The Significance of the Victim Advocate for Domestic Violence Victims ...

Violence and Victims, Volume 23, Number 3, 2008

The Significance of the Victim Advocate for Domestic Violence Victims in Municipal Court Christina M. Camacho, MS University of Missouri–Kansas City

Leanne Fiftal Alarid, PhD University of Texas–San Antonio Previous research has examined factors that influence felony case prosecution in domestic violence cases, but few have analyzed how victim participation, or lack thereof, may affect the defendant’s case outcome in misdemeanors. This study used 384 municipal cases from a specialized domestic violence court to examine the role of the victim advocate and variables that had an impact on victim participation with prosecution and case disposition. To ensure that decisions in all cases were consistent, all decision makers in the sample involved the same group: the court advocate, prosecutor, and judge. The analysis found that victim cooperation after arrest coupled with services provided by shelter court advocates were a strong predictor of victim cooperation at disposition and case outcome.

Keywords: victim advocate; victim participation in court; domestic violence; victimology

T

he past three decades have witnessed extensive research on the dynamics of domestic violence due to continuing concern over the persistence and widespread nature of this societal problem. Although nonfatal forms of domestic violence have declined over the last decade (Rennison, 2003), fatalities against young women continue to be a serious problem in the United States, whereby “homicide by an intimate partner is the seventh leading cause of premature death for women in general in the U.S. and is the leading cause of death for African-American women between the ages of 15 and 45 years” (Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2005, pp. 32–33). Much of the reason behind the changes in domestic violence is thought to be due to the increased supportive services for victims, such as hotlines, shelters, witness subpoenas, and filing an order of protection, and mandatory arrest (The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence [MCADV], 2001). Making the decision to utilize the criminal justice system to stop further acts of abuse can be a very intimidating and confusing process for victims of domestic violence, who may become frustrated with their own attempts to seek help. Victims may fear retaliation by their abusers for having reported the incident to the police (Wiehe, 1998). The creation of specialized domestic violence courts and specialized prosecution units has resulted in prosecution offices being more responsive to the needs of domestic violence victims (Roberts, 2002). The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 was instrumental in providing the funds for prosecutors and the courts to improve responses to domestic 288

© 2008 Springer Publishing Company DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.288

Significance of the Victim Advocate

289

violence cases. The act provided federal STOP (Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors) grants that allowed for the implementation of victim assistance programs and advocates in courthouses or prosecutors’ offices (Roberts, 2002). Prosecution-based advocates assist in gathering evidence, taking victim impact statements, and providing support and advocacy to victims who have reported domestic violence to the police. Advocates who are employed by a shelter understand the dynamics of domestic violence and the unique factors that have an effect on domestic violence prosecution (MCADV, 2001). Responsibilities of domestic violence program advocates include supporting victims through the court process and providing them with information about orders of protection, counseling support, shelters, legal referrals, and other social service information. Court advocates also act as a liaison between the victim and the prosecutor and among metropolitan area shelters and the prosecutor’s victim assistance program. Discovering whether or not domestic violence program advocates play a vital role in victim cooperation and case outcome was the purpose of this study. A state’s county prosecutor first determines whether the crime fits the guidelines to be prosecuted at the state level as a felony crime (MCADV, 2001). If the case is declined at the state level, a general ordinance summons is issued for prosecution in municipal court. Municipal court proceedings are civil proceedings with quasicriminal aspects, with the power to hear violations of municipal ordinances (MCADV, 2001). Criminal sanctions in municipal court proceedings include jail or probation; however, the penalty is generally less severe than a state felony crime, and victims tend to have fewer rights than in state circuit courts (MCADV, 2001). A specialized municipal domestic violence court includes a specialized domestic violence unit within the police department, a designated judge and prosecutor, and a victim services program that includes an advocate from an area domestic violence shelter to help enhance victims’ safety by acting as a liaison between the victim and the prosecutor to aid in prosecution. This article will examine the role of the court advocate for victims of domestic violence in municipal court by looking at variables that affect victim participation with prosecution and case disposition. The proposed research questions are: R1. Does the role of the shelter services court advocate significantly affect victim participation with prosecution and the final disposition of the case? R2. Does the role of the city’s victim assistance program significantly affect victim participation with prosecution and the final disposition of the case? R3. Does the presence of children in abusive households significantly affect victim participation with prosecution and the final disposition of the case? R4. Does filing for an order of protection significantly affect victim participation with prosecution and the final disposition of the case?

