The Effects of Arrest, Reporting to the Police, and Victim Services on Intimate Partner Violence

• Date: 01 May 2017
• Author: James P. Lynch,Min Xie
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427816678035
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Effects of Arrest,

Reporting to the

Police, and Victim

Services on Intimate

Partner Violence

Min Xie

1

and James P. Lynch

1

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the effects of three types of responses to intimate

partner violence: (1) reporting of crime to th e police, (2) arresting the

suspect, and (3) receiving services from agencies other than the police that

assist victims of crime. Methods: We obtained a nationally representative

sample of 2,221 victims, using longitudinal records from the area-identified

National Crime Victimization Survey from 1996 through 2012. To reduce

the threat of nonrandom selection into treatment, we estimated effects

using propensity score matched and weighted survival analysis. Results: Vic-

tims’ probability of repeat victimizat ion is not related to arrest (hazard

ratio, 0.87; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.40; p¼.57). In

contrast, the reporting of crime to the police is associated with a 34 percent

reduction in the risk of repeat victimization (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95 percent

CI, 0.53 to 0.82; p< .001), and the use of victim services is associated with a

40 percent reduction in the risk of repeat victimization (hazard ratio, 0.60;

1

Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Min Xie, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 2220 LeFrak

Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

Email: mxie@umd.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2017, Vol. 54(3) 338-378

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022427816678035

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

95 percent CI, 0.44 to 0.83; p< .01). Conclusions: The results support a

model in which the deterrent effect of arrest is not substantively important,

but police notification and victim-centered services produce important

reductions in repeat victimization.

Keywords

intimate partner violence, repeat victimization, police, arrest, victim

services

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious problem in the United States.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the

Supplementary Homicide Reports, IPV accounts f or approximately 30

percent of annual violent victimizations against women and 5 percent

of annual violent victimizations against men (Bureau of Justice Statistics

[BJS] 2015; Lauritsen et al. 2012). Other national surveys, such as the

National Violence Against Women Survey and the National Intimate

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, estimate that the lifetime prevalence

of IPV is between 25 percent and 35 percent for women and between 8

percent and 28 percent for men (Black et al. 2011; Tjaden and Thoennes

2000).

After years of research and policy debate, there is little agreement

about which interventions or combinations of interventions are effective

in reducing IPV (e.g., see Dobash and Dobash 2000; Eckhardt et al.

2013; Wathen and MacMillan 2003). In the 1980s and 1990s, criminal

justice interventions such as mandatory and proarrest polic ies were

widely implemented and became the most hotly debated aspect of IPV

intervention in the United States (Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan 2002).

Proponents of arrest view the decision to arrest as necessary to make

victims safe (e.g., Hoctor 1997), whereas critics are concerned about the

overall effectiveness of arrest for reducing victimizations and the over-

reliance on this approach to the detriment of the individuals and fam-

ilies involved (e.g., Buzawa and Buzawa 1993; Felson, Ackerman, and

Gallagher 2005; Iyengar 2009). In this literature, the most important

contributions include the well-known Minneapolis Domestic Violence

Experiment (Sherman and Berk 1984) and its replications known as the

National Institute of Justice’s Spouse Assault Replication Program

(SARP; Maxwell et al. 2002).

In contrast to the arrest studies, there is much less research on the effects

of providing support services to victims of IPV. This is unfortunate because

Xie and Lynch 339

IPV was originally brought to public attention largely through the crime

victims’ movement in the 1960s and 1970s which established grassroots

organizations to provide assistance to victims (Davis, Lurigio, and Skogan

1999). Although much federal, state, and private funding has been devoted

to victim services (e.g., see Newmark et al. 2003), a recent literature review

commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (Lurigio 2014) found that

the lack of data concerning the effectiveness of victim service programs is a

serious obstacle to research and evidence-based policy. In addition, studies

found that victims and criminal justice agency personnel frequently lack

knowledge of available victim services and perceive victim services as a

low priority in a system that is designed primarily to deal with offenders

(e.g., see Englebrecht 2011; Sims, Yost, and Abbott 2005).

Instead of focusing only on arrest, this study examines whether IPV is

less likely to be repeated when it is reported to the police, when the offender

is arrested, and when the victim receives services from victim service

agencies, for these are all important options that could reduce reoffending.

We use a longitudinal file constructed from the NCVS (1996–2012) to

identify IPV victims. Because many IPV incidents are not reported to the

police, it is important to consider victim services that are not initiated by

police contact. Indeed, sch olars are increasingly inte rested in exploring

whether victim service resources can be utilized to achieve a more com-

prehensive response to IPV (e.g., see Dugan, Nagin, and Rosenfeld 1999;

Garner and Maxwell 2008; Hovell, Seid, and Liles 2006; Visher et al. 2008;

Xie, Lauritsen, and Heimer 2012).

The plan of the article is as follows. The next section reviews the the-

oretical and empirical literature on the effects of arrest and victim services

on IPV and discusses the importance of studying them jointly. The third

section describes the data and methodology, and the fourth section presents

the results. The fifth section concludes with a discussion of the main find-

ings and contributions of our study. It also discusses limitations of the study

and suggests avenues for future research.

Research Background

Police Response to IPV

The response to IPV most often investigated in the United States has been

the response of the police (and most importantly arrest), since the police are

the most common, most visible agents of the justice system. Sherman and

Berk’s (1984) Minneapolis arrest experiment, for example, marked the

340 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 54(3)