This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2013-CK-WX-K028 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. Dr. Stacy Sechrist & John Weil North Carolina Network for Safe Communities, University of North Carolina at Greensboro National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015
� Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office funded UNCG to evaluate High Point Police Department’s Offender Focused Domestic Violence Initiative with Lexington, NC as the replication site � LPD had several existing advantages for replication in place prior to implementing the strategy: o Ongoing PSN/focused deterrence strategy in place since 2010 o Understanding of the dynamic of DV in relationships among officers and command staff; reinforced through training o Strong commitment from the Chief and buy-in from other partners (i.e., District Attorney’s Office, probation, victim service providers) 2
� Solid baseline data about intimate partner domestic violence (IPDV) is difficult to obtain from agency records o Coding issues for intimate partner DV vs general DV • IPDV coding may not occur until an agency adopts the strategy o If no specific IPDV code, what offenses should be used for baseline data? � For recidivism after notification, what counts as a reoffense? o New IPDV assault/charge o What about, for example, pre-trial conditions of release such as no-contact orders � Need to contextualize the data within what we know about intimate partner relationships in which the DV happens • Couples stay together, they share a residence/responsibilities, and remember, the victim just “wants the violence to stop” � Some of the strategy’s greatest successes will not be quantified in the data
� Is offender behavior changing? o Offender recidivism: subsequent DV-related arrest after notification o DV arrests: change over time pre to post � Is victim harm decreasing? o Reported injuries from DV arrest reports: change over time � What is the effect on law enforcement resources? o Calls for service: change over time
High Point High Point Lexington Lexington High Point High Point Lexington Lexington (Feb 2012- (Feb 2012 (Feb 2012 (Feb 2012 - - -Apr 2014) Apr 2014) Apr 2014) Apr 2014) (Jul (Jul (Jul 2014 (Jul 2014 2014 2014- - - -May 2015) May 2015) May 2015) May 2015) N N N N Sex Sex Sex Sex Avg Avg Avg Avg DV History DV History DV History DV History N N N N Sex Sex Sex Sex Avg Avg Avg Avg DV DV History DV DV History History History Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age B List B List B List B List 49 92% 37 Avg. 4 priors up Not applicable male to 13 C C List C C List List List 883 77% 34 62% 1X only; 170 79% 34 79% 1X only; male Avg. 2 priors up male Avg. 1.6 priors up to to 15 priors 4 priors D List D List D List D List 201 69% 35.5 65% no priors 214 77% 34.8 83% no priors male male
Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington 19% 19% 19% 19% 20% Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification 18% 16% 16% 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 16% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% HP: 6-months HP: 1 year 10% LPD: Jul 2014-May 2015 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% B-List B-List B-List B-List C-List C-List C-List C-List D-List D-List D-List D-List
“Typically, the rate of re- “Depending on how reabuse is measured, over what period of offense by perpetrators time…a hard core of of domestic violence is approximately 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers 30 to 40%, irrespective 30 to 40%, 30 to 40%, 30 to 40%, will reabuse will will will reabuse in the short run, reabuse reabuse of the type of and more will reabuse in the long run.” intervention used…” ~ ~ ~ ~60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so • within 6 months within 6 months. within 6 months within 6 months • “…38.4% 38.4% of abusers were arrested 38.4% 38.4% for a new domestic violence Stover, C. S. (2005), Volume 20 offense within two years…” “Studies have suggested that • “Studies…documented recidivism rates in domestic violence cases are reabuse…ranging from 26 26 26 26- - -41% - 41% 41% 41% high…estimating 40% 40% 40% 40%- - -80 - 80 80% 80 % % % or within five to 30 months. more of repeat violence (Garner, Fagan, & Maxwell, 1995; Shepard, 1992).” https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf
� Having a DV history prior to notification � Being male � Younger age at 1 st DV arrest � Younger age at time of D notification � Quickly reoffending after D notification � The above findings are in line with the NIJ (2009) report about offender characteristics
Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents 300 Actual 13% reduction 250 Projected 98% PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: increase Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents Oct Oct Oct- Oct - -Dec - Dec Dec Dec Q12: Q12: Q12: Q12: 200 2013 2013 2013 2013 Oct Oct Oct Oct- - - -Dec Dec Dec Dec Pre Actual 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pre Q1: Q1: Q1: Q1: Deseasonalized Jan- Jan Jan Jan -Mar - - Mar Mar Mar Post Actual 2012 2012 2012 2012 150 Post Q12: Q12: Q12: Q12: Deseasonalized Oct- Oct Oct Oct - - -Dec Dec Dec Dec PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: 2011 2011 2011 2011 Oct Oct Oct Oct- - -Dec - Dec Dec Dec 100 Projected 2016 2016 2016 2016 41% Q1: Q1: Q1: Q1: reduction Jan- Jan Jan Jan - -Mar - Mar Mar Mar 2009 2009 2009 2009 50 Trend based predictions for two years Trend Trend Trend based predictions for two years based predictions for two years based predictions for two years 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4
Since the strategy began, the percentage of DV Incidents Since the strategy began, the percentage of DV Incidents with with Since the strategy began, the percentage Since the strategy began, the percentage of DV Incidents of DV Incidents with with Reported Victim Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Reported Victim Reported Victim Reported Victim Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury 66.8% 66.8% 66.8% 66.8% 0.7 Nationally, 48.1% of DV incidents result in 0.6 victim injury (NCVS) 47.9% 47.9% 47.9% 47.9% 47.3% 47.3% 47.5% 47.5% 47.5% 47.5% 47.3% 47.3% 0.5 34.6% 34.6% 34.6% 34.6% 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 LPD: avg LPD: avg LPD: avg LPD: avg * The reduction in victim injuries in HP from 2011 to subsequent years is statistically significant, p < .0001.
IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over Time in IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over Time in Time in Time in High Point High Point High Point High Point 1000 900 Actual Actual Actual Actual 800 20% 20% 20% 20% Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period 700 reduction reduction reduction reduction Projected Projected Projected Projected 600 37% 37% 37% 37% reduction reduction reduction reduction 500 CFS Actual CFS Actual CFS Actual CFS Actual 400 CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized 300 200 Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years 100 0
Recommend
More recommend