LITERATURE REVIEW There were several reasons for the development of specialized courts that try only domestic violence cases. First, they helped coordinate between courts and agencies to avoid overlapping and contradictory evidence. Second, court processing of domestic violence cases resulted in more lenient processing or biases toward victims. Finally, because of the implementation of proactive legislation, the sudden increase of domestic violence cases called for designated courts that we call “specialized” because they do not deal with any

290

Camacho and Alarid

other types of cases (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). We briefly review the literature on prosecutorial charging practices in domestic violence cases and then we turn to what is known about victim advocacy as a possible influence of victim cooperation and case outcome.

Prosecutorial Charging Practices in Domestic Violence When the adjudication process of domestic violence cases moved from a generalized to a specialized court, cases tended to be administered by a single judge and a specialized prosecution unit. “No-drop” policies aided law enforcement to make the arrest and allowed the prosecution to decide whether to press charges, while taking the decision away from the victim. Effects of no-drop policies have included the increased use of legal factors such as offense seriousness, injury severity, and prior criminal history, regardless of what the victim wants. This is in direct contrast to sexual assault cases, wherein extralegal factors were found to form the basis of prosecutorial charging practices (Spears & Spohn, 1997). As a result of no-drop policies for domestic violence, prosecution rates have increased even without victim cooperation (Davis, Smith, & Taylor, 2003; Henning & Feder 2005). By not allowing victims to be a part of the decision, some researchers have argued, these policies have disempowered victims (McDermott & Garofalo, 2004). Recent research indicates that a source of victim dissatisfaction originates from victims who feel the defendant has been punished too harshly (Davis et al., 2003). Processing a state-level felony as a misdemeanor or probation violation increases level of victim support for prosecution (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004).

How Victim Services May Affect Victim Cooperation and Case Outcome After friends and family, victims ranked advocates as the second most important group of supportive people to help encourage victims to pursue prosecution (Erez & Belknap, 1998). Advocates provided outreach support for the victims within the courtroom and over the phone. These services influenced greater victim cooperation and in turn assisted prosecution efforts (Henning & Feder, 2005; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). Meeting with victim/witness program workers (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001) and timely prosecution are essential to ensure victim cooperation (Ford & Burke, 1987; Hart, 1993). In order to increase victim participation, a complete understanding of the victim’s emotional, physical, and financial needs is required. Tomz and McGillis (1997) confirm that support by victim advocates can help victims understand the court system easily and encourage them to continue cooperating with prosecution, resulting in fewer dismissals. Dawson and Dinovitzer (2001) also suggest that advocacy programs, such as the victim/witness assistance program, can inform victims of available options and increase the likelihood of cooperation with prosecution. Victim cooperation with prosecution, measured by attendance at court hearings, was the best predictor in the prosecutorial charging decision (Davis et al., 2003). Victim cooperation is thought to be largely enhanced by the efforts of victims’ services. One researcher notes it may be the other way around, given that this is “a complicated relationship that could equally well suggest that victims who support prosecution are more likely to seek out and receive support services, or that provision of such services enhances victim cooperation that might otherwise not occur” (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004, p. 325). A study of felony domestic violence cases in Missouri found that increasing the amount of services offered to victims increased victim cooperation with prosecution, thus resulting in a statistically significant relationship pertaining to case outcome (Bechtel, 2003). Victim assistance variables, such as sending a notification letter within 24 hours of the


291

case and making telephone calls, significantly increased the likelihood of conviction and victim cooperation (Bechtel, 2003). Initial communication between the prosecutor and the victim was also an important factor for victim cooperation, because being informed of case decisions early in the process usually resulted in a positive reaction from victims. The more that victims were included in the case decision-making process and the more they were provided with resources, the more cooperative victims became. Bechtel (2003) confirmed that the process of vertical prosecution (which assigned one prosecutor to a case throughout its duration) provided consistency, resulting in a stronger working relationship between the prosecutor and the victim. In sum, the literature review on victim cooperation has examined the prosecutorial charging decision primarily in felony domestic violence cases. What is the effect of victim advocacy in the case outcome? Is the defendant more likely to be found guilty with victims who utilize services? Is the defendant more likely to receive a jail sentence over a probationary sentence? Gaps in the literature present a need to understand the role and effectiveness of the victim advocate at the municipal level, which was the goal of the present study.

