Barbara J. Hart's Collected Writings  search | site index | faq | about us | what's new Barbara J. Hart's Collected Writings Barbara J. Hart Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse Publication Date: All papers are Copyrighted by Barbara J. Hart unless otherwise noted. Table of Contents Assessing Whether Batterers Will KillBattered Women and the Criminal Justice SystemBARRIERS TO VICTIM PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMSTRATEGIES TO FACILITATE VICTIM PARTICIPATIONTHE CHALLENGE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.REFERENCESChildren of Domestic Violence: Risks and remediesRisks posed to children from violent homes.Strategies to protection children from violent homes.Conclusion.ReferencesCoordinated Community Approaches to Domestic ViolenceIntroductionApproaches to coordinated community response.Overview of the evaluation literature on coordinated communityresponseMeasuring successBuilding collaborative investigative processesDomestic Violence: A model protocol for police responseMODEL PROTOCOL FOR POLICE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCEREFERENCESDomestic Violence Intervention System: A model for response to woman abuseLAW ENFORCEMENT.VICTIM-WITNESS ADVOCACY.PROSECUTION.LEGAL ADVOCACY.JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION.PROBATION AND PAROLE.SYSTEMS COORDINATION.CONCLUSION.REFERENCESLegal Advocacy Against Domestic ViolenceI. Problem StatementII. Documenting the ProgramIII. Results and ImpactAppendicesThe Legal Road to Freedom AbstractHISTORY OF LAW ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.ISSUES ADDRESSED IN RECENT LEGAL REFORM. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW.LAW REFORM IMPLEMENTATION.REFERENCESParental Abduction and Domestic ViolenceChildren of Domestic Violence.Parental Abduction and Domestic Violence.Strategies to Protect Children and Prevent Parental Abduction.Conclusion.Personalized Safety PlanPERSONALIZED SAFETY PLANRecidivism Prediction and Parole DecisionsRecidivism Prediction.Data on Men Who Batter Intimates.Recidivism Across the Country.Rehabilitation and Recidivism.Parole Decision-Making and Recidivism.Parole Should Be Denied.ReferencesSafety Planning for Children: Strategizing for unsupervised visits with batterersDisclaimer - No guarantees.Process of safety planning.Possible Safety Strategies.Rehearsal.Mother's Supplemental Safety Planning.Risks of Safety Planning.ISSUES FOR ADVOCATESSandy & Jane; the invisible and imperiled victims of Sam & JoeVictim IssuesBARRIERS TO VICTIM PARTICIPATION IN PROSECUTION.STRATEGIES TO FACILITATE VICTIM PARTICIPATION.OTHER VICTIM ISSUES.THE CHALLENGE TO PROSECUTION.Violence Against Women Act: Identifying projects for law enforcement and prosecution grantsI. Core Advocacy ProgramsII. Other Victim Services InitiativesIII. Law Enforcement and Prosecution InitiativesIV. Non-prioritized InitiativesVI. Critical Evaluation and Priority-Setting for VAWA FundingConclusionCustody &Visitation Decision-Making When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence Assessing Whether Batterers Will KillSome batterers are life-endangering. While it is true that allbatterers are dangerous, some are more likely to kill than othersand some are more likely to kill at specific times. Regardlessof whether there is a protection from abuse order in effect, officersshould evaluate whether an assailant is likely to kill his* partneror other family members and/or police personnel and take appropriateaction.Assessment is tricky and never fool-proof. It is important toconduct an assessment at every call, no matter how many timesan officer has responded to the same household. The dispatcherand responding officer can utilize the indicators described belowin making an assessment of the batterer's potential to kill. Consideringthese factors may or may not reveal actual potential for homicidalassault. But, the likelihood of a homicide is greater whenthese factors are present. The greater the number of indicatorsthat the batterer demonstrates or the greater the intensity ofindicators, the greater the likelihood of a life-threatening attack.Use all of the information you have about the batterer, currentas well as past incident information. A thorough investigationat the scene will provide much of the information necessary tomake this assessment. However, law enforcement will not obtainreliable information from an interview conducted with the victimand perpetrator together or from the batterer alone.Threats of homicide or suicide.The batterer who hasthreatened to kill himself, his partner, the children or her relativesmust be considered extremely dangerous.Fantasies of homicide or suicide.The more the battererhas developed a fantasy about who, how, when, and/or where tokill, the more dangerous he may be. The batterer who has previouslyacted out part of a homicide or suicide fantasy may be investedin killing as a viable "solution" to his problems. Asin suicide assessment, the more detailed the plan and the moreavailable the method, the greater the risk.Weapons.Where a batterer possesses weapons and hasused them or has threatened to use them in the past in his assaultson the battered woman, the children or himself, his access tothose weapons increases his potential for lethal assault. Theuse of guns is a strong predictor of homicide. If a batterer hasa history of arson or the threat of arson, fire should be considereda weapon."Ownership" of the battered partner. The battererwho says "Death before Divorce!" or "You belongto me and will never belong to another!" may be stating hisfundamental belief that the woman has no right to life separatefrom him. A batterer who believes he is absolutely entitled tohis female partner, her services, her obedience and her loyalty,no matter what, is likely to be life-endangering.Centrality of the partner.A man who idolizes his femalepartner, or who depends heavily on her to organize and sustainhis life, or who has isolated himself from all other community,may retaliate against a partner who decides to end the relationship.He rationalizes that her "betrayal" justifies his lethalretaliation.Separation Violence. When a batterer believes that heis about to lose his partner, if he can't envision life withouther or if the separation causes him great despair or rage, hemay choose to kill.Depression.Where a batterer has been acutely depressedand sees little hope for moving beyond the depression, he maybe a candidate for homicide and suicide. Research shows that manymen who are hospitalized for depression have homicidal fantasiesdirected at family members.Access to the battered woman and/or to family members.Ifthe batterer cannot find her, he cannot kill her. If he does nothave access to the children, he cannot use them as a means ofaccess to the battered woman. Careful safety planning and policeassistance are required for those times when contact is required,e.g. court appearances and custody exchanges.Repeated outreach to law enforcement.Partner or spousalhomicide almost always occurs in a context of historical violence.Prior calls to the police indicate elevated risk of life-threateningconduct. The more calls, the greater the potential danger.Escalation of batterer risk.A less obvious indicatorof increasing danger may be the sharp escalation of personal riskundertaken by a batterer; when a batterer begins to act withoutregard to the legal or social consequences that previously constrainedhis violence, chances of lethal assault increase significantly.Hostage-taking. A hostage-taker is at high risk ofinflicting homicide. Between 75% and 90% of all hostage takingsin the US are related to domestic violence situations.If an intervention worker concludes that a batterer is likelyto kill or commit life-endangering violence, extraordinary measuresshould be taken to protect the victim and her children. This mayinclude notifying the victim and law enforcement of risk, as wellas seeking a mental health commitment, where appropriate. Thevictim should be advised that the presence of these indicatorsmay mean that the batterer is contemplating homicide and thatshe should immediately take action to protect herself and shouldcontact the local battered woman's program to further assess lethalityand develop safety plans. Hart, B."Assessing Whether Batters Will Kill" PCADV, 1990.Return to top of the pageBattered Women and the Criminal Justice SystemDomestic violence victims are both similar to and strikingly differentfrom other victims of violent crime. Thus, they require all theinformation, assistance and input that facilitates the committed,informed participation of other victims and witnesses, but beyondthese, they require enhanced protection and advocacy.Battered women are often similar to other victims of violent crimein that they want perpetrators to stop their conduct, to pay duesfor the crimes committed and to compensate victims for the lossessustained as a result of their criminal conduct. They are alsosimilar to other crime victims in that they have interests injustice that may differ from the interests of the justice system.They may want privacy or anonymity in the prosecution processwhile the criminal justice system values public accountability.They may want speedy disposition while the justice system laborsat a snail's pace. They may want input in decisions about pleanegotiations and sentencing while the justice system concludesthat this inclusiveness precludes the expeditious handling ofcriminal cases, unduly interferes with prosecutorial discretionor intrudes upon the rights of defendants. They may want sentencesfor perpetrators that are specifically crafted to protect victimswhile courts may focus on offender rehabilitation and ignore victimsafety.What is also true about battered women, as it is of other victimsof violent crime, is that they are not all cut from the same clothand do not all want the same outcomes. Battered women have variedinterests in participation in prosecution process and in outcomes.There is no profile of a battered woman witness that fits allor most battered women.BARRIERS TO VICTIM PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMWhile each battered woman's experience should be recognized asunique, there are many commonalties among battered women victim-witnesses.Perhaps the most critical commonality is that battered women confrontsignificant barriers to safe and effective participation as victim-witnessesin the criminal justice process.Recidivism and retaliationLike other victims of violent crime, battered women fear retaliation.Fully 50% of all victims of violent crime report they are fearfulthat perpetrators will seek reprisal for their participation inprosecution. And like other victim-witnesses who are threatenedby the perpetrator (or his agent) during the pendency of prosecution,they are twice as likely to resist participation in prosecutionas those not threatened (Davis et al., 1990).The National Crime Survey from 1978 to 1982 showed thatan estimated 32% of battered women were re-victimized within sixmonths after the assault giving rise to criminal justice intervention.They were victimized an average of three times each. In contrast,the 1982 NCS data on stranger violence showed that only13% of the victims of stranger crimes were subsequently assaultedduring a six month period. Unlike domestic violence victims, victimsof stranger crime were assaulted only once during that period(Langan and Innes, 1986).There are many reasons why battered women appear to be at elevatedrisk for retaliatory violence. Most other victims of violent crimeare not in relationship with the defendant and are not livingwith (or did not formerly reside with) the defendant. Most havenot previously suffered attacks or sustained injury at the handsof the defendant. Most have not been held hostage by the defendantor experienced his terroristic threats, targeted graphically atthe victim or members of her family. Most other victim-witnessesare not economically dependent upon the defendant during the pendencyof prosecution and, potentially, thereafter. Most will not becompelled into continuing contact with the defendant during thecriminal process and after disposition because of shared parenthood.Most other victims of crime are not integrally interconnectedwith the criminal assailant. Most other victims of crime are notat elevated risk of violent assault after intervention by thecriminal justice system. However, battered women are most oftenkilled when attempting to seek legal redress or when leaving anabusive relationship (Browne, 1987; Sonkin et al., 1985).Criminal justice system personnel too often believe that batteredwomen will be safer and less exposed to life-jeopardizing violenceonce they are separated from the offender; once prosecution hascommenced. Quite to the contrary, evidence of the gravity of violenceinflicted after separation of the couple is substantial. Batterersmay, in fact, escalate their violence to coerce a battered womaninto "reconciliation," to retaliate for the batteredwoman's participation in the prosecution process, or to coerceher into seeking termination of the prosecution. If the batterercannot "recapture" the battered woman as his ally, hemay seek retribution for her desertion and for her disloyaltyin exposing him to criminal consequences. Although not all batterersengage in escalated violence during the pendency of prosecution,as many as half threaten retaliatory violence (Davis et al., 1990)and at least 30% of batterers may inflict further assaults duringthe pre-disposition phase of prosecution (Goldsmith, 1991).A battered woman whose prior attempts to seek prosecution or civilprotection orders, only to have the perpetrator escalate his violence,may be unwilling to face the risk that prosecution will furtherendanger, rather than protect her (Family Violence, 1991). Menwho batter have kidnapped victims or seriously injured and evenkilled battered women to prevent their participation as witnesses(Gwinn, 1991; Hart, 1985).Battered women may, thus, be much more concerned about preventingfuture violence than about vindicating the state's interest inpenalizing the defendant for the crimes previously committed.This orientation of the battered woman toward future safety maycreate a tension with those in the criminal justice system singularlyfocused on winning criminal convictions.Victim-blaming attitudesUnlike other victims of violent crime, battered women are oftenviewed by the police, the prosecutor, judges, jurors and probation/parolestaff as responsible for the crimes committed against them; responsibleeither because battered women are believed to "provoke" the perpetrator into violence or because they are believed tohave the power to avoid the criminal assault through accommodatingthe perpetrator's demands. Other victims of violent crime arenot seen as culpable for the crimes inflicted upon them, but batteredwomen frequently report that criminal justice system personnelappear to consider them "unworthy victims" who are cloggingup the courts with unimportant family matters. Some, therefore,impose barriers to a battered woman's use of the criminal justicesystem. Police fail to arrest or file incident reports. Prosecutorsdelay charging, require substantial corroboration, acquiesce inrepeated continuances, or impose fees upon the victim (Ford, 1991).The reluctance of the criminal justice system to vigorously proceedwith domestic violence cases quickly erodes victim confidencein the system's alliance with the victim.Even though justice system actors may eschew victim-blaming attitudes,criminal process may be confounded by similar attitudes embracedby either the defendant or the battered woman, herself. Uniformly,the perpetrator of domestic violence blames the victim for hisconduct, claiming that she provoked him so profoundly that hiscrimes are excusable, if not justifiable. Batterers often persuadebattered women of the correctness of this perspective. Beyondthis, the battered woman may also blame herself, feeling she shouldhave been smarter and figured out a way to prevent the violenceor she should have been more courageous and found a way to safelyleave the relationship. This self-blame may go as far as believingthat it is not fair to arrest and prosecute the perpetrator.Systemic resistance to the prosecution of batterersUnlike many victims of stranger assault, but like other victimsknown to defendants, victims of domestic violence may be reluctantwitnesses or may be assumed to be so (Cannavale and Falcon, 1976).There are many reasons for this. Many battered women who earnestlyseek prosecution find substantial resistance to the appropriatecharging of defendants. National data reveal that law enforcementroutinely classify domestic assault as misdemeanors even thoughthe criminal conduct involved actually included bodily injuryas serious or more serious than 90% of all rapes, robberies andaggravated assaults (Langan and Innes, 1986). When serious assaultsare trivialized and charged as misdemeanors or cited as summaryoffenses, victims of domestic violence may conclude that the costsand risks of prosecution outweigh the potential consequences forassailants. Thus, battered women may lose interest in criminalprosecution.Further, some battered women, initially committed to prosecution,become discouraged with the criminal process; discouraged becauseof delays (Ford and Burke, 1987), lack of witness protection (FamilyViolence, 1991), or because of prosecutor indifference or insensitivity(McGuire, 1991; Hart, 1991).Victim reluctanceSimilar to other victims of crime, when battered women are poor,have few personal or financial resources or find participationin prosecution costly, they may be reluctant to proceed. Ruralbattered women may not have transportation and may find it impossibleto arrange for multiple trips to the court-house. Women with schoolage children may have to find expensive and inconvenient childcare for all court appearances outside of school hours. Seriouslyinjured battered women may find employers unwilling to accommodatecourt appearances after they have been considerate about manymedical appointments.Although it is commonly believed that battered women withdrawcooperation because of decisions to reconcile with defendants,research reveals that this is not typically the reason for therequest to terminate prosecution. (Ford and Burke, 1987) Somebattered women seek to terminate prosecution because the initiationof charges has affected the changes sought in defendant behaviorsuch that victims no longer conclude that prosecution will benecessary to protect them from future abuse (Ford, 1991).Other battered women who have found that the best protection againsta perpetrator's violence has been the protection offered by thecommunity with which the battered woman affiliates, rather thanthe criminal justice system, may resist prosecution if she concludesthat the community will abandon her or withdraw critical supportif she pursues prosecution. Women of religious, ethnic and communitiesof color sometimes identify community abandonment as an untenable,adverse consequence of cooperation with prosecution.Battered women may be reluctant to expose the father of theirchildren to public accountability because of the attitudes oftheir children toward the criminal justice system. Others arefearful that prosecution will wreak economic ruin on the family.Even smaller numbers of battered women oppose prosecution forpolitical reasons; believing that the criminal justice systemselectively penalizes men of color or other politically unpopularconstituencies. Some believe that the exposure of batterers tothe criminal justice system and its coercive controls will facilitate,rather than deter, future violence.An understanding of victim reluctance is critical for informeddecision-making about the role of the battered victim in the criminaljustice system, strategies to enhance victim cooperation and,ultimately, disposition by the prosecutor or the court.STRATEGIES TO FACILITATE VICTIM PARTICIPATION Despite all these potential barriers to a battered woman's committedparticipation in criminal process, many battered women and justicesystem personnel have found that these hurdles can be eliminatedwith careful attention to the particular requirements of eachbattered woman. A variety of strategies have been embraced tofacilitate the informed, protected and committed participationof battered women in criminal prosecution.Victim rights and servicesWith passage of the Domestic Violence Act in 1979, the legislaturemandated that victims be notified of their rights by law enforcement,and that prosecutors expeditiously advise them of prosecutorialdecisions. In addition, the Washington State Constitution articulatesthe rights of crime victims (WA. Const. art. 1, sec. 35, amend.84 (1984)). This constitutional provision is bolstered by statestatute where, among other rights, victims are entitled to thefollowing:To be informed by local law enforcement agencies or the prosecutingattorney of the final disposition of the case in which the victim,survivor, or witness is involved.To submit a victim impact statement or repot to the court.To present a statement at the sentencing hearing for felony convictions.To receive an order of restitution in all felony cases, even wherethe defendant is sentenced to confinement. (RCW 7.69)Another strategy to enhance victim participation is the provisionof adequate and appropriate services for battered women and theirchildren. As reiterated in the Final Report of the WashingtonState Domestic Violence Task Force, "It has been shownthat victims are more likely to follow through with a legal processthey understand and from which they can gain assistance."In 1978 the City of Seattle established the Battered Women's Project(now the Family Violence Project) in the Seattle City Attorney'sOffice. Advocates with the Project assist in misdemeanor domesticviolence cases by:Acting as a liaison between the criminal justice system and thevictim.Providing victims with information concerning the court processand court dates.Providing information to prosecutors and probation services.Making referrals for additional advocacy and services to communitybased domestic violence programs.These rights and services are helpful, but are often not sufficientto engage the cooperation of victims of domestic violence. Thefollowing examine additional efforts used to engage the participationof battered women in criminal prosecution.Outreach and investigation Police departments in a few jurisdictions in Washington have establishedfollow-up systems whereby patrol officers or detectives make telephoneor house calls to apparent victims of domestic violence in thedays immediately following the request for emergency police assistance.When contacting the battered woman, the outreach officer undertakesfurther investigation into criminal domestic violence, identifiesthe risks of batterer retaliation that may suggest particularconditions on bail or release, and offers women clarificationabout legal options to protect them. In completing the outreachinterview, the officer gives the victim specific contact informationshould she have further questions or information to share. Outreachis effective only when responding officers obtain confidentialcontact information from battered women at the crime scene; contactinformation should include a telephone number whereby a messagecan be left for a victim if she cannot be reached in her own home.Some domestic violence programs have adopted outreach effortswhereby they attempt to contact battered women by phone the dayfollowing police response to an emergency domestic violence call.Communication by the domestic violence program after the immediatecrisis of the criminal incident enables battered women to learnabout legal options and community services in a context whichis supportive, that fosters an exchange of information, and whichengages a battered woman in critical thinking about safety strategies.Outreach, thus, often facilitates victim participation in andcommitment to the criminal justice process.Prosecuting attorneys prioritizing the prosecution of domesticviolence cases have undertaken outreach to domestic violence victimsimmediately after arrest of the perpetrator or arraignment inorder to provide victims with notice about charges filed, informationabout bail and any special conditions thereon, as well as anyvictim no contact order under R.C.W. 10.99.040. Outreach initiatesa dialogue and relationship early in the prosecution process.It enables the victim to consider civil legal remedies and community-basedservices options for protecting herself and her children duringthe pendency of prosecution. Outreach often gives prosecutorssubstantial supplementary information about the crime committed.In other jurisdictions, prosecutors have instituted victim-witnessclinics wherein victims learn about the criminal justice system,their role in it and the likely dispositions upon conviction ora guilty plea. They learn how to craft victim impact statementsand how to articulate the specific dangers they believe are posedby their assailants. They learn how to become more effective witnesses.Most significantly, they begin to network and bond with othervictims, thereby gaining support and eliminating the isolationthat domestic violence perpetrators use to dissuade battered womenfrom participation. Clinics often provide child care and are availableat times convenient to victim-witnesses.Victim protection Since battered women are at elevated risk of violence during thependency of prosecution, police, prosecutors, advocates and courtsshould attend specifically to the safety requirements of victims.Systems should be developed to assess the potential lethalityof defendants. Municipal and district court judges should carefullyevaluate the continuing threat that the defendant poses to thevictim and set bail and conditions thereon that will best safeguardthe victim and her family during the pendency of criminal process.The prosecutor and advocate might undertake periodic reviews ofvictim safety with the battered woman and seek additional protectionsshould they be required. When a victim seeks to maintain the confidentialityof an undisclosed address, the police and the prosecutor shouldvery carefully safeguard any contact information and delete anyreference to an address on materials that are disclosed to thepublic and defense counsel. Beyond this, all criminal justicesystem personnel should refer battered women to domestic violenceprograms so that they can carefully construct safety plans tominimize exposure to perpetrators and to engage the communityin vigilance for the safety of battered women.Victim advocacy Victim advocacy is a key component in the prosecution of domesticviolence. Battered women who find themselves abruptly thrust intothe legal system because of the violence of their partners areswamped with new information, sometimes are dislocated, and invariablyare confronted with increased demands for family management inthis acute crisis situation. It is critical that victims havean identified contact person within the prosecuting attorney'soffice who can provide information about criminal process andreferral to supportive services. For other critical assistance,such as emergency shelter, counseling, safety planning, crisismanagement and civil legal advocacy, battered victims should bereferred to local domestic violence programs.When battered women engage in legal proceedings, it is criticalthat they have support from family, friends and employers so thattheir participation can be diligent and unclouded by anxietiesthat significant others do not approve of the prosecution. Therefore,domestic violence programs may seek to educate and engage thosepeople most important to the victim so that her investment inthe process of prosecution is not confounded by their concernsand so they can help her strategize for safe participation inthe criminal justice system.Specialized ProsecutionSpecialization has improved the success of prosecution in domesticviolence cases (Fagan, 1988). Specialized prosecution units haveenhanced the relationship of the prosecutors with the victims,by improved investigation and preparation of cases against perpetrators,and have institutionalized the practice of seeking specific safeguardsto protect victims from further abuse. Specialized prosecutionenhances the expertise of those handling domestic violence casesand facilitates outcomes