Dr. Stacy Sechrist & John Weil North Carolina Network for Safe - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Dr. Stacy Sechrist & John Weil

North Carolina Network for Safe Communities, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015 June 23, 2015

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2013-CK-WX-K028 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office funded

UNCG to evaluate High Point Police Department’s Offender Focused Domestic Violence Initiative with Lexington, NC as the replication site

LPD had several existing advantages for replication in place

prior to implementing the strategy:

• Ongoing PSN/focused deterrence strategy in place since 2010
• Understanding of the dynamic of DV in relationships among officers

and command staff; reinforced through training

• Strong commitment from the Chief and buy-in from other partners

(i.e., District Attorney’s Office, probation, victim service providers)

2

Solid baseline data about intimate partner domestic violence

(IPDV) is difficult to obtain from agency records

• Coding issues for intimate partner DV vs general DV
• IPDV coding may not occur until an agency adopts the strategy
• If no specific IPDV code, what offenses should be used for baseline data?

For recidivism after notification, what counts as a reoffense?

• New IPDV assault/charge
• What about, for example, pre-trial conditions of release such as no-contact
• rders

Need to contextualize the data within what we know about

intimate partner relationships in which the DV happens

• Couples stay together, they share a residence/responsibilities, and remember,

the victim just “wants the violence to stop” Some of the strategy’s greatest successes will not be quantified

in the data

Is offender behavior changing?

• Offender recidivism: subsequent DV-related arrest after

notification

• DV arrests: change over time pre to post

Is victim harm decreasing?

• Reported injuries from DV arrest reports: change over

time

What is the effect on law enforcement resources?

• Calls for service: change over time

High Point High Point High Point High Point

(Feb 2012 (Feb 2012 (Feb 2012 (Feb 2012-

• Apr 2014)

Apr 2014) Apr 2014) Apr 2014)

Lexington Lexington Lexington Lexington

(Jul (Jul (Jul (Jul 2014 2014 2014 2014-

• May 2015)

May 2015) May 2015) May 2015)

N N N N Sex Sex Sex Sex Avg Avg Avg Avg Age Age Age Age DV History DV History DV History DV History N N N N Sex Sex Sex Sex Avg Avg Avg Avg Age Age Age Age DV DV DV DV History History History History B List B List B List B List 49 92% male 37

• Avg. 4 priors up

to 13 Not applicable C C C C List List List List 883 77% male 34 62% 1X only;

• Avg. 2 priors up

to 15 priors 170 79% male 34 79% 1X only;

• Avg. 1.6 priors up to

4 priors D List D List D List D List 201 69% male 35.5 65% no priors 214 77% male 34.8 83% no priors

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

B-List B-List B-List B-List C-List C-List C-List C-List D-List D-List D-List D-List 14% 14% 14% 14% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 12% 19% 19% 19% 19% 15% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%

Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification Percemtage of notified offenders who reoffended after notification

Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington Recidivism Rates for Notified Offenders in High Point & Lexington

HP: 6-months HP: 1 year LPD: Jul 2014-May 2015

“Typically, the rate of re-

• ffense by perpetrators
• f domestic violence is

30 to 40%, 30 to 40%, 30 to 40%, 30 to 40%, irrespective

• f the type of

intervention used…”

“Studies have suggested that recidivism rates in domestic violence cases are high…estimating 40% 40% 40% 40%-

• 80

80 80 80% % % % or more of repeat violence (Garner, Fagan, & Maxwell, 1995; Shepard, 1992).”

Stover, C. S. (2005), Volume 20

• “…38.4%

38.4% 38.4% 38.4% of abusers were arrested for a new domestic violence

• ffense within two years…”
• “Studies…documented

reabuse…ranging from 26 26 26 26-

• 41%

41% 41% 41% within five to 30 months.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf

“Depending on how reabuse is measured, over what period of time…a hard core of approximately 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers 1/3 of abusers will will will will reabuse reabuse reabuse reabuse in the short run, and more will reabuse in the long run.”

• ~

~ ~ ~60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so 60% who reoffend, do so within 6 months within 6 months within 6 months within 6 months.