METHODS This research examined extent to which victim support services from court advocacy would affect victim participation with prosecutors. The data obtained for this study consisted of disposed cases over a 6-month period from the Kansas City, Missouri, municipal court domestic violence docket. These cases were a part of the senior author’s domestic violence caseload while she was employed as a court advocate of a battered women’s shelter. The Kansas City Municipal Court Prosecutor’s office enforces a no-drop policy in which a case can only be dismissed by a prosecutor or judge. The prosecutor handles an average of 30–40 domestic violence cases per day, and cases are usually continued between 4 to 6 weeks after the first court appearance. Keeping in contact with victims is challenging when victims relocate and change their phone number during that time. The judge can issue a “no contact” order as a bond condition, which includes disallowing third-party contact of the victim on the defendant’s behalf. At the victim’s request, the victim and defendant may be ordered to go to counseling together, and if there are no more problems, the case may be dismissed. When an arrest is made, the victim assistance program conducts a preliminary victim interview and a victim impact statement that becomes a “face sheet.” Every victim is randomly assigned to one of three shelter court advocates as part of his or her caseload. The shelter court advocate collaborates between the city’s domestic violence prosecutor and the victim assistance program office. Shelter court advocates have an office located in municipal court, where they report every morning to help victims check in for court and to provide referrals. Advocates make attempts by phone and mail to contact each victim who does not appear in court.

Sample The initial sample consisted of cases that were randomly assigned at point of arrest to one shelter advocate between January 1 and June 30, 2004. From the initial sample of 481 cases, 97 cases were removed because the final dispositions were unavailable when the

292

Camacho and Alarid

sample was pulled and advocate files were matched with court records during the summer of 2005. Unavailable dispositions were due to the case being transferred to the state for felony prosecution, the case being in warrant status, or the case pending at appeals court. This left a total sample size of 384 municipal cases that were filed for prosecution at the city level for a violation of a city ordinance. All 384 cases had the same domestic violence prosecutor, the same judge, and the same shelter advocate in common. Thus, we controlled for possible variation that might exist from factors related to individual decision making had any one of these people been different.

Variables Measured Three case outcome variables were used as dependent variables. Since the goal of victim advocates was to convince the victims to be present at the case disposition, “victim participation success” was defined by victims who were present at the final court disposition (0 = no and 1 = yes). A second case outcome variable was the defendant’s final disposition (coded as 0 = dismissal or not guilty and 1 = guilty by plea or trial). The third case outcome variable was the type of sentence the defendant received (0 = community sentence and 1 = incarceration in jail). Victim demographic variables included the victim’s gender (coded as 0 = female and 1 = male) and the victim’s race (coded as 0 = non-White and 1 = White). Other case information variables included relationship status (0 = married or related by family or 1 = social relationship/acquaintance) and whether children under the age of 18 were present at the time of the incident (0 = no and 1 = yes). Victims who filed an order of protection in the case were recorded (0 = no and 1 = yes). Victim assistance variables included whether a victim impact statement was taken by the victim assistance program staff (0 = no and 1 = yes) and if a notification letter was sent to the victim to inform them of the court date (0 = no and 1 = yes). Service advocacy variables were defined as direct services provided or referred to the victim by the court advocate investigator. These included domestic violence education, shelter information, legal assistance information, counseling referrals, social service referrals, and order of protection information. All of the service variables were coded as either 1 = yes and 0 = no. The total number of services provided was calculated by summing the six separate service advocacy variables for the final regression model.

