Policy, Place, and Perpetrators: Using NIBRS to Explain Arrest Practices in Intimate Partner Violence

• Author: April Pattavina,David Hirschel,Eve Buzawa,Donald Faggiani
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.9.2.2007.31
• Published date: 01 December 2007
• Date: 01 December 2007
• Subject Matter: Article

Policy, Place, and Perpetrators • 31

April Pattavina

Eve Buzawa

David Hirschel

University of Massachusetts Lowell

Donald Faggiani

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

* Abstract

This study presents the results of a multilevel analysis of arrest outcomes in

intimate partner incidents reported to the police. Using NIBRS data for 2000 in

combination with data from other sources, we investigate how arrest policies, levels

of urbanization, incident circumstances and offender characteristics inuence arrest

outcomes in domestic violence incidents. Our results indicate that arrest outcomes for

intimate partner violence are inuenced not only by mandatory arrest legislation, but

also by level of urbanization and incident circumstances. The ndings demonstrate

the need for continued research that considers agency-level as well as offender- and

incident-level characteristics in accounting for arrest outcomes.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2001-WT-BX-0501 awarded by the National

Institute of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of

view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the

ofcial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2007

© 2007 Justice Research and Statistics Association

*

Policy, Place, and Perpetrators: Using NIBRS 

 to Explain Arrest Practices in Intimate

 Partner Violence

32 • JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY

Policy, Place, and Perpetrators • 33

* Introduction

Over the last few decades, the topic of domestic violence has received increased

attention from all components of the criminal justice system. Several impor-

tant factors contributed to this development. Public recognition of domestic

violence as a recurrent and serious problem resulted in a demand for increased

attention and accountability by the entire criminal justice system. Political

pressure exerted by women’s groups, lawsuits brought against police depart-

ments for negligence and failure to provide equal protection to female victims

in domestic violence situations (see, e.g., Bruno v. Codd [1977]; Scott v. Hart

[1976]; Thurman v. City of Torrington [1984]), and the ndings reported

by the Minneapolis domestic violence experiment (Sherman & Berk 1984a,

1984b) produced a nationwide movement toward arrest as the preferred re-

sponse to domestic violence.1

Legislative mandates aimed at changing police behavior have been at the

core of this movement. Pro-arrest legislation has placed increased pressure on

criminal justice agencies to intervene and respond more proactively to cases of

domestic assault. A major outcome has been a growing concern among all crimi-

nal justice agencies over the prevalence and incidence of domestic violence cases

reaching their organizations. According to a review by the National Research

Council (2004),

there is evidence to support more aggressive responses to do

mes-

tic violence including increased rates of arrest, prosecution, and conviction as

well as improved responsiveness toward victims.

The changes in the way the criminal justice system is dealing with domestic

violence suggest that advocates have been successful in promoting arrest as a

response to intimate partner violence. However, there remain important ques-

tions about the use of arrest as a uniform response. A major concern is that po-

lice practices are inuenced by characteristics of the communities where victims

live (Jiao, 2001).

One important community characteristic that has received attention in the

literature is level of urbanization. There has been variation in reported levels of

domestic violence victimization between urban and rural communities, but most

recently Catalano (2006) reported that National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) data between 1993 and 2004 show that domestic violence victimiza-

tion was highest in urban areas, whereas suburban and rural areas had lower

but similar rates of non-fatal intimate personal violence. However, from a law

enforcement perspective, there are studies that suggest that the cultural and

law enforcement environments are different in urban and rural communities

1 For a more detailed history of the law enforcement response to intimate partner

violence, see, e.g., Buzawa & Buzawa (2003), Hirschel and Dawson (2000), Hirschel,

Hutchison, Dean, & Mills (1992), and Pleck (1989).