
department uses Victim Assistance staff paired with highly trained and specialized response team volunteers who
are on duty during evenings and late nights and are dispatched at the request of patrol officers. The response
team provides crisis intervention, informs victims of services available to them, and assists victims in requesting
emergency protective orders. The response team also assists victims in making safety plans, helping with witness
statements, and arranging or providing transportation of victims and pets to shelters. Line-level officers appreciate the
work of the response team because domestic violence calls can be challenging and the team frees them to complete
other tasks at the scene. By calling on the response team, police can concentrate on investigating the allegation of
violence and on dealing with the offender. The response team is on duty 7 days a week from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. Victim
Assistance Program supervisors and other program staff are available during the day and are on call after hours.
The partnership helps assure that everyone involved in a domestic violence case, from 911 or shelter hot line calls,
works together throughout the process to provide the best possible service to the victim, using the strengths of each
partner’s role.
Broward County, Florida
The Broward County Sheriff’s Office has partnered with Women in Distress (a battered-women’s shelter) and Victim
Assistance to bring a coordinated response to domestic violence incidents. The partnership seeks to better serve
victims through a multidisciplinary method to increase safety of victims and to provide counseling services and
transportation.
The sheriff’s office formed a Special Victims Unit specifically to target domestic violence. This unit consists of six
in-house advocates who respond on-scene with deputies, and can also provide court advocacy for victims, review
cases, and provide follow up for victims. In addition, there is a notification specialist who tells victims the location of
their assailant (that is, whether in prison or where they are currently residing), an investigative assistant who handles
2.
Case Studies
clerical duties, and one supervisor. All deputies in the sheriff’s office receive training on domestic violence at the
academy as well as 8 hours each year of in-service training. Deputies also have access to special evidence-collection
kits (including a camera and other evidence-collection instruments) that help the state attorney’s office build solid
cases. Women in Distress receives copies of all domestic violence reports so that staff can follow up with victims and
inform them of the services available to them.
Fort Smith, Arkansas
The Fort Smith Police Department partners with a local agency called the Crisis Center for Women in a coordinated
response effort to reduce domestic violence incidents. The two main purposes of the organization are to assist
women and families who experience abuse and to advocate for, and provide services to, rape victims. Goals include
improving the quality of services to victims, appropriately evaluating successes and making necessary changes to
the program when necessary, increasing officer awareness, and going beyond just arresting the batterer to having
a victim-oriented response. The partnership resulted from a COPS grant, and although the grant has expired, the
program is still in place. The Center provides training to department personnel, victim information referral sheets, a
24-hour response van that arrives at the scene of disputes to provide shelter, assistance in filing emergency protective
orders, and court advocacy and transportation. In addition, the Crisis Center partnered with the police department in
developing a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program.
When an officer responds to a domestic violence call, he/she may contact the dispatcher, who will call the Crisis
Center for Women 24-hour hot line. Then the Crisis Center sends a response van to the scene and will transport the
victim and children to the Center’s shelter. The Center will also provide transportation to court appearances and
provide court advocacy. This on-scene response is available for all situations, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. After the
on-scene response is complete, the case is turned over to the domestic violence unit, which consists of two full-time
investigators who handle all incoming cases.
Huntsville, Alabama
The First Responder program is a partnership between Crisis Services of North Alabama (Crisis Services) and the
Huntsville Police Department to provide on-scene response to victims of domestic violence. Crisis Services serves
five counties and has three shelters. Counseling at Crisis Services includes a Trauma Counseling Program for
children who witness violence and for victims of violence. The organization also has a legal advocacy program to
provide legal services and representation to women who need emergency protection orders, divorce and child custody
assistance, and who are not eligible to receive representation through the state’s legal service provider. The goals of
the partnership are to decrease or eliminate domestic violence-related homicides, decrease the number of repeat calls
and recidivism, assist and educate victims, hold offenders accountable, inform victims about access to services, and to
let children who witness domestic violence know that it is not their fault.
The program coordinator, an advocate from Crisis Services, works at the police department and reviews every report
filed at the department (not just domestic violence reports) to identify situations that involve an incident of domestic
violence. The program coordinator works with the domestic violence investigators to assess the needs of domestic
violence victims and help them access needed services.
The second key feature of the partnership is that volunteer advocates ride along with patrol officers to respond on
scene to incidents involving domestic violence. Once the officer clears the advocate to go onto the property, the
advocate will work with the victim, provide crisis counseling, and offer information packets that let victims know
what options they have and how they can make safety plans. The advocates also arrange shelter admittance and
transportation, and children of victims also receive information packets.
22.
Case Studies
Indianapolis, Indiana
The Indianapolis Police Department has partnered with The Julian Center (a women’s shelter) to address domestic
violence in a collaborative, coordinated response. Goals of the program include increasing the awareness of, and
education about, domestic violence, involving the entire system, filling gaps in services, and generally creating a
seamless system.
The Julian Center’s new director invited and paid for the police department to house its Domestic Violence Unit
at the center. The Domestic Violence Unit only handles misdemeanor cases—the homicide unit handles all other
types of crime, such as serious felonies. Also, in each of the police department’s district headquarters, a district
advocate from the Family Advocacy Center (FAC, an organization that also has advocates who work in the courts
and with Child Protective Services) works at the department and responds to on-scene requests and provides court
accompaniment to victims. Patrol officers radio for the FAC advocate to come to the scene, but each district advocate
is only available to respond on scene during the times in which each district has determined (through a Weed and
Seed grant) when the most domestic violence incidents occur.
