Effects of Obligatory Arrest Laws for Domestic Violence Psychology Paper

Journal of Family Violence (2022) 37:99–111https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00227-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
“It’s Kind of Hit and Miss with Them”: a Qualitative Investigation
of Police Response to Intimate Partner Violence in a Mandatory
Arrest State
Lindsay B. Gezinski 1
Accepted: 17 November 2020 / Published online: 24 November 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
Despite the high incidence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the United States, perpetrator accountability remains a problem.
Research suggests this is partially attributable to underreporting linked to the perceived unhelpfulness of police. The purpose of this
research study was to understand survivors and service providers’ lived experiences with police in a mandatory arrest state.
Purposive sampling was utilized to conduct in-depth, semi-structured focus groups and interviews with 43 survivors and 59 service
providers from March 2016 to February 2017. Data analysis consisted of line-by-line analysis, identifying themes, coding categories, and developing matrices to uncover relationships between themes and categories. Participants deliberated police failure to
adequately respond to IPV-related calls. While survivors’ interactions with police were consistently negative, service providers’
experiences were more mixed. Police response was deemed worse in rural areas due to limited capacity and social relationships with
perpetrators. Five major themes were identified, including: (1) inadequate police response, (2) amplified hurdles in rural communities, (3) predominant aggressor incongruity, (4) protective orders fail to protect, and (5) Lethality Assessment Program (LAP)
working relationships. Mandatory arrest policy sometimes results in the criminalization of survivors. Police require traumainformed training that will assist in their determination of the predominant aggressor. Findings indicate that the LAP has been
effective in strengthening service provider/police relationships, and expansion should be considered. Quantitative and longitudinal
research is needed to examine the fidelity of the LAP and its effectiveness in decreasing the incidence of IPV-related homicide.
Keywords Domestic violence . Law enforcement . Pro-arrest policies . Rural response . Predominant or primary aggressor .
Protective orders . Lethality assessment . Survivor and service provider perspectives
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious problem in the
United States (U.S.), with approximately one in three women
reporting the experience of physical violence, sexual violence,
and/or stalking by an intimate partner in her lifetime (Smith
et al., 2018). Intimate partner violence is defined as “physical
violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner” (p. 11, Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, &
Mahendra, 2015). Various negative outcomes are associated
with IPV, including death. In fact, almost half of female homicide victims were murdered by their current or former intimate partner (Cooper & Smith, 2011). Just over half (56%) of
nonfatal domestic violence (DV) victimizations are disclosed
to police, but approximately 44% of incidents go unreported
(Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2017). Of these, a miniscule number result in arrest or charges filed against the perpetrator. It is necessary to understand the contributors to
underreporting and the impact of state policy on arrest.
Therefore, this research study sought to understand survivor
and service providers’ perspectives on police response in a
mandatory arrest state.
Literature Review
* Lindsay B. Gezinski
lindsay.gezinski@gmail.com
1
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Police Behavior & Underreporting
Police response to IPV has been documented globally with
numerous studies reporting questionable police behavior and
100
unhelpful interactions. For example, client advocates reported
incidents of unprofessional and illegal police behavior, police
inaction, and disrespect for survivors in New South Wales
(Goodman-Delahunty & Crehan, 2016). Mixed reactions were
documented in rural Australia (Ragusa, 2013) and Canada
(Saxton, Olszowy, MacGregor, MacQuarrie, & Wathen,
2018; Tam, Tutty, Zhuang, & Paz, 2015), but observed police
helpfulness was dependent on who responded to the scene.
This inadequate response extends to the enforcement of protective orders, such as in Canada where enforcement is mixed
(Saxton et al., 2018). Moreover, Canadian survivors reported
that contacting the police actually escalated abuse from the
perpetrator.
Domestic violence (DV) represents the single largest category of calls to police departments in the U.S. (Klein, 2009),
but survivors perceived cumulatively less sympathy from police with each visit (Li, Levick, Eichman, & Chang, 2015).
Further, marginalized communities experience worse police
interactions. For example, delayed police response was documented in Indigenous communities in the U.S. (Burnette,
2014). Even when police did respond, survivors claimed that
police did not take IPV seriously. As a partial result of police
behavior, IPV remains underreported in the U.S. Other reasons for underreporting include distrust of police and fear of
deportation (Messing, Becerra, Ward-Lasher, & Androff,
2015), as well as “personal privacy (32%), protecting the offender (21%), the crime was minor (20%), and fear of reprisal
(19%)” (p. 1, BJS, 2017). Overall, the perceived helpfulness
of officers may actually influence reporting, with unfavorable
experiences dissuading survivors from contacting police in the
future. Thus, research is needed that examines this link, including within the U.S. context.
Police Attitudes & Relations with Perpetrators
Several factors contribute to ineffective police response, including conservative IPV attitudes. Research conducted in the
western U.S. found that police have largely conservative IPV
attitudes, including the belief that domestic disputes should be
handled as a private matter (Gover, Paul, & Dodge, 2011). As
well, police expressed frustration with repeat callers, claimed
that domestic disputes are too time-intensive, and contended
that they receive too many calls for verbal arguments. Beliefs
and attitudes affect how police respond to IPV on the scene. In
fact, police filed an incident report in only half of IPV calls for
assistance, with more filed when there was a physical injury
and/or when the perpetrator had prior court contact (Cerulli,
Edwardsen, Hall, Chan, & Conner, 2015). This has implications for survivors, as documented abuse may affect obtainment of a protective order and/or child custody decisions.
Perpetrator-officer relations, too, influence police response.
In Indigenous communities with strong kinship ties in the
U.S., survivors perceived that police were more lenient if the
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
responding officer personally knew the perpetrator (Burnette,
2014). Research is needed that further elucidates these affirmative relationships between perpetrators and officers, as well
as how they affect survivors’ trust in the system.
IPV in Rural Communities
The incidence of IPV and related homicide may be higher in
rural areas (Jeffrey et al., 2018). Rural survivors experience
various unique barriers to help-seeking including social and
physical isolation, conservative cultural norms, and limited
access to formal resources (Eastman & Bunch, 2007; Lanier
& Maume, 2009). This physical isolation has implications for
criminal justice response, because the number of police officers is often limited or non-existent in rural areas, as demonstrated in Alaska Native rural areas (Shepherd, 2001). Rural
survivors have reported disrespectful interactions with
responding officers (Van Hightower & Gorton, 2002), and
law enforcement officers themselves described a reluctance
to arrest perpetrators due to concerns about victim credibility
and meeting probable cause criteria. Overall, there is a lack of
research on the implications of state policy, namely
concerning arrest, and police response to IPV in rural
communities.
Lethality Assessment
In collaboration with DV service organizations, some police
departments are beginning to employ a fatality risk assessment
at the scene of IPV. The purpose of this screening is to assess
the risk of homicide and serious injury in cases of IPV. One
such effort is the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP), developed by the Maryland Network Against Domestic
Violence, which consists of a first-responder lethality screen
(Messing et al., 2015a and b). The Lethality Screen, a shorter
version of the Danger Assessment, consists of 11 items
pertaining to the frequency and severity of violence, incidence
of strangulation, presence of a firearm in the home, and threats
of homicide. Survivors screened as high-risk are to be immediately connected with a local social service provider via an
emergency hotline. This service provider may then assist the
survivor to develop a safety plan and encourage her to access
DV community resources. Thus, success of programs like the
LAP are dependent on relationships and collaborative partnerships between police and DV service organizations.
Study Context
The site of this study was the state of Utah due to its status as a
mandatory arrest state. As well, the state DV coalition has
taken great strides to implement the LAP, described above,
with law enforcement. States vary in their approach to arrest in
cases of IPV, with policies ranging from mandatory arrest to
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
pro-arrest and arrest at the officer’s discretion (American Bar
Association, 2011). Utah is an important site of study due to
its status as a mandatory arrest state that also grants officers
discretion in cases of mutual arrest. This mandatory arrest
policy means that officers are required to determine the predominant aggressor, which requires that the officer “consider:
(a) any prior complaints of domestic violence; (b) the relative
severity of injuries inflicted on each person; (c) the likelihood
of future injury to each of the parties; and (d) whether one of
the parties acted in self-defense” (Cohabitant Abuse
Procedures Act, Utah Code Ann. § 77–36-2.2, 2013).
Though seemingly straightforward, mandatory arrest policies have resulted in unpredicted consequences. Research suggests that mandatory arrest policies do not have a significant
effect on IPV reoffending (Felson, Ackerman, & Gallagher,
2005) and disproportionately affect women (Durfee, 2012).
Even more, the presence of a mandatory arrest law may actually dissuade a survivor from contacting the police (Novisky
& Peralta, 2015) and increase the rate of intimate partner homicides (Iyengar, 2009). However, few studies have qualitatively examined mandatory arrest from the viewpoint of survivors of IPV. Therefore, research is needed to understand the
implementation of this policy, namely concerning the determination of the predominant aggressor, from the perspective
of survivors of IPV.
101
positionality, professional and personal experiences also affect the trustworthiness and credibility of a research study. I
am a white, queer, middle-class (working-class raised),
cisgender woman with a PhD in Social Work who has encountered IPV personally and professionally. I have conducted qualitative violence research for approximately 15 years,
primarily in the U.S. and South Asia, and my background
includes volunteering with various anti-violence organizations. I have never been subject to police intervention in an
IPV situation, which likely affects the frame of reference with
which I have conducted this study.
The state DV coalition executive director initially
approached me about conducting a statewide DV needs assessment. I met with coalition staff several times, consulted
DV needs assessment reports from other states, and reviewed
the existing empirical research in planning the research project. Prolonged engagement with community organizations,
which included the development of rapport and trust, facilitated the realization of this research project. Triangulation of
informants and sites increased the credibility and dependability of the study. The qualitative study methodology and inclusion of participant quotes highlight the thoughts and opinions
of the participants. The following sections reflect further on
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability
of this research study.