Having a DV history prior to notification Being male Younger age at 1st DV arrest Younger age at time of D notification Quickly reoffending after D notification The above findings are in line with the NIJ

(2009) report about offender characteristics

50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents Number of IPDV arrest incidents

Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly Pre and Post OFVDI Comparison of Quarterly IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents IPDV Arrest Incidents

Pre Actual Pre Deseasonalized Post Actual Post Deseasonalized

Q1: Q1: Q1: Q1: Jan Jan Jan Jan-

• Mar

Mar Mar Mar 2009 2009 2009 2009 Q1: Q1: Q1: Q1: Jan Jan Jan Jan-

• Mar

Mar Mar Mar 2012 2012 2012 2012 Q12: Q12: Q12: Q12: Oct Oct Oct Oct-

• Dec

Dec Dec Dec 2011 2011 2011 2011 Q12: Q12: Q12: Q12: Oct Oct Oct Oct-

• Dec

Dec Dec Dec 2014 2014 2014 2014 PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: Oct Oct Oct Oct-

• Dec

Dec Dec Dec 2013 2013 2013 2013 PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: PQ20: Oct Oct Oct Oct-

• Dec

Dec Dec Dec 2016 2016 2016 2016

Trend Trend Trend Trend based predictions for two years based predictions for two years based predictions for two years based predictions for two years Projected 41% reduction Projected 98% increase Actual 13% reduction

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2011 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2012 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2013 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 HP: 2014 LPD: avg LPD: avg LPD: avg LPD: avg

66.8% 66.8% 66.8% 66.8% 47.5% 47.5% 47.5% 47.5% 47.9% 47.9% 47.9% 47.9% 47.3% 47.3% 47.3% 47.3% 34.6% 34.6% 34.6% 34.6%

Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury Percentage of DV Arrest Incidents with Victim Injury

Since the strategy began, the percentage Since the strategy began, the percentage Since the strategy began, the percentage Since the strategy began, the percentage of DV Incidents

• f DV Incidents
• f DV Incidents
• f DV Incidents with

with with with Reported Victim Reported Victim Reported Victim Reported Victim Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Injury in both sites is below the national estimate. Injury in both sites is below the national estimate.

Nationally, 48.1% of DV incidents result in victim injury (NCVS) * The reduction in victim injuries in HP from 2011 to subsequent years is statistically significant, p < .0001.

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period Number of calls per time period

IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over IPDV Calls for Service Have Decreased Over Time in Time in Time in Time in High Point High Point High Point High Point

CFS Actual CFS Actual CFS Actual CFS Actual CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized CFS Deasonalized Projected Projected Projected Projected 37% 37% 37% 37% reduction reduction reduction reduction Actual Actual Actual Actual 20% 20% 20% 20% reduction reduction reduction reduction Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years Trend based predictions for two years

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Repeat Arrest Repeat Arrest Repeat Arrest 2012 2013 2014

42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 42.7% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 42.3% 42.3% 42.3% 42.3% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 39.4% 39.4% 39.4% 39.4% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% The percentage of repeat calls has decreased slightly along with the The percentage of repeat calls has decreased slightly along with the The percentage of repeat calls has decreased slightly along with the The percentage of repeat calls has decreased slightly along with the percentage of repeat calls resulting in arrest: High Point percentage of repeat calls resulting in arrest: High Point percentage of repeat calls resulting in arrest: High Point percentage of repeat calls resulting in arrest: High Point

**For repeat calls, commercial locations were removed from analysis to better ensure same offender/victim

V/O LPD/HPPD FSOP DSS/CPS 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

Example of an offender arrested for assault on female Monitoring jail calls

• Contempt of court for every jail call made to victim violating court order of no-

contact; offender has to serve 5 days for every jail call X 15 calls before facing his assault charge

Probation levers

• Offender on probation for a previous assault so probation arrested him for

violation and offender has to serve 80 days prior to facing his assault charge

Prosecutorial scrutiny

• After viewing assault on store surveillance footage, district attorney indicted
• ffender for kidnapping in addition to the assault charge

Certain, predictable consequences through partner buy-in

• Nearly every guilty defendant gets 18 months of supervised probation which

includes abuser treatment program and conditions not to threaten, harass, or assault the victim + any other conditions such as Alco-Sensor monitoring

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 potentially 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.)

Dr Dr Dr

• Dr. Stacy

. Stacy . Stacy . Stacy Sechrist Sechrist Sechrist Sechrist & & & & John John John John Weil Weil Weil Weil

smsechri@uncg.edu jdweil@uncg.edu

North Carolina Network for Safe Communities

Website: ncnsc.uncg.edu

Suggested citation: Sechrist, S. M., & Weil, J. D. (2015, June). Evaluation of the Offender Focused Domestic Violence Initiative in High Point (NC) and Lexington (NC). Panel presentation at the 2nd National Network for Safe Communities Practitioners Conference, New York, NY.