satisfactory both to the prosecutionand victim witnesses.Timely prosecution Research suggests that timeliness is essential to victim cooperation(Ford & Burke, 1987). RCW 10.99.060 requires that the prosecutingattorney make a decision whether or not to prosecute and notifythe victim within five days of receiving the incident report.Prosecutors should investigate domestic violence cases expeditiouslyand not seek or acquiesce in procedural delay where there is nocompelling reason. Domestic violence victims grow weary of prosecutionif many lengthy appearances are required; thus the prosecutorshould only require victims to attend those proceedings wheretheir testimony is critical to the case. Where feasible, the prosecutorshould minimize the time victim-witnesses expend at any courtappearance. In scheduling court proceedings where victim attendanceis required, the prosecutor might inquire about significant demandson the time and resources of victims which may compete with courtattendance; these should be accommodated whenever possible (ABA,1986).Victim participation and empowerment Prosecutors seeking to upgrade efforts at domestic violence prosecutionoften employ other victim-engaging strategies. Victim input inplea negotiations and dispositional alternatives is a strategybelieved to enhance victim cooperation (Family Violence, 1991;McGuire, 1991). Some prosecutors have developed court schoolsin which they enable the victim to learn how to be an effectivewitness. Many battered women report that prosecutors fail to adequatelyprepare for trial; sometimes it appears that the prosecutors arenot even conversant with the documents in the prosecution fileas trials are about to begin. Careful and periodic preparationin which the victim is engaged will facilitate successful prosecutionand victim investment in the process. As victims understand thatthey have a vital and respected role in the prosecution, reluctancemay subside. Data suggest that the more domestic violence victimsare invested in the prosecution process, the more powerful itsdeterrent effect, the stronger the message to perpetrators thattheir violence will not be tolerated and that the cost of persistencewill far outstrip the benefits of continued violence (Goldsmith,1991).Victims should not be penalized for their reluctance to participatein prosecution. Policies should be developed in each prosecutor'soffice and within the court that limit the use of compulsion inachieving victim participation. Victims of domestic violence shouldnot be incarcerated for refusal to serve as victim-witnesses.Battered women should not be prosecuted for filing false policereports because they seek to terminate prosecution, except inthose unusual circumstances where there is independent evidenceof false swearing or perjury and the interests of justice willbe served thereby. While it is appropriate to issue subpoenasto compel victim appearance at trial, bench warrants should notbe issued routinely when victims fail to appear. Rather, continuancesshould be sought and investigation should be undertaken to ascertainthe whereabouts of the battered woman and the reasons for herfailure to appear. If reluctance is based on fear or intimidation,strategies should be employed to protect her from the dangersanticipated. Battered women should not be threatened with refusalto prosecute perpetrators for future violence if they fail orrefuse to participate in the current prosecution.Beyond this, prosecutors and courts should be cognizant of thepotential adverse ramifications of coercive process with victimsof domestic violence. The repercussions of coercive process maybe as far-ranging as the loss of custody, the loss of employment,the loss of reputation, eviction from leaseholds, abandonmentby significant support persons, and physical assault of the victimand her family members. All efforts should be made to gain thecooperation of domestic violence victims rather than to compelparticipation.The interests of justice must seriously consider the interestsof victims. Their interests in safety and their reputations aslaw-abiding citizens should not be compromised in pursuit of prosecutionunless there are overriding reasons for subordinating victim interests.On the other hand, it may be helpful for victims that the publicposture of a prosecutor's office is that the City Attorney orCounty Prosecuting Attorney controls the prosecution. Many inthe criminal justice system believe that at least the appearanceof no victim discretion on the question of whether the prosecutionwill proceed reduces batterer intimidation directed at gettingcharges dropped. This public posture may even enhance victim safetybecause the perpetrator understands that further violence willnot affect a dismissal of the charges but will both result inincarceration during the pendency of the initial prosecution andin additional prosecution for the retaliatory violence. It isimportant to recognize that prosecution solely controlled by theprosecuting attorney will not universally buttress victim investmentor protect victims from retaliatory violence. In those instanceswhere termination of the prosecution is critical to protect victims,the public posture should not preclude such prosecutorial discretion.Sentencing. Battered women are entitled to submit a victim impact statementto advise the pre-sentence investigator and the court of the ramificationsof the crime(s) for which the offender was convicted on the batteredwoman and her family. While investigators are usually receptiveto hearing about the emotional, physical and financial lossessustained by victims, they are too often resistant to hearingof the dangers that the perpetrator continues to pose to the batteredwomen and children and reluctant to suggest that these risks ofviolent recidivism should be considered aggravating circumstancessupporting longer sentences or factors to be addressed in craftingprotective conditions on probation. Thus, sentencing recommendationstypically do not fully inform the court of information relevantto sentencing deliberations in many jurisdictions.Further, prosecutors frequently rely on the pre-sentence reportand the statement of the victim at sentencing rather than producingtestimony or evidence at a sentencing hearing to buttress argumentsin favor of incarceration and victim safeguards. While this prosecutorialadvocacy may not be necessary in jurisdictions where the pre-sentenceinvestigator attends carefully to the risks of recidivism, incounties where the court is not otherwise given information aboutrecidivism prediction and the dangers posed by many battererslong after divorce or incarceration, prosecutors should undertaketo inform the court of these risks.Unless battered women believe that sentences comport with justiceand effect specific victim safeguards, they will be most reluctantto participate cooperatively in criminal process should theirassailants recidivate. When courts craft sentences that clearlycall batterers to account and safeguard victims, battered women,the general public and other components in the justice systembecome confident that criminal justice efforts are meaningfulinterventions in domestic violence and warrant serious attention.Restitution and victim compensation Advocates for battered women in Washington have reported thatneither restitution nor victim compensation has been predictablyawarded or achieved in a timely fashion despite the substantiallosses sustained as a consequence of domestic violence. Courtsshould institute policies whereby victim restitution precedesthe collection of other court costs and fines. Moreover, courtscan impose time tables that are tight and require significantpayment at the front end rather than balloon payments at the endof the payment schedule.As to crime victims' compensation awards, battered women are eligibleto receive enhanced benefits as a result of legislative amendmentsin 1991. However, many prosecuting attorneys offices do not affordvictims clerical assistance in the preparation of compensationclaims, nor do they proceed to follow up to advocate for the issuanceof awards. If advocacy for compensation occurs during the pendencyof prosecution, victims may invest more fully in the prosecution.The Domestic Violence Prevention Act permits the court to orderrelief not compensable either through restitution or crime victims'compensation. Therefore, the prosecutor's office may alleviatesome of the stress and burden imposed by victim losses if it directsdomestic violence victims to the civil courts for enhanced remediessuch as child custody and possession of the shared residence,as well as protection.Particular attention to these economic matters and other remedialoptions renders a great service to victims and simultaneouslyenhances their investment in prosecution. Both crime victim compensationand protection order relief can be initiated, and sometimes awarded,early in the prosecution process, and thereby have the potentialto cement victim cooperation with criminal process.THE CHALLENGE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Domestic violence victims are increasingly turning to the criminaljustice system for assistance in ending the violence that jeopardizestheir lives and well-being. They often are uninformed about thecriminal justice process and naive about its power to end theviolence in their lives. For battered women to be effective, committedparticipants in the criminal justice system, care must be takento minimize the barriers to access and investment that have historicallyimpeded empowered participation by battered women. The adoptionof protocols attentive to victim issues by every component ofthe criminal justice system will greatly enhance justice-seekingefforts in domestic violence cases. The strategies outlined inthis chapter can be utilized to engage and protect battered womenas victim-witnesses and can also greatly advance the success ofprosecution and perpetrator accountability.REFERENCES ABA (1986). "ABA Suggested Guidelines for Reducing AdverseEffects of Case Continuances and Delays on Crime Victims and Witnesses." Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, February.Browne, A. (1987). When Battered Women Kill. New York:The Free Press.Cannavale, F.J., J.R. and Falcon, W.D. (1976). Witness Cooperation.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Davis, R., Smith, B., Henley, S. (1990). Victim-Witness Intimidationin the Bronx Courts. New York, NY: Victims Services Agency.Fagan, J. (1988). "Contributions of Family Violence Researchto Criminal Justice Policies on Wife Assault: Paradigms of Scienceand Social Control." Violence and Victims, Vol. 3,No. 3.Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1991). Domestic Violence:The Crucial Role of the Judge in Criminal Court Cases. SanFrancisco, CA: The Family Violence Prevention Fund.Ford, D.A. (1991). "Prosecution as a Victim Power Resource:A Note on Empowering Women in Violent Conjugal Relationships."Law & Society Review, Vol. 1, No. 2.Ford, D. A. & Burke, M. J. (1987). "Victim-InitiatedCriminal Complaints for Wife Battery: An Assessment of Motives."Paper presented at the Third National Conference for Family ViolenceResearchers, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, July, 1987.Goldsmith, S. (1991). "Taking Spouse Abuse Beyond a 'FamilyAffair." Law Enforcement News, Vol. XVII, No. 334.Gwinn, C. (1991). Lecture for the National College of DistrictAttorneys, Las Vegas, NV, October, 1991.Hart, B. (1991). "Domestic Violence Intervention System:A Model For Response to Women Abuse." Confronting DomesticViolence: Effective Police Response. Harrisburg, PA: PennsylvaniaCoalition Against Domestic Violence.Hart, B. (1985). "Testify or Prison?" AEGIS: The Magazineon Ending Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: AEGIS.Langen, P.A. and Innes, C.A. (1986). "Preventing DomesticViolence Against Women: Discussion Paper." Bureau of JusticeStatistics Special Reports. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of JusticeStatistics.McGuire, L. A. (1991). Prosecution of Domestic Violence inIowa. Iowa Prosecuting Attorneys Training Coordinator Council.Sonkin, D., Martin, D., & Walker, L. E. A. (1985). TheMale Batterer: A Treatment Approach. New York: Springer.Barbara J. Hart, Esq., 1992.Return to top of the pageChildren of Domestic Violence: Risks and remediesThis paper will examine two issues - the risk to children posedby domestic violence and strategies for intervention to protectchildren from violent homes and their battered parents. It isimperative that the legal, medical and child abuse preventioncommunities join together to identify children at risk and toemploy strategies that will both protect and heal the innocentvictims of domestic violence, especially those most powerless,the children from violent homes.Risks posed to children from violent homes. Child abuse. Men who batter their wives are likely toassault their children. The battering of women who are mothersusually predates the infliction of child abuse (Stark & Flitcraft,1988). At least half of all battering husbands also batter theirchildren (Pagelow, 1989). The more severe the abuse of the mother,the worse the child abuse (Bowker, Arbitell, and McFerron, 1988).Abuse of children by a batterer is more likely when the marriageis dissolving, the couple has separated, and the husband/fatheris highly committed to continued dominance and control of themother and children (Bowker, Arbitell, and McFerron, 1988). Sincewoman and child abuse by husbands and fathers is instrumental,directing at subjugating, controlling, and isolating, when a womanhas separated from her batterer and is seeking to establish autonomyand independence from him, his struggle to control and dominateher may increase and he may turn to abuse and subjugation of thechildren as a tactic of dominance and control of their mother(Stark and Flitcraft, 1988; Bowker, Arbitell, and McFerron, 1988).Older children are frequently assaulted when they intervene todefend or protect their mothers (Hilberman and Munson, 1977-78).Daughters are more likely than sons to become victims of the batteringhusband (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). Woman abuse is also the contextfor sexual abuse of female children. Where