Sampling and Recruitment
Method
This research study was part of a larger statewide needs assessment that identified the specific obstacles survivors of IPV experience as they attempt to obtain safety and stability for themselves and their children in Utah. One research question guided
this qualitative research study: “What are the challenges experienced by survivors of IPV as they attempt to navigate ‘helping
systems’ in Utah?” While identified themes were numerous, this
paper will examine law enforcement’s intervention in IPV, specifically from the perspective of survivors and service providers.
A total of 102 individuals, including 43 survivors of IPV and 59
service providers, participated in a focus group or interview. At
the time of study, all participants lived in the state of Utah and
were at least 18 years of age. This research study was approved
by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at University of Utah.
Study Trustworthiness
The trustworthiness of a qualitative study is typically evaluated on four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability,
and confirmability (Shenton, 2004). Several measures were
undertaken to ensure the credibility of this research study,
namely the use of well-established research methods, familiarity with the topic of study, and development of relationships
with community DV organizations. The researcher’s
Purposive, targeted sampling was utilized to ensure the participation of a wide variety of survivors and service providers.
This sampling strategy was also conducive to guaranteeing the
participation of all regions of Utah, both urban and rural areas,
as well as ensuring the representation of plural families, immigrants, LGBTQ+ persons, and Indigenous communities. It
was hypothesized that law enforcement response would differ
based on geographical region and survivor characteristics;
therefore, inclusivity was highlighted. Police were not included as participants, because their IPV attitudes and behaviors
have been documented already in the empirical literature (see
Gover et al., 2011; Russell, 2018), and the goal of this research
study was to highlight the lived experiences of survivors and
service providers.
For the purposes of recruitment, “service provider” was
defined as a person who devotes a significant amount of time
responding to IPV as a function of their employment.
However, the majority of service providers worked in DV
organizations at the time of study. The research team collaborated with the state DV coalition to identify 15 organizations
serving survivors of IPV. A victim’s advocate, associated with
this coalition, made initial contacts with these agencies to
assess their interest in participating in the research study.
Initially, the research team planned to conduct focus groups
only. Therefore, the victim’s advocate and a member of the
102
research team partnered to schedule each focus group. A flyer
with the date, time, and location for their local focus group
was emailed to each service provider who expressed interest
in participating in this research study. Service providers were
encouraged to forward this flyer to other service providers
they thought may be interested in participating, which resulted
in snowball sampling. Furthermore, this resulted in the crosspollination of focus groups, with several different agencies
represented in a single focus group.
Survivors participated in focus groups separate from service providers to ensure that they felt comfortable sharing
their concerns without fear of reprisal. The majority of survivor participants were recruited through DV organizations and
had accessed shelter services. The research team created separate flyers for survivor focus groups. These were emailed to
various organizations serving survivors of IPV, and staff at
these organizations posted the flyer and verbally publicized
the research study. As a safety measure, the research team did
not directly contact participants. Meaning, the research team
placed no phone calls and sent no emails to survivors themselves. However, the Principal Investigator’s (PI) contact information was listed on the flyers and consent forms, allowing
participants to contact her at any time. Typically, focus groups
were held in agency settings, meaning that residents of the
agency were able to attend with relative ease and were permitted to drop-in to the focus group. Snowball sampling was
apparent for survivor focus groups, too, as some advertised
the research study to fellow survivors. Recruitment continued
until data saturation was reached for the larger needs assessment, meaning that the same themes were being repeated by
participants.
Participants
On average, survivors were 39.86 (SD = 12.75) years of age,
while service providers were 43.26 (SD = 12.65). All survivors and almost 90% of service providers self-identified as
women. Moreover, 8.5% of service providers identified as
men and 1.7% as transgender. Of those who completed the
sexual orientation item, the majority of survivors and service
providers identified as heterosexual, 88.9% and 96% respectively. Of those who indicated their race, participants identified predominantly as white (68.3% of survivors, 89.7% of
service providers) or Native American (22% of survivors,
8.6% of service providers). Approximately 10% of both survivors and service providers reported Latinx or Hispanic
identity.
Most commonly, survivors utilized services in urban areas
(44.2%) followed by urban/rural (25.6%) and rural areas
(21%). Counties defined as urban had a population of at least
65,000; whereas, urban/rural county populations ranged from
20,000 to 64,999, and rural counties were composed of less
than 20,000 people (see Voices for Utah Children,
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
2016). Survivors reported accessing IPV-specific services in
nine Utah counties with 25.6% specifying that they accessed
services in Salt Lake County, the most populous county in the
state, though some survivors reported never approaching DV
service organizations at all. Service providers represented both
urban and rural regions of the state. The majority (66.1%) of
service providers reported current employment in a DV organization that provides direct services such as emergency shelter, crisis intervention, and support groups. Approximately
12% of service providers were employed as a victim’s advocate
in a public prosecutor or sheriff’s office, and the remaining
participants were employed in another type of organization
such as a public school or resource center. Please see Table 1.
Data Collection
From March 2016 to February 2017, semi-structured focus
groups were conducted with survivors of IPV and service
providers throughout the state of Utah. Eight focus groups
were conducted with survivors, and nine separate focus
groups were held with service providers. On average, each
focus group was composed of six participants. All focus
groups were facilitated by two cisgender female research team
members, while a cisgender female victim’s advocate observed nonverbal behavior and was available to provide support to participants if needed. However, some participants
preferred to be interviewed individually with four survivors
and two service providers selecting this option. All interviews
were conducted by a cisgender female research team member.
The interviewers’ female gender identity was deemed important to ensure the comfort of the study participants. The majority of focus groups and interviews were conducted in agency settings; however, some interviews were conducted in the
author’s office or at a local cafe with the location chosen by
the participant. Overall, 39 survivors participated in a focus
group, and four survivors were interviewed individually.
Fifty-seven service providers participated in a focus group,
and two service providers were interviewed privately. There
was only one contact with each participant to protect their
safety and confidentiality.
Measures and Processes
Prior to the start of each focus group and interview, informed
consent and confidentiality were discussed. Participants were
informed that participation was completely voluntary and that
they may end participation at any point without penalty. The
independent status of the research team was emphasized, and
participants were informed that their names would not be
shared with DV organizations nor mentioned in associated
reports. The risks and benefits of participation were detailed.
Immediately after the informed consent discussion, each participant completed a demographic form that included items
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
103
Table 1 Demographics of Study
Participants
Age
Gender Identity
Female
Male
Transgender
Sexual Orientation
LGBQ+
Straight/Heterosexual
No Answer
Race
African American/Black
Asian
Native American
White
No Answer
Latinx/Hispanic
Born Outside U.S.
Education Level
Did Not Graduate HS
HS Diploma/GED
Some College
College Degree
No Answer
Religious
pertaining to age, race, ethnicity, gender, educational status,
religion, and agency affiliations. This was followed by roundrobin introductions to build rapport and encourage active
participation.
Open-ended, semi-structured interview guides were used
for all focus groups and interviews. These guides were drafted
by the research team and sent to the statewide DV coalition for
feedback, which informed the final interview guides. While
interview guides were used, participants guided the focus
groups and interviews allowing space for participants to speak
to issues of most importance to them. Service providers were
asked open-ended questions like: “In your opinion, what are
the largest barriers to victims of DV accessing services at your
agency?” and “Are there any issues facing victims that the
public/law enforcement/clergy/etc. are not aware of, and
should be?” Similarly, survivors were asked questions such
as: “What are some of the biggest obstacles you have faced
when looking for help?” and “How did you learn about services available, and how long did it take you to try to access
them?” Probing and iterative questioning were utilized to elicit more information, and participants were encouraged to reflect on and respond to each other’s comments. Being an
Survivors (n = 43)
Service Providers (n = 59)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
39.86 (12.75)
Count (%)
43.26 (12.65)
Count (%)
43 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
53 (89.8%)
5 (8.5%)
1 (1.7%)
4 (9.3%)
2 (3.4%)
32 (74.4%)
7 (16.3%)
48 (81.4%)
9 (15.3%)
3 (7%)
1 (2.3%)
9 (20.9%)
28 (65.1%)
2 (4.6%)
4 (9.3%)
4 (9.3%)
0 (0%)
1 (1.7%)
5 (8.5%)
52 (88.1%)
1 (1.7%)
6 (10.2%)
4 (6.8%)
7 (16.3%)
16 (37.2%)
9 (20.9%)
10 (23.3%)
1 (2.3%)
29 (67.4%)
1 (1.7%)
5 (8.5%)
16 (27.1%)
37 (62.7%)
0 (0%)
38 (64.4%)
English speaker was a prerequisite for study participation.
All focus groups and interviews were conducted in English
and lasted between one and two hours. Survivors received a
$20 grocery gift card for their participation, while service
providers received no incentive for participation in this research study. Following each focus group, the research team
debriefed, especially pertaining to emergent themes.
Data Analysis
All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded with
participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim. These transcripts were stored on the data coders’ password-protected
computers and were not shared with participants to protect
confidentiality. Hard copies of consent forms and demographic forms were stored separately in locked filing cabinets in the
PI’s locked university office. Data collection and data analysis
occurred simultaneously, which is common to qualitative
studies (Birks & Mills, 2015). Constructivist grounded theory
guided the data analysis due to its emphasis on inductive inquiry and participants’ construction of meaning (Charmaz,
2014). Each transcript was read multiple times by two
104
members of the research team who conducted open coding.
