Dr. Stacy Sechrist Dr. Stacy Dr. Stacy Dr. Stacy Sechrist - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Preliminary Evaluation Results

Preliminary Evaluation Results Preliminary Evaluation Results Preliminary Evaluation Results

• Dr. Stacy
• Dr. Stacy
• Dr. Stacy
• Dr. Stacy Sechrist

Sechrist Sechrist Sechrist

University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US

Suggested citation: Sechrist, S. M. & Weil, J. D. (2014, June). The High Point OFDVI: Preliminary Evaluation Results. In D. K. Kennedy (Chair), Using Focused Deterrence to Combat Domestic Violence. Symposium presented at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice International Conference: The Rule of Law in an Era of Change: Security, Social Justice, and Inclusive Governance, Athens, Greece.

Is offender behavior changing?

• According to DV victim interviews, they stated, “I just want the violence

to stop.”

• Offender recidivism = subsequent DV-related arrest
• DV arrests: changes over time

Is victim harm decreasing?

• Harm = reported injuries from DV arrest reports & homicides

What will the effect of the strategy be on law enforcement

resources?

• More of an exploratory question that will be important for replication
• Resources = calls for service impact
• Changes over time: pre- vs post-implementation

For crime trend data, we must examine month-over-month trends

due to seasonal variations known to be associated with crime

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jun-13 Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest Year of First DV Arrest

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of First First First First-

• Time DV Offenders

Time DV Offenders Time DV Offenders Time DV Offenders who Reoffended with a DV who Reoffended with a DV who Reoffended with a DV who Reoffended with a DV Arrest Arrest Arrest Arrest within within within within 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 yr yr yr yr after 1st DV arrest after 1st DV arrest after 1st DV arrest after 1st DV arrest

Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP Reclassification of IP calls for service: calls for service: calls for service: calls for service: Sept. Sept. Sept.

• Sept. 2011

2011 2011 2011 B B B B-

• list notification

list notification list notification list notification began: began: began: began: Feb. 2012

• Feb. 2012
• Feb. 2012
• Feb. 2012

C & D C & D C & D C & D-

• list

list list list notification notification notification notification began: began: began: began:

• Apr. 2012
• Apr. 2012
• Apr. 2012
• Apr. 2012

How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate How many DV offenders recidivate after first arrest? after first arrest? after first arrest? after first arrest? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early? Can the violence be stopped early?

Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism Lowest recidivism rate (11%) since rate (11%) since rate (11%) since rate (11%) since 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly 2004 & significantly lower than year 2011 lower than year 2011 lower than year 2011 lower than year 2011

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 A list B list C list D list # of offenders # of offenders # of offenders # of offenders

As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists As of April 2014, only 9% of notified offenders across lists have reoffended ( have reoffended ( have reoffended ( have reoffended (N N N N = 1024) = 1024) = 1024) = 1024)

# notified # reoffended

2012 study

~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through ~9% of offenders notified through the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended the OFDVI strategy have reoffended with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly with a DV arrest which is significantly lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional lower than other more traditional

• ffender treatment options AND…
• ffender treatment options AND…
• ffender treatment options AND…
• ffender treatment options AND…

without additional without additional without additional without additional associated associated associated associated costs costs costs costs

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

DV arrests have DV arrests have DV arrests have DV arrests have decreased significantly decreased significantly decreased significantly decreased significantly since since since since strategy implementation, Year 2012 strategy implementation, Year 2012 strategy implementation, Year 2012 strategy implementation, Year 2012-

• 2013

2013 2013 2013

2011 2012 2013

FULL IMPLEMENTATION APRIL 2012

Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV Full implementation Apr 2012: There was a spike in DV arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with arrests in 2012 compared to 2011 associated with implementation enforcement implementation enforcement implementation enforcement implementation enforcement

• - LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the

LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the LE Agencies can expect an increase in DV arrests as the strategy ramps up strategy ramps up strategy ramps up strategy ramps up

However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests However, the subsequent decrease in DV arrests after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as after implementation is apparent in Year 2013 as compared to compared to compared to compared to 2012 2012 2012 2012, , , , t(11) = 2.49, p = .30

Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease Results to date for Year 2014 show a continued decrease in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . in DV arrests as compared to previous years . There has been an average of There has been an average of There has been an average of There has been an average of 83.5 arrests per month YTD 83.5 arrests per month YTD 83.5 arrests per month YTD 83.5 arrests per month YTD in 2014 in 2014 in 2014 in 2014 as compared to the same timeframe (Jan as compared to the same timeframe (Jan as compared to the same timeframe (Jan as compared to the same timeframe (Jan-

• Apr) of

Apr) of Apr) of Apr) of 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25) 2012 (m = 95) and 2013 (m = 94.25)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

DV arrests have continued to DV arrests have continued to DV arrests have continued to DV arrests have continued to decrease decrease decrease decrease into into into into Year 2014 Year 2014 Year 2014 Year 2014

2012 2013 2014

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

DV assaults with injuries have DV assaults with injuries have DV assaults with injuries have DV assaults with injuries have decreased decreased decreased decreased significantly significantly significantly significantly since strategy implementation, since strategy implementation, since strategy implementation, since strategy implementation,

t t t t(11) = 5.52, (11) = 5.52, (11) = 5.52, (11) = 5.52, p = p = p = p = .0002 (year 2012 .0002 (year 2012 .0002 (year 2012 .0002 (year 2012-

• 2013)

2013) 2013) 2013)

2012 2013 2014

FULL IMPLEMENTATION APRIL 2012

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2011 2012 2013 Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented Total # of arrests represented

The percentage of total DV arrests The percentage of total DV arrests The percentage of total DV arrests The percentage of total DV arrests with reported with reported with reported with reported injuries to the victim has injuries to the victim has injuries to the victim has injuries to the victim has significantly significantly significantly significantly decreased decreased decreased decreased over

• ver
• ver
• ver

time; Year 2011 time; Year 2011 time; Year 2011 time; Year 2011 vs vs vs vs 2013. 2013. 2013. 2013.

x x x x2

2 2 2(1) = 23.31,

(1) = 23.31, (1) = 23.31, (1) = 23.31, p p p p < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001

All DV Arrests W/ Injuries

46.5% 46.5% 46.5% 46.5% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 30.4% 30.4% 30.4% 30.4%

2009 – 0 of 3 2010 – 0 of 4 2011 – 0 of 4 2012 – 0 of 3 2013 – 1 of 2

2004 – 3 of 11 DV related (27%) 2005 – 5 of 9 (56%) 2006 – 4 of 10 (40%) 2007 – 1 of 10 (10%) 2008 – 4 of 12 (33%)

Family recently moved to HP from Ethiopia, no calls to residence, no DSS calls, no ER calls According to US DOJ stats, nationally 16.3% of all homicides involved intimate partners

Guilford County has experienced 7 of 18 (39%) and NC has experienced 49 DV- related homicides up to Oct 2013 for the year (NCCDAV, 2013)

50 100 150 200 250 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec # of DVIP calls for service # of DVIP calls for service # of DVIP calls for service # of DVIP calls for service

Calls for Service: Calls for Service: Calls for Service: Calls for Service:

DVIP calls have DVIP calls have DVIP calls have DVIP calls have decreased significantly decreased significantly decreased significantly decreased significantly over time since strategy

• ver time since strategy
• ver time since strategy
• ver time since strategy

implementation implementation implementation implementation

t t t t (11) = 3.42, (11) = 3.42, (11) = 3.42, (11) = 3.42, p p p p = .0057 (year 2012 = .0057 (year 2012 = .0057 (year 2012 = .0057 (year 2012-

• 2013)

2013) 2013) 2013)

2011 2012 2013 2014 FULL IMPLEMENTATION APRIL 2012

CFS continued to decline in Year 2014 YTD where CFS continued to decline in Year 2014 YTD where CFS continued to decline in Year 2014 YTD where CFS continued to decline in Year 2014 YTD where the average # of calls per month was lower (m= the average # of calls per month was lower (m= the average # of calls per month was lower (m= the average # of calls per month was lower (m= 165.5) as compared to same time frame (Jan 165.5) as compared to same time frame (Jan 165.5) as compared to same time frame (Jan 165.5) as compared to same time frame (Jan-

• Apr)

Apr) Apr) Apr) in 2013 (m = 181.5). in 2013 (m = 181.5). in 2013 (m = 181.5). in 2013 (m = 181.5). Note: repeat calls for service to the same Note: repeat calls for service to the same Note: repeat calls for service to the same Note: repeat calls for service to the same address are still happening but are address are still happening but are address are still happening but are address are still happening but are stopping short of violence. stopping short of violence. stopping short of violence. stopping short of violence.

50 100 150 200 250 Sep-Dec Jan-Apr 209 209 209 209 195.5 195.5 195.5 195.5 211 211 211 211 175.75 175.75 175.75 175.75 181.5 181.5 181.5 181.5 165.5 165.5 165.5 165.5 Average # of DVIP calls for service Average # of DVIP calls for service Average # of DVIP calls for service Average # of DVIP calls for service

Average number of DVIP calls within each timeframe Average number of DVIP calls within each timeframe Average number of DVIP calls within each timeframe Average number of DVIP calls within each timeframe assessed has decreased over time since strategy assessed has decreased over time since strategy assessed has decreased over time since strategy assessed has decreased over time since strategy implementation. implementation. implementation. implementation.

2011 2012 2013 2014

p = .0038* p = .0870* p = .0779* p = .0346* * p-value is for comparison of current year vs. first year in the timeframe

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 First time Repeat No arrest Arrest Calls for service Outcome of repeat call 2012 2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% First time Repeat No arrest Arrest Calls for service Outcome of repeat call

47.8% 47.8% 47.8% 47.8% 52.2% 52.2% 52.2% 52.2% 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 49.7% 49.7% 49.7% 49.7% 50.3% 50.3% 50.3% 50.3% 87.1% 87.1% 87.1% 87.1% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9%

2012 2013

Something interesting is happening here. Somewhere around 50% of all CFS are repeat calls with the number dropping slightly in 2013. The percentage of arrests made in repeat calls dropped slightly in 2013. Repeat CFS occur, but stop short of violence (thus no arrest).

Note: We can only look at IP CFS back to Sept. 2011 when the new call classification was put into place.

Domestic violence offender behavior can be changed by…

• Stripping their anonymity and putting them on notice
• Creating swift, certain, and predictable consequences for offending
• Allowing them to make a rational choice as to whether to reoffend
• All without any additional harm to victims

Changing offender behavior will decrease victim injuries &

deaths and increase victim use of services

Leading to a huge savings in terms of less reliance on…

• Law enforcement resources
• Traditional responses to DV offenders (incarceration, treatment programs,

anger management, etc.)

V/O HPPD FSOP HPCAV DA Probation Magistrate

Courts

Victim/ Offender

System System System System adaptations adaptations adaptations adaptations Innovative Innovative Innovative Innovative solutions solutions solutions solutions Identification of Identification of Identification of Identification of gaps gaps gaps gaps Agency updates/ Agency updates/ Agency updates/ Agency updates/ new information new information new information new information

Action Action Action Action Planning Planning Planning Planning

Report back to team on Report back to team on Report back to team on Report back to team on

• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through

Information Information Information Information Input Input Input Input Problem Problem Problem Problem Identification Identification Identification Identification

Specific victim/ Specific victim/ Specific victim/ Specific victim/

• ffender
• ffender
• ffender
• ffender

needs needs needs needs

Follow Follow Follow Follow-

• Through

Through Through Through

O O O Ongoing and improved ngoing and improved ngoing and improved ngoing and improved communication among communication among communication among communication among partners partners partners partners

V/O HPPD FSOP HPCAV DA Probation Magistrate

Courts

Victim/ Offender

Team decision making on Team decision making on Team decision making on Team decision making on course of action based on course of action based on course of action based on course of action based on levers legally available levers legally available levers legally available levers legally available Charge offender with Charge offender with Charge offender with Charge offender with violations of conditions of no violations of conditions of no violations of conditions of no violations of conditions of no-

• contact order

contact order contact order contact order Offender making high Offender making high Offender making high Offender making high volume of jail calls to volume of jail calls to volume of jail calls to volume of jail calls to victim victim victim victim Offender is in jail with no Offender is in jail with no Offender is in jail with no Offender is in jail with no contact order contact order contact order contact order

Action Action Action Action Planning Planning Planning Planning

Report back to team on Report back to team on Report back to team on Report back to team on

• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through
• utcomes of follow through

Information Information Information Information Input Input Input Input Problem Problem Problem Problem Identification Identification Identification Identification

Offender still exerting control Offender still exerting control Offender still exerting control Offender still exerting control

• ver victim
• ver victim
• ver victim
• ver victim

Follow Follow Follow Follow-

• Through

Through Through Through

Victim now has distance from Victim now has distance from Victim now has distance from Victim now has distance from

• ffender and takes advantage
• ffender and takes advantage
• ffender and takes advantage
• ffender and takes advantage
• f services
• f services
• f services
• f services

Offender charged with new Offender charged with new Offender charged with new Offender charged with new

• ffenses and receives
• ffenses and receives
• ffenses and receives
• ffenses and receives

additional jail time at the additional jail time at the additional jail time at the additional jail time at the end of original sentence end of original sentence end of original sentence end of original sentence

When the right people from the right agencies:

• utilize data,
• communicate regularly in a structured /purposeful meeting,
• exchange information about offenders, victims, and systems,
• value input from partners,
• work together to create more effective systems /identify and fix existing system

gaps,

• and focus collective efforts to communicate expectations, rules, and consequences

for specific types of behavior

…real and meaningful changes can happen.

It’s happening every day in High Point, NC with the OFDVI Initiative.

COPS grant awarded

• Replication to a new site (Lexington, NC)
• Model policy
• Full evaluation

Continue to problem solve and address system issues

• Continuous quality improvement

Community foundation grant for Family Justice Center

• Victim advocate
• Civil attorney for victim
• Prosecutor dedicated to DV cases
• Co-located with Child Trauma services