ANALYSIS The purpose of the research was to examine whether and to what extent court advocacy had an impact on victim participation and case disposition of domestic violence cases in municipal court. According to Table 1, most domestic violence victims were female (87%) compared to 13% of male victims. Black victims made up 57% (n = 217) of the sample, whereas White victims made up 38% (n = 145), and only 6% were Hispanic (n = 22). Relationship status was nearly split down the middle, with 53% (n = 205) of victims married or blood-related to the perpetrator and 47% in a social relationship such as dating or cohabitation. While most victims were present to make a victim impact statement, onethird (n = 128) of cases lacked a victim impact statement following arrest. Once cases were assigned to a shelter court advocate, three out of four victims received a notification letter of the upcoming court date.


293

TABLE 1. Sample Demographics and Case Information Variables (N = 384) Variable Name Victim gender Female Male Victim race/ethnicity Black White Hispanic Relationship status Family/married relationship Social relationship No relationship indicated Children present No Yes Victim filed protection order in case No Yes Victim impact statement taken No Yes Notification letter sent No Yes Service advocacy provided to victim Did not receive services Received services Specific services provided to victim Received DV education Legal info provided Counseling info provided Order of protection info Shelter info provided Social service info provided

Total Number

Total Percent

334 50

87.0% 13.0%

217 145 22

56.5% 37.8% 5.7%

205 169 10

53.4% 44.0% 2.6%

216 168

56.3% 43.8%

277 107

72.1% 27.9%

128 256

33.3% 66.7%

94 290

24.5% 75.5%

128 256

33.3% 66.7%

243 255 191 151 139 23

63.6% 66.4% 49.7% 39.3% 36.2% 6.0%

Domestic violence education and legal information were the most common services provided to victims, followed by shelter information, counseling information, social service information, and order of protection information. The number of services provided depended on the unique needs of each victim. About 68% (n = 256) of the sample received at least one type of victim service information, whereas 33% (n = 128) received no services whatsoever. The victims who did not receive services from the court advocate are the same ones who never initially appeared to make a victim impact statement and, therefore, were not provided the opportunity to receive any type of service information.

294

Camacho and Alarid

Regarding the case outcome variables, 62% (n = 237) of the 384 cases resulted in a dismissal or finding of not guilty, and the remaining 38% (n = 147) were disposed of by a guilty plea or the defendant was found guilty. Most guilty clients were sentenced in the community (n = 368) to probation compared to those who were incarcerated for a short jail term (n = 16). The victims were present at the final disposition in 171 cases, which included 22 cases where the victim requested a dismissal after both parties had successfully completed counseling or other court-ordered action. We conducted logistic regression to determine the relationships of victim demographics, such as race, sex, and relationship status, as predictor variables and their overall contribution to each of the three dependent variables (victim participation, case outcome, and sentence type). These results are reported in Table 2. The race and sex of the victim were both significant predictors of whether the victim cooperated. Victims who were White and female were more likely to cooperate with the city prosecutor than male victims and victims who were Black or Hispanic. Female victims were more likely than male victims to have their cases result in a guilty plea. None of the demographic variables predicted the type of sentence the defendant received (community based or incarceration). The independent variables were simultaneously added in with the victim demographic variables into a full multivariate logistic model. This was done through analyzing each dependent variable separately through three logistic regression models. Odds ratios of significant variables are outlined in Table 3.1 The control variables examined in this logistic regression were not statistically significant with any dependent variable when agency variables were simultaneously entered. The strongest predictors of victim cooperation were completion of a victim impact statement, services provided by the shelter advocate, and letter sent to the victim. The victims who were most cooperative in the end seemed to be the same ones who were most cooperative following arrest, as measured by those who provided an impact statement to the victim assistance program. The odds of victim cooperation are 26.7 times better if a victim impact statement is taken. The odds of a victim being present at the sentencing disposition is 3.4 times more likely if one or more victim referrals are provided. However, the notification letter variable resulted in an inverse relationship, indicating that reminder letters mailed to victims decreased the likelihood for victim cooperation. The odds ratio of 0.29 means that a unit change in mailing a notification letter decreases victim presence by a small amount. The second logistic regression model was with case outcome (coded as 0 = dismissal/ not guilty and 1 = guilty plea/found guilty). The independent variables that predicted case outcome were the same three variables that predicted victim cooperation: services provided to victim, impact statement taken, and notification letter sent. Victims who actively received services and provided a victim impact statement were involved with cases where the defendant was more likely to be found guilty. The notification letter variable produced a negative coefficient, indicating that victims who received a notification letter were less likely to have their case dismissed. The odds ratios were similar for this variable as well. According to Table 3, the odds of a guilty case outcome were 14.4 times better when a victim impact statement was taken and 3.2 times more likely if one or more victim referrals were provided. The effect of a mailed letter on case outcome had a small decrease (odds ratio of 0.14). Predictors on the type of sentence imposed on the defendant were filing an order of protection and mailing the victim a notification letter. Victims who filed an order of protection in a case were 3.5 times more likely to see the perpetrator sentenced to a term of

TABLE 2.