Examples of initial codes included victim-blaming, self-defense,
distrust, lack of support, and training. Any discrepancies were
discussed between the two coders and resolved prior to the
selection of final categories. Data was organized in NVivo 10
and consisted of line-by-line analysis, identifying themes, coding categories, and developing matrices to uncover relationships
between themes and categories. Thematic codes were analyzed
separately for survivors and service providers with the expectation that themes would differ for each group; however, themes
were consistent across these groups. To ensure inter-rater reliability, two researchers coded all transcripts separately and compared themes and categories. These two researchers met weekly
to compare the coded transcripts with a rate of 95% agreement.
In the incidence of disagreement, the researchers referenced the
transcripts and engaged in conversation to come to a consensus.
Negative case analysis and the examination of outliers allowed
for a broad view of police interactions. Preliminary findings
were presented to social service providers, state administrators,
and community members at three separate presentations to elicit
feedback.
Results
Both survivors and service providers discussed similar key
themes pertaining to police interactions, including failure to
adequately respond to IPV-related calls, engagement in victim-blaming, and a lack of enforcement of protective orders.
Survivors described contentious experiences with law enforcement; whereas, service providers’ interactions were more
mixed with some describing collaborative relationships.
Participants acknowledged that police may be the first pointof-contact for survivors to discuss IPV-related services, and
service providers expressed a desire for better relationships
with law enforcement. The LAP was discussed as a promising
practice for improving the relationship between service organizations and officers. However, the LAP had unintended
consequences, such as increased referrals to already overextended agencies. Finally, participants expressed a desire
for police to validate survivors and communicate available
resources to them. Five major themes were identified, including: (1) inadequate police response, (2) amplified hurdles in
rural communities, (3) predominant aggressor incongruity, (4)
protective orders fail to protect, and (5) LAP working
relationships.
Inadequate Police Response
Participants described reluctance to contact the police, as illustrated by a service provider who stated survivors “do not
want to access the justice system” (Service Provider, FG 6).
Survivors who did contact the police overwhelmingly
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
reported negative experiences with regard to IPV calls. This
resulted in survivors’ lack of trust in police officers’ ability or
willingness to help them. As a result, survivors described a
disinclination to contact police in the future.
Minimization & Victim-Blaming
Objectionable interactions with officers reflected police belief
in various IPV myths. Moreover, police officers viewed domestic disputes through a lens of dated stereotypes, such as
alcohol being the cause of IPV. For example, one survivor
illustrated police confusion at the absence of alcohol in her
domestic dispute: “I had [an] officer ask me if [the perpetrator]
had been drinking… [it] felt like he was trying to justify [the
abuse] in his head. Like, had my husband been drunk, [the
officer] would’ve understood why [the abuse happened]”
(Survivor, FG 7). Other survivors described police officers’
efforts to justify abuse with questions about the survivor’s role
in her own abuse. Survivors detailed experiences where they
felt their IPV experiences were downplayed or not believed by
law enforcement officers. As well, survivors described experiences of victim-blaming. For example, a survivor described
police questions as: “Why didn’t I listen to [the perpetrator]?
Why didn’t I do what he said?” (Survivor, FG 6). Another
survivor explained: “One time [police] got called out, and
[the officer] asked what I had done to deserve [the abuse]”
(Survivor, FG 7). This demonstrates police perception that
survivors themselves are responsible for their abuse.
Both survivors and service providers described how repeat
calls to the same address affect how police view survivors. As
one survivor stated: “I suppose to [police], they see that women keep calling, and they keep getting abused, and they don’t
leave. But [police] don’t understand why women don’t leave”
(Survivor, FG 7). Another survivor stated: “You call the cops,
and they come back. [Police are] twice as pissed as when they
first started on you” (Survivor, FG 2). A service provider
echoed this sentiment saying: “I know the dynamic with law
enforcement… they go to the same house over and over again,
and they get frustrated” (Service Provider, FG 3).
Lack of Awareness & Training
Service providers reflected on law enforcement’s lack of
awareness pertaining to trauma-informed care and the role
service providers can play in assisting survivors. As one service provider explained: “[Police] don’t always know how to
deal with trauma victims and/or how to deal with [service
providers]” (Service Provider, FG 1). They expressed frustration at law enforcement’s failure to supply survivors with
contacts of community-based resources when responding to
IPV-related calls. As one service provider stated: “[Police]
think that they can just go show up, arrest the [perpetrator]
and they’re done” (Service Provider, FG 3). Service providers
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
attributed this to a number of factors, including the presence of
“old school” (Service Provider, FG 4) officers who may have
dated conceptions of IPV, a lack of IPV training for new
officers coming out of the academy, and limited understanding of the dynamics of abusive intimate relationships. One
survivor concisely summed up law enforcement’s lack of
awareness as: “I don’t think [police] know that people deal
with [IPV]… I don’t think they understand the severity of
[abuse]” (Survivor, FG 3).
Outliers: Positive Police Interactions
Though discussed to a far less extent, some survivors and service providers mentioned positive encounters with police.
Positive outcomes were associated with police linking survivors to community-based resources for which they received
timely and potentially life-saving assistance. For instance, officers referred survivors to victim advocates who then connected
them to local organizations that could meet their immediate
safety needs. One survivor described how receiving the shelter’s card and phone number from the responding officer quickly set her path to safety in motion: “It didn’t take long [to access
organizational services] once I found out what to do, where to
go” (Survivor, FG 4). Another survivor contrasted the helpfulness of sheriffs versus patrol officers, saying: “The sheriff’s
department has always been way more helpful, more understanding… It’s kind of hit and miss with them. You get some
good officers, and then some you don’t get any help from them
whatsoever” (Survivor, FG 7). With repeated IPV-related calls,
law enforcement may become familiar with survivors, a familiarity that could be beneficial. One survivor recalled that, despite living far from a major city, law enforcement responded to
her location expeditiously, because they were familiar with her
history of violence. She said: “[Police] really, really worried
about me… got [the perpetrator] contained, and they come [sic]
and talked to me… and said, ‘No, you have nothing to worry
about. We’re going to send you to the hospital’” (Survivor, FG
6).
Amplified Hurdles in Rural Communities
Unique obstacles to IPV response emerged in rural communities, including a scarcity of responding officers. Rural social
service providers noted that their working relationships with
law enforcement are precarious and particularly delicate.
Finally, the incidence of social relationships between police
and perpetrators, and their implications for survivors, was
explored.
Scarcity of Officers
Inadequate police response was amplified in rural areas, which
were characterized by scarce officers for considerable land
105
area. For example, a service provider stated: “In defense of
our officers… [county name] is a pretty big area. There’s [sic]
two officers on at night, and so typically they go from call to
call” (Service Provider, FG 3). The short staffing of rural areas
made it difficult for police officers to spend a considerable
amount of time at domestic disputes. Lack of police response
was also noted in Indigenous communities. For example, a
service provider stated: “The police response in [Indigenous]
areas is terrible… Either no one shows up or the cops show up
and say ‘well, this is a civil matter or a family matter, and
we’re not going to do anything about it’” (Service Provider,
FG 10). Service providers reported that the small number of
officers in rural areas contributed to difficulties in attending
training. A service provider stated: “… the littler [sic] cities
that have one, two, three, four officers… [they] don’t have
people to cover [for those attending] training… I don’t think
it’s a matter of [police] don’t want to [be trained]… it’s just
harder for them when they’re smaller” (Service Provider, FG
2). Finally, service providers reflected that their relationships
with law enforcement can disintegrate more easily in rural
areas. For example, a service provider noted: “[This is] a small
town… If an advocate pissed off law enforcement… the victim suffers because of that… If you get one [officer] mad,
they’re all gonna be mad… Then they’re less likely to help
you again” (Service Provider, FG 4). Thus, rural service providers emphasized the delicate nature of their relationships
with law enforcement.
Police-Perpetrator Social Relationships
In rural areas, there was a higher likelihood that the
responding officer would have a personal relationship with
the perpetrator. Some survivors stated that these personal relationships contributed to police inaction and/or disbelief in
the severity of a survivor’s situation. For example, a survivor
stated: “My ex-husband is from this town, so he knows a few
of the police officers. I got a few [officers] that were friends
with him that weren’t helpful at all, because they had gotten
his side of the story” (Survivor, FG 7). Another survivor stated: “[Police] were friends with [the perpetrator]. [Police]
would go to [the] bar off-duty with [the perpetrator]. [The
perpetrator] was friends with [police], so [police] knew [the
perpetrator] as a friend” (Survivor, FG 6). Another survivor
stated that her ex-husband was “big in the community… has
lots of money,” and police officers did not believe that “he
would be like that” (Survivor, FG 6). Service providers echoed this sentiment saying: “I’ve had situations in small towns
where the police are all good friends with the perpetrator”
(Service Provider, FG 10). Moreover, participants reported
that rural survivors are reluctant to contact police due to fears
of stigma. As one service provider stated: “[Survivors] don’t
want to let anybody know that [IPV is] happening, because of
the stigma… they don’t want anybody else knowing their
106
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
Both survivors and service providers highlighted officer difficulty in establishing the predominant aggressor on the scene,
which frequently resulted in the criminalization of survivors.
Lack of education on IPV dynamics seemed to affect this
struggle. In fact, physical indicators of abuse were reportedly
easier for police to recognize than others.
contended that survivors with felonies who contact police
may receive a DV charge that “stays with them forever”
(Service Provider, FG 6). As well, survivors discussed the
sentencing disparities between themselves and their perpetrators. For example, a survivor discussed the repercussions of
her arrest and the unevenness between her sentence and that of
the perpetrator. She described being charged with a felony and
“forced to plead guilty under pressure,” which resulted in a
year of probation and affected her immigration: “I cannot even
apply for [citizenship], ‘cause that [charge] comes as a dark
spot on [my record], and I could be deported out of the country… all [my husband] gets is fifty hours of community service” (Survivor, FG 1). Even more, survivors with criminal
records expressed reluctance to contact the police for fear that
they would accrue additional criminal charges.
Criminalization of Survivors
Perpetrator Manipulation
As a result of officers’ failure to recognize the predominant
aggressor, survivors described their own criminalization. For
example, a survivor described that despite being choked by
her intimate partner, she was considered the predominant aggressor by police due to her intimate partner’s medicationinduced bruising. She said: “I was just trying to get the hell
away from [the perpetrator]. But because he had blood on his
arms, [the officer] wrote it down on the police report that I
clawed him” (Survivor, FG 7). Other survivors described instances where they engaged in self-defense and “fought back”
against their perpetrator when fearing for their lives. For example, one survivor stated: “We’re not just going to stay there
and, like, have [perpetrators] try to kill us in front of our
children. We’re going to fight back” (Survivor, FG 1). This
professed self-defense resulted in the arrest of some survivors,
as described by one survivor:
Survivors perceived that police treat perpetrators more positively due to the perpetrator’s ability to “work the system”
(Survivor, FG 1) and manipulate police with a cool demeanor.
This ability to remain calm was posed as a contributor to
police difficulty in determining the predominant aggressor.
As one survivor stated: “My husband would have me all
worked up, and so when the police come… [the perpetrator
is] just as calm as a cucumber, and I’m a nervous wreck, so it
always looks bad on me” (Survivor, FG 7). Another survivor
desired that “the police would listen. When you talk to [police], they know you’ve been in a domestic violence situation.
[But] when there’s a good talker on the other side, they listen
to the [perpetrator]” (Survivor, FG 5).
Even when the correct party is identified as the predominant aggressor, survivors expressed fear about consequences
associated with their intimate partners being arrested. These
included fears that the perpetrator would be released quickly
from jail and retaliate. For example, a survivor stated that
when her perpetrator is released from jail: “He’s lit man.
Yeah, [the perpetrator] just sat in jail thinking about how
he’s going to get back at you, you know?!” (Survivor, FG
2). One survivor described how calling the police would only
temporarily cease abuse, but that she never felt safe once police left the scene. She said that her perpetrator “always talked
his way out of [arrest by saying], ‘Well look at my face she
scratched me’… The cops were… like, ‘Well they’re both
fighting’” (Survivor, FG 5). Due to fears of retaliation, survivors may not disclose the entirety of the situation to police, as
indicated by a service provider who stated that a survivor
“can’t guarantee that [the perpetrator is] going to jail. And
[if the survivor says] something [to police], and that officer
leaves and no one’s getting arrested, [the survivor] run[s] the
risk of possibly losing [her] life or making [the abuse] worse.”
(Service Provider, FG 6). Some survivors also expressed a
lack of knowledge of community resources. As one survivor
business… they feel like they can handle it within the family”
(Service Provider, FG 4). Hence, rural survivors’ willingness
to even contact the police is mitigated by the anticipated consequences of doing so, including fears that the private sphere
will become public. Findings indicate that rural survivors are
less likely to contact police due to these fears.
Predominant Aggressor Incongruity
The police officer told me he was handcuffing me. I
said, “Why are you handcuffing me?” [The officer] said,
“Because you hit [the perpetrator].” I said, “Do you
understand he was killing me?!” And [the officer] was
like, “I don’t need to know anything. You can tell the
judge about it” (Survivor, FG 1).
In addition to the criminalization of survivors, mutual arrest of
both partners was mentioned to a lesser degree. For example, a
service provider stated: “There’s not mandatory training for
law enforcement on how to use discretion… [the police are]
not trauma-informed about the victims on how to determine
the primary aggressor… You see double bookings a lot. You
see [police] book both [victim and perpetrator]” (Service
Provider, FG 6).
Criminally charged survivors face various consequences,
including inaccessibility of legal assistance, issues with child
custody and immigration. For example, a service provider
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
illustrated: “[Police] took [the perpetrator] to jail, but he was
out in two hours and back at [the abuse]. And I had nowhere to
go. I didn’t know where to go” (Survivor, FG 6). Finally, there
are consequences if no one is arrested. As a result of ineffective police involvement, the survivor is unlikely to access the
police again. A service provider described one survivor who
has “been almost killed 100 times… but she refuses to call the
police… because she’s like ‘I can’t go to jail and pay those
fees and do that. It’s better for me to just try and escape on my
own’” (Service Provider, FG 6).
Protective Orders Fail to Protect
Both survivors and service providers described issues with the
enforcement of protective orders. Namely, protective orders
were not always enforced. For example, one survivor described a tumultuous time in her relationship where she experienced several instances of harassment and vandalism to her
property by her ex-partner. Despite possessing a protective
order and detailed documentation of violations of this protective order, the survivor reported that law enforcement did not
provide assistance. The survivor explained: “It was constant
harassment, and I couldn’t get anyone to help me. And I had a
protective order in place, and I was like, ‘What good is this
[protective order] doing?’” (Survivor, FG 3). Other survivors
with protective orders echoed similar sentiments, reporting
that they did little to ensure their protection nor their confidence that perpetrators would be held accountable if they violated the protective order. Some law enforcement officials
would not even respond to survivors’ calls for assistance unless they perceived a grave physical threat to the survivor. Per
one survivor, her biggest obstacle was “staying protected.”
She stated: “It’s really hard to get law enforcement to come
out sometimes, unless [the perpetrator] becomes extremely
physical… If it was just a verbal protective order violation,
then it’s kind of kicked under the rug” (Survivor, FG 7).
This suggests that law enforcement do not view verbal protective order violations as particularly harmful or cause for
concern.
Survivors described how the process of trying to obtain the
protective order itself was traumatic. As illustrated by a survivor: “When we go to get a protective order, you’re revisiting
that whole [abusive] scenario again” (Survivor, FG 1). Even
when a survivor is granted a protective order, law enforcement
may not respond: “If I call the police, they don’t do anything
about it” (Survivor, FG 1). Survivors also described issues
with protective orders that do not include public streets and
property damage. As a survivor stated: “What’s the point of
[a] protective order? As I was told, that’s a public street,
there’s not anything that they can do about it” (Survivor, FG
1). Similarly, a service provider described that despite the
survivor having a protective order, the perpetrator “still comes
back… And I’ve actually gone to the police station to talk to
107
officers… ‘Why aren’t you doing anything with this perpetrator? He’s breaking the protective order, and he’s still walking
free’” (Service Provider, FG 6). Another service provider described loopholes with protective orders in that a perpetrator
will “stay just 20 feet away or they’ll do so many things where
law enforcement is like ‘[the perpetrator is] not attacking [the
survivor], so we’re really not going to respond’” (Service
Provider, FG 6).
Lethality Assessment Program Working Relationships
Service providers described mixed levels of collaboration with
law enforcement. While some agencies reported having a positive relationship with their local police department, others
described fraught relations. This tended to be regional, with
some areas of the state reporting strong relationships and
others weak. However, all service providers emphasized the
importance of working relationships with police. Moreover,
agencies with negative relations desired to rectify their relationships with law enforcement. A service provider described
her positive relationship with police, saying: “I work very
close with [police]. They call me up. They use me… I have
a great relationship” (Service Provider, FG 5). Relationships
with law enforcement were described as important “so that
you can discuss a case, and you can figure out a good way
to help these victims” (Service Provider, FG 5).
Improved Collaboration
Overwhelmingly, service providers described the LAP as having the unforeseen effect of improving their relationships with
law enforcement, as well as increasing police IPV awareness
and referrals to their organizations. Before the LAP, service
providers stated that police would simply give the survivor a
card or brochure with contact information for an advocate, and
in areas where the LAP has not been implemented this continues to be the referral process. Even when a survivor is given
this information, it can be difficult for her to contact the organization, as illustrated by a survivor who indicated that “every
time that [IPV] has happened, a police officer has given me a
piece of paper to contact the victim’s advocate… But then
calling somebody, and saying [IPV] happened to me is hard.
Really hard” (Survivor, Interview 2). However, the LAP has
changed officer referrals. A service provider described how
officers and her agency now respond indicating that after the
LAP is completed, the officer will call a staff member who is
available 24 h a day to speak with the survivor. This participant stated that the survivor “might be in such crisis that they
don’t want our services at that moment. But just that connection… opens that door that [survivors] know we’re here. And
we will follow up with [the survivor] the next day” (Service
Provider, FG 6). This connection also allows survivors and
police to become aware of the numerous services, such as
108
shelter and protective order assistance, available at their local
DV organization. As one service provider stated: “I think that
that connection between law enforcement and us, and just
knowing that we’re able to help [survivors]… I think has been
helpful” (Service Provider, FG 6).
The LAP acted as a bridge between law enforcement and
service providers, increasing law enforcement’s “buy-in” to
assist survivors. Service providers working in areas where
law enforcement embraced the LAP reported increased referrals from officers. One staff member explained: “We have a
good connection and get responses from law enforcement…
We get police reports and calls from them” (Service Provider,
FG 2). Those providers who had positive experiences with
law enforcement also saw increased interactions with law enforcement personnel, describing how they worked with officers nearly every day, in sync, to address IPV. One benefit of
working closely involved the leveraging of resources and
broadening of perspective. For instance, service providers
can offer a unique standpoint that may assist law enforcement
who interact with survivors. As one service provider described: “I may know something that [police] don’t, and it
helps [police] understand the whole dynamics of that person
and the victim. So, I think it’s very important that you have a
relationship with law enforcement” (Service Provider, FG 5).
In addition to improved police referrals, service providers
reflected that the implementation of the LAP resulted in overall better relationships between their agencies and police. In
fact, many negative or neutral relationships had transformed
into positive ones. A service provider said that the LAP
“opened those lines of communication that we did not have
before. I’ve been with this organization for 16 years, and we
did not have great relationships with law enforcement prior to
initiating this LAP program” (Service Provider, FG 6).
Another service provider described the LAP as a stepping
stone to gain entry into police departments to conduct IPV
training. This service provider said that the LAP has “really
opened the doors and lines of communication” (Service
Provider, FG 6). She was hopeful that police will “be open
to us coming in and offering additional training about being
more trauma-informed, about reminding them about predominant aggressor training, and really just helping educate them
more and more about the dynamics of domestic violence.”
Again, service providers described how the LAP kept them
in a “constant communication type of relationship” (Service
Provider, FG 6) with law enforcement agencies. As one service provider indicated: “[The LAP] was a great excuse for us
to be constantly communicating and working together that we
didn’t have before” (Service Provider, FG 6).
Ancillary Effects of the LAP
Despite the many benefits of the LAP, there have been several
unintended consequences. The LAP has resulted in increased
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
contacts to agencies, often from survivors who have never
accessed services. As one service provider said: “We have
definitely seen an increase in our calls from law enforcement
and… a lot of new victims that have never accessed our services before have been connected through law enforcement”
(Service Provider, FG 6). Increased referrals are not only helping to identify new survivors; they are also resulting in overwhelming workloads for DV organizations. For example, a
service provider stated that the LAP has created higher workloads for them as well as creating a “space problem with the
shelter… We are so busy… The quality [of our services]
hasn’t necessarily gone down, because we’re trying to keep
that up. But [the LAP] is going to affect [quality] as we get
busier” (Service Provider, FG 6). Thus, this service provider
expressed concern that the quality of services would be affected by the increasing caseloads. In some cases, police are not
completing the LAP appropriately nor performing a LAP at
all. For example, a service provider stated that police “may not
view the situation as serious enough to do [the LAP]” (Service
Provider, FG 6). Or the survivor fears to speak truthfully,
because “I didn’t want to get my kids taken away right then
and there” (Service Provider, FG 6). Finally, the screening
instrument is sometimes completed with the perpetrator rather
than the survivor, as mentioned by a service provider: “We
still have sometimes where we get a LAP, and we never spoke
to the victim. Or they did a LAP on the other person instead of
the victim” (Service Provider, FG 6). Another service provider
described a case where the screening instrument was completed even though “the LAP wasn’t really appropriate” (Service
Provider, FG 6).
Discussion
Overall, this study found particularly negative survivor experiences with police. Previous research has been mixed regarding the helpfulness of police in Canada and Australia (see
Goodman-Delahunty & Crehan, 2016; Ragusa, 2013;
Saxton et al., 2018; Tam et al., 2015). In the U.S., an inverse
relationship existed between survivors’ IPV exposure level
and perceptions of police legitimacy/trust, especially among
African American survivors (Fedina, Backes, Jun, DeVylder,
& Barth, 2019). The present study found that an overwhelming majority of survivors perceive the police as unhelpful.
These encounters were deemed problematic due to police enforcement of stereotypes and victim-blaming. Further, the
present research study supported previous research that police
have conservative attitudes about IPV survivors (Gover et al.,
2011). These include the perception that IPV is a private matter, that alcohol catalyzes violence, and that survivors are able
to prevent their own abuse. This perceived lack of helpfulness
extended to the (lack of) enforcement of protective orders.
Tam et al. (2015) found limited enforcement of protective
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
orders in Canada, and our research study replicated this
finding in the U.S. context. Help-seeking obstacles were
amplified in rural areas, characterized by a scarcity of
officers and fragile relationships between law enforcement
and service providers. Similar to research conducted in
Indigenous communities in the U.S. (Burnette, 2014), social relationships between police officers and perpetrators
affected response in small towns. Namely, survivors reported that police were lenient with their perpetrator if a
personal relationship existed.
This research study adds to the knowledge base regarding
mandatory arrest and predominant aggressor laws. Research
conducted with women court-mandated to IPV education
groups suggested that arrest decisions are often based on limited context (Li et al., 2015). Survivors in the present study
described being criminalized, deemed as the predominant aggressor with implications for their criminal records, access to
benefits, and willingness to contact the police in the future.
Survivors’ arrest has also been associated with incurred fees,
unemployment, child custody decisions, and child protective
services involvement (Dichter, 2013). Finally, the LAP represents a promising practice not only to increase survivor safety
but also to foster relationships and communication between
law enforcement and service providers.
Limitations
While the study findings have substantial implications, several
limitations must be noted. The data was collected approximately three years ago, and policing has changed during this
time period with the expansion of de-escalation training, crisis
intervention teams, and civilian review boards (Friedman,
2020). In Salt Lake City, specifically, social workers have
been embedded in the police department to liaise between
front-line officers, community service organizations, and
the homeless population to prioritize individualized care
needs and community services over incarceration. These
types of community-based initiatives may have altered police response to vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Furthermore, police officers themselves were not included
in this research study; however, their perceived attitudes
and behaviors may vary from those described by survivors
and service providers.
Second, this study has study design limitations, namely that
participants were recruited through DV service organizations.
This means that the vast majority of survivors had accessed a
DV service organization at some point resulting in potential
sampling bias. The sample demographics are a limitation as
predominantly white, heterosexual, cisgender women participated. Only 7% of survivors and no service providers identified
as African American or Black, while only 10% of study participants identified as Latinx or Hispanic. The state of Utah is
109
racially and ethnically homogenous with only 1.5% reporting
African American or Black race and 14.4% identifying as
Latinx or Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). Indigenous participants were over-represented in this research study, though,
as only 1.1% of Utahns reported Native American or Alaska
Native identity. Those who did not access DV service organizations may have lower socioeconomic status, and they may be
more likely to be racialized or have precarious immigration
status. These identities likely affect police reporting and response, and future research is needed that examines the most
marginalized. Finally, the average age of participants was approximately 40 years; however, research suggests that the majority (71%) of female survivors experienced their first incident
of IPV before the age of 25 (Smith et al., 2018). Therefore,
research is needed that examines the diverse experiences of
heterogenous survivors.
Implications
This research study has implications for practice, policy, and
future research. On average, police recruits receive only five
hours of victim response training (Reaves, 2016). Improved
IPV training is needed in the police academy, particularly
given that IPV-related cases make up a large part of the calls
officers respond to regularly. Even police officers themselves
recognize the need for increased DV training (Horwitz et al.,
2011). This IPV training should incorporate local DV organizations and cover topics such as trauma-informed practices,
predominant aggressor and lethality protocols. Moreover,
training is needed on the diversity of IPV experiences that
goes beyond the physical markers of violence (e.g., visible
injuries) to recognize the signs of psychological aggression,
coercive control, and verbal abuse. Though discussed to a
substantially lesser extent, some survivors described positive
interactions with police. These positive experiences may serve
as case studies and represent an opportunity to engage skilled
responders as peer educators in police training (see Blumberg,
et al., 2019).
Service providers consistently highlighted the desire for
better relationships with law enforcement. Police, too, have
expressed a desire for more collaboration with local social
service providers (Horwitz et al., 2011). The LAP seems to
assist with collaboration and should thus be extended. Ideally,
an advocate would accompany police on DV calls, and both
parties (i.e., survivor and perpetrator) would be separated in an
attempt to identify the predominant aggressor. Then, the advocate could connect the survivor with resources on the scene
rather than requiring the survivor to contact a shelter/
organization on her own. Unfortunately, many officers do
not think social workers would be helpful at the scene of
IPV (Ward-Lasher, Messing, & Hart, 2017). This indicates
that police officers also require education about the role service providers can play in IPV. In addition, police officers
110
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
have indicated interest in DV case debriefing and feedback
loops (Horwitz et al., 2011). This may also represent an opportunity for law enforcement and service providers to collaborate. Finally, focused deterrence, namely the Offender
Focused Domestic Violence Initiative, has been associated
with decreased IPV-related homicides, offender recidivism
and arrests (Sechrist & Weil, 2018). This, too, involves
police-community partnerships, as well as the provision of
support services prior to arrest or conviction. The LAP paired
with focused deterrence may be an innovative union to address survivor safety. However, DV service organizations require investment in their capacity to meet survivor needs as
referrals and caseloads increase.
Increased training and collaboration, though, are unlikely to
wholly solve the problems associated with police response to
IPV. Significant racial disparities continue to exist in the criminal justice system (Kovera, 2019), and police shootings of
unarmed African Americans have eroded the public’s trust in
the police resulting in a decline in crime reporting (Giffords
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2020). This may translate to increased reluctance of survivors, especially survivors
of color, to contact the police in cases of IPV. Moreover,
research has demonstrated that police perceive IPV differently
based on gender and sexual orientation. For example, officers
rated a heterosexual male perpetrator as more of a threat than a
gay male, lesbian, or heterosexual female perpetrator in IPV
scenarios (Russell, 2018). This suggests that police may respond differently to IPV incidents involving a same sex couple
or heterosexual male survivor. Therefore, future research is
needed that examines underreporting and differential police
treatment based on race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual
orientation.
While this qualitative study indicates that the LAP is effective in improving relationships and collaborations, quantitative data is needed that assesses the fidelity of the LAP and its
effectiveness in determination of the predominant aggressor.
Moreover, longitudinal research is needed that follows survivors from LAP completion to organizational utilization and
recovery. Research could also examine the role of the LAP in
survivors’ views of police helpfulness and police attitudes
about IPV. Finally, research should examine the effectiveness
of the LAP in decreasing DV-related homicide. Overall, mandatory arrest policies require critical examination, especially
regarding their impact on survivors of IPV.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to the Utah Domestic Violence
Coalition for their assistance with this project. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers who provided insightful comments on initial drafts of
this article.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
disclose.
I have no conflicts of interest nor funding to
References
American Bar Association. (2011). Domestic violence arrest policies by
state. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/
domestic_violence/Initiatives/statutory_summary_charts/
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd
ed.). London: SAGE.
Blumberg, D. M., Schlosser, M. D., Papazoglou, K., Creighton, S., &
Kaye, C. C. (2019). New directions in police academy training: A
call to action. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(24), 4941. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16244941.
Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R.
(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance uniform definitions
and recommended data elements: Version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017). Police response to domestic violence,
2006–2015 (DOJ publication no. NCJ 250231). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Burnette, C. E. (2014). From the ground up: Indigenous women’s after
violence experiences with the formal service system in the United
States. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(5), 1526–1545.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu013.
Cerulli, C., Edwardsen, E. A., Hall, D., Chan, K. L., & Conner, K. R.
(2015). Improving coordinated responses for victims of intimate partner violence: Law enforcement compliance with state-mandated intimate partner violence documentation. Violence Against Women,
21(7), 897–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215584072.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London:
SAGE.
Cohabitant Abuse Procedures Act, Utah Code Ann. § 77–36-2.2 (2013).
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title77/Chapter36/77-36-S2.2.html
Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States,
1980–2008. (DOJ publication no. NCJ 236018). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Dichter, M. E. (2013). “They arrested me–and I was the victim”:
Women’s experiences with getting arrested in the context of domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(2), 81–98. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08974454.2013.759068.
Durfee, A. (2012). Situational ambiguity and gendered patterns of arrest
for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 64–
84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212437017.
Eastman, B. J., & Bunch, S. G. (2007). Providing services to survivors of
domestic violence: A comparison of rural and urban service provider
perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 465–473.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506296989.
Fedina, L., Backes, B. L., Jun, H.-J., DeVylder, J., & Barth, R. P. (2019).
Police legitimacy, trustworthiness, and associations with intimate partner violence. Policing: An International Journal, 42(5), 901–916.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2019-0046.
Felson, R. B., Ackerman, J. M., & Gallagher, C. (2005). Police intervention and the repeat of domestic assault. Retrieved from https://www.
ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/210301.pdf
Friedman, B. (2020). Disaggregating the police function (public law and
legal theory research paper series working paper no. 20-03).
Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3564469
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2020). In pursuit of
peace: Building police- community trust to break the cycle of
violence. Retrieved from https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/01/Giffords-Law-Center-In-Pursuit-of-Peace.pdf
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Crehan, A. C. (2016). Enhancing police responses to domestic violence incidents: Reports from client advocates
in New South Wales. Violence Against Women, 22(8), 1007–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215613854.
J Fam Viol (2022) 37:99–111
Gover, A. R., Paul, D. P., & Dodge, M. (2011). Law enforcement officers’
attitudes about domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 17(5),
619–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407477.
Horwitz, S. H., Mitchell, D., LaRussa-Trott, M., Santiago, L., Pearson, J.,
Skiff, D. M., & Cerulli, C. (2011). An inside view of police officers’
experience with domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence,
26(8), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9396-y.
Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence?
Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of
Public Economics, 93(1–2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpubeco.2008.09.006.
Jeffrey, N., Fairbairn, J., Campbell, M., Dawson, M., Jaffe, P., &
Straatman, A. L. (2018). Literature review on risk assessment, risk
management and safety planning. London, ON: Canadian Domestic
Homicide Prevention Initiative.
Klein, A. R. (2009). Practical implications of current domestic violence
research for law enforcement, prosecutors and judges (DOJ publication no. NCJ 225722). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Kovera, M. B. (2019). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system:
Prevalence, causes, and a search for solutions. Journal of Social
Issues, 75(4), 1139–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12355.
Lanier, C., & Maume, M. O. (2009). Intimate partner violence and social
isolation across the rural/urban divide. Violence Against Women,
15(11), 1311–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209346711.
Li, S., Levick, A., Eichman, A., & Chang, J. C. (2015). Women’s perspectives on the context of violence and role of police in their intimate partner violence arrest experiences. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 30(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260514535100.
Messing, J. T., Becerra, D., Ward-Lasher, A., & Androff, D. K. (2015b).
Latinas’ perceptions of law enforcement: Fear of deportation, crime
reporting, and trust in the system. Affilia, 30(3), 328–340. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886109915576520.
Messing, J. T., Campbell, J., Webster, D. W., Brown, S., Patchell, B., &
Wilson, J. S. (2015a). The Oklahoma lethality assessment study: A
quasi-experimental evaluation of the lethality assessment program.
Social Service Review, 89(3), 499–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/
683194.
Novisky, M. A., & Peralta, R. L. (2015). When women tell: Intimate
partner violence and the factors related to police notification.
Violence Against Women, 21(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077801214564078.
Ragusa, A. T. (2013). Rural Australian women’s legal help seeking for
intimate partner violence: Women intimate partner violence victim
survivors’ perceptions of criminal justice support services. Journal
111
of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 685–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512455864.
Reaves, B. A. (2016). State and local law enforcement training academies, 2013 (DOJ publication no. NCJ 249784). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Russell, B. (2018). Police perceptions in intimate partner violence cases:
The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 41(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.
2017.1282378.
Saxton, M. D., Olszowy, L., MacGregor, J. C. D., MacQuarrie, B. J., &
Wathen, C. N. (2018). Experiences of intimate partner violence
victims with police and the justice system in Canada. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence., 088626051875833. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0886260518758330.
Sechrist, S. M., & Weil, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of a focused
deterrence strategy to combat intimate partner domestic violence.
Violence Against Women, 24(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077801216687877.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75. https://
doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.
Shepherd, J. (2001). Where do you go when it’s 40 below? Domestic
violence among rural Alaskan native women. Affilia, 16(4), 488–
510. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861090122094389.
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J.,
Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner
and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief – Updated
release. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Tam, D. M., Tutty, L. M., Zhuang, Z., & Paz, E. (2015). Racial minority
women and criminal justice responses to domestic violence. Journal
of Family Violence, 31, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896015-9794-7.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). QuickFacts Utah. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/UT?
Van Hightower, N. R., & Gorton, J. (2002). A case study of communitybased responses to rural woman battering. Violence Against Women,
8(7), 845–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102400388506.
Voices for Utah Children. (2016). A tale of two Utahs: How do urban and
rural Utah measure up? Salt Lake City, UT: Author.
Ward-Lasher, A., Messing, J. T., & Hart, B. (2017). Policing intimate
partner violence: Attitudes toward risk assessment and collaboration
with social workers. Social Work, 62(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/
10.1093/sw/swx023.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 53 (2020) 101430
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
Mandatory arrest for domestic violence and repeat offending: A metaanalysis
T
⁎
Susan J. Hoppea, , Yan Zhanga, Brittany E. Hayesb, Matthew A. Billsa
a
b
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, United States
School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Domestic violence
Mandatory arrest
Repeat offending
Meta-analysis
Historically, domestic violence (DV) has been viewed as a private matter, which limited law enforcement’s
response to incidents of DV. Shifting perceptions of DV over time and a rise in public pressure to protect DV
victims led to efforts within the criminal justice system to better respond to DV incidents. Specifically, mandatory arrest policies, driven by the landmark Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, were widely adopted
in an effort to reduce the likelihood of repeat offending and by effect revictimization. Subsequent replications of
the experiment tended to find that arrest of DV offenders did not reduce the likelihood of another offense being
committed over the follow-up period. To make sense of the mixed findings regarding the efficacy of mandatory
arrest for DV, the current meta-analysis synthesizes the results of 11 published studies to determine whether
arrest has an effect on crimes being committed following an arrest for DV. The results of the meta-analysis
indicate that arrest did not limit the likelihood of another offense being committed during the follow-up periods
and likely did not have a deterrent effect on DV offenders. Moderating variables, including research design and
length of follow-up, were also analyzed. Policy implications and directions for future research are discussed.
1. Introduction
One in four women and one in 10 men who live in the United States
have experienced intimate partner violence at some point during their
life (Smith et al., 2018).1 Likewise, international estimates indicate one
in three women have experienced some form of intimate partner violence during their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2017). Although domestic violence (DV) is a pervasive public health issue, DV
has historically been viewed as a private matter, which made intervention by law enforcement rare (Buzawa, Buzawa, & Stark, 2017;
Durfee & Fetzer, 2016; Hirschel, McCormack, & Buzawa, 2017). Following the women’s rights movement, perceptions and attitudes surrounding DV started to shift. That is, there has been a rise in public
pressure to protect victims of DV and hold perpetrators of DV accountable (Farris & Holman, 2015; Phillips & Sobol, 2010). Because of these
efforts and evolving attitudes toward DV, some have advocated that the
criminal justice system must respond to and take seriously incidents of
DV.
As first responders, law enforcement officers are often the first point
of contact victims of DV have with the criminal justice system
⁎
(Fagerlund & Kääriäinen, 2018; Johnson, Sigler, & Crowley, 1994;
McMullan, Carlan, & Nored, 2010). Given the broader cultural shift
recognizing the consequences of DV and the results of the landmark
Minneapolis DV experiment, which indicated mandatory arrest was
associated with lower rates of repeat offending among DV perpetrators,
many law enforcement agencies have implemented mandatory arrest
policies for perpetrators of DV (Buzawa et al., 2017; Durfee & Fetzer,
2016; Sherman & Berk, 1984). Yet, subsequent replications of the DV
experiment have produced mixed results (Berk, Campbell, Klap, &
Western, 1992; Dunford, 1990; Dunford, Huizinga, & Elliot, 1990;
Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Hirschel, Hutchison, & Dean, 1992; Pate &
Hamilton, 1992; Sherman, Schmidt, Rogan, & Smith, 1992; Sherman,
Smith, Schmidt, & Rogan, 1992). Despite the inconsistency in findings,
mandatory arrest remains a common response to domestic disputes
across the United States. Overall, 28 states and the District of Columbia
have mandatory or preferred arrest statutes for DV (American Bar
Association, 2011) and 35 states have adopted primary aggressor statutes (Hirschel et al., 2017).
Although there is a sizeable body of work that examines law enforcement responses to DV (Exum, Hartman, Friday, & Lord, 2010;
Corresponding author at: Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, 816 17th Street, Huntsville, TX, United States.
E-mail address: sjh008@shsu.edu (S.J. Hoppe).
1
There are conceptual overlaps between intimate partner violence and domestic violence. For the purposes of this study, we use the term “domestic violence”
unless otherwise stated.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101430
Received 14 February 2020; Accepted 27 April 2020
Available online 04 May 2020
1359-1789/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 53 (2020) 101430
S.J. Hoppe, et al.
measured using the victims’ self-reports as to whether a repeat incident
of DV was perpetrated by the same offender over the follow-up period.
The results of the experiment were influential in the development of
DV policy, and in particular, the adoption of mandatory arrest policies
in the United States. Sherman and Berk (1984) found that arrest for DV,
compared to separation for 8 h and providing “advice,” was associated
with significant reductions in repeat offending. Specifically, in analyzing official records the authors revealed that perpetrators who were
assigned arrest were the least likely to have an offense or arrest report
for DV during the six-month follow-up period. Individuals assigned to
separation for 8 h were found to be the most likely to have an offense or
arrest report for DV, while no effects were found for mediation or
providing “advice.” Analysis of the self-report data from victims yielded
similar results. Victims whose perpetrator was assigned arrest were the
least likely to report repeat incidents of DV with the same suspect. The
results of Sherman and Berk’s (1984) landmark study provided empirical support through an experimental design – often considered the
‘gold standard’ for research methods (Sampson, Winship, & Knight,
2013) – for the adoption of mandatory arrest policies for DV.
Ideally, a single study, such as the Minneapolis DV experiment,
should not be solely relied upon when making policy decisions (Buzawa
et al., 2017; Sherman & Harris, 2013). Nevertheless, “experimental
results often are interpreted by policymakers as a direct test of policy”
and serve as evidence to support the adoption of a policy (Sampson
et al., 2013, p. 592). Given the shift in public perceptions of DV as a
police matter during the 1980s, law enforcement was eager to improve
their response to DV and mandatory arrest policies were widely
adopted following Sherman and Berk’s (1984) initial study. This was
arguably short-sighted as replications of the initial study produced
mixed findings regarding the utility of mandatory arrest on the likelihood of repeat offending among DV perpetrators. Below we provide a
brief overview of the findings from these replication efforts.
Messing & Campbell, 2016; Morrow, Katz, & Choate, 2016), absent
from the literature is a meta-analysis to synthesize the findings of existing research to determine whether mandatory arrest policies serve
their intended purpose of reducing repeat offending and by effect revictimization. In an effort to synthesize the results of this existing body
of research, the current study conducted a meta-analysis to examine the
effect of mandatory arrest for DV on the likelihood of another offense
being committed by the perpetrator over the follow-up period. The
purpose is to determine whether mandatory arrest policies, in comparison to other police interventions, reduce the likelihood of repeat
offending among DV offenders. First, a brief overview of changes in law
enforcement response to DV is provided. The discussion is then followed by a description of the Minneapolis DV experiment, the seminal
study on law enforcement’s response to DV, and the subsequent replication studies. We then provide a brief overview of meta-analyses in
general.
1.1. Law enforcement response to domestic violence
Historically, DV has not been recognized as a criminal offense by
criminal justice systems across the globe, including in the United States
(Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992). Indeed, DV is currently not criminalized
in nations such as Russia (Gender Index, 2019a), Uzbekistan (Gender
Index, 2019b), Estonia (Gender Index, 2019c), and Togo (Gender Index,
2019d). Rather, DV was and continues to be perceived as a family
problem to be handled between partners within the privacy of one’s
home (Durfee & Fetzer, 2016; Farris & Holman, 2015; Garner, 1997). In
the 1960s and 1970s, however, legislation was created to criminalize
DV in the United States (Durfee & Fetzer, 2016; Schneider, 2008). Prior
to this, law enforcement’s response to DV in the United States was almost non-existent as police intervention in private family matters was
discouraged (Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992). Due to public pressure to
enforce DV laws and protect survivors of DV, further legislation passed
in the 1980s dramatically shifted the perception of DV as a private
matter to that of a criminal offense to be addressed by law enforcement
(Durfee & Fetzer, 2016; Garner, 1997). More specifically, mandatory
arrest policies for perpetrators of DV were implemented to improve law
enforcement’s response to DV. Further bolstering the adoption of
mandatory arrest policies were the findings from the landmark Minneapolis DV experiment (Buzawa et al., 2017; Hirschel, Buzawa,
Pattavina, & Faggiani, 2007; Sherman & Berk, 1984).
1.3. Replication experiments of mandatory arrest for DV
Replication studies took place in Omaha, Nebraska, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Dade County, Florida, and
Charlotte, North Carolina (Berk et al., 1992; Dunford, 1990; Dunford
et al., 1990; Hirschel et al., 1992; Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Pate &
Hamilton, 1992; Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Smith, et al.,
1992). The purpose of these replications was to assess if similar results,
which indicated mandatory arrest was effective in reducing repeat offending over the follow-up period, would be found in cities other than
Minneapolis.
Overall, findings from the replication studies began to illuminate
that arrest did not always reduce the likelihood of repeat offending.
Contrary to the results of the Minneapolis DV experiment (Sherman &
Berk, 1984), scholars found that arrest, compared to separation or
mediation, did not have an effect on repeat offending (Dunford et al.,
1990). In analyzing both official records and victim self-reports, no
significant differences were found in the likelihood of repeat offending
across the three intervention types (Dunford et al., 1990; Hirschel et al.,
1992; Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Pate & Hamilton, 1992). While some
scholars found there was no evidence that arrest exacerbated the conflict between couples, which would have indicated the victim experienced more violence following the arrest (Dunford et al., 1990), others
found that short-term arrest was associated with repeat offending
(Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Schmidt, Rogan, & Gartin,
1991).
Other scholars though have demonstrated that arrest warrants for
DV could reduce repeat offending. Dunford (1990) examined if issuing
an arrest warrant for perpetrators who were absent from the scene had
an effect on repeat offending. The purpose of including both DV and
other criminal offenses over the follow-up period was to account for
crimes that may be related to DV including assault, criminal trespass,
and property damage (Hirschel et al., 1992). In comparison to the no-
1.2. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment
The first experiment on law enforcement’s response to DV was
conducted in the early 1980s in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sherman and
Berk (1984) examined three law enforcement interventions for perpetrators of DV – 1) arrest, 2) “advice” or informal mediation, and 3)
separation for 8 h – and their association with repeat offending. When
responding to misdemeanor incidents of DV,2 law enforcement officers
were randomly assigned which intervention (i.e., arrest, mediation, or
separation) to apply (Sherman & Berk, 1984). The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether arrest for DV would reduce the
likelihood of repeat incidents committed against the same victim when
compared to the other two interventions. The authors used both official
police records and self-report data from victims to examine the likelihood of repeat incidents following random assignment to one of the
interventions. Using the official records, recidivism was measured as
whether the DV perpetrator received an offense report or arrest report
for DV during the six-month follow-up period. Recidivism was also
2
DV cases that were classified as felony offenses were excluded from the
experiment. This was because of ethical concerns in randomly assigning an
intervention to DV offenders that may be inappropriate given the enhanced
circumstances of the particular incident.
2
Aggression and Violent Behavior 53 (2020) 101430
S.J. Hoppe, et al.
landmark Minneapolis experiment (Sherman & Berk, 1984) and replications (Berk et al., 1992; Dunford, 1990; Dunford et al., 1990;
Hirschel et al., 1992; Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Pate & Hamilton,
1992; Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Smith, et al., 1992).
However, largely absent from this body of literature is a meta-analysis
or other sophisticated form of synthesizing the findings across studies
(for exception, see synthesis of DV experiments by Maxwell, Garner, &
Fagan, 2002). The current study, therefore, addresses this gap in research by conducting a meta-analysis to determine whether mandatory
arrest policies for DV have an effect on whether the offender commits
another offense during the follow-up period.
warrant group, individuals who were randomly assigned to receive an
arrest warrant were less likely to reoffend during the six- and 12-month
follow-up periods. Although the study examined arrest warrants rather
than arrest, the results lend support to the conclusions drawn by the
Minneapolis DV experiment – arrest for DV decreases the likelihood of
subsequent offending (Dunford, 1990). These replication efforts begin
to highlight the complexity of this association and that the relationship
between arrest and repeat offending may be confounded with other
important predictors.
It is therefore likely that other factors mediate the relationship between arrest and repeat offending. Pate and Hamilton (1992) examined
if employment and marital status were potential mediators of this relationship (Pate & Hamilton, 1992). Analyses of mediating variables
reveal that although marital status did not significantly mediate the
relationship between arrest and repeat offending, employment status
had a significant effect on repeat offending. In comparison to those who
were unemployed, individuals arrested for DV who were employed
were less likely to reoffend during the follow-up period (Pate &
Hamilton, 1992). Similarly, Berk et al. (1992) reported that arrest was
associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat offending (i.e., new DV
offense using police records or victim self-report data) for employed
individuals, while arrest increased the odds of repeat offending among
other individuals who were unemployed (Berk et al., 1992). This
finding offers partial support for the Minneapolis DV experiment and
highlights potential variables that may influence the direct relationship
between arrest and repeat offending. In other words, the results suggest
that social bonds and attachments, including employment, may deter
perpetrators of DV from future offending. On the other hand, a lack of
prosocial attachments may increase the likelihood of subsequent offending.
The Minneapolis DV experiment and replications of the experiment
produced mixed results regarding the efficacy of mandatory arrest policies in DV cases and raise questions about the adoption of such policies across the United States. The conflicting results of the replication
experiments have serious implications for policy and how law enforcement responds to DV. The current meta-analysis seeks to address
the inconsistencies in findings across the experiments to determine
whether arrest for DV is an appropriate law enforcement intervention in
reducing subsequent offending. In the following section we provide a
brief overview on the background of meta-analyses.
1.6. Materials and methods
To begin, the researchers conducted an extensive literature search
using a number of research databases. Variations in keywords were
used to produce a wide range of studies that may be eligible for the
meta-analysis. After collecting the literature, the title and abstract of
each study was read. Based on the inclusion criteria, studies were then
carefully screened for eligibility for the meta-analysis.
1.6.1. Inclusion criteria
To be considered for inclusion in the meta-analysis, studies must
have examined (1) arrest as the major independent variable, and (2)
repeat offending as the major dependent variable measured via official
reports over the follow-up period. Studies using experimental methods
were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In addition, studies that
implemented quasi-experimental methods with treatment and control
groups or that relied on a pre-posttest design were also eligible. Studies
must have been written in English and conducted in the United States or
Canada. While including international studies in the analysis may bolster the sample size, there are clear differences in the criminalization of
DV and law enforcement interventions in countries outside of the
United States or Canada that would be difficult to account for (Gender
Index, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d). Since 1984 was the year the
seminal DV experiment was published, studies available from 1984 to
2018 were eligible for inclusion. Further, studies must have been
publicly accessible in one or more of the research databases used to
search for eligible literature.
1.6.2. Literature search strategy
1.6.2.1. Databases. Multiple research databases were used to search for
potentially eligible studies, including Criminal Justice Abstracts;
Criminology Collection; EBSCO; Government Printing Office;
HeinOnline; JSTOR; National Criminal Justice Reference Service;
ProQuest Criminal Justice Database; PsycARTICLES; Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences Collection; and, SocINDEX.
1.4. Meta-analysis
Meta-analyses have been conducted to examine law enforcement
interventions (Lytle, 2014), the efficacy of treatment programs for
perpetrators of DV (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004) and the consequences of witnessing DV for children (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008;
Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). Lacking from the literature is
a meta-analysis that examines the effects of mandatory arrest policies
on repeat offending. A benefit of meta-analysis is the ability to synthesize the results of multiple studies to assess the true common effect
(Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). In addition, metaanalysis procedures combine the findings of individual studies, thus
significantly improving the generalizability of the results. Further,
meta-analysis procedures enhance our ability to examine and understand variations in the findings using the respective effect sizes for each
study. The purpose of meta-analysis then, is to “understand the results
of any study in the context of all the other studies” (Borenstein et al.,
2009, p. 9). The current meta-analysis examines the effect sizes for law
enforcement interventions for DV and if the offender commits another
offense during the follow-up period.
1.6.2.2. Keywords. A number of different keywords were employed
during the literature search including Arrest; Mandatory Arrest;
Domestic Violence; Interpersonal Violence; Intimate Partner Violence;
Spouse Assault; Rearrest; and, Recidivism. Boolean operations (Cooper,
2017), specifically, “AND,” was used in variation with each of the
keywords to ensure that retrieved studies would be relevant to the
meta-analysis. Although not a wholly inclusive list of the keywords
used during the literature search, examples include Domestic Violence
“AND” Mandatory Arrest; Domestic Violence “AND” Recidivism;
Intimate Partner Violence “AND” Arrest; Mandatory Arrest “AND”
Recidivism; Spouse Assault “AND” Arrest; Interpersonal Violence
“AND” Mandatory Arrest; Domestic Violence “AND” Mandatory
Arrest “AND” Recidivism; and, Intimate Partner Violence “AND”
Mandatory Arrest “AND” Rearrest. Using this set of keywords covers
some of the variation in terms commonly found in this body of
literature, allowing for as many potentially relevant studies to be
found and included if applicable.
1.5. Current study
Research on DV has grown rapidly and interest in the effects of law
enforcement interventions in DV disputes has persisted since the
3
Aggression and Violent Behavior 53 (2020) 101430
S.J. Hoppe, et al.
reviewed to determine whether they appeared to be eligible for the
current study based on the inclusion criteria. Of the 8404 studies
identified, a total of 50 articles appeared to be eligible for inclusion.
Next, the researchers carefully read through each of these articles to
determine if the studies met the eligibility requirements. After reviewing the articles, 39 of the 50 studies were excluded from the analysis because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. For example,
several studies did not include measures of repeat offending as the
primary outcome variable or did not include a comparison group or preposttest method. The retrieval efforts resulted in 11 studies that were
eligible to be included in the meta-analysis (Berk et al., 1992; Dunford,
1990; Dunford et al., 1990; Hilton et al., 2007; Hirschel et al., 1992;
Johnson & Goodlin-Fahncke, 2015; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman &
Berk, 1984; Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Smith, et al.,
1992; Tolman & Weisz, 1995). The 11 studies were reviewed again, and
an Excel document was created to assist in managing the data from each
study. The sample size, group assignments (e.g., arrest, no arrest,
mediation, citation, arrest warrant, pre-posttest), measures of repeat
offending (e.g., continuous and binary), and the corresponding effect
sizes (e.g., odds ratios presented in the primary studies or calculated
based on data from the primary studies) were collected from each
study. The characteristics of each study and the corresponding effect
sizes and confidence intervals are displayed in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, each of the 11 studies included in the metaanalysis examined arrest or some variation of arrest (e.g., arrest, arrest
and protection order, or arrest warrant) as the treatment group. For
instance, many studies included arrest as the only treatment group
(Dunford et al., 1990; Hilton et al., 2007; Hirschel et al., 1992; Johnson
& Goodlin-Fahncke, 2015; Pate & Hamilton; Sherman & Berk, 1984;
Tolman & Weisz, 1995), while other studies examined full- and shortterm arrests (Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Smith, et al.,
1992), warrant for arrest (Dunford, 1990), and arrest in combination
with a protection order (Berk et al., 1992). Four of the studies included
only one comparison group and comprised individuals who were not
arrested (Hilton et al., 2007; Johnson & Goodlin-Fahncke, 2015; Pate &
Hamilton, 1992; Tolman & Weisz, 1995), individuals who did not receive an arrest warrant (Dunford, 1990), or individuals who received a
warning (Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, Smith, et al., 1992).
The remaining studies include two or three comparison groups, such as
mediation and separation (Dunford et al., 1990; Sherman & Berk,
1984), mediation and citation (Hirschel et al., 1992), and protection
order, protection order and counseling, and mediation (Berk et al.,
1992). To reiterate, data from each study with multiple comparison
groups were combined into a single comparison group. For example,
Sherman and Berk (1984) included two comparison groups – mediation
(n = 89) and separation (n = 89). As shown in Table 1, the two
comparison groups were combined to represent the control group
(n = 178). Likewise, Sherman, Schmidt, et al. (1992); Sherman, Smith,
et al. (1992) examined two experimental groups – 1) full-term arrest
(i.e., booked into jail and held for a period) and 2) short-term arrest
(i.e., booked into jail and released). The data for the experimental
groups were combined in the meta-analysis to represent the experimental/arrest group, with sample sizes of 802 (Sherman, Schmidt,
et al., 1992) and 761 (Sherman, Smith, et al., 1992), respectively.
The 11 studies yielded a total sample size of 8540 individuals who
were either arrested or placed in the control group (e.g., no arrest,
mediation, separation, citation, warning, protection order). The majority of studies had relatively large sample sizes, ranging from 522
(Hilton et al., 2007) to 1658 individuals (Berk et al., 1992). Four studies
had sample sizes of < 350 individuals (Dunford, 1990; Dunford et al., 1990; Sherman & Berk, 1984; Tolman & Weisz, 1995). Although the sample size for one study includes 2412 individuals, the current study relies exclusively on a subsample of 1238 individuals identified by the authors as ‘family-only batterers’ (Johnson & Goodlin-Fahncke, 2015). Also displayed in Table 1 is the follow-up period for each study, which ranged from six months to 24 months. 1.7. Analytic plan After an exhaustive literature search, studies were examined to determine eligibility for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Data from the studies deemed eligible for analysis based on the inclusion criteria were collected and coded by two of the researchers. A third researcher then further examined and finalized the eligibility of the studies. Although both official arrest records and self-reports of victimization by victims of DV are provided in many of the included studies, some studies did not include self-report data from victims or chose to use official records due to similarities in rates of repeat offending reported by victims and official records. For these reasons, the meta-analysis relies exclusively on the official report data provided in each of the studies to measure the dependent variable of repeat offending. The independent variable examined was arrest for DV. This item was measured dichotomously. Odds ratios were used to examine the individual and summary effect sizes, representing the likelihood of repeat offending among those who were 1 = Arrested or received an arrest warrant versus 0 = Those who received a different treatment (e.g., no arrest, no arrest warrant, mediation, separation, protective order, protective order and counseling, citation). The treatment and control groups (e.g., no arrest, arrest warrant, mediation, etc.) for each study were combined to represent the no arrest comparison group. Combining the control groups was deemed the most appropriate approach given variation in the comparison groups used for each study. For instance, several studies implemented mediation and separation as comparison groups, while other studies used control groups that included no arrest (Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2007; Johnson & GoodlinFahncke, 2015; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Tolman & Weisz, 1995), no arrest warrant (Dunford, 1990), warning (Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1992; Sherman, ...

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order