Manchester, Connecticut
The partnership is a collaboration between the Manchester Police Department and Interval House, a women’s shelter
and advocacy group. The coordinated response of the special unit consists of staff from both agencies and is called
the Domestic Violence Outreach Team (DVOT) which provides follow up to domestic violence victims, links them
with resources, and informs them of available services. Goals of the program are to provide an enhanced response
to domestic violence victims (including emergency protective orders), court advocacy (providing information on
both the criminal and civil courts—such as custody dispute procedure and protective orders), increase the quality of
criminal investigations, and provide outreach to victims and the community.
The DVOT program links victims with shelter services, other victims’ services, mental health services, medical
professionals, and the Department of Children and Families. The on-scene response is not only prompted by calls for
service, but a large number of cases involve women who are referred by the Department of Children and Families or
women who are afraid to call the police. The DVOT team will go on scene to talk with the victim at his or her own
discretion. Sometimes they travel with patrol, but mostly go on their own time. The on-scene response and followup is provided only at the times of day that both team members (the officer and the advocate) are available. They do
not like to respond right after an incident, however, because the offender usually is present and the advocate does
not want the offender to know that the victim is speaking with the DVOT. If a woman is unable to leave her home to
discuss the case with the team, they will go to her home.
Westminster, California
The police department unit’s goal is to decrease the number of domestic violence incidents, to attend to victims’
needs, and to reduce negative impact of domestic violence on children. The department is involved in several
partnerships with multiple community domestic service providers, mainly the Women’s Transitional Living Center
and Interval House. They also collaborate with the district attorney’s office and probation and parole. The department
has a Family Violence Unit (FVU) which consists of two bilingual detectives; one handles domestic violence cases
and the other handles sexual assault cases. The team also has an in-house deputy district attorney who works on
all domestic violence cases from the beginning all the way to sentencing. A victims’ advocate from the Women’s
Transitional Living Center also works at the FVU. In addition, the unit has a nonsworn police service officer to
handle clerical duties related to the unit.
2.
Case Studies
Responding officers can call the victim advocate (who works in the department 4 days a week but is on call 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week) to go to the scene of the domestic violence incident, or can refer the victim to services and a
24-hour hot line. If the victim needs immediate shelter, officers will transport her and her children to the Women’s
Transitional Living Center. There, the victims receive shelter, legal aid, counseling, and medical assistance or referral.
Because most cases happen at night, officers will visit the advocate the next morning to let her/him know what the
situation is so he or she can talk to the victim and convince the victim to get help. The advocate conducts trainings
during briefings and gives officers pamphlets that contain information on available resources.
Xenia, Ohio
In 1996, the Xenia Police Department partnered with the Family Violence Prevention Center (FVPC) to address
domestic violence in a cooperative approach, namely the Divert Team. The Divert Team’s goals are to decrease the
number of domestic violence incidents, connect victims with resources, help the police department to conform to new
state laws about reporting, and educate police officers about domestic violence.
The Divert Team program provides on-scene secondary response and follow-up services to calls related to domestic
violence. The team consists of two officers and two advocates from the FVPCP: one responds to Xenia calls, the
other to calls in the nearby town of Bellbrook. The team is available 15 hours a day to provide on-scene secondary
response. To better establish a coordinated response, a police investigator and a sergeant are stationed in the same
building with the FVPC to help facilitate interagency cooperation and information sharing. In addition, the shelter is
in a disclosed (that is, non-secretive) location, and staff believe that because of these two factors, no batterers have
tried to enter the facility to locate their spouses or partners.
On-scene response is the primary activity of the Divert Team. Team members are notified when an officer responding
to a call for service believes that a domestic incident has occurred. They concentrate their team response on
misdemeanor incidents rather than on more serious incidents as part of a prevention approach. Any combination of a
full-time detective, sergeant, and FVPC advocate may respond to the scene. At the scene, the Divert Team member
assesses the immediate needs of the victim (including medical) and the potential lethality of the situation, determines
the level of crime (felony, misdemeanor), and provides transportation to the FVPC shelter. Although the team is
available to respond on scene only from 8 AM to 11 PM, Monday through Friday, the team can be paged and usually
will go to the victim’s house on the next business day after the original call for service.
Partnership Descriptions: Three Satellite Sites
Fort Worth, Texas
The Domestic Assault Response Team (DART) program is the secondary response team that pairs two DART
detectives from the Family Violence Unit (headed by a sergeant) with volunteer advocates from the Women’s Haven
(a local shelter). The goals of the program are to provide victims with information about counseling and options (for
example, protective orders), and early on-scene intervention services.
The DART detectives work four 10-hour days (Wednesday through Saturday, 6 p.m. to 4 a.m.) and Sunday, 1 p.m.
to 11 p.m. The domestic violence volunteers work 8 hours of the detectives’ shifts. The advocates provide crisis
intervention, give information and referrals to victims, and facilitate admission of victims to the emergency shelter
when necessary. In addition to providing secondary on-scene response, the detectives also go to the scene when a
detective needs additional information or when following up to a repeat call for service. The detectives relieve and
assist patrol staff by taking over on-scene stabilization and investigation.
2.
Case Studies
Nassau County, New York
The Nassau County Police Department partnered with the Nassau County Coalition on Domestic Violence to offer
victims the highest levels of safety and protection. The deputy commanding officer in each of the eight precincts of
the police department is responsible for faxing a computerized printout of arrest reports for all domestic violence
cases to the coalition staff members on a weekly basis, and more often if necessary. The Coalition staff members
provide follow up for victims, including counseling, personal alarms, medical care, shelter, mental health services,
court advocacy, and additional referrals. The Coalition’s 24-hour hotline enables victims to access on-call advocates.
A police department liaison oversees the partnership. The police department also partners with the district attorney’s
office, other victims’ services, batterers’ treatment services, mental health services, and medical professionals through
a domestic violence task force.
Santa Barbara, California
The Santa Barbara Police Department partnered with Domestic Violence Solutions, a local non-profit organization,
to form a collaborative coordinated effort to reduce domestic violence. The partnership helps victims of domestic
violence through early intervention via emergency response, support through case management, counseling, on–scene
assistance, and zero tolerance of domestic violence. The Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT)
advocates respond with the police to domestic violence scenes (in Santa Barbara, the advocates must be called out
on domestic violence calls) to provide counseling and follow-up services for victims (specifically, they refer or
transport victims to shelter, assist with food, employment, and other follow up, and also help victims with emergency
protective orders (this is a mandatory on-scene offer). Rape crisis advocates can respond on scene if called (in fact,
if the victim was sexually assaulted, the department’s policy is that officers cannot question the victim until the
rape crisis advocate has spoken with her). Oversight of the DVERT team is conducted by a board consisting of all
partners: shelter services, other victims’ services, mental health services, courts, district attorney’s office, and the
police. The department has a mandatory arrest policy if anyone is injured on scene. The DVERT program began
when the district attorney’s office, rape crisis services, and shelter formed a collaborative response, after which the
police received a COPS grant and joined the partnership.
Case Study Findings:
Keys to Effective Police Response to Domestic Violence
Site visitors asked respondents to articulate the key elements of an effective police response to domestic violence
and what helps police provide the best response. In ten out of the eleven sites visited, training and education were
cited as the best ways to achieve these key elements. Ongoing training helps officers understand victims’ behavior
and problems from the victim’s point of view, which can help officers deal with frustration they may feel as they deal
with repeat or reluctant victims. The key elements are discussed below, separately for police sources and community
partner sources.
Police Sources: Most frequently, police respondents said that the key to effective response to domestic violence
is to treat it like any other crime, that is seriously, and to conduct a solid investigation (involving good evidence
collection), and make arrests. In the words of the respondents:
•
Arlington, Texas, victim assistance coordinator who works in the police department: “With domestic
violence policing trends moving toward evidence-based investigation, officers conduct investigations as
they would any other kind of crime considering the entire scene and all the evidence, rather than relying
on the victim’s statement alone.” She stressed the importance of taking photographs, noting the condition
of the room, the victim and suspect’s demeanor, and seizing weapons [and other materials] as evidence.
2.
Case Studies
•
Broward County, Florida, lieutenant: “Officers need to recognize these issues as criminal behavior, not
just ‘a family thing’ or ‘it’s between him and her’. Our deputies have been given special kits, consisting
of a camera, film, batteries, cassette recorders, and tapes, which are to be used to collect evidence and
make a strong case against the batterer.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, captain: “Officers need to take domestic violence seriously: they need to give
domestic violence as much a priority as any other battery case, and they must be willing to spend time
on the scene, sorting out the primary aggressor, sorting out the seriousness of the case, offering shelter
and transportation, and seeking out witnesses for a stronger case.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, detective: “Effective police responses to domestic violence comes from
the availability of two officers on the scene with good investigative techniques, such as interviewing
victims out of earshot or line of sight from the offender to reduce intimidation and obtaining the victim’s
history.”
•
Nassau County, New York, chief: “The key element for an effective response is acceptance that domestic
violence is a crime, and that an offense committed in a domestic setting is perceived like any other
offense. It needs to be taken seriously as a police matter.”
•
Xenia, Ohio, sergeant: “Information gathering is important; from the time the call comes into the
communications system to when the officer investigates. It’s a matter of collecting as much information
as possible to build the case and to gather enough evidence for a successful prosecution.”
In addition, the police department must be willing to partner with the community to address the problem together.
These partnerships include early intervention efforts with schools, shelter providers, and counseling agencies.
Respondents recognize that partnerships with community agencies and volunteers are needed because the law
enforcement agency cannot address this problem alone. Some agencies stressed the partnerships they have with the
district attorney’s office as well as with the court. In the words of the respondents:
2.
•
Arlington, Texas, chief: “Partnerships are important because police are not domestic violence experts.
Police have to intervene in crises and provide services and education to victims. Organizations such as
the women’s shelter have professionals who work with these issues on a daily basis. The police will have
a larger impact by working in partnership. If we’re doing this for victims, then we want to create the
greatest impact possible, and we can do that with our partnerships. We can’t do it alone.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, chief: “Partnering with the Crisis Center for Women has been a critical component
to our effective police response because the Center provides victims with alternatives to leave their
current arrangements.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, major: “The partnership with the Crisis Center for Women helps to support,
educate and empathize with officers.”
•
Santa Barbara, California, captain: “The key element is having a multi-agency collaboration from start
to finish. There can’t be any gaps for service or contact—there has to be constant contact. If there is any
drop time in which the victim doesn’t know who to call, it’s detrimental to an effective collaborative
response.”
Case Studies
Another key to success described by the police respondents was a focus on, and awareness of, victims and the
situations they are in. These respondents noted that officers must be sensitive to this situation and show empathy and
compassion for victims. This focus on victims also includes a focus on their safety. In the words of the respondents:
•
Arlington, Texas, police officer: “Officers need to have sensitivity in domestic violence situations, given
that officers may be taking someone’s loved one to jail. To me, that’s where partnership with VA (the
Victim Assistance Domestic Violence Response Team) is beneficial, because I may have to put someone
in jail, and then it’s hard for me to turn around after I’ve sent that person to jail and try to do counseling
with the victim. If I can bring someone else in to play that role, I’ll stay there if I need to, but if VA can
come in and do the counseling role—that takes away from me having to be two-faced, put them in jail
and then ‘I’m sorry’. I don’t have to go from enforcer to counselor.”
•
Broward County, Florida, detective sergeant: “Everything starts with the first responder because they are
the initial field contact with victims. It is important for victims to get the appropriate attention. It is very
important to show concern for the victim and show them that deputies do care.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, chief: “We emphasize a focus on the victim. We cannot lose this focus, as it is what
drives the community’s activities.”
Huntsville, Alabama, detective: “It is very important to get victims to a safe place. Victim safety can
be improved when police and advocates work together. Sometimes, because of trust issues, victims who
won’t cooperate with the police will cooperate with the advocates.”
•
Respondents also were concerned that officers have sufficient knowledge about what causes domestic violence,
how relationship violence can be cyclical, and why some partners will not leave abusive relationships readily. This
knowledge can underscore both the necessity of arrest and the complexities of why arrest may not always be the most
effective response. In the words of the respondents:
•
Broward County, Florida, lieutenant: “Officers also need to recognize that someone may be completely
unable to remove themselves from the situation due to fear, threats, or a lack of resources.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, major: “Officers must understand the potential ramifications of not arresting. For
example, officers must realize the significance of domestic violence and its impact on children.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, supervisor: “Officers must be aware they are not dealing with a single issue.
It is not just a crime or just an arrest. There are a lot of underlying reasons and issues that come into
play: relationship issues, involvement of children. The officers have to have a level of compassion and
understanding to recognize the needs of the victim, the abuser, and the children involved.”
Another critical component to an effective police response is that it includes an opportunity to communicate a range
of options to the victim. This is important so the victim knows that something is being done, and that he or she has
choices. In the words of the respondents:
•
Broward County, Florida, deputy: “If we give the victim the feeling that something is being done, it will
in turn give alternatives to the victim.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, captain: “Officers must also be conscious of children who are on the scene and
knowledgeable of the services available for victims.”
27.
Case Studies
Last, several respondents emphasized that agencies must concentrate on convincing officers of the value of the
policies and procedures they use to respond to domestic violence calls. In the words of the respondents:
•
Broward County, Florida, sheriff: “They [the deputies] have got to buy in to the theory—you can have
everything you want, all the changes and policies, all the special units you want, but if people will not
buy into policy, then you’re not going to do as well.”
•
Nassau County, New York, investigator: “The key element is to train and sell the program to officers, and
that there must be continuous reinforcement so that the program isn’t allowed to slide.”
•
Santa Barbara, California, chief: “The key is officer buy-in. It’s not just another call for officers—it’s a
call that represents deeply rooted problems. There are more problems than just domestic violence going
on in that family.”
Community Partner Sources: Most frequently, community agency respondents indicated that the key to a successful
police response to domestic violence is that officers understand what domestic violence is. This overlaps with the
police concerns noted above. In the words of the respondents:
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, executive director of the shelter: “Effective police responses begin with training
and a true understanding of what domestic violence is, why it happens, and why people go back.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, executive director: “First, the police need to respond quickly. Good police
responders are aware of the domestic dynamics and of who is around. They need to know that the person
needs to be taken out of the room, etc.”
•
Nassau County, New York, director of client services: “An understanding of domestic violence and a
commitment to ensuring the safety of victims are key elements. Following this is an understanding of the
dynamics of the issues surrounding domestic violence and how they manifest at the scene.”
•
Westminster, California, program director at the shelter: “Officers must have an understanding of the
dynamics of domestic violence. Often, officers don’t understand why they’re going to the same home
over and over again. Law enforcement has evolved over time to understand these dynamics.”
In addition, several community partners believe that effective police response depends on officers and others knowing
about services and resources in their communities for victims of battering, and communicating this information to
victims consistently. In the words of the respondents:
28.
•
Arlington, Texas, victim assistance coordinator at the shelter: “Developing relationships with police and
educating officers about available shelter services is essential. Training begins during the police academy
so that when officers are on location, they are fully able to explain the shelter and the programs. In this
way, officers encourage victims to utilize services. They know who we are and they tend to utilize us
more because they’re familiar with us. We’re reliable. Officers call the program because it works.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, shelter director: “It is critical to make sure victims have knowledge about resources
and access to all those resources, if they need to. Sometimes officers can provide that information, but
sometimes officers complain that they are so busy working with the perpetrator and getting the case
filed, that by the time they got to the victim to talk about resources, the victim would turn on the police
officer.”
Case Studies
The strength of police leadership and commitment of the department to addressing domestic violence is another key
to success identified by community partner sources. The departments must have the appropriate manpower to answer
calls for service, strong policies in place, and a good, strong administration to make sure that policies are enforced. In
the words of the respondents:
• Xenia, Ohio, former executive director of the shelter: “Domestic violence shelters typically have had
an adversarial role in communities (i.e., they were perceived as having one narrow opinion on domestic
violence). To overcome this, someone in law enforcement must be willing to take a lead role and bring
in skeptics.” She stresses that “partners should always look at what they have in common, and not focus
on their differences—citing common goals is important.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, executive director of the shelter: “The key element is a commitment of resources
and training, and with that training, weeding out officers that would be more likely to identify with the
perpetrator than the victim.”
Finally, two community partner respondents focused on the importance of developing relationships between
police and advocates so “to the victim, it looks like we’re all on the same team and we’re here to help you.” The
relationship and rapport with law enforcement is also important because it helps with the victim following through
with their court case.
Case Study Findings: Important and Unique Aspects of Partnerships
Police Sources: For many police department respondents, the question about unique or important aspects of
the partnership raised issues that were a surprise to them—aspects they had not anticipated, but had found to be
particularly helpful in their fight against domestic violence. For example, police respondents noted most frequently
that the most important aspect of the partnership was how well the various parties communicate and work together to
agree on the appropriate course of action, and that they do it all almost automatically despite their differences. In the
words of the respondents:
•
Broward County, Florida, sheriff: “The important aspect is that a law enforcement agency is partnering
with a real social advocacy group. You could look at it as an institution that’s potentially very right
wing with an institution that’s very left wing. And, it’s having them work together, and neither one of
them having one moment of doubt of the ability or goals of the other one. You’ve got two conflicting
personalities working together, and respecting the other. They know we arrest people, they know we put
people in jail, and we’re going to keep them there. They fulfill a goal, and every time they help someone
and manage to help those people not go back into the same situation, it means I have one less person to
deal with, and that’s what a lot of these deputies are beginning to realize.”
•
Xenia, Ohio, chief: “The most unique aspect is that the partners came and rode with the police and that
everyone got along so well. In fact, one of our officers, a typical cop, is now married to a person at the
shelter.”
2.
Case Studies
Another important aspect of the partnership arrangement cited by police sources is that it provides victims with the
attention they need to access resources, get to safety, and receive follow up in an efficient way. In fact, it was the
recognition that law enforcement cannot do this work alone that impressed several respondents. In the words of the
respondents:
•
•
Broward County, Florida, sergeant: “The current response is a one-stop shop where victims don’t have to
make numerous phone calls to different people trying to get questions resolved.”
Broward County, Florida, deputy: “The follow-up on the part of law enforcement and Women in Distress
(WID), as well as the resources available to victims, also helps.”
•
Broward County, Florida, lieutenant: “The most important aspect of the partnership is that it encourages
and enables officers to provide victims with an immediate place of safety. If you don’t have a place to
take them, they aren’t going anywhere. We have the advantage of a facility and the officers can get them
there immediately, which I know saves lives.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, major: “The most important aspect of the partnership is having new resources
available to the police department. Historically, police departments have not been involved in aftercare.
The opportunity to work with an outside agency was a good training ground for us, now we work with a
lot of other agencies. We have built on our experiences.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, chief: “The most important aspect is the realization that collaboration is a better
way to handle domestic violence, since it’s a multidisciplinary approach.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, lieutenant: “The most important aspect is the coordinated effort to address the
problem. The arrangement between the department and The Julian Center has bridged the gap between
law enforcement and counselors. Partners have come to know the importance of each other’s jobs and
have realized that they are on the same team.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, detective: “The most important aspect of the partnership is that crime
investigators are working hand in hand with advocates and counselors. When we go to a call, we need
to be able to get a sworn statement, photos, and evidence. We also need to do follow-up and get services
information to victims. An officer can’t do both. I can step partially into the advocate’s shoes and
provide information on referrals, sit and listen. But the advocate falls under a different mandate, which is
to keep confidentiality. It is her unique ability to offer that.”
•
Nassau County, New York, deputy chief: “The most important aspect is making sure that victims get the
follow-up help they need—help that the department can’t provide, such as counseling, treatment, etc.”
Several respondents identified particular aspects that contributed to the success of their partnership. For example,
some respondents note that to achieve effective partnerships, partners must have a clear understanding of, and respect
for, their individual roles and positions in the domestic violence response. Others attributed their efficiency to the
colocation of the law enforcement personnel and the domestic violence advocates, either in the police department or
in the shelter. In the words of the respondents:
•
0.
Broward County, Florida, sheriff: “It is very important that each partner knows what to do and doesn’t dictate the
actions of the other partners.”
Case Studies
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, chief: “One of the most important aspects of the partnership is that both sides have a better
understanding of their different roles. For example, officers now understand things that the shelter can and can’t
do as far as providing assistance to family members that are victims of DV.”
•
Nassau County, New York, sergeant: “The most important aspect is the fact that the partners respect one another
and from the police point of view, they have not abused the authority the department has given them.”
•
Westminster, California, chief: “The most important aspect is the physical placement of everyone in one building,
which provides for nuance and context that isn’t available on opposite ends of the building. The detectives and
domestic violence advocates are side by side. They can hand the phone off to the other person. It’s a seamless
interaction.”
Several unique aspects emerged as well. For example, two respondents felt that the extent to which the law
enforcement agency was willing to share information with the service provider was particularly unique. In other
communities where the advocates ride along with the officers in a co-response model, the unique aspect of the
arrangement was that it relies so heavily on volunteers. In the words of the respondents:
•
Arlington, Texas, chief: “The program currently has 36 volunteers who want to do this work and are completely
committed to the partnership and its goals.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, chief: “The most unique aspect of the partnership, particularly in view of where the
relationship was six years ago, is having trained volunteers (citizens) who ride along with officers to respond to
calls and provide services to victims. This is unique because police officers don’t readily accept having people
in those roles. Although this procedure was originally seen as crazy by officers and the legal department, we’ve
done it for years and it’s worked pretty well.”
•
Nassau County, New York, chief: “The most unique aspect of the partnership is that the department shares
sensitive information with a nonpolice entity for the mutual benefit of the victim. When officers make an arrest,
that information is given to the Coalition so that there can be follow-ups, etc. This gives the Coalition a chance
to look at the case and all its nuances and to educate the victim. In the early stages of the partnership there was
a fear that the department was sharing confidential information and that there might be legal recourse from the
victim for sharing this information. What the Coalition does is agree to make outreach to the victim to resolve the
environment in the household—that’s the benefit the department gets.”
•
Xenia, Ohio, sergeant: “The most important aspect of the partnership is the ability to share information in a
collaborative effort with Children’s Services and FVPC, such as prior incident information. In some communities,
there is a conflict between shelter workers and officers.”
Community Partner Sources: The community respondents shared the police perspectives on the importance of
colocation in providing good service to victims, and the efficiency of a single point of contact for the victim to access
both law enforcement and services. In addition, there was consensus in those jurisdictions that provide coresponse
programs about the importance of the volunteers. The shelter director in Huntsville, Alabama had been told that
this approach would never work. Colleagues, in fact, had warned her that it would “revictimize victims because the
responders would identify too closely with the police, and that we would be in some way putting them in danger and
some way putting victims in danger.” These views changed quickly as the partnership progressed.
In a similar vein, the community partners also identified the strength of the relationship between the police
department and the domestic violence advocates and service providers as an important aspect of the partnerships.
This relationship is characterized by trust and shared goals. In the words of the respondents:
.
Case Studies
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, domestic violence intervention coordinator: “The most important aspect of the
partnership is the willingness and trust of the partners. I know I can call on the officers and I have
watched them with victims—they are sensitive to their needs and understanding of why the victims
sometimes go back.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, executive director of the shelter: “The most unique aspect is that we have finally
gotten everybody who is concerned with the response to domestic violence on the same page, which
has enabled them to overcome obstacles to the system working smoothly—there were numerous little
obstacles because of the bureaucracies involved.”
•
Nassau County, New York, director of client services: “The most unique aspect is that two very different
entities and cultures are truly working together. This is a collaboration whose members need their
own cultures to work well, but have come to work together to enhance the safety of citizens and their
children.”
Community partners offered several additional elements that make their partnerships particularly unique. These
aspects include the immediacy of the response provided by the team, a policy that specifies that police referrals to the
shelter will not be turned away, a unique perspective on managing liability concerns, and a focus on confidentiality.
In the words of the respondents:
2.
•
Arlington, Texas, victim assistance coordinator at the shelter: “The most important aspect is the
immediate response. Victims are getting immediate service when we’ve got a small window of
opportunity before the abuser says they’re sorry and the victims no longer want to listen to what you
have to say. We have an opportunity to plant those seeds, and if they don’t opt for services the one time
that we meet with them, within a few weeks when another assault has happened, they’re calling us again
because they knew that we existed. I think being able to educate victims immediately when they’re ready
to listen has been the most effective way to make sure they’re able to maintain safety as well as giving
officers a chance to help the victims when the victim is ready to leave.”
•
Arlington, Texas, victim assistance coordinator at the shelter: “A frustration expressed by officers was
that in some cases when they encouraged the victim to call for emergency shelter, the victim was told the
shelter was full and the victims were not able to get in. In response, the shelter implemented a policy that
they do not turn victims away when they are referred by an officer. Even if we’re at capacity we’ll turn to
the gym and open that up or put them up in a hotel room to ensure that officers have immediate response
but yet the victim is safe.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, shelter director: “The shelter had to address liability issues. The chief and I agreed
that yes, there’s liability, but everybody who’s involved in this knows their role, they know the dangers,
they know the chances they’re taking. And there’s as much liability in not doing it. And we just decided
to take the chance and do what we thought was right.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, advocate: “The most unique aspect of the partnership is the fact that we offer
confidentiality and officers respect that. That confidentiality gives victims the opportunity to find out
their options and the consequences of their actions. Often, once victims have the necessary information,
they will seek help. For example, if you are a parent and are terrified about Child Protective Services, we
can explain the laws, etc.”
Case Studies
Case Study Findings: Partnership Resources
Police Sources: In addition to receiving funding from the COPS Office, law enforcement agencies reported using a
wide array of funding resources in their partnerships to reduce domestic violence. According to the law enforcement
personnel interviewed, the largest source of funding comes from various grants. Several agencies specifically
mentioned their source of grant funding. The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) was tapped as a funding
source (in Fort Worth the DART teams are funded entirely by the OVW), while other agencies, such as Indianapolis
and Nassau County, made use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG).
Departments also tapped into their operating budgets to help finance their partnerships. For instance, the Broward
County Sheriff’s Office stated that the bulk of funding resources to sustain the partnership comes out of the agency’s
budget. Similarly, departments were able to use funding from municipal, county, and state governments. One agency,
Santa Barbara, indicates that the partnership receives funding in the form of anonymous donations, some of which
are quite large. Huntsville is unique in that it reports that it does not use any outside funding—it relies on volunteers.
Community Partner Sources: Community partners also use grants as their main funding source. In Fort Smith,
Arkansas, 75 percent of the community partner’s funding comes from federal funding. Grant funding was reported
as coming from a variety of sources, including federal grants offered through the Office on Violence Against Women
(OVW), the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants (LLEBG); the United Way; Safe Kids/Safe Streets; various foundations; and in Westminster, California
from the Community Development Block Grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
State, county, and local funding was also secured in a number of jurisdictions to fund collaborative efforts. For
example, in Huntsville, a portion of the state marriage license fee is used to keep programs like theirs operating.
The community partner in Santa Barbara has a committee that actively seeks out-of-state funding sources. Some
community partners, such as those in Manchester hold fundraisers to augment funds that come from the town
(through the police department). Local contributions and private donations were also used.
Case Study Findings: Partnership Goals and Successes
Police Sources: In addition to focusing on reducing incidents of domestic violence, repeated incidents, and homicides,
many police agencies have placed a great emphasis on goals relating to victims themselves. Very few noted an
interest in increased arrests, per se. Instead they hope to increase victim safety, provide on-scene crisis intervention
counseling and victim awareness of community resources, break the cycle of violence, and get abuse victims out of
their situation. Several agencies articulated the long-term goal of ensuring that children are not traumatized by the
violence they witness. These agencies hope to achieve this goal through partnerships that streamline services and
speed victim access to, and awareness of, the available services.
Community Partner Sources: These sources also focus on reducing domestic violence incidents, calls for service, and
repeat calls. They hope to work collaboratively to address domestic violence, increase victim safety and access to
resources, and serve clients better with improvements in services and responses. The on-scene intervention achieves
increased victim trust in law enforcement and quick access to services. Some partners hope to increase reporting of
domestic violence through outreach and education.
Using a scale of 1 to 10 (where 10 is very successful), respondents were asked to rate their program’s success in
achieving several goals. Table 1 lists nine goals and presents the average ratings, across all participants, for each goal.
.
Case Studies
Table 1. How Successful Have You Been at Achieving Your Goals?
Goal
Average
1. Allowing police officers to do their jobs well
2. Improving services to domestic violence victims
3. Improving victim safety
4. Increasing offender accountability
5. Reducing domestic violence incidents
6. Reducing officer time spent on these types of calls
7. Reducing officer frustration when responding to these calls
8. Reducing repeat calls for service
9. Reducing the severity of incidents
9.20
9.20
8.25
8.00
6.78
6.79
6.95
7.17
6.90
The partnerships are most successful in achieving those goals related to improving victim services and safety. Less
success is noted for the goals of reducing the number of domestic violence incidents or repeated incidents.
Case Study Findings: What Have Been the Barriers to Your Success and
How Have You Overcome Them?
Police Sources: In addition to frustration over the intractability of domestic violence and uncooperative victims,
the main barriers faced by the partnership agencies related either to the people in law enforcement positions or the
funding needed. For example, the most frequent barrier to success noted by the police sources was poor officer
attitudes about the partnership, domestic violence, or both. In the words of the respondents:
.
•
Arlington, Texas, chief: “The challenge is to get officers to use the response team. We have overcome
that challenge by promoting the benefits of using nonsworn individuals. In addition, partnerships with
nonprofit organizations that have political influence in the area can help to reinforce the importance of
the program.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, chief: “The initial barriers to partnership success was getting officers to take a
new approach to domestic violence, one that recognized that domestic violence is an entry level to more
violent acts.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, chief: “Officer attitudes are the biggest barrier to success. Problem attitudes include
beliefs about victims, such as ‘If the victim won’t do something for herself, why should we,’ and that
domestic violence is ingrained in our society, and has been for centuries, and that it is ‘no big deal.’ The
department has addressed this barrier through training and policies.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, detective: “There is resistance of some officers to having the advocate ride along.
Although these officers are not numerous, they do tend to speak up. We find that education and training,
including one-on-one time spent with advocates, can overcome this resistance.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, chief: “The biggest barrier to success has been police culture and resistance
to change. To overcome this, you need to show the officers how it will make their job easier and more
effective. You have to tell the officer that he/she will have a support network in terms of domestic
violence, and show him/her how it works. They do their job as initial responders and then hand it off. We
are not the experts.”
Case Studies
•
Nassau County, New York, sergeant: “One barrier was the mentality and mindset of officers. A good
police officer needs to be aggressive and strong. The police mentality is directly opposite to the advocacy
mentality. Humor helped to overcome some of this. Also, the department has a lot of younger officers,
and the domestic violence training has helped out, too.”
•
Santa Barbara, California, captain: “The biggest barrier initially was trying to get people to accept the
advocates and the DVERT team. It took time for people to recognize the benefits. Law enforcement
officers don’t always have the ability to empathize with victims and give them everything they need. The
DVERT team can help.”
Because of these difficulties in attitudes and resistance to change, having the proper staff in the partnership positions
is especially critical. In addition, as communities focus on improving their response, increases in calls can result.
The increased workload can then lead to difficulties in staffing. These issues contribute to why many agencies faced
barriers related to inadequate staffing, staffing changes, and turnover. In the words of the respondents:
•
Huntsville, Alabama, detectives: “Another barrier is staffing—we need more cops and more advocates.
One way to overcome this is to hold offenders more accountable, which would result in fewer repeat
incidents. We favor consistent jail sentences so the offender realizes that if he does it again, he’s going to
spend jail time.”
•
Xenia, Ohio, sergeant: “There are only so many work hours the team can work, and that prevents us from
being at the scene at all times. For example, there is a spike in calls between 1 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the
weekends, but the DVERT team cannot go to the scene then. We try to overcome this by contacting the
victims as soon as possible. We believe that the contacts make victims more cooperative with the whole
process.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, major: “A barrier to success is the constantly evolving staff at both the police
department and the shelter. Partners develop good working relationships and then one person gets
promoted or transferred. The new person then has to build a whole new relationship.”
•
Westminster, California, captain: “Turnover is a barrier. Whenever there are new people coming on board,
there is a downtime in training. Additionally, some people aren’t right for the team and it takes time to
make those changes (that is, people who aren’t compassionate enough, who have their own personal
agendas, or are using the post as a stepping stone for their careers).”
Barriers associated with funding and shortages in shelter services also impeded partnerships in several areas. In the
words of the respondents:
•
Arlington, Texas, chief: “Acquiring and maintaining sufficient funding to grow the program has been a
barrier. To overcome this we try to get grant funding. We have a coordinator who’s plugged into the issue
on the state and national levels, which has given access to grant funding that the department probably
wouldn’t have known about or have been capable of acquiring otherwise.”
•
Broward County, Florida, lieutenant: “The key issues are the availability of more places for victims to go
and being able to convince women not to go back to an abusive situation but rather to avail themselves of
the services available, get help, and stop the cycle of violence.”
.
Case Studies
Community Partner Sources: There was substantial overlap in barriers noted by community partners and the police.
For example, they both cite difficulties with attitudes, staffing shortages, and funding. In particular, community
partners found that poor officer attitudes and knowledge about domestic violence resulted in resistance to partnership
activities, which then impeded partnership success. In the words of the respondents:
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, executive director of the shelter: “Some officers lack training and understanding of
DV, such that their responses are not what they could be. For example, they may not recognize that it’s a
domestic. Frequently they arrest both parties instead of doing a strong investigation and finding that there
is a dominant perpetrator here.”
•
Huntsville, Alabama, shelter director: “Attitudes are the biggest barrier—the attitudes of funding
agencies, the police, and the public. Initially, officers did not have positive attitudes about working with
advocates and were resistant to having advocates riding along in their patrol cars. These problems were
overcome by communicating openly with officers and by having well–trained volunteer advocates who
respected that police role. Advocates eventually showed officers how they could decrease the time spent
on responding to a call for service, and advocates let the officers know that it’s okay to be frustrated
sometimes by the behaviors of victims (e.g., going back to an abuser) and that advocates get frustrated,
too.”
•
Indianapolis, Indiana, executive director of the shelter: “While there is commitment from the top down,
there are still some road officers that don’t want to do things any differently. Because I know that
resistance to change is sometimes generational, I hope that newer officers will be less resistant.”
•
Manchester, Connecticut, advocate: “One barrier to success was that we needed to build trust with the
patrol. It is one thing to have the administration on board, but in reality you need patrol on board. This
took time. It was rough in the beginning.”
Case Study Findings: What Is the Worst Mistake that a Police
Department Can Make?
Police Sources: The most frequently noted mistake was not partnering with the community to address domestic
violence. Police sources believe that partnerships overcome some of their inherent limitations in addressing domestic
violence effectively. In the words of the respondents:
.
•
Broward County, Florida, sergeant: “The worst possible mistake would be for an agency to attempt to go
it alone, force their way of doing things on others, or ignore the advice of other partners. It has to be an
equal partnership of ideas and understanding.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, major: “The worst mistake a department could make in implementing a partnership
would be to assume the police have the only answer and that they can take care of it all, because they
can’t. We could have 5,000 officers out there and we can’t do some of the stuff the shelter does.”
•
Nassau County, New York, chief: “The worst mistake would be not collaborating to address domestic
violence. If you do not partner with other organizations, it is promising to do more than one agency alone
can deliver. Make sure you can do it, and then do it. Live up to your end of the bargain. Have a plan and
the capability to do your part of the partnership, even if it takes risk.”
Case Studies
•
Westminster, California, chief: “The worst mistake would be to respond to the problem without
community involvement. We invited a lot of community stakeholders to attend officer training, which
conveys to the officers a sense of community interest and commitment. It also allows the community to
interact with officers and express their support.”
•
Westminster, California, captain: “The worst mistake is to ignore the community, as it is the community
that’s going to rally and bring the resources in. A department can’t turn its back on the community or the
program is doomed to fail.”
Once the agency has committed to partnering to address domestic violence, another critical mistake is to pick the
wrong law enforcement or advocacy staff—people who do not have the personality characteristics suitable to sharing
responsibility and caring for victims—to work on the partnership team. In the words of the respondents:
•
Arlington, Texas, chief: “Key police partners must be dedicated to making the program and partnerships
a success. It is crucial that they have a real understanding and acceptance of the contributions of
professionals to the programs.”
•
Fort Smith, Arkansas, chief: “From an investigator’s perspective the worst mistake would be to assign
somebody to the unit who did not have compassion for or understanding of DV. The investiga...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment