BENNINGTON COUNTY INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET PROJECT… · 2020. 3. 17. · BENNINGTON COUNTY INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET PROJECT: OUTCOME EVALUATION Submitted By
Post on 07-Oct-2020
5 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Data Driven Decisions
BENNINGTONCOUNTY
INTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKETPROJECT:
OUTCOMEEVALUATION
FINALREPORT
Submittedto:
KarenGennetteStateTreatmentCourtCoordinatorVermontCourtAdministrator’sOfficeJudyRexDirectorVermontCenterforCrimeVictimServices
Submittedby:
TheVermontCenterForJusticeResearchP.O.Box267NorthfieldFalls,VT05664802-485-6942
December,2011
BENNINGTONCOUNTY
INTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKETPROJECT:
OUTCOMEEVALUATION
SubmittedBy
THEVERMONTCENTERFORJUSTICERESEARCH
ResearchTeam
MaxSchlueter,Ph.D.,Director
PeterWicklund,Ph.D.,ResearchAnalyst
RobinAdler,Ph.D.,SeniorResearchAssociate
JoanOwen,B.S.,ResearchAnalyst
TimHalvorsen,B.S.,DatabaseConsultant
December,2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheVermontCenterForJusticeResearchwouldliketoacknowledgethefollowingorganizationsandstafffortheirguidanceandassistanceduringthecourseoftheevaluation.Inparticular,theresearchteamwishestothank:
BenningtonCountyCourts
TheHonorableDavidSuntag,SuperiorCourtJudge,whooriginatedandledtheIDVDProjectduringthestudyperiod,forhiswillingnesstoprovidedetailedinformationregardingtheoperationsoftheIDVDProject,raiseandanswerquestions,andreviewdraftsoftheevaluationreport.
MaryFrost,SuperiorCourtClerk,forherassistanceinobtainingIDVDProjectdata,assistingtoverifytheaccuracyofthedata,andreviewingthefinaldraftofthereport.
JessicaStellar,BenningtonCountyIDVDCoordinatorduringthestudyperiod,forhereffortsinprovidingtheinitialdataset,preliminaryoutcomedata,andprogrammaterials.
VermontCourtAdministrator’sOffice
KarenGennette,ProgramManager/TreatmentCourts,forassistanceinsecuringadministrativeandfinancialsupportfortheevaluation,ensuringthequalityofthedata,providingtimelystaffsupport,andreviewingdraftsofthereport.
PatriciaBreneman,Justice&Co-OccurringGrantCoordinator,forhertimelyassistanceinresearchingandresolvingdataqualityissues.
VermontCenterForCrimeVictimServices
JudyRex,ExecutiveDirector,VermontCenterforCrimeVictimServices(CCVS),forproposingandfundingtheevaluationproject.ThankyouaswelltothegrantmanagersatCCVSfortheirresponsiveaccountingservices.
VermontCriminalInformationCenter(VCIC)
JeffreyWallin,Director,forhisassistanceindevelopingtheResearchAgreementfortheprojectandexpeditingtheconfidentialreleaseofcriminalhistoryinformationfortheanalysis.
BruceParizo,DeputyDirector,forhistechnicalassistanceandcommitmenttodataqualitywhichresultedinhighlyaccuratecriminalhistoryextractsfromthefilesofVCIC.
BonnieGoode,CriminalRecordSpecialist,forherverytimelyassistanceinobtainingcriminalhistoryrecordsfordataverificationpurposes.
BarbaraHaskins,CriminalRecordSpecialist,forhereffortstoidentifyandresolvedatadiscrepanciesduringtheinitialdataextractprocess.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
i
TABLEOFCONTENTSEXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................I
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
BENNINGTONCOUNTYINTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKET(IDVD)PROJECT...................2
Overview.....................................................................................................................................2
VictimSafety...............................................................................................................................3
ServiceDelivery...........................................................................................................................3
OffenderAccountability..............................................................................................................3
EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY........................................................................................................4
RecidivismMeasures...................................................................................................................4
RecidivismTimeline.....................................................................................................................5
ParticipantDescriptionData.......................................................................................................5
StatewideDomesticAssaultRecidivismData.............................................................................5
RECIDIVISM.....................................................................................................................................6
ReconvictionforDomesticViolence...........................................................................................6
ReconvictionforViolentOffenses...............................................................................................7
ReconvictionforAnyOffense......................................................................................................7
ConvictionforViolationsofCourtOrders...................................................................................8
WHENWERESUBJECTSCONVICTED?.............................................................................................9
CRIMESFORWHICHPARTICIPANTSWERECONVICTED................................................................12
ParticipantOffensePatterns.....................................................................................................12
ProjectImpact...........................................................................................................................14
INWHICHCOUNTIESWERESUBJECTSRECONVICTED?................................................................17
PARTICIPANTPROFILECOMPARISONS..........................................................................................20
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
ii
DemographicProfile..................................................................................................................21
CriminalHistoryProfile.............................................................................................................24
CaseProfile................................................................................................................................25
REGRESSIONANALYSIS:.................................................................................................................28
CASEPROCESSINGTIMEFROMARRAIGNMENTTODISPOSITION................................................34
FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................37
CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................40
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
I
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
TheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket(IDVD)ProjectwasinitiatedinSeptember,2007,asaspecialdocketwithintheBenningtonCountyCriminal/FamilyDivisionCourts.ThegoaloftheIDVDprojectwastoprovideanimmediateresponsetodomesticviolenceeventsbycoordinatingFamilyandCriminalDivisioncases.DedicatedtotheideaofOneFamily,OneJudge,theIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoallowasinglejudge,onedayeachweek,tohaveimmediateaccesstoallrelevantinformationregardlessofthetraditionaldocketandtogatherallappropriateplayersatthetableregardlessofanytraditionallylimitedroles.TheIDVDProjectfocusedon:1)protectionandsafetyforvictimsandtheirchildrenaswellasotherfamilymembers;2)providingimmediateaccesstocommunityservicesandresourcesforvictims,theirchildren,andoffenderstohelpovercometheimpactofpriordomesticabuseandpreventfutureabuse;and3)providinganimmediateandeffectiveresponsetonon-compliancewithcourtordersbyoffenders.
Byintegratingalldomesticviolencerelatedmatters(e.g.,criminalcharges,protectionorders,custodymatters)involvingthesamepeople,theIDVDProjectwasabletocoordinateallcourteffortstowardthesamegoalsofpreventingfurtherabuseandviolenceandremediatingtheeffectsofpriorabuseonfamilymembers.Allorderswerecoordinated,caseschedulingwasexpedited,andappropriate,comprehensivecaseresolutionforallpartieswastheprimaryandimmediatefocus.
VictimSafety: OfparamountimportancetotheIDVDProjectwasthecourt’sabilitytoprovidethevictimwithimmediateaccesstoafreeattorneywhospecializedinmattersofdomesticviolenceonbehalfofvictims.Inaddition,aseparatevictimadvocateandadditionalvictimadvocacyserviceswereavailabletoassistvictimsofdomesticviolencewithsafetyplanningandsupportservicesbefore,during,andaftercourtproceedings.
Services:TheIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoquicklyidentifyseriousunmetneedsforfamiliesinthecourtsystemandprovidereferralstoacomprehensivearrayofhealthandsocialservicesdesignedtomeettheimmediateandlong-termneedsofthefamily,includingthevictim,theoffender,andtheirchildren.
OffenderAccountability:TheIDVDProjectsoughttoensureoffenderaccountabilitybyrelyingonacomprehensivecoordinatedcommunityresponsebasedonactiveparticipationofthecourt,criminaljusticeagencies,thecommunity,andprofessionalserviceproviderstoholdoffendersaccountablefortheirbehavior.WithinthecontextoftheIDVDProjectresponsestonon-compliancewithcourtorderswereswift,consistent,andproportionatetotheviolationandneedsoftheoffenderandvictim.Toensurethatoffendersunderstoodorderswhichwereissuedaswellastheirrightsandresponsibilities,publicdefendersprovidedassistanceduringtheabusepreventionorderprocessaswellasthecriminalprocess.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
II
METHODOLOGY
Anoutcomeevaluationattemptstodeterminetheeffectsthataprogramhasonparticipants.InthecaseoftheIDVDProjecttheobjectiveoftheoutcomeevaluationwastodeterminewhetherornottheprojectreducedthefrequencyofpostprogramcriminalbehavioronthepartofprogramparticipantsascomparedtothepostprogramcriminalbehaviorofdefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinDistrictCourtwithoutthebenefitoftheservicesprovidedbytheIDVDProject.ThepostprogrambehaviorofIDVDprojectparticipantswasalsocomparedtothatofdefendantschargedwithdomesticassaultinVermontbetween2004and2008.
Anindicatorofpostprogramcriminalbehaviorthatiscommonlyusedinoutcomeevaluationsofcriminaljusticeprogramsisthenumberofparticipantswhorecidivate;thatisthenumberofparticipantswhoareconvictedofacrimeaftertheycompletetheprogram,whentheyareconvicted,andwheretheyareconvicted.ThisevaluationalsoinvestigatedwhetherornotthereisadifferencebetweentheelapsedtimefromarraignmenttodispositionbetweentheIDVDProgramcasesandthosecaseshandledinDistrictCourt.
Ananalysisofthecriminalhistoryrecordsofthe140subjectswhowerereferredtotheIDVDprojectandthe102subjectswhosecaseswereprosecutedinBenningtonCountyDistrictCourt,withoutthebenefitoftheIDVDProject,fromJanuary1,2007throughJune30,2010wasconductedusingtheVermontcriminalhistoryrecordofparticipantsasprovidedbytheVermontCriminalInformationCenterattheDepartmentofPublicSafety.TheVermontcriminalhistoryrecordonwhichtherecidivismanalysiswasbasedincludedallchargesandconvictionsprosecutedinaVermontDistrictCourtthatwereavailableasofJuly17,2011.ThecriminalrecordsonwhichthestudywasbaseddonotcontainFederal,out-of-stateprosecutions,ortraffictickets.
MAJORCONCLUSIONS*
1. TheIDVDProjectappearstobeapromisingapproachforreducingpost-programrecidivismamongdefendantsconvictedofdomesticviolence.
Intermsofallthreerecidivismmeasuresusedinthisevaluation(reconvictionfordomesticviolence,reconvictionforaviolentoffense,andreconvictionforanycrime)theparticipantsfromtheIDVDProjectrecidivatedlessfrequentlyoratacomparablelevelthandidparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroupordefendantsinastatewidedomesticassaultcohort.Themostsubstantialdifferencebetweenthegroupsinvolvedthepercentageofdefendantswhorecidivatedbasedonareconvictionforanycrime.InthiscasethepercentageofparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwhorecidivatedwasapproximately25%lowerand54%lessoftenthanwasthecasefordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
III
2. TheIDVDProjectappearstobeapromisingapproachforreducingthenumberofpost-programreconvictionsamongdefendantsconvictedofdomesticviolence.
Inreferencetodomesticviolenceandviolentcrimereconvictions,thereconvictionratefortheIDVDProjectgroupwaseithercomparabletoorlowerthantheDistrictCourtgroupordefendantsinastatewidedomesticassaultcohort.Thereconvictionrateforallcrimeswas25.6%lower(41%less)fortheIDVDProjectthanfortheDistrictCourtgroup.
3. Recidivistsfrombothstudygroupsengagedinavarietyofdifferentpost-programcriminalbehaviorswhichsuggestsahighlevelofserviceneedsbeyondthepresentingproblemofdomesticviolence.
ThesubjectsfromtheIDVDProgramandtheDistrictCourtgroupcombinedwereconvictedofatotalof115crimesduringthefollow-upperiod.Morethan50%ofthereconvictionsinvolved(listedinorderoffrequency)DMVoffenses,assaults,drugcrimes,DUI,domesticassault,andalcoholoffenses.Otherchargesforbothgroupsinvolvedavarietyofviolent,property,andpublicorderconvictions.
4. Basedonavailabledata,onaveragetheIDVDProjectprocesseddomesticviolencecasestwiceasquicklyastheBenningtonCountyDistrictCourtandthreetimesmorequicklythanotherDistrictCourtsstatewide.
Themediannumberofdaysfromarraignmenttodispositionwas28daysintheIDVDProjectcomparedto88daysforBenningtonCountyDistrictCourtCasesand113daysforotherDistrictCourtsstatewide.
*METHODOLOGICALNOTE: BecausecriminalhistoryrecordswereunavailablefortheIDVDProjectparticipantswhoserecordswereexpunged(36%),therecidivismandreconvictiondatareportedinthisevaluationmaybeunderreported.Similarlythe“TimetoDisposition”analysisdidnotincludeparticipantswhoserecordswereexpunged.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
1
INTRODUCTION
ThisoutcomeevaluationoftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket(IDVD)ProjectwasdesignedtoanswersixquestionsassociatedwiththeIDVDProjectandthepost-programbehaviorofsubjectswhoparticipatedintheIDVDProjectfromJanuary1,2007throughJune30,2010,ascomparedtosubjectswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinBenningtonCountyDistrictCourtwithoutthebenefitofIDVDProjectservices.
1. Whichsubjectswereconvictedofadditionalcrimesaftertheircasewas disposed?
2. Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,when weretheyconvicted?
3. Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,what crimesdidtheycommit?
4. Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,inwhich countieswerethesubjectsconvicted?
5. CantheprogrameffectsoftheIDVDProjectbeattributedtotheProjectorto otherfactorsincludingthecharacteristicsoftheparticipants?
6. Isthereadifferencebetweentheelapsedtimefromarraignmenttodisposition ofcasesbetweenthetwostudygroups?
ThisoutcomeevaluationwasjointlyfundedbytheVermontDepartmentofHealth,OfficeofAlcoholandDrugAbuseProgramsandbytheOfficeonViolenceAgainstWomen,U.S.DepartmentofJustice(grantnumber2009-EF-S6-0024).Theopinions,findings,conclusions,andrecommendationsexpressedinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheVermontDepartmentofHealth,theDepartmentofJustice,OfficeonViolenceAgainstWomen,ortheVermontCourtAdministratororhisstaff.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
2
BENNINGTONCOUNTYINTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKET(IDVD)PROJECT1September2007–September2010
OverviewAfteroneyearofplanningandwithminimalresources,theBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket(IDVD)ProjectopeneditsdoorsatthebeginningofSeptember,2007.TheIDVDProjectwasdevelopedtoprovideanimmediateresponsetodomesticviolenceeventsbycoordinatingFamilyandCriminalDivisioncases.TheIDVDProjectfocusedon:1)protectionandsafetyforvictimsandtheirchildrenaswellasotherfamilymembers;2)providingimmediateaccesstocommunityservicesandresourcesforvictims,theirchildren,andoffenderstohelpovercometheimpactofpriordomesticabuseandpreventfutureabuse;and3)providinganimmediateandeffectiveresponsetonon-compliancewithcourtordersbyoffenders.
TheIDVDProjectoperatedasaspecialdocketwithintheBenningtonCountyCriminal/FamilyDivisionCourts.TheIDVDProjectinitiallyhandledallcriminaldivisionmisdemeanoroffenses,somefelonyoffenses,allfelonyandmisdemeanorviolationofprobationcases,andFamilyDivisionabusepreventionordercasesinvolvingdomesticviolence.TheIDVDProjectalsointegratedrelatedFamilyDivisionchildcustodymatters,juvenilemattersandchild/familysupportmatterswheneverpossible.DedicatedtotheideaofOneFamily,OneJudge,theIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoallowasinglejudge,onedayeachweek,tohaveimmediateaccesstoallrelevantinformationregardlessofthetraditionaldocketandtogatherallappropriateplayersatthetableregardlessofanytraditionallylimitedroles.Forexample,theState’sAttorney’sandPublicDefender’srolesweretraditionallylimitedtocriminalmatters.However,theyneverthelessattendedandparticipatedinthecoordinatedcaseresolutioneffortstakingplaceevenduringabusepreventionorderhearings,matterstraditionallyconsiderednottobewithintheState’sAttorney’sorPublicDefender’sauthority.
BysointegratingallDVrelatedmattersinvolvingthesamepeople,theIDVDProjectwasabletocoordinateallcourteffortstowardthesamegoalsofpreventingfurtherabuseandviolenceandovercomingtheimpactofpriorabuseontheinvolvedadultsandtheirchildren.Allorderswerecoordinated,caseschedulingwasexpedited,andappropriate,comprehensivecaseresolutionforallpartieswastheprimaryandimmediatefocus.TheIDVDProjecthadasagoaltoschedulehearingsinthefamily’srelatedmultiplecases,whethercriminalorfamily,forthesametimethusavoiding,asmuchaspossible,multipletripstothecourthouseforpartiesandwitnesses.Iftherewasnon-compliancewithanyorder,theprogramprovidedanimmediateandeffective
1ThissectionofthereportwaswrittenfortheevaluationbyVermontSuperiorCourtJudgeDavidSuntagwhooriginatedandledtheIDVDProjectduringthestudyperiod.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
3
response.Iftherewasaneedtomodifyanyoneorder,IDVDProjectassuredthatallrelatedorders,regardlessofdocket,weremodifiedatthesametimeandremainedconsistent.
VictimSafetyOfparamountimportancetotheIDVDProjectwasthecourt’sabilitytoprovidethevictimwithimmediateaccesstoafreeattorneywhospecializedinmattersofdomesticviolenceonbehalfofvictims.Inaddition,aseparatevictimadvocateandadditionalvictimadvocacyserviceswereavailable.TheProjectAgainstViolentEncounters(PAVE),thelocaldomesticviolenceadvocacyorganization,wasdirectlyinvolvedinthecreationandplanningoftheIDVDProjectandwasalwaysavailabletoassistvictimsofdomesticviolencewithsafetyplanningandsupportservicesbefore,during,andaftercourtproceedings.
ServiceDeliveryTheIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoquicklyidentifyseriousunmetneedsforfamiliesinthecourtsystemandprovidereferralstoacomprehensivearrayofhealthandsocialservicesdesignedtomeettheimmediateandlong-termneedsofthefamily,includingthevictim,theoffender,andtheirchildren.IDVDProjectstaffdevelopedarelationshipwithcommunityserviceprovidersandhelpedpartiesaccessthoseserviceprovidersonacourtorderedorvoluntarybasis.Theprocessinvolvedarangeofservicesincluding:arrangingforfreelegalrepresentationoradvice;explainingcourtorderstoself-representedpartiesorspecialneedsparentswhochosenottoaccesslegalservices;makingappointmentsforparentstoimmediatelyaccesssupervisedvisitationormonitoredexchangeservices;settinguppromptmentalhealth,substanceabuseorbatterer’seducation/counselingintakesandassessmentsresultinginpromptneedsassessmentreportstothecourtandallparties;providingallcontactinformationforavailableserviceprovidersaswellasactuallymakingtheserviceappointmentsforthefamilybeforetheyleftthecourthouse;negotiatingwithproviderstoobtainaffordableservicesoravailableappointmenttimesforthefamily,and/orfollow-upcallsandreportstoadvisethecourtandpartieswhetherserviceswereobtained;aswellasotherservicesasneeded.
OffenderAccountabilityTheIDVDProjectsoughttoensureoffenderaccