Suggested citation: Sechrist, S. M. & Weil, J. D. (2014, June). The High Point OFDVI: Preliminary Evaluation Results. In D. K. Kennedy (Chair), Using Focused Deterrence to Combat Domestic Violence. Symposium presented at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice International Conference: The Rule of Law in an Era of Change: Security, Social Justice, and Inclusive Governance, Athens, Greece. Preliminary Evaluation Results Preliminary Evaluation Results Preliminary Evaluation Results Preliminary Evaluation Results � � Dr. Stacy Sechrist Dr. Stacy Dr. Stacy Dr. Stacy Sechrist Sechrist Sechrist University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US
� Is offender behavior changing? o According to DV victim interviews, they stated, “I just want the violence to stop.” o Offender recidivism = subsequent DV-related arrest o DV arrests: changes over time � Is victim harm decreasing? o Harm = reported injuries from DV arrest reports & homicides � What will the effect of the strategy be on law enforcement resources? o More of an exploratory question that will be important for replication o Resources = calls for service impact o Changes over time: pre- vs post-implementation � For crime trend data, we must examine month-over-month trends due to seasonal variations known to be associated with crime
Percentage of First Percentage of First- -Time DV Offenders Time DV Offenders who Reoffended with a DV who Reoffended with a DV Percentage of Percentage of First First - - Time DV Offenders Time DV Offenders who Reoffended with a DV who Reoffended with a DV Arrest Arrest Arrest Arrest within within within within 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 yr yr yr after 1st DV arrest yr after 1st DV arrest after 1st DV arrest after 1st DV arrest B B B- B - - -list notification list notification list notification list notification began: began: began: began: Feb. 2012 Feb. 2012 Feb. 2012 Feb. 2012 25% C & D C & D- -list list C & D C & D - - list list Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP notification notification notification notification calls for service: calls for service: calls for service: calls for service: began: began: began: began: Sept. 2011 Sept. Sept. Sept. 2011 2011 2011 Apr. 2012 Apr. 2012 Apr. 2012 Apr. 2012 20% 15% 10% Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism rate (11%) since rate (11%) since rate (11%) since rate (11%) since How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly lower than year 2011 lower than year 2011 5% lower than year 2011 lower than year 2011 after first arrest? after first arrest? after first arrest? after first arrest? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early? 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jun-13 Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest
As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists have reoffended ( have reoffended ( have reoffended ( N have reoffended ( N = 1024) N N = 1024) = 1024) = 1024) 900 800 700 600 # of offenders # of offenders # of offenders # of offenders 500 # notified # reoffended 400 300 200 100 0 A list B list C list D list
2012 study ~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional offender treatment options AND… offender treatment options AND… offender treatment options AND… offender treatment options AND… without additional associated without additional without additional without additional associated associated associated costs costs costs costs
DV arrests have decreased significantly DV arrests have decreased significantly since since DV arrests have DV arrests have decreased significantly decreased significantly since since strategy implementation, Year 2012 strategy implementation, Year 2012- strategy implementation, Year 2012 strategy implementation, Year 2012 - - -2013 2013 2013 2013 200 FULL 180 IMPLEMENTATION Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV APRIL 2012 arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with 160 implementation enforcement implementation enforcement implementation enforcement implementation enforcement -- LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the -- LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the -- -- LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the strategy ramps up strategy ramps up strategy ramps up strategy ramps up 140 120 2011 100 2012 80 2013 60 However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as compared to compared to compared to compared to 2012 2012 2012 2012 , , , , t( 11) = 2.49, p = .30 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
DV arrests have continued to DV arrests have continued to decrease DV arrests have continued to DV arrests have continued to decrease decrease decrease into into into into Year 2014 Year 2014 Year 2014 Year 2014 200 180 160 140 120 2012 100 2013 80 2014 60 Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . 40 There has been an average of There has been an average of 83.5 arrests per month YTD There has been an average of There has been an average of 83.5 arrests per month YTD 83.5 arrests per month YTD 83.5 arrests per month YTD in 2014 in 2014 as compared to the same timeframe (Jan as compared to the same timeframe (Jan- -Apr) of Apr) of in 2014 in 2014 as compared to the same timeframe (Jan as compared to the same timeframe (Jan - - Apr) of Apr) of 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
DV assaults with injuries have decreased DV assaults with injuries have decreased DV assaults with injuries have DV assaults with injuries have decreased decreased significantly significantly since strategy implementation, significantly significantly since strategy implementation, since strategy implementation, since strategy implementation, t (11) = 5.52, t (11) = 5.52, p = p = .0002 (year 2012 .0002 (year 2012- -2013) 2013) t t (11) = 5.52, (11) = 5.52, p = p = .0002 (year 2012 .0002 (year 2012 - - 2013) 2013) 50 FULL 45 IMPLEMENTATION APRIL 2012 40 35 30 2012 25 2013 20 2014 15 10 5 0
The percentage of total DV arrests with reported The percentage of total DV arrests with reported The percentage of total DV arrests The percentage of total DV arrests with reported with reported injuries to the victim has injuries to the victim has significantly injuries to the victim has injuries to the victim has significantly significantly decreased significantly decreased decreased decreased over over over over time; Year 2011 time; Year 2011 vs vs 2013. 2013. time; Year 2011 time; Year 2011 vs vs 2013. 2013. x x 2 x x 2 2 (1) = 23.31, 2 (1) = 23.31, p (1) = 23.31, (1) = 23.31, p p p < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 1400 1200 Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented 1000 800 All DV Arrests W/ Injuries 600 400 46.5% 46.5% 46.5% 46.5% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 30.4% 30.4% 30.4% 30.4% 200 0 2011 2012 2013
Recommend
More recommend
