Skip to Content
 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: RESEARCH IN REVIEW
Bureau of Justice Research and Innovation
(formerly Office of Justice Systems Analysis)
 
JUNE 2003

Comparison of Domestic Violence Reporting and Arrest Rates
in New York State: Analysis of the 1997 and 2000 Domestic Incident Statistical Databases

by Adriana Fernandez-Lanier, PhD, Deborah J. Chard-Wierschem, PhD,
and Donna Hall, PhD

 

  1. Highlights
  2. Overview
  3. The Nature of Domestic Violence in Upstate New York And Long Island
  4. County-level Analysis: Reporting, Charging, and Mandatory Arrest Practices
  5. Domestic Violence Reporting Practices
  6. Domestic Violence Charging and Arrest Practices
  7. A Cautionary Note
  8. Conclusion
  9. Endnotes

[Use the PDF version to download and print a copy for your reference.]

Highlights
 
Overview

Domestic violence is widely recognized as a serious social problem that jeopardizes the safety of millions of Americans. According to the findings of the National Violence Against Women Survey, an estimated 1.5 million women are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). Until recently, the only statistics available in New York State (NYS) for counts of domestic violence were based on aggregate data obtained from Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). In 1999, NYS UCR data indicated that there were approximately 97,000 domestic offenses reported to the police (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2001). Police departments outside the City of New York reported two-thirds of the offenses.

Although aggregated UCR data provide some insight into the prevalence of domestic violence within the State, aggregated reporting tends to result in the undercounting of criminal incidents and provides little detail concerning the nature of the violence and the law enforcement response. New York State began to develop the foundation for an incident-based domestic violence data system when, in 1996, it promulgated a statewide, standardized domestic incident reporting (DIR) form (Figure 1). [1] The DIR form is to be completed by law enforcement agencies "upon investigating a report of a crime or offense between members of the same family or household" (CPL Section 140.10(5)). CPL Section 530.11 defines "family or household" as including: (a) persons related by consanguinity or affinity; (b) persons legally married to one another; (c) persons formerly married to one another; and (d) persons who have a child in common regardless of whether such persons have been married or have lived together at any time. Most police departments also complete domestic incident reports when the parties are non-family intimates, particularly when they co-reside. [2]

The availability of domestic incident reports resulted in the creation of a domestic violence statistical database maintained by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). This report presents the first analysis of two years of DIR data, 1997 and 2000.

The DIR provides a significant amount of information about a domestic violence incident. It includes a description of the incident (e.g., date, location, and type of offense), victim and suspect information (e.g., relationship, age, gender, and race), a victim statement, and actions taken by the responding officer, including arrest, seizure of weapons, evidence collected, and referrals to service organizations. Unfortunately, since a DIR is completed at the scene and is usually not updated before it is sent to DCJS, post-incident arrests (such as arrests through warrants) are not recorded. For this reason, arrest information is most accurate for incidents in which the suspect was on-scene when the officer arrived.

 

The Nature of Domestic Violence in Upstate New York And Long Island

Table 1 presents data on the total number of domestic incidents reported by most police departments in New York State in 1997 and 2000. New York City data was not available for either year and State Police data was only available for 1997. Thus, three columns of data are presented in Table 1: 1997 data (with State Police incidents), 1997 data (excluding State Police incidents), and 2000 data (excluding State Police incidents). [3]

DCJS received 145,932 domestic incident reports completed in year 2000 from 478 police departments within New York State (Table 1). The number of reports increased by nearly 25% between 1997 and 2000. Approximately half of the incidents in both years included some type of criminal offense allegation according to the classification of the responding police officers. DCJS researchers classified an additional 7 to 8% as potentially criminal because the incidents described on the DIR form appeared to include behaviors that involved physical aggression or property damage. [4] Together, the two subsets of incidents comprise the "criminal conduct" incidents referenced throughout much of the remainder of this report.

To help focus the analysis on incidents more traditionally defined as domestic violence, Tables 2 and 3 (and Figures 2 and 3) include only criminal conduct incidents.