Demographics and Prediction of Dependent Variables

Sentence

Victim race (1 = White) Victim sex (1 = Male) Relationship status (1 = Dating/Cohab) Chi-square –2 log likelihood Cox and Snell R-square

Victim Cooperation

Case Outcome

Sentence Type

0 = Absent at Disposition 1 = Present at Disposition

0 = Not Guilty Disposition 1 = Guilty Disposition

0 = Community 1 = Incarceration

B (SE)

Exp (B)

B (SE)

.579* (.21) –.972* (.34) .067 (.21)

1.78 0.37 —

.406 (.21) –.910* (.36) .135 (.21)

15.840 511.895 .040

*Indicates a statistically significant relationship at p < .05.

10.905 500.141 .028

Exp (B) — 0.40 —

B (SE)

Exp (B)

.239 (.51) –.847 (1.04) .663 (.52)

— — —

10.905 500.141 .028

TABLE 3. Victim Service Variables and Demographics Predicting Victim Cooperation, Case Outcome, and Sentence Type

Sentence

Victim race (1 = White) Victim sex (1 = Male) Relationship status (1 = Dating/Cohab) Children present DV incident (1 = yes) Protection order filed (1 = yes) Victim impact statement (1 = yes) Victim notification letter (1 = yes) Victim services provided (0–6)

Victim Cooperation

Case Outcome

Sentence Type

0 = Absent at Disposition 1 = Present at Disposition

0 = NG Disposition 1 = Guilty Disposition

0 = Community 1 = Incarceration

B (SE)

Exp (B)

B (SE)

Exp (B)

.183 (.27) –.303 (.46) .145 (.30) .078 (.30) .211 (.28) 3.288* (.51) –1.212* (.34) 1.232* (.38)

— — — — — 26.78 0.29 3.42

.083 (.27) –.316 (.47) .223 (.296) .235 (.30) .435 (.28) 2.667* (.48) –1.949* (.34) 1.180* (.40)

— — — — — 14.39 0.14 3.25

B (SE)

Exp (B)

–.060 (.55) –.502 (1.11) .198 (.61) –.803 (.69) 1.274* (.57) 17.058 (299.61) –1.136* (.56) 16.524 (3015.81)

— — — — 3.57 — 0.32 —

Chi-square

185.051

162.166

32.639

–2 log likelihood

342.683

348.880

100.382

.382

.344

.081

Cox and Snell R-square *Indicates a statistically significant relationship at p < .05.


297

incarceration. Victims who received a court notification letter in the mail were more likely to see the perpetrator obtain a community probationary sentence. When agency variables were included, victim demographics and the presence of children weakened and were not predictive of victim cooperation, case outcome, or type of sentence the perpetrator received.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine strategies implemented by the victim assistance program and the shelter services court advocate along with other variables in order to assess their impact on victim cooperation and final disposition of domestic violence cases in municipal court. All the cases in this study involved the same three decision makers: one court advocate, one domestic violence prosecutor, and one judge. This assured that none of the differences found in the study were due to differences in the decision makers. In summary, the results indicate that actions of the victim assistance program and victim advocate were the most significant predictors of whether or not a victim attended the disposition hearing. Referrals provided and actions of the victim advocate also predicted case outcome. The victim impact statement taken immediately following the arrest was a strong predictor of later victim cooperation at disposition and of case outcome. A vast majority of cases that were disposed of by a guilty plea or found guilty were ones in which the victim gave a statement compared to a fraction of guilty pleas where the victim did not give an impact statement. Victim demographics and the presence of children at the time of the incident mattered less in municipal level domestic violence cases. The results of this study are supported by strategies implemented by the city prosecutor’s victim assistance office and shelter court advocacy as being important elements in ensuring successful prosecution of these cases (Roberts, 2002). Domestic violence education and referrals for counseling, shelters, social services, and legal assistance are part of the intervention phase in domestic violence. When victim services were separated out in a separate analysis, counseling referrals had the strongest impact of all services provided by court advocates for domestic violence victims. The results of this study can be interpreted in two ways. First, our findings involving misdemeanor cases were supported by previous research with felony domestic violence cases that found that victim advocates can help victims understand the court system easily and encourage them to continue cooperating with prosecution (Tomz & McGillis, 1997; Weisz, 1999). When victims are included in the case process and are allowed to express their needs, they are more likely to participate with prosecution (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001). Initial communication between the prosecutor and the victim is an important factor for victim cooperation in the prosecution process. Being informed of the case decisions increased victim cooperation and also helped to obtain a conviction (Bechtel, 2003). Our results suggest that collaborative efforts between the city domestic violence prosecutor, the victim assistance program, and shelter court advocate should be continued as an empowering tool for victims through the pretrial process. We also found that notification letters sent to victims reminding them of their next court date decreased the likelihood of victim cooperation. At the same time, notification letters reduced the likelihood of case dismissal, making the case outcome more favorable

298

Camacho and Alarid

for victims who were sent notification letters. Our findings may be explained by the possibility that the defendant intercepted the victim’s letter and either disposed of the letter or threatened the victim if the case went to court. Another possibility is that the mailed letter was returned to the sender because the victim no longer lived at that address, which commonly occurred when victims of domestic violence relocated their residence. It is also possible that victims may have received a phone call instead of being sent a letter as a means of notification (our study tracked letters but not phone calls). Perhaps the city prosecutor’s office should implement a policy that will maintain consistency of sending notification letters. Furthermore, delays with the criminal process of these cases can also discourage victims from participating with prosecution. Research suggests that timely prosecution is essential to ensure victim cooperation (Ford & Burke, 1987; Hart, 1993). Victims served at the municipal level represent a cross-section of the diverse population of offenders. Intimate partner violence is widespread, and victims and perpetrators are not limited by race/ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or religion. According to the demographic data in this study, the majority of victims in the sample were Black (57%), followed by Whites (38%). Hispanic victims represented only a small portion of the sample (6%). The majority of victims in the sample were female (87%), while 13% were male. When the victim demographic variables were run as predictor variables without the influence of agency services, both victim sex and victim race/ethnicity were found to be significant predictors of victim cooperation. Victims who were White and female were more likely to cooperate with the prosecution than were Black, Hispanic, and male victims. One possibility for this variation could be that some victims face language barriers and lack an understanding of the laws. Victims may fear the possibility of being deported, or they have been threatened with being deported by their abuser if they participate with prosecution. In some cultures, participating with prosecution may be seen as betrayal, and victims may feel obligated to protect their abuser from the system (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004). Some victims have fewer resources available to them such as transportation to court or the inability to take off work, whereas victims who cooperated may have had more resources available or could afford to take off work to come to court. Variables such as the presence of children and the relationship status of the victim to the defendant did not produce a statistically significant relationship nor were they strong predictors of victim cooperation with prosecution and case outcome. Victims who knew their perpetrators through family or marital relationships were less likely to cooperate with prosecution and also more likely to have their cases dismissed than were victims who had a social relationship with their perpetrator. Experience as a victim advocate showed that victims who are related or married to the perpetrator had more at stake in the relationship and were more likely to request counseling for the defendant. These cases resulted in a continuance for 6 months and ultimately a dismissal, under the condition that the defendant complete a counseling program. Some of the most serious obstacles to victim cooperation with domestic violence prosecution are strong emotional, financial, and familial ties between the victim and the offender (Hart, 1993). In light of these findings, limitations of this study need to be mentioned. First, this study was not an experiment that involved an experimental group (assigned to a victim advocate) and control group (not assigned to an advocate). All domestic violence cases are assigned to one of three victim advocates. The process of assigning cases to a particular advocate is on a rotating basis, so the advocate caseload under study represents a probability sample of every third case of misdemeanor domestic cases in the defined