the mother is assaultedby the father, daughters are exposed to a risk of sexual abuse6.51 times greater than girls in nonabusive families (Bowker,Arbitell, and McFerron, 1988). Where a male is the perpetratorof child abuse, one study demonstrated that there is a 70 percentchance that any injury to the child will be severe and 80 percentof child fatalities within the family are attributable to fathersor father surrogates. (Bergman, Larsen, and Mueller, 1986). Datagleaned by PCADV from newspaper clippings in 1990 reveal thatevery three days a woman or child is killed in the Commonwealthby a batterer/father (Yupcavage, 1991).Mothers who are battered may be more likely to physically abusetheir children than are non-battered women (Walker, 1984; Roy,1977; Gayford, 1975).Child abduction. Battering men use custodial accessto the children as a tool to terrorize battered women or to retaliatefor separation. Custodial interference is one of the few batteringtactics available to an abuser after separation; thus, it is notsurprising that it is used extensively.Each year more than 350,000 children are abducted by parents inthis country; that is, 40.4 children are abducted per hour. Fiftyfour percent of these abductions are short-term manipulationsaround custody orders, but 46 percent involve concealing the whereaboutsof the child or taking the child out of state. Most of these abductionsare perpetrated by fathers or their agents. Fully 41 percent occurbetween the separation of the parents and the divorce. Yet another41 percent happen after the parents are separated or divorcedfor more than two years. Three of ten of the abducted childrenwill suffer mild to severe mental harm as result of the abductions(Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990). More than half of theseabductions occur in the context of domestic violence (Greif andHeger, 1992).Observation of violence against mothers. The majorityof the children from violent homes observe the violence inflictedby their fathers upon their mothers; most research suggests asmany as 90 percent of children from violent homes witness theirfathers battering their mothers (Pagelow, 1990; Walker, 1984).One study demonstrated that some fathers deliberately arrangefor the children to witness the violence (Dobash and Dobash, 1979),and other empirical work suggests that the violence occurs onlywhen the children are present (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). Childrenwitnessing the violence inflicted on their mothers evidence behavioral,somatic, or emotional problems similar to those experienced byphysically abused children (Jaffe, Wolfe, and Wilson, 1990). Boysbecome aggressive, fighting with siblings and schoolmates andhaving temper tantrums. Girls are more likely to become passive,clinging, and withdrawn (Hilberman and Munson, 1977-78). Malechildren who witness the abuse of mothers by fathers are morelikely to become men who batter in adulthood than those male childrenfrom homes free of violence (Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 1981).Research has only begun to examine the relative effects on childrenof witnessing parental violence as contrasted to being a victimof child abuse. It appears that children who are both witnessesof their fathers' violence toward their mothers and victims ofchild abuse experience the most profound adverse effects. Butthe children who only observe the violence perpetrated on theirmothers manifest similar behavioral and emotional sequalae (Hugheset al., 1985). In comparing children not exposed to violence ascontrasted to children who witness violence and children who bothwitness and are abused, data suggest that the latter two groupsare most comparable and have heightened behavioral and emotionaldistress as compared to the former (Hughes et al., 1989).Separation violence. Many professionals believe thatthe most effective thing that a battered mother can do to protecther children is to leave the battering husband. As a culture,we believe that if women leave, they will be safe, as will theirchildren. Leave-taking alone does not protect battered women andchildren. Safety is only assured by strong legal and communityprotections.Research confirms that battering men often escalate violence tore-capture battered women and children who have sought safetyin separation. Battered women seek medical attention for injuriessustained as a consequence of domestic violence significantlymore often after separation than during cohabitation; as manyas 75 percent of the visits to emergency rooms by battered womenoccur after separation (Stark and Flitcraft, 1988). One investigationdemonstrated that about 75 percent of the calls to law enforcementfor intervention and assistance in domestic violence occur afterseparation from batterers (Langen & Innes, 1986). Anotherstudy revealed that half of the homicides of female spouses andpartners were committed by men after separation or divorce (Barnard,et al., 1982). A study in Philadelphia showed that one quarterof the women killed by their partners were killed after separationand a significant number were killed while trying to separatefrom the assailant (Casanave & Zahn, 1986).The following recent Pennsylvania tragedies highlight the experienceof battered women and their children after separation and in theirattempts to be free from life-imperiling violence.Last year on Father's Day three children were murdered by theirfather as he exercised unsupervised visitation rights; rightswhich the surviving and grieving mother strongly resisted to noavail. The court in central Pennsylvania awarded unsupervisedvisitation to the father in an apparently sentimental gestureso that he could be with the children on Father's Day. He hadjust returned from a drug and alcohol treatment program. An orderof protection had been entered against him. The father had attemptedto reclaim his wife, to recapture her and bring her back intorelationship. When she resisted, he took the ultimate revengeand killed their children.In May of 1990 in Montgomery County, a man, against whom a protectionorder had been entered in favor of his wife and children, killedhis son and stepdaughter after kidnapping them and holding themhostage the day after he learned of his wife's intention to filefor divorce.In 1992 a battered woman, her children and her mother were killedin Pennsylvania as they attempted to escape from a batterer husband.The battered woman had packed her car with the personal itemsof those fleeing. All were killed in or nearby the car.The risk to children in the context of domestic violence is substantial.Yet, the risk is virtually invisible. For example, the most recentedition of the journal of the Family Law Section of the AmericanBar Association, which contains an annual survey of family caselaw across the country, is silent about the risk that domesticviolence poses to children. The editors chose not to include thecases and commentary which address this issue. Similarly, medicalpublications, while identifying the danger of domestic violenceto women, have not squarely addressed the nexus between domesticviolence and child maltreatment. While the impact of domesticviolence on women has "come out of the closet" overthe course of the last fifteen years, the impact and risk of domesticviolence for children remains a closely held secret.*Strategies to protection children from violent homes. Having identified the jeopardy to which children may be exposedin the context of domestic violence, it is imperative that professionalsidentify strategies to safeguard against these risks.Risk identification and safety planning. A criticalstrategy for child protection is protocol development by the medical,legal and social service communities to help women recognize thatthey may be battered and that their children may be at risk forabuse. Once battered women have identified the abuse inflictedon them and the risk for child abuse, they can then design strategicplans to avert violence whether they elect to remain in residencewith the batterer or separate from him. To accomplish this, professionalsmust consistently identify domestic violence and talk about safetyplanning with battered women clients/patients.** Informed batteredwomen who are engaged with professionals in evaluating strategiesto safeguard themselves and their children will best be able tomake decisions that protect their children. In fact, there isstrong evidence that battered women's efforts to utilize communityresources to end the violence are greater when child abuse ispresent, demonstrating that battered women may be most motivatedto change their circumstances when they conclude that it is criticalto protect their children from the risks of abuse (Bowker, 1988).Research further reveals that child abuse, whether by fathersor mothers, is likely to diminish once the battered mother hasbeen able to access safety services and achieve separation fromthe violent father (Giles-Sims, 1985; Walker, 1984).Supervised visitation centers. The second strategy isa very practical and feasible solution -- supervised visitationcenters. Much of separation violence is an attempt to coerce reconciliation.Since battering husbands/fathers have limited access to batteredwives to attempt to compel reconciliation, they often choose thevisitation arena as a place in which to attempt coerced reconciliationor to penalize the battered partner for refusal to reconcile.As a consequence, visitation must be a very protected circumstanceboth for the children from violent homes and battered women.Supervised visitation centers must be available at no cost tochildren from violent homes in every county in this Commonwealth.We have to look outside of Pennsylvania for a model; the DomesticAbuse Intervention Project of Duluth, Minnesota began a supervisedvisitation center project several years ago. The facility offerssupervised exchange, on-site visits and monitored visits, as wellas education and counseling for fathers on parenting and the impactof domestic violence on children. Services and education are accommodatedin a spacious and attractive, but secure, environment. Participantsin the program are referred by the courts or child protectiveservices. The center is open twice a week, one weekend day andone day and evening during the week. The program safeguards batteredwomen and children from violence and child abduction, while providingfathers access to their children in an environment where theycan begin to learn and practice appropriate parenting.Safety planning for unsupervised visits. Planning forunsupervised visits can help children not only manage fear andanxiety, but can also enable them to develop safety skills andrealistic safety plans to minimize the risk of violence duringvisitation. The process of safety planning further allows childrenof battered women to understand and manage the multitude of conflictingfeelings they may be experiencing associated with visiting theirfathers. It is critical that professionals help children identifysafety issues and build problem-solving, safety skills. Safetyplanning for unsupervised visits may be initiated by professionalsbut should always be undertaken in consultation with the non-abusingparent.Any safety plan must be realistic. The plan should be simple.It must be age-appropriate. The child must be competent to undertakethe strategies designed. Perhaps only children above 8 years ofage can be active participants in safety strategies.*Conclusion. Too often professionals do not identify domestic violence in thelives of female clients and are uncertain about remedial strategieseven if abuse is identified (Hansen & Harway, 1992). Otherprofessionals seek to penalize and blame battered women for failingto protect their children (Erickson, 1991). The inadequacy ofthese professional endeavors endangers and isolates mothers andoften interrupts the potential for strong alliance between mothersand children in the pursuit of safety. Professional initiativesto empower women so that they can seek lives free of violenceand achieve the legal authority to protect their children andthemselves from recurrent violence are preferred. Early interventionby professionals can avert the risks posed to children and theirmothers in the context of domestic violence and can assist womenin establishing stable and secure households independent of batteringmen. Prevention efforts may offer children the best hope for violence-freeand loving families.References Bergman, A., Larsen, R.M., and Mueller, B. (1986). "Changingspectrum of Serious Child Abuse." Pediatrics, 77 (1).Bernard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I. and Newman, G. (1982). "TillDeath Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder." Bulletinof the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271-280.Bowker, L.H., Arbitell, M., & McFerron, J. R. (1988). "Onthe Relationship Between Wife Beating and Child Abuse." InK. Yllo and M. Bograd (Eds.), Perspectives on Wife Abuse.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence AgainstWives. New York: Free Press.Erickson, N.S. (1991). "Battered Mothers of Battered Children:Using Our Knowledge of Battered Women to Defend Them Against Chargesof Failure to Act." Current Perspectives in Psychological,Legal and Ethical Issues, Vol. 1-A. Jessica Kingsley PublishersLtd.Gayford, J. (1975). "Wife Battering: A Preliminary Surveyof 100 Cases."Britt. Med. J. 1.Giles-Sims, Jean (1985). "A Longitudinal Study of BatteredChildren of Battered Wives." Family Relations 34.Greif, G. & Hegar, R. (1992). When Parents Kidnap.New York: The Free Press.Hansen, M. & Harway, M. (1992). Recovering From Battering:Family Therapy and Feminism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hilberman, E. and Munson, K. (1977-78). "Sixty Battered Women." Victimology: An International Journal, 2 (3-4).Hughes, H., Parkinson, D. and Vargo, M. (1989). "WitnessingSpouse Abuse and Experiencing Physical Violence: A 'Double-Whammy?" Journal of Family Violence 4(2).Hughes, H.M., Rau, T.J., Hampton, K.L., and Sablatura, B. (1985). "Effects of Family Violence on Child Victims and Witnesses."Paper presented at the 93d annual convention of the American PsychologicalAssociation in Los Angeles, August.Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.W., & Wilson, S. (1990). Children ofBattered Women: Issues in Child Development and Intervention Planning.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Langen P.A. and Innes, C.A. (1986). Preventing Domestic ViolenceAgainst Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Reports.Washington, DC: Department of Justice.Pagelow, M. (1990). "Effects of Domestic Violence on Childrenand Their Consequences for Custody and Visitation Agreements." Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4.Pagelow, M. (1989). "The Forgotten Victims: Children of DomesticViolence." Paper prepared for presentation at the DomesticViolence Seminar of the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Council.Rosenbaum, A. and O'Leary, K.D. (1981). "Children: The UnintendedVictims of Marital Violence." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,5 (14).Roy, M. (1977). Battered Women: A Psychosociological Studyof Domestic Violence. New York: Dan Nostrand Reinhold.Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. (1988). "Women and Childrenat Risk: A Feminist Perspective on Child Abuse." InternationalJournal of Health Services, 18, (1), 97-118.Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. Springer.Wallerstein, J.S. and Kelly, J.B. (1980). Surviving the Breakup:How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. New York: BasicBooks.Yupcavage, J. (1991). "Clippings Report on Domestic Homicide."Harrisburg: PCADV. Barbara J. Hart, Esq., Staff Counsel, PCADV, 524 McKnight Street,Reading, PA 19601Child Protective Services Quarterly, Pittsburgh, PA: PittsburghBar Association, Winter, 1992.Return to top of the pageCoordinated Community Approaches to Domestic ViolencePresented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on ViolenceAgainst Women, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D. C.,March 31, 1995.IntroductionOver the course of the last twenty years,communities across the country have identified domestic violenceas a social problem of significant proportions and, in myriadways, have initiated strategies to stop the violence and protectbattered women and children. This social reform movement, birthedin women's centers and led by battered women and advocates, hasgenerated profound change in public discourse, law and institutionalpractice. Initially, a primary emphasis of this reform effortwas the development and institutionalization of community-basedshelters and counseling programs for battered women and children.Thereafter, advocates expanded the work to target systemic reform. The system receiving first attention was the justice system,both civil and criminal. Efforts preliminarily sought to effectchange in practice of the individual components of the justicesystem. Job responsibilities were modified. Policies and practiceguides were developed with each component. Practitioners receivedtraining on domestic violence and on revisions in practice embodiedin the new protocols. Systems to monitor or track perpetratorswere established. However, the limitations of parallel reform within discrete componentssoon became apparent to advocates and colleagues within the justicesystem. Parallel reform did not foster meaningful intervention. In fact, upgrading the response of individual components mayhave placed battered women in more jeopardy, encouraging themto take action in the justice system to achieve safety when systemicresponse was uneven or addressed to perpetrator sanctions whileindifferent to victim safety. Parallel reform also appeared toexacerbate fragmentation between the components. There was oftenno shared vision and no mechanism for problem identification andsolution development. There was no vehicle to move recalcitrantcomponents. Neither was there communication, coordination orinterface between sectors. Public accountability by justicesystem sectors was also lacking. No method or authority to monitoradherence to standards or practices was adopted; nor were systemsimplemented to evaluate the efficacy of practice or to incorporatecommunity input. Therefore, advocates concluded that a processmust be devised to create a unified vision about the goals ofreform, the fundamental principles of intervention, the rolesof each component, the merit of collaboration, and the necessityfor public accountability. A number of models for organizingand institutionalizing coordinated justice system response weredesigned. (See below,Approaches to coordinated communityresponse.)One unanticipated outcome of increased intervention by the justicesystem was a sharp increase in demand for individual advocacyand supportive services of domestic violence programs. Programsinstituted civil and criminal advocacy components to assure thatbattered women are informed about participation in the justicesystem and able to safely and effectively participate therein.Victims may become reluctant or unable to participate in thejustice system if their basic safety and survival needs are notmet during the pendency of civil and criminal proceedings. Otheressential supportive services include temporary housing, food,clothing, counseling, transportation, child care, safety planning,relocation resources, and employment development. Domestic violenceprograms are significantly underfunded in most communities, suchthat as many as one in five battered women are not able to accessessential services.In recent years, those engaged in reform efforts identified otheressential activities for coordinated community response. It becameapparent that the interventions developed were often not culturallysensitive. Issues of race, language, religion, culture, class,kinship networks, and perspectives on the efficacy of participationin legal process, all must be factored into crafting culturallysensitive practice. This work has begun. With the enactmentof the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P. L. 101-336,domestic violence programs began to make structural change inoffices and shelters to accommodate victims with physical disabilities,to develop communications systems for advocacy with deaf or hardof hearing impaired battered women, and to create effective programsfor battered women with mental disabilities. Advocates are workingwith colleagues in the justice system to identify the ways thatthe justice system can eliminate barriers to victims with disabilities.Systemic reform has just begun. In many regions of this countryrural battered women confront critical barriers to safety andjustice; transportation, communication and housing. Collaborativeefforts continue to craft solutions to these impediments. Few justice system personnel have been willing to grapple withthe fact that some battered women are charged with crimes butare, nonetheless, victims of crime requiring the protections thatthe civil and criminal justice systems afford. Battered womensometimes are coerced into criminal conduct by their abusers;forced to write bad checks, purchase controlled substances, engagein prostitution, convert food stamps into cash, complete fraudulentloan applications, steal to clothe their children, etc. Otherbattered women who have fought back to escape from a battereror to stop his violence have been arrested and charged with assaultor homicide. In a number of communities, advocacy, counselingand legal services for battered women defendants are includedin the plan for coordinated community response. Undertakings in the health care system, in educational institutions,in religious organizations, among providers of service for thehomeless, in batterer education and treatment services programs,in the business sector, in civic groups, and in neighborhoodshave also burgeoned over the last 10 years. Many of these endeavorsinvolve partnering with domestic violence programs. However,reform again has been largely parallel within the disciplinesor organizations; certainly it has been informed by the workof advocates and justice system professionals, but it often remainsseparate from the collaborative infrastructure. The problemsarising from parallel reform are compounded by the amount of activityemanating from so many diverse organizations throughout the community.These particularly impose a heavy burden on underfunded, community-baseddomestic violence programs and state coalitions. Even more recently, a number of practitioners have started dialogueabout primary prevention; transforming community beliefs and normsabout violence against women. Prevention strategies are beingforged and implemented with a vision, not merely for managingthe violence and protecting its victims, but one that anticipatesan end to men's coercive and violent conduct toward their partners.Achieving coordinated community response with this magnitude ofactivity can be daunting, but in many communities throughout thecountry coordination efforts are in process.Approaches to coordinated community response.Approaches to coordinated community response to domestic violence are multiple.Often several may be employed at one time in a local communityor within a state. The following are examples of the most commonlyutilized strategies:Community Partnering. In many communities, the domesticviolence program has elected to use the community partnering approachto build coordinated community response. In this model, the domesticviolence program identifies a strategic plan for community action.Tasks are prioritized. The program partners with individualsand organizations in the community to work on the various initiativesin the plan. Work groups are established that are task specificand draw upon the expertise of members in the community. Workplans are developed and implemented. From planning through execution,the work is collaborative with selected actors in the community. The domestic violence program orchestrates and oversees thework undertaken. As contrasted with other approaches, this one is decentralizedby design. It readily works in many areas of the community contemporaneously. It is an approach that is accessible to professionals and othercommunity actors who are interested in work but who are not necessarilythe power brokers in the community. It also enables the diverseleadership within the domestic violence program to be fully employedrather than limiting participation to executive staff. Thoseengaged are likely to volunteer rather than being drafted. Thereby,team building among the work groups is facilitated. As the workgroups are not public forums, problem-solving may be enhanced;public posturing and turf issues may be minimized. Communitypartnering does not require a formal infrastructure, and thusmay be less costly and more manageable by grassroots organizationsthan other approaches. Many domestic violence coalitions, as well as local domestic violenceprograms, utilize this model. Community Intervention. Intervention projects are privatesector programs designed to enhance justice system accountabilityto battered women. Their work includes orchestration and oversightof coordinated community initiatives related to domestic violence. The intervention program works with all sectors of the justicesystem (i.e., police, jail personnel, pre-trial services, prosecutors,judges, pre-sentence investigators, probation and parole, corrections)and the mental health system to create an effective deterrentto domestic violence, to safeguard battered women and childrenand to align the community in efforts to end violence againstwomen. Elements of the work include the development, implementationand monitoring of protocols and practice guides with each component;training of all staff in every component on domestic violence,the goals of the intervention approach and the changes in jobresponsibilities and methods entailed in the reform; outreachto batterers in the civil and criminal justice systems, as wellas education or treatment groups based in the Duluth curriculumor others; training and monitoring of the educators or therapistsworking with perpetrators; tracking of batterers and automationof data retrieval on batterer status in both civil and criminaljustice systems; outreach, information and referral to batteredwomen to enhance safety and autonomy; and community educationand media initiatives to transform public understanding and responseto domestic violence.Like the community partnering model undertaken by domestic violenceprograms, the intervention approach establishes the hub of coordinatingactivity in a grassroots organization. The intervention staffare charged with primary responsibility for interface betweenthe components. They negotiate changes that are essential, asidentified through feedback from the several components or theirown monitoring efforts. They convene meetings of the whole asnecessary. They undertake independent evaluation of systemicfunction and coordination and seek modifications. In many waysthey serve as cheerleader to the system. The overarching principleof their work is accountability to battered women.Intervention programs differ from partnering initiatives in thatthey provide direct services to batterers from entry through exitfrom the justice system. The foci of intervention work are cessation,surveillance and batterer education. Direct services and advocacyfor battered women are sometimes provided by domestic violenceprograms, rather than the intervention program. Task Forces or Coordinating Councils. Task forces seekto coordinate all the components of the criminal justice systemto improve justice system practice and to better communicate andcollaborate in work to end violence against women.The initial work of a task force almost invariably is an assessmentof the state of criminal justice (and/or human services) practiceand resources in the community, followed by a report on effectivepractice and systemic deficits, along with a description of recommendedremedies and potential resources therefor. A task force may thendevelop a work plan for incremental change and elevated coordination. The promulgation of compatible and definitive protocols or guidelinesfor practice in each component of the justice system is oftenthe first step in a work plan. While each agency retains theexclusive authority to develop the protocol for that component,sharing of work product with a request for feedback from the othercomponents, particularly in terms of interface of the variouscomponents, is routinely invited. Other collaboration in trainingand problem-solving follows. Evaluation may be undertaken andsystemic reform considered in light of the results thereof. Informalsystems of communication, conflict resolution and coordinationamong task force participants are an important outgrowth of theformal work of the task force.Training and technical assistance projects. Trainingand technical assistance projects are targeted at informed, improvedjustice and human service system practice have produced a plethoraof training curricula and an almost equivalent amount of audiovisualmaterials. Legal advocacy training is offered in a number ofstates; some certify advocates and require continuing educationto maintain certification. Police training manuals, court clerkhandbooks, prosecution guides, bench books, pre-trial servicesseminars, probation workshops, correctional curricula on victimsof domestic violence, electronic monitoring pamphlets, safetyplanning and survival skills workshops, guides to maximizing compensationand restitution, court audit tools, and innumerable other educationalmaterials have been crafted and implemented. Training curriculafor clergy, educators, health care providers, child protectiveservice workers, public housing staff, private security firms,employers, civic groups, etc. have been developed. Media campaignshave been initiated. Clearinghouses have been established. Technicalassistance projects to aid policy-makers and practitioners inthe design of effective justice and human services systems havebeen instituted. Community organizing. Community organizing initiativesare those which invite members of the general public to activelyengage in work to end violence against women. Domestic violenceprograms and community activists have utilized organizing strategieswith the goals of enhancing safety and achieving social justicefor battered women and children; objectives of community organizingare expansion of the constituency of active participants in thework, articulation of a clear, universal message that each citizencan take responsibility to end this violence, and transformationof the public discourse and consciousness about the causes ofviolence against women and the power of the community to end it.Many community organizing efforts originated in domestic violenceprograms. Sometimes organizing addresses a discrete problem andat others it attempts to transform the consciousness and practiceof the entire community. However, once organized the communityteam often develops a mission and tasks of its own; at which timethe organizing effort is passed on to the community. Among allthe coordinated community approaches, organizing projects have,perhaps, best engaged communities of color and other marginalized constituencies in full partnership in the visioning and implementationof work to end violence against women and children. Overview of the evaluation literature on coordinated communityresponseThe evaluation literature on coordinated communityapproaches is largely exploratory and preliminary. It lends supportto the premise that multiple and coordinated approaches to endingdomestic violence are warranted. Data on the question of when battered women will seek outsideintervention suggest that the more resources and apparent optionsa woman has for ending the violence, the more likely she is toact to seek intervention, to achieve protection or to leave theabuser. Thus, where a community offers multiple, viable options,it appears that the safety requirements of battered women willbe better met than when a singular intervention is employed. If one defines coordinated community response in terms of comprehensive,or at least multiple, options in the justice and human servicessystems, this appears to advance the goal of social justice forbattered women.It is critical to note, however, that there has been relativelylittle research on outcomes of individual justice system or humanservice system endeavors. The singular intervention of arresthas been investigated. A smaller amount of inquiry has been directedat prosecution, lawyers or the courts. A comparative treasuretrove of research on batterer intervention services is now available,the results of which offer some direction for policy formulation. There is a dearth of evaluation study on advocacy and domesticviolence program services and the needs of battered women seekingshelter. There is an emerging body of research on the efficacyof civil protection orders and court processes. However, it isclear that the evaluation of discrete intervention strategieshas barely begun. Significant additional investigation on interventioninitiatives in the justice system and community is essential,and it will inform research on coordinated community response.Measuring success The issues of how and what to measure in evaluating the efficacy of coordinated community approachespose interesting questions.How to effectively measure coordinated community response. While quantitative empiricists may shudder at descriptive assessmentpieces, in the field of domestic violence these practitioner inquirieshave been instrumental in building theory and shaping the designof empirical work. An early, notable piece is the investigationof Finn & Colsen. The work relied on expert practitionerinformants to render a broad brush picture of protection orderpractice. This reasoned appraisal of the intent of protectionorder law and the practice thereunder set the stage for significantresearch and policy development. The Merryman inquiry on court, advocate and attorney practicein dedicated protection order courts may similarly inform futureinvestigation on the design of dedicated domestic violence courtsand the comparative worth of specialized, as contrasted with unifiedand traditional court structure and practice. There are manyquestions on justice system interventions in domestic violencethat would also benefit from the informed reflections of expertpractitioners and battered women; questions, both qualitativeand quantitative, for inquiry will be clarified and expanded bythis deliberative process.Beyond this, analysis of aggregate justice system data and otherdata sets that may be rich, but untapped, sources of informationwould greatly enhance the knowledge base on domestic violenceand interventions to end it. All methods of statistical datacollection, federal and state, should capture gender and relationship. Technology within the justice and advocacy system must be upgradedwith dispatch.Empirical investigation is also essential. It will be enhancedboth by informed reflection by practitioners and by improved statisticalaggregation. Research should be retrospective, developmentaland experimental. Practitioners caution that the imposition ofexperimental design on communities should be undertaken most judiciously. The design should foster coordinated community response ratherthan erect significant barriers between components and constituencies. Furthermore, since experimental design may have significant impacton the communities in which it is undertaken, examination of theenvironmental context of the experimental intervention both beforeand after its imposition should be employed.What to measure in evaluating coordinated community response. First and foremost, every investigation should evaluate the impactof an intervention on battered women. The impact should be measuredin terms of the safety, autonomy and quality of life of batteredwomen.Secondarily, in measuring the impact of coordinated communityresponse on batterers, issues of recidivism should be addressed. Research should also evaluate whether a batterer has made financialrestoration to the battered woman for the losses occasioned byhis violence, whether he acts as a parent in ways that eschewviolence and are respectful of the battered mother, whether therehas been a change in perpetrator belief systems about domesticviolence, and whether the abuser acts to end violence againstwomen in his social and work life.Issues of race, class and culture must be carefully incorporatedin research on coordinated community approaches to ending domesticviolence. Reporting of the results should be crafted in sucha manner that informs social change rather than reinforcing culturaland institutional bias.Evaluation of individual components of coordinated community responseto domestic violence should be undertaken, as well as investigationof the effectiveness of the entire community approach. Issuesof systemic readiness for the interventions proposed, change inpractice and procedures, fit between the changes adopted by variouscomponents, interface or communication between the systems andwith the community, availability of advocacy and support services,leadership of advocates and battered women in the design and implementation,change in public discourse, and impact on battered women, batterersand the community should be examined. Essential components ofa coordinated community response in various communities, e.g.metropolitan, urban, suburban, rural and tribal communities, aswell as in specific communities of color and diverse culture,class and religion, should be identified. Comparative efficacyof the various approaches might also be evaluated. A number of additional questions should be answered. It is criticalthat careful study be undertaken on whether "separation assault"occurs, how it is different from domestic violence before separationand after the batterer relinquishes perceived ownership of thebattered woman, the dangers it poses and the specialized interventionsthat may be critical to avert severe or lethal violence duringthe time that the battered woman is separating from the batterer.Investigation of risk-markers for severe or lethal assault bybatterers is essential. Research on the effectiveness of specializedinterventions by the justice system once life-imperiling risk-markersappear should be undertaken.Practitioners throughout justice and human services agencies havebegun to engage in "safety planning" with battered womento assist them in strategically assessing danger and identifyingaction steps possible to avoid life-imperiling assault. Studieson the utility of "safety planning" should be initiated.Building collaborative investigative processes Over the course of the last 10 years significant dialogue has been forgedbetween practitioners and researchers about interventions to enddomestic violence, research questions and both short and long-termresearch agendas, methods of investigation, measurement issues,ethics of research and intervention, analyzing data, developingreports on the research, crafting practice modifications in lightof the results, dissemination and community education strategies,and building bridges between practitioners and academe. In manyof these discussions the principle of evaluating our work in lightof its impact, beneficial or adverse, on safety, autonomy andsocial justice for battered women has been articulated. Throughthis process of collaborative research many of the questions raisedby advocates, practitioners and policy-makers are now being answered.Collaborative initiatives within the justice and human servicessystems and between practitioners and researchers will well servethe critical social imperative to end violence against women. As we seek to institutionalize coordinated community approachesto end domestic violence, we should also endeavor to institutionalizecollaboration between the practice and research communities.People offering input and assistance, whose views may differfrom the writer and whose assistance does not imply endorsement:Judge Ronald B. Adrine, Ohio, Cleveland Municipal CourtJudith Armatta, Esq., Oregon, Coalition Against Sexualand Domestic ViolenceBatterer Intervention Services Network of PennsylvaniaRichard A. Berk, Ph.D., California, Department of Environmentand Society, UCLALee H. Bowker, Ph.D., California, Dean, College of Behavioraland Social Sciences, Humboldt State UniversityJill Davies, Esq., Connecticut, Legal Aid Society of HartfordCountySandra Dempsey, Pennsylvania, Physicians for Social ResponsibilityJeffrey L. Edleson, Minnesota, Professor, University ofMinnesota School of Social WorkJudge Leonard Edwards, California, Superior Court of SantaClara CountyDonna Garske, California, Marin Abused Women's Center andCalifornia AllianceEdward W. Gondolf, Ed. D., Pennsylvania, Professor, IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania & Mid-Atlantic Addiction InstituteScott Hampton, M. A., New Hampshire, Strafford GuidanceCenter & Governor's Commission on Domestic ViolenceJoanne Hessmiller-Trego, M.S.W., Pennsylvania, MessiahCollege and Lutheran Social ServicesMeredith Hofford, M. A., Nevada, Family Violence Project,The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court JudgesBarbara Johnson, Minnesota, Central Minnesota Task Forceon Battered WomenNancy Lemon, Esq., California, Clinical Professor, BoaltLaw SchoolIsabel Marcus, Esq., New York, Professor of Law, Schoolof Law, SUNY BuffaloLinda McGuire, Esq., Iowa, Visiting Professor, Collegeof Law, University of IowaJoan Meier, Esq., Washington, D.C., Associate Professorof Law, George Washington UniversityAnne Menard, Pennsylvania, National Resource Center onDomestic ViolenceMichele Olvera, Esq., Pennsylvania, Battered Women's JusticeProjectEllen Pence, Minnesota, Domestic Abuse Intervention Projectand Battered Women's Justice ProjectJames Ptacek, Massachusetts, Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Tufts UniversityEvan Stark, Ph.D., MSW, Connecticut, Domestic ViolenceTraining ProjectJane Stuehling, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Coalition AgainstDomestic ViolenceJudge Michael A. Town, Hawaii, Family Court of the FirstCircuitOliver Williams, Ph.D., Minnesota, Assistant Professor,University of Minnesota School of Social WorkJudge Frances Q. F. Wong, Hawaii, Circuit Court of theFirst CircuitBarbara J. Hart, Esq.Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Associate Director, Battered Women's Justice Project; Legal Consultant to the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Return to top of the pageDomestic Violence: A model protocol for police responsePENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FAMILY VIOLENCE TASK FORCEJanuary, 1989 The Task Force urges the Pennsylvania State Police and each policedepartment in Pennsylvania to adopt a written protocol establishingguidelines and procedures to be followed by police officers andother personnel involved in the police response to domestic calls.In aid of that purpose, the Task Force offers the following modelprotocol, which can be readily adapted to the particular needsof the state police and police departments throughout the Commonwealth.The core feature of the model protocol is the provision that policeshould arrest the assailant in domestic violence cases wheneverarrest is authorized. To underscore the presumption that arrestis the proper response in the overwhelming majority of domesticviolence cases, the protocol requires the responding officer,if he decides not to arrest, to include in his report of the incidenta detailed explanation of the reasons why an arrest was not made.The protocol further provides a list of factors that the officershould not consider in making the arrest decision.Many other jurisdictions, either by legislation or through policedepartment protocols,have adopted policies that mandate arrestof the assailant in domestic violence cases. The Task Force consideredbut rejected this absolute approach because it found problematicthe concept of removing all discretion from the responding officer.However exceptional they may be, cases are certain to arise inwhich arrest, though authorized, is inappropriate because it doesnot serve the interests of justice and is not necessary to ensurethe victim's safety.Another important feature of the model protocol is the provisionthat police should identify the victim to a domestic violenceprogram whenever the accused has been arrested or is the subjectof an arrest warrant. The intent and expectation of this provisionis that the domestic violence program will contact the victim,in the manner that the program finds most appropriate, to offerthe victim support and referral to services. This aggressive outreachis designed to help overcome the fear and isolation that so oftendeter victims of domestic violence from pursuing needed assistanceon their own initiative.Some members expressed concern that, while the law does not requirepolice to keep the victim's identity confidential, the identificationof victims to domestic violence programs nevertheless might undulycompromise the preference of some victims for strict privacy.The majority believed, however, that the benefit to the many victimswho otherwise would receive no help when they needed it most justifiesthe approach of affirmative referral and outreach, particularlyin view of the minimal intrusion upon privacy that such referraland outreach entails. Domestic violence programs routinely observethe strictest confidentiality; no victim is required to acceptassistance, and the risk of further disclosure of the victim'sidentity is remote.The following protocol, in the judgment of the Task Force, combineslaw enforcement and victim assistance into an effective programof police response to domestic violence.MODEL PROTOCOL FOR POLICE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Purposes The principal purpose of this protocol is to establish guidelinesand procedures to be followed by police officers and other personnelinvolved in the police response to domestic calls. Other purposes and goals of this protocol are: To reduce the incidence and severity of domestic violenceby establishing arrest and prosecution, rather than mediation,as the preferred means of police response to domestic violence; To afford maximum protection and support to victims of domesticviolence through a coordinated program of law enforcement andvictim assistance; To ensure that law enforcement services are as available indomestic violence cases as they are in other criminal cases; To reaffirm the police officer's authority and responsibilityto make arrest decisions in accordance with established probablecause standards; To promote officer safety by ensuring that officers are asfully prepared as possible to respond to domestic calls; and To help reduce police resources consumed in responding todomestic violence by reducing the number of police interventionsrequired for any particular household. Policy Domestic violence is a crime that differs from other crimes becauseof the intimate relationship between the victim and the accused.Notwithstanding that difference, police should respond to domesticviolence as they would respond to any crime. Police should arrestand pursue criminal remedies appropriate to the crime that thepolice have probable cause to believe the accused has committed.In recognition of the difference between domestic violence andother crimes, however, police also should provide victims withspecial assistance, including efforts to ensure that victims areinformed of services available to victims of domestic violence. Scope of Coverage This protocol applies to any call to police reporting a disturbancebetween persons in a "covered relationship" to eachother. "Covered relationships" include: persons relatedby blood or marriage; persons who reside or formerly resided together;persons who are biological parents of the same child; and currentor former sexual or intimate partners. Dispatch Dispatchers under the direct supervision of a police departmentshould dispatch domestic calls in the same manner as any othercall for police assistance, in accordance with the priority criteriaprescribed by generally applicable department procedures. Dispatchers who serve multiple police departments should accorddomestic calls the highest priority classification. Whenever possible,the dispatcher should assign a back-up unit. The dispatcher receiving a domestic call should attempt toelicit from the caller and should communicate to the respondingofficer as much of the following information, in the followingorder of importance, as time and the exigencies of the reportedincident allow: The nature of the incident; The address of the incident, including the apartment numberor the name of the business, as appropriate; A telephone number where the caller can be called back; Whether weapons are involved; Whether an ambulance is needed; Whether the suspect is present and, if not, the suspect'sdescription, direction of flight, and mode of travel; and Whether children are at the scene. If the caller is the victim, the dispatcher should attemptto keep the caller on the telephone as long as possible and shouldtell the caller that help is on the way and when the caller canexpect the police to arrive. If the caller is a witness to a domestic incident in progress,the dispatcher should keep the caller on the telephone and shouldrelay ongoing information provided by the caller to the respondingofficer. If the dispatcher has ready access to police department recordsthat indicate whether the parties involved in the incident havebeen involved previously in domestic incidents or that indicatewhether there is a protection from abuse order involving the partiesin effect, the dispatcher should consult such records and radioany relevant information to the responding officer. Initial Police Officer Response Approaching the scene. The responding officer should approach the scene of a domesticdispute as one of high risk. Whenever possible, two officers willrespond to a domestic call. The officer should obtain all available information from thedispatcher before arriving at the scene and should notify thedispatcher upon arrival. The officer should avoid the use of sirens and emergency lightsin the vicinity of the scene of the incident. Sirens and lightsshould be employed only when speed is essential. The officer should not park the police vehicle directly infront of the residence or other site of the disturbance. The officershould be alert for assailants leaving the scene and for the employmentof weapons from doors, windows, or nearby vehicles. The officer otherwise should employ standard precautionarymeasures in approaching the scene of the incident. Initial contact with occupants. The responding officer should identify himself as a policeofficer, explain his presence, and request entry into the home.The officer should ask to see the person who is the subject ofthe call. If the person who called the police is someone otherthan the subject of the call, the officer should not reveal thecaller's name. The officer may enter and conduct a search of the premisesrelevant to the incident if consent has been given to do so. If refused entry, the officer should be persistent about seeingand speaking alone with the subject of the call. If access tothe subject is refused, the officer should request the dispatcherto contact the caller if the caller is the subject of the call.If access is still refused, the officer must decide whether toleave, remain and observe, or force entry. If the officer leavesthe scene, he should drive by and observe frequently. If the officerremains to observe, he should move to public property (the street)and observe the premises. In some circumstances, forced entrywill be necessary and appropriate. Once inside, the responding officer should establish controlby: Identifying potential weapons in the surroundings; Separating the victim and the assailant; Restraining the assailant if necessary, and removing the assailantto the patrol car if immediate arrest is warranted; Assessing the injuries (including inquiry about possible internalinjuries), administering first aid, and/or notifying emergencymedical services; Inquiring about the nature of the dispute; Identifying all occupants/witnesses on the premises; and Separating occupants/witnesses from the victim and accusedand keeping them out of hearing range (to avoid compromising theirwitness status). On-scene investigation: The responding officer should interview the victims and theassailant as fully as circumstances allow. The officer shouldbe alert to possible incriminating statements. The officer should ensure the victim's safety and privacyby interviewing the victim in an area apart from the assailant,witnesses, and bystanders. In questioning the victim, the officershould use supportive interview techniques. The officer shouldask the victim about previous domestic incidents, their frequencyand severity. The officer should not tell the victim what actionhe intends to take until all available information has been collected. If the accused has been arrested prior to interview, the accusedmust be given Miranda warnings before being questioned.If the accused has fled the scene, the officer should solicitinformation as to the possible whereabouts of the accused (placeof employment, relatives, friends, etc.). If the dispatcher has not advised the officer of the existenceof a protection from abuse order, the officer should ask the victimwhether there is such an order and, if so, if the victim can producea copy and what police department might have a copy. The officershould contact the countywide registry of protection from abuseorders, the prothonotary's office, or a local police departmentspecified by the victim to verify the existence and effectiveperiod of the order. The officer should note carefully the restrictionsimposed by the order so that the officer may determine whetherthere is probable cause to believe that the order has been violated. The officer should interview any witnesses as fully and assoon as circumstances allow. If witnesses provided informationabout prior incidents, the officer should document such incidentsto establish a pattern. Children should be interviewed in a manner appropriate tothe child's age. Signs of trauma and any apparent healing of abusewounds on the child should be noted by the officer. The officer should collect and preserve all physical evidencereasonably necessary to support prosecution, including evidencesubstantiating the victim's injuries, evidentiary articles thatsubstantiate the attack (weapons, torn clothing, etc.), and evidencerecording the crime scene. The officer should ensure that photographsare taken of visible injuries on the victim and of the crime scene. The officer should encourage the victim to seek an emergencyroom examination. Emergency room pictures are excellent evidenceof injuries. The officer should inquire about injuries of thevictim that are concealed by clothing or otherwise not readilyapparent. Also, because bruises may not appear for several daysafter an assault, the office should advise the victim to contactthe police for photographs if injuries later appear and, if possible,should revisit the victim if there is reason to suspect that suchevidence of injury indeed may later appear. All physical evidence should be collected, noted in reports,and vouchered as in other criminal investigations. The Arrest Decision The responding officer should arrest the assailant wheneverarrest is authorized. If the officer decides not to arrest,he must include in his report of the incident a detailed explanationof the reasons why an arrest was not made. Under current Pennsylvania law, arrest is authorized in thefollowing circumstances: When the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspecthas committed a felony. When the officer observes the commission of a felony or amisdemeanor. When the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspecthas committed a domestic violence misdemeanor as specified in18 Pa.C.S.§2711, which authorizes warrantless arrest whenthe misdemeanor is involuntary manslaughter (18 Pa.C.S. §2504),simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. §2701), or recklessly endangeringanother person (18 Pa.C.S. §2705), andthe officerobserves recent physical injury or other corroborative evidence,andthe victim is the spouse of the suspect or a personwith whom the suspect resides or has formerly resided. The domesticviolence misdemeanor need not have been committed in the officer'spresence. When the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspecthas violated a valid protection from abuse order. The violationneed not have occurred in the officer's presence, and no corroborativeevidence is required. When a misdemeanor not included among those in paragraphs(b) through (d) has been committed and the officer has obtainedan arrest warrant. The officer should not consider the following factors in makingthe arrest decision: The marital status of the parties. The ownership or tenancy rights of either party. Verbal assurances that the violence will stop. A claim by the accused that the victim provoked or perpetuatedthe violence. Denial by either party that the abuse occurred when thereis evidence of domestic violence. Speculation that the victim will not follow through or cooperatewith criminal prosecution (whether based on prior incidents involvingthe same victim, the victim's hesitancy about pursuing prosecution,or any other factor). The disposition of any previous police calls involving thesame victim or accused. Speculation that the arrest may not lead to a conviction. The existence or not of a current protection from abuse order(except insofar as the violation of such an order might justifyarrest). The victim's emotional state. Concern about reprisals against the victim. Adverse financial consequences that might result from thearrest. That the incident occurred in a private place. The racial, cultural, social, political, or professional position,or the sexual orientation, of either the victim or the accused. It is the officer's responsibility to decide whether an arrestshould be made. The officer, therefore, should not consider thevictim's opposition to arrest and should emphasize to the victim,and to the accused as well, that the criminal action thus initiatedis the Commonwealth's action, not the victim's action. If the officer arrests for the commission of a crime, the officershould confiscate all weapons used or threatened to be used inthe commission of the crime, and such weapons should be held asevidence for prosecution. If the officer arrests for violation of a protection from abuseorder, the officer is required by 35 P.S.§10190 to confiscateall weapons used or threatened to be used in the violation, andto deliver such weapons to the office of the sheriff. If there is evidence of mutual battering and the officer concludesthat one party was acting in self-defense, that party should notbe arrested. If there is evidence of mutual battering and the officer concludesthat one party was the principal aggressor, the officer shouldarrest only that party. Effectuating the Arrest The responding officer should take the accused into custodyas soon as the officer determines that a warrantless arrest isappropriate. If the suspect has fled the scene, the officer shouldinitiate procedures to pursue and apprehend the accused as promptlyas possible, since the risk is high in domestic violence casesthat the accused will return to the victim's residence or thescene of the violence. If a warrant is necessary, the officershould obtain and execute the warrant as soon as practical. When the accused is a minor (under 18 years of age), the provisionsof this protocol shall be fully applicable, except that arrestshould be effectuated and the juvenile processed pursuant to theJuvenile Act. If, upon examination of the accused, the responding officerdetermines that a voluntary or involuntary commitment to a mentalhealth facility is required, the officer should restrain the accusedand contact a MH/MR delegate. The officer should not allow thepossibility of mental illness to preclude a valid criminal arrest. Domestic disturbances involving prominent citizens, publicofficials, or police officers may present particular difficultiesfor the responding officer. In such circumstances, the respondingofficer should request that an appropriately senior officer cometo the scene. The responding officer should take whatever actionis necessary to protect the victim and detain the assailant, whileawaiting the arrival of the senior officer. When there is probablecause to believe that the accused has committed a crime, the procedurefollowed upon arrival of the senior officer should be the sameas it would be in any other domestic incident. Procedure When Arrest Is Not Authorized or, if Authorized,Is Not Made If an arrest is not authorized because the abusive act is asummary offense, the responding officer should issue a citation.If arrest is not authorized because of the absence of probablecause to believe that a crime was committed, or if arrest is authorizedbut not made (for reasons to be detailed in the incident report),the officer should: Explain to the victim the reasons that arrest is not beingmade; Advise the victim of procedures for filing a private criminalcomplaint; and Encourage the victim to contact the domestic violence programidentified in the notice required by 18 Pa. C.S. §2711 (seeparagraph I.2. of this protocol) for information regarding counselingand other services available to victims of domestic violence. The office should not become involved in the disposition ofpersonal property, ownership of which is in dispute. In the absenceof a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has occurred,the officer should remain neutral and be concerned primarily withmaintaining the peace and safety of those present. Other On-Scene Assistance to Victims and Dependents Whether or not an arrest is made, the responding officer shouldnot leave the scene of the incident until the situation is undercontrol and the likelihood of further violence has been eliminated.The officer should stand by while victims gather necessities forshort-term absences from home, such as clothing, medication, andnecessary documents. Whether or not an arrest is made, the responding officer isrequired by 18 Pa. C.S. §2711 to notify the victim orallyor in writing of the availability of a shelter, including itstelephone number, or other services in the community. The noticemust include the following statement:If you are a victim of domestic violence, you have the right togo to court and file a petition requesting an order for protectionfrom abuse pursuant to the Act of October 7, 1976 (P.L. 1090,No. 218) , known as the Protection From Abuse Act, which couldinclude the following: An order restraining the abuser from further acts of abuse. An order directing the abuser to leave your household. An order preventing the abuser from entering your residence,school, business or place of employment. An order awarding you or the other parent temporary custodyof or temporary visitation with your child or children. An order directing the abuser to pay support to you and theminor children if the abuser has a legal obligation to do so. If an arrest is made or an arrest warrant obtained, the officershould: dvise the victim that the officer will give the victim'sname, address, and telephone number to the domestic violence programand proceed to do so before the officer's shift has ended; Advise the victim that a domestic violence counselor willbe asked to contact the victim to offer assistance and referralsto other available services (such as counseling, legal aid, etc.); Advise the victim of what procedure will happen next, includingthe probability that the accused will be in custody for only ashort period of time; Obtain the address and telephone number where the victim canbe contacted if the victim decides to leave the residence (beingcareful that the accused cannot overhear); Obtain from the victim information to be included in the arrestreport indicating any special conditions of bail that should berequested at the preliminary arraignment; and Provide the victim with the police incident number (if available),the officer's name and badge number, and a follow-up telephonenumber. If the victim does not speak English, the officer should arrangefor translation of the foregoing notices and advice. In circumstances in which it is necessary for the victim temporarilyto leave the residence, the officer should offer the victim assistancein locating lodging with family, friends, in public accommodations,or at a domestic violence shelter. The officer, upon request of the victim, should provide orhelp arrange transportation to emergency housing or to a medicalfacility. Elder victims and dependents. When a victim of domestic violence is elderly (60 or over),the accused is the sole caretaker, and an arrest is indicated,or when the victim of domestic violence is the sole caretakerof a physically dependent elder and the victim can no longer providecare (as, for example, when the victim is hospitalized), the respondingofficer should determine whether the elder is physically endangered,either as a result of the abuse, a pre-existing medical condition,or the removal of a caretaker. If the elder is physically endangeredand mentally alert, the officer should ask the elder for the nameof a relative or friend who can be contacted immediately to assistthe elder. If there is no one available to assist the elder, or if theelder appears not to be mentally alert, the officer should makean emergency referral to a local agency on aging. The officershould remain at the residence until the protective services workerarrives or should transport the elder to a medical facility orother appropriate place where the elder can wait for the worker. In addition to providing the notification required by otherprovisions of this protocol, the officer should advise the elderof the availability of protective services through the local areaagency on aging. Child victims and dependents. When the victim of abuse is a minor child, the officer shouldarrest the assailant upon probable cause to believe that a crimehas been committed and should make a report to child protectiveservices, as required by the Child Protective Services Law. Ifthe child is physically injured, the officer should escort thechild to the nearest hospital for treatment. The officer shouldprovide victim notification, as described in this protocol, toan adult caretaker of the child who is not the perpetrator ofabuse. If the accused is arrested and was the sole caretaker of achild, and/or if the victim is the sole caretaker of a child andcan no longer provide care (as, for example, when the victim ishospitalized), the officer should determine whether there is aresponsible relative who can care for the child and, if so, shouldcontact that relative and await the relative's arrival. If noresponsible relative is available, the officer should contactchild protective services and remain at the residence until aprotective services worker arrives or should take the child intocustody pursuant to the Juvenile Act and/or the Child ProtectiveServices Law. Processing the Accused A person arrested without a warrant for a domestic violencemisdemeanor pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. §2711 should be chargedwith any other crimes properly charged as a result of the incident.Likewise, a person arrested for violation of a protection fromabuse order should be charged with any crimes properly chargedas a result of the incident in which the violation occurred. When arrest is made pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. §2711 or forviolation of a protection from abuse order, the accused shouldbe taken before a district justice for preliminary arraignmentwithout unnecessary delay. Under no circumstances should the arrestingofficer release the defendant before the preliminary arraignment. The officer responsible for presenting the accused for preliminaryarraignment should bring to the attention of the district attorneyor the court any circumstances noted in the arrest report or knownto the officer that argue for special conditions of bail authorizedby 18 Pa. C.S. §2711 and Pa. R. Crim. P. 4013. Such conditionsmay include, but are not limited to: enjoining the defendant fromabusing, harassing, or intimidating the victim; excluding thedefendant from the home, school, and/or workplace of the victim;enjoining the defendant from contacting the victim in person orby telephone; and restraining the defendant from contact thatwill prevent the victim from performing the victim's normal dailyactivities. All reports and other documents generated in the case shouldbe marked "domestic incident" as an aid to processingthe accused and to the identification of such cases. Encouraging Follow-Through by Victims The chief of police (in the jurisdiction in which the incidentoccurred) should designate a person to notify the victim of anyconditions of bail imposed and to advise the victim of the rightto request revocation of bail from the district attorney's officeif the conditions are violated. To the extent possible, the chief also should designate a personto make contact with victims of domestic incidents for the purposeof follow-up. The contact should be made within 30 days followingthe incident to determine whether subsequent violence or intimidationhave occurred. If such acts have occurred, a designated officershould investigate the incident, proceeding in accordance withthe provisions of this protocol. Written Report and Data Collection A written report clearly identified as a domestic incidentreport must be completed by the officer responding to any callcovered by this protocol. The report should include the followinginformation: Names, addresses, and phone numbers of the victim, the accused,any witnesses, and the caller. A second permanent address and telephone number for the victim(such as a close family member or a friend). A statement of the relationship between the victim and theaccused. A narrative for the incident (including the date, time, andwhether the accused appeared intoxicated or under the influenceof a controlled substance). What, if any, weapons were used or threatened to be used. A description of any injuries observed by the officer. A description of any injuries described by the victim butnot observed by the officer and an indication that the injurywas not observed. Documentation of any evidence that would tend to establishthat a crime was committed. An indication of what arrest decision was made: a warrantlessarrest; an arrest with a warrant; or no arrest. Whether the accused actually was arrested or whether thereis an outstanding arrest warrant. The crimes with which the accused was charged. If the accused was arrested and arraigned, whether bail wasset and any conditions of bail imposed. If the officer did not arrest or seek an arrest warrant eventhoug | |