 

Figure 2. Victim-Offender Relationship, 2000 "Non-Family" 37%, "Family" 63%

Similar to findings from previous research (e.g., Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000), approximately three-quarters of the domestic violence victims listed on the DIRs were female (Table 2). Approximately two-thirds of the incidents involved a white, non-Hispanic suspect or victim. The average age of suspects and victims was approximately 32 and 33 years, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of the victim/suspect dyads met the statutory definition of family while most of the remaining one-third was almost exclusively non-family intimates (Figure 2). Some of the non-family intimates, however, may actually have had a child in common and the officers simply failed to note it in the relationship field of the DIR form. (The DIR form does not explicitly require officers to distinguish between child-in-common intimates from non-child-in-common intimates.)

Table 3 presents statistics on the characteristics of incidents and the classification of offenses. Victims experienced some form of physical attack in approximately half of the criminal incidents. Over one-fourth of the victims experienced a serious physical attack defined as choking, kicking, punching, use of weapon, sexual abuse, or homicide. Weapons were used in fewer than 10% of the incidents. Although not presented in Table 3, of the year-2000 cases in which a weapon was used, the most common types of weapons used were knives (40%), blunt instruments (15%) and firearms (5%). Victims reported injuries in one-fourth of the criminal incidents. Of those injured, approximately 20% were removed to the hospital, and injury was more likely in incidents that involved weapons (data not presented).

Few victims held orders of protection at the time of the incidents (11 to 12%) and most of those incidents (86 to 88%) were recorded as violations of orders by responding police officers. More than half of the criminal incidents in both years occurred in the presence of one or more other family members.

A majority of the criminal conduct incidents were classified as either misdemeanors (37 to 38%) or violations (41 to 43%), with few felony classifications (6 to 7%). Only one-third of physical attack incidents were classified as misdemeanor or felony offenses. This figure rose to half for cases involving serious physical attack, and to two-thirds for cases involving injury. Interestingly, only a small percentage of cases qualified as "unconditional" mandatory arrest cases (8 to 9%) or "conditional" mandatory arrest cases (11%). [5] Cases fell short of the mandatory arrest threshold largely because they involved partners that did not meet the statutory definition of family or because the offender was charged with a violation-level offense instead of a misdemeanor or felony-level offense.

Table 3 and Figure 3 also present on-scene arrest rates for criminal conduct incidents in 1997 and 2000. In both years, half of the suspects had fled the scene by the time the police arrived. Between 36% and 39% of the on-scene suspects were arrested during the two time periods. Although we do not have arrest data for off-scene suspects, prior research indicates that when a suspect flees the scene, the likelihood of an arrest declines significantly (NYS DCJS and NYS OPDV, 2001; Loue, 2001).

The arrest rate for on-scene suspects increased substantially for incidents involving serious physical attack (54 to 55%) or injury (60 to 63%). Predictably, the probability of an arrest for on-scene suspects was highest when the case met criteria for unconditional mandatory arrest (82 to 85%) or conditional mandatory arrest (68 to 78%). [6] Suspects in non-family cases that met the offense component of the unconditional and conditional mandatory arrest criteria were arrested at rates similar to those of suspects in family cases that were actually covered by the legislation (data not presented). Thus, although the arrest legislation distinguishes between family and non-family cases, arrest decisions do not mirror those distinctions. [7]

Figure 3. Arrest Rates for Offender On-Scene Incidents, 1997 and 2000 - Follow Link For a Text Breakdown of Chart Data

 

County-level Analysis: Reporting, Charging, and Mandatory Arrest Practices

It is important to acknowledge that domestic violence reporting rates are influenced by a number of decisions made by victims and the police. A victim's decision to report an incident to the police may be influenced by many factors, including the desire for privacy, fear of reprisal from the suspect, or a belief that the criminal justice system cannot or will not stop the violence (Greenfeld et. al., 1998; Hoyle, 1998; Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000).

Police department policies and practices also play a central role in the development of incident rates. For example, the definition of domestic violence varies among police departments in New York State. Although a small number of police departments complete DIR reports only for statutorily defined family offenses, most departments also complete reports in incidents involving non-family intimates, particularly if the parties have cohabited. [8] Furthermore, departments also vary in the degree to which they monitor officer compliance with report preparation. Compliance is best ensured through strict policies requiring reports to be prepared on all domestic-related calls for service. Less vigorous monitoring risks the possibility that some officers will selectively complete DIRs only for the more serious cases or cases in which the victim's full cooperation is evident.

Thus, incident rates reflect not only the frequency of the events, but also the reporting practices of victims and law enforcement. Differences in reporting practices can lead to an underestimation of domestic violence and may skew various measures of the police response to the violence. For this reason, it is important that charging and arrest responses be understood within the context of these reporting dimensions.

 

Domestic Violence Reporting Practices

Table 4A presents county-level incident rates per 10,000 residents (criminal and non-criminal incidents combined) for years 1997 (with and without the State Police) and 2000 in Columns 1 through 3. [9] (Figure 4 depicts incident rates by county for 1997 data, including State Police incidents.) When interpreting incident rates, it is important to keep in mind that DCJS may not have received full reporting from each county (refer to Columns 4 through 6 of Table 4B). Naturally, if police departments did not send their DIR forms to DCJS or if reporting police departments represented only a small percentage of their county's population, then that county's DIR rate may not be representative of the entire county. Fortunately, on average, DCJS received DIR forms from police departments that represented nearly 90% of their county's population. [10]

Year 2000 county incident rates range widely from 23 to 284 incidents per 10,000 population, with a state average of 144 incidents per 10,000 population. By contrast, the rate of violent crime in New York State is about 59 incidents per 10,000 population and property crime is about 272 incidents per 10,000 population (NYS DCJS, 2001).

DIR incident rates in 1997 and 2000 are highly correlated, with counties tending to rank similarly in both years. [11] However, year 2000 incident rates in a small number of counties were significantly affected by the exclusion of State Police data.

Criminal conduct DIR incident rates ranged from 18 to 220 in year 2000, with a county average of 79. The rank ordering of counties from low to high is similar regardless of whether one references all incidents or only those with allegations of criminal conduct.[12] The more rural counties tend to show lower incident rates in both years. [13]

These incident rates mark a first attempt at quantifying the amount of domestic violence within New York State counties. However, the validity of the rates is affected by the quality and scope of victim and police reporting. Incident rates in counties that show a high percent of the population covered are probably most reliable. That is, absent changes in departmental definitions of domestic violence or report-writing protocols, the rates are likely to be stable over time. Whether those rates are valid measures of the amount of domestic violence reported to the police is dependent on the quality and scope of police reporting.

 

Domestic Violence Charging and Arrest Practices

Classifying an incident as a criminal offense marks the first step towards making an arrest decision. Although the identification of criminal actions and victim injury appear to be uncomplicated tasks in which officers would show little variation, prior research indicates that police departments do vary in the evidentiary thresholds used to classify the seriousness of domestic incidents (NYS DCJS and NYS OPDV, 2000). Columns 1 and 3 of Table 5A show the percent of incidents by county, classified as injurious when the incident involved some form of serious physical attack. (To simplify the presentation, Tables 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B and 6C present only 2000 data (which does not include State Police data) and 1997 data with State Police information since it is a more complete database.) Table 5A indicates that the percent of serious physical attack cases reporting injury ranged from 43 to 83% in 1997 and 30 to 69% in 2000, with a county average of over 50% in both years. Similarly, in Table 5B, the percent of serious attack cases classified as at least a misdemeanor ranged from 24 to 67% in 1997 and 19 to 74% in 2000, with a county average of approximately 45% in both years (refer to Figure 5 for 2000 data). These data suggest that charging practices vary greatly among counties (and perhaps within counties as well).

Tables 6A, 6B and 6C present data on arrest practices by county when the suspect was present at the scene. Research has shown that the likelihood of arrest in domestic violence incidents increases when (1) injury occurs; (2) the incident occurs within view of the police; (3) a weapon is used; (4) a suspect is hostile or challenges police authority; and (5) a victim desires to have the suspect arrested (Hoyle, 1998; Loue, 2001). Suspects are significantly less likely to be arrested if they leave the scene of the assault, regardless of the severity of the injuries inflicted or the level of violence (Hoyle, 1998; NYS DCJS and NYS OPDV, 2001; Loue, 2001). Columns 1 and 3 of Table 6A show the percent of suspects arrested when the incident involved some form of serious physical attack (see also Figure 6). The percent arrested ranged widely from approximately 30 to 80% in both time periods, with an average of approximately 50%. The presence of injury did not narrow the range of arrest rates (Columns 1 and 3 of Table 6B). When cases were classified as misdemeanors, the probability of arrest averaged approximately 75% across all counties, but a great deal of variability remained. The variability in arrest practices emphasizes the need for statewide implementation of the State's Model Domestic Violence Policy for Counties (New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, 1998).

 

A Cautionary Note

Although these data provide some insight into charging and arrest practices at the county level, they need to be viewed with caution given the variability in incident rates reported in Table 4A and 4B. Counties with consistently high incident rates may produce more reliable statistics than low-rate counties if low-rate counties are selectively reporting incidents. Moreover, some of the arrest percentages are based on relatively few cases and thus may vary considerably from year to year. Also, changes in charging and arrest practices between 1997 and 2000 may be due to a changing mix of police departments reporting incidents. For example, Albany City Police Department accounted for 48% of the County's incidents in 1997 and 66% of the incidents in 2000. Thus, charging and arrest rates of Albany County are more influenced by the practices of Albany City Police Department in 2000. In some other counties, a shift in charging or arrest practices may be due to changing practices within a police department. For example, arrest percentages climbed steeply between 1997 and 2000 in Suffolk County and appear to be due to changes in the arrest policies of the Suffolk County Police Department. However, overall, counties that ranked high on various measures of arrest in 1997 also ranked high in 2000. [14]

 

Conclusion

Five years ago, very little was known about law enforcement's response to domestic violence in New York State. The extant national research painted a rather bleak picture of law enforcement systems that often appeared to ignore the needs of victims of domestic violence and failed to arrest domestic batterers. The data presented in this report portray a more favorable scenario. First of all, most police departments across New York State have improved the documentation of domestic violence by utilizing the Domestic Incident Reporting form to record their response to domestic calls. Documenting domestic incidents has enabled an examination and comparison of the rates and types of domestic events that police officers must navigate daily.

Second, overall arrest rates in New York State generally exceed those found in the literature. A review of the literature on arrest practices indicates that jurisdictions without pro-arrest policies tend to produce arrest rates between 4% to 12%, while arrest rates within newly legislated pro-arrest jurisdictions usually range from 15 to 30% (see review by Jones and Belknap, 1999).[15] Finally, the data demonstrate that although only one out of every five incidents falls under the mandatory arrest legislation, New York State officers make high rates of arrests (70 to 85%) for these cases and do the same for cases that fall short of the statutorily-defined "family" member criteria of the mandatory arrest legislation.

In spite of these advancements, however, this study reveals several areas that need continued attention. Criminal-conduct incident rates vary substantially, even among counties with similar populations. If the differences are at least partially due to reporting practices, our ability to draw meaningful comparisons among counties may be compromised.

In addition, variations in charging practices as well as the low rates at which some areas charge physical attack cases as misdemeanor assault underscore the urgency to delineate more clearly the State's criteria for physical injury. Physical injury is currently defined as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain" (NYS Penal Law Section 10(9)). New York State courts have narrowly interpreted these criteria such that incidents involving blackened eyes and facial cuts have not met the courts' standard of physical injury. [16]] The issue is further complicated by the fact that a finding of substantial pain or physical impairment often requires a showing of pain or impairment over time. Yet, police officers are confronted with rendering a charge soon after the incident has occurred. An alternative definition that includes a criterion of physical trauma exhibited by bruises, lacerations, burns or other wounds would provide a more objective standard for physical injury. However, absent such reform, police officers could follow the logic of the New York State Court of Appeals in People v. Henderson (92 N.Y. 2d 677) and charge the incident as misdemeanor assault if the victim exhibits physical impairment or substantial pain at the time of arrest, regardless of the duration of the injury. [17]

Similarly, the substantial variation among counties in the proportion of cases arrested may be indicative of varying practices and policies among police departments. Thus, it is important that police departments use these statistics as tools to examine their policies and practices and address any inconsistencies revealed by the data that may interfere with the goals of victim safety and offender accountability.

The data presented in this report provide a broad overview of domestic violence law enforcement at the aggregated, county level. A more precise picture can be developed through work in local communities. Domestic violence task forces in counties with abnormally low incidence rates may want to review reporting protocols with local police departments, to ensure that officers are required to complete reports on all calls, regardless of the nature of the incident or the intended response of the officer. Counties with low charging and arrest rates may want to explore variations among police departments within the county and assess such practices through a qualitative review of case narratives. A "safety and accountability auditing" process can be used to measure law enforcement responses more closely.[18] A careful audit of all criminal justice policies and practices, from the initial call for assistance through offender sanctioning, can produce a wealth of information to guide action at the local level.

The statistical database developed by DCJS represents a significant step forward in the measurement of domestic violence and the corresponding law enforcement response. However, much refinement is still needed. Most important, New York needs to establish a clear and measurable definition of a domestic relationship. Most police departments do not restrict their reporting of domestic violence to the State's narrow definition of family, yet there is no consensus on what constitutes a "domestic relationship." Some relationship referent is needed to standardize the definition of domestic violence. Federal law defines domestic violence as violence "committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim" (18 U.S.C. Section 921 (a)(33)(A) (ii)). However, in a recently completed study of definitions and data elements used in the surveillance of intimate partner violence, the federal government recommended that the definition of intimate partners extend beyond marriage, children and cohabitation to include current or formerly dating partners (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon and Shelley, 1999). Judging from the behavior of police departments across New York State, law enforcement agencies are already well aware of the fact that the unique risks faced by victims of domestic violence are not mitigated by the absence of a marriage license. Development of sound measurement criteria is critical to our ability to gauge the magnitude of domestic violence in New York State and to respond accordingly.

Further development of the State's domestic violence statistical database needs to address these definitional issues so that the state can maximize its ability to monitor the effectiveness of violence prevention and intervention policies.

 

ENDNOTES

1 The Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994 required the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV) to develop and distribute a standardized "domestic incident report"(DIR) form to be utilized by police departments throughout the State. Return to referring page.

2 According to a survey of police departments in New York State conducted in 2000 by the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, 11% of the responding departments completed DIRs only for incidents involving family offenses. Return to referring page.

3 The New York City Police Department only recently established a citywide domestic violence incident system and has not yet forwarded data to DCJS. The New York State Police (NYSP) forwarded DIRs to DCJS in 1997, but retained their reports in 2000 to begin establishing their own information system. At the time of this study, their information system had not yet been completed and so, NYSP data were not available for this analysis. Return to referring page.

4 Previous research revealed that in a minority of incidents, police officers document criminal behaviors such as slapping and punching, but chose not to classify the incidents as criminal (DCJS and OPDV, 2001). The prevalence of this phenomenon varies across jurisdictions. In year 2000, 87% of all "criminal conduct" incidents (according to the broader definition adopted by DCJS researchers) were identified as criminal by responding officers. However, seven counties had less than 80% of their incidents identified as criminal, with one county having only 58% of its incidents identified as criminal by responding officers. Return to referring page.

5 As defined in CPL 140.10(4) an incident qualifies for "unconditional" mandatory arrest if the parties meet the definition of family (CPL 530.11) and the offense is a felony, a violation of a stay-away order within an order of protection, or a violation of an order of protection in the course of committing a family offense defined in CPL 530.11. An incident qualifies for "conditional" mandatory arrest (mandatory arrest absent a victim's affirmative request otherwise) if it involves a family offense misdemeanor defined in CPL 530.11 and the suspect is deemed to be the primary aggressor. Return to referring page.

6 It should be noted that unconditional mandatory arrest cases in which there appeared to be no arrest may be perfectly valid "non-arrest" cases. In DCJS' analysis of a sample of these cases, the following explanations were found (1) cases with offenders under the age of 16 who could not legally be arrested, (2) cases in which officers did not complete the "arrest" field and so the case was data-entered as a "non-arrest," (3) cases that were classified as "non-offenses" once an on-scene investigation was pursued, (4) cases in which legal action was suspended until a Child Protective Services investigation was concluded and (5) cases in which the officer interpreted the incident (perhaps erroneously) as a discretionary arrest case. Return to referring page.

7 The family/non family distinction carries over to the State's mandatory arrest policy as well. This distinction serves no purpose and should be eliminated. Mandatory arrest emerged as a policy throughout the nation because domestic violence advocates and law enforcement recognized that victims of violence by intimates are at high risk of repeat victimization and law enforcement historically provided too little assistance in cases of intimate violence. The risks faced by victims of violence by intimates are not lessened simply because the parties are unmarried and have no child in common. Return to referring page.

8 See note 2, above. Return to referring page.

9 The rates were computed by adding together all incidents reported by each police department within a county and dividing by the total population served by those police departments. The quotient was then multiplied by 10,000 to produce a rate per 10,000 population. If a police department did not submit data to DCJS, the population covered by the department was not included in the county's population. If a department served a population in excess of 10,000 and had one or more months in which no incidents were reported, then the average number of incidents in the reporting months was assigned as a value for the missing months. This adjustment was made to avoid undercounting incidents in larger jurisdictions that did not have full-year reporting. Return to referring page.

10 For counties in which the state police respond to a considerable number of domestic incidents, the statistic on the "proportion of the population covered" (Table 4, column 12) may be an overestimate. The reason for this overestimate is that a county's sheriff's department and the state police basically cover the same geographic population. As a result, if a county's sheriff office reported domestic incidents, then the county's population was considered "covered" even though state police incidents were not included in the rate calculations. Return to referring page.

11 Spearman's r coefficients between the 1997 and 2000 incident rates exceed .75. Return to referring page.

12 Spearman's r coefficients between an all-incident rate and criminal conduct incident rates exceed .95 for both years. Return to referring page.

13 The correlation coefficient between percent rural and incident rate is -.59. The correlation coefficient between percent rural and criminal incident rate is -.49. Return to referring page.

14 Spearman's r coefficients between the 1997 and 2000 arrest rates ranged from .52 to .64, depending on the subset compared (e.g.,serious physical attack cases, injury cases, and misdemeanor or felony cases).Return to referring page.

15 The range of rates, however, generally represents arrests within all criminal incidents and not merely those incidents in which the suspect remained at the scene. Moreover, Jones and Belknap (1999), conducting their research in Boulder County Colorado, found domestic arrest rates in excess of 70%.Return to referring page.

16 See, e.g., People v. McDowell, 1971, 28 N.Y.2d 373, 321 N.Y.S.2d 894, 270 N.E.2d 716; People v. Jimenez, 1982, 55 N.Y.2d 895, 449 N.Y.S.2d 22, 433 N.E.2d 1270. Return to referring page.

17 In People v. Henderson (92 N.Y.2d 677, 708 N.Y.S.2d 165, 685 N.E.2d 409), the court acknowledge that, "[a] victim would not necessarily know with any certainty, shortly after an attack, what its lasting effects will be. Under these circumstances, allegations of substantial pain, swelling and contusions, following kicks, must be deemed sufficient to constitute 'physical injury' to support a facially valid local criminal court information." Return to referring page.

18 A trained state interagency team which includes members from the NYS OPDV, NYS DCJS, NYS Department of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, NYS State Police and the NYS Coalition Against Domestic Violence, has been conducting a Safety Audit so that they will be more prepared to provide technical assistance to local counties. The model the team is using for the audit was developed by Pence and Lizdas (1998). Return to referring page.