299

timeframe. A second limitation is that limited legal factors, such as strength of the evidence, were accounted for to better explain case outcome and sentence type. Although we did have a measure of an order of protection, which is indirectly dependent on evidence strength, other variables that prosecutors may use were not measured in the study. The inclusion of legal factors may be an avenue for future research. Third, like most specialized domestic courts, these cases were heard by a single judge in a single jurisdiction and may not be representative of what other judges would do in other jurisdictions around the country. Finally, it could be that the choices the victim had made in their case involvement (prior to the involvement of the victim advocate) had more of an impact than did the referrals and services provided by the victim advocate. Victims who did not make a victim impact statement after arrest seemed to be the same victims who did not meet with the advocate to receive services. These cases were significantly more likely to be the same cases where the victim was absent for the disposition. We cannot conclusively say that the victim advocate had the most impact without pointing out the mere fact that some victims will not cooperate or support the prosecution from the point of arrest in no-drop prosecution cases (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004). Municipal courts see the majority of domestic violence cases and have been considered the intervention phase in the process. Victims who have cases on the municipal level are equally at risk for serious harm by defendants as those victims who have cases pending at the state level if the defendant is out on bond. For future research, it would be beneficial to know the demographics of the offenders and the victims, in order to explore the complex relationships among gender, ethnicity, and intimate partner violence and its effect on victim cooperation with prosecution and case outcome. Some other recommendations for improvement may involve a thorough comparison of city-level cases with state-level cases and an assessment for repeat offenders. There appears to be some overlap in misdemeanor and felony domestic violence charges. Tracking these cases may produce some difficulty; however, it would be interesting to see exactly how many city-level cases an offender of domestic violence would have to accumulate before being prosecuted at the state level, especially if it involves the same victim. Early victim intervention, a coordinated community response, and the collaboration of diverse service providers can serve as effective tools toward achieving a safer environment for individuals who live in an atmosphere dominated by fear and domestic violence.

NOTE 1. To determine whether any of the six possible victim services provided (domestic violence education, shelter information, legal referrals, counseling referrals, social services, and order of protection information) by themselves made any difference, regression analyses were calculated with each of the three dependent variables, and where each of the six agency services were independent variables. Five of six services by themselves had no independent effect, except for the effect of victim counseling (IV) on victim cooperation (DV). Victims who received referrals to counseling were significantly more likely to be present at the disposition than were victims who did not receive counseling referrals.

REFERENCES Bechtel, K. A. (2003). Successful predictors of domestic violence prosecution. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

300

Camacho and Alarid

Buzawa E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Taylor, B. (2003). Increasing the proportion of domestic violence arrests that are prosecuted: A natural experiment in Milwaukee. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2), 263–282. Dawson, M., & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 593–622. Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251–268. Ford, D. A., & Burke, M. J. (1987, July). Victim-initiated criminal complaints for wife battery: An assessment of motives. Paper presented at the Third National Conference for Family Violence Research, University of New Hampshire, Durham. Hart, B. (1993). Battered women and the criminal justice system. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 624–638. Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 612–642. Hines, D. A., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2005). Family violence in the United States: Defining, understanding, and combating abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice to victim empowerment. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 14–36. Kingsnorth, R. F., & Macintosh, R. C. (2004). Domestic violence: Predictors of victim support for official action. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 301–328. McDermott, M. J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy for domestic violence victims backfires. Violence Against Women, 10(11), 1245–1266. The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence (MCADV). (2001). And justice for all: Court advocacy with victims of domestic violence. Jefferson City, MO: Author. Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Roberts, A. R. (2002). Handbook of domestic violence intervention strategies: Policies, programs, and legal remedies. New York: Oxford University Press. Spears, J., & Spohn, C. C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 501–524. Tomz, J. E., & McGillis, D. (1997). Serving crime victims and witnesses (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Weisz, A. N. (1999). Legal advocacy for domestic violence survivors: The power of an informative relationship. Family Service America, March/April, 1–14. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Legaladvocacydomesticviolencesurvivors.pdf Wiehe, V. R. (1998). Understand family violence: Treating and preventing partner, child, siblings, and elder abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Leanne Fiftal Alarid, PhD, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas–San Antonio. E-mail: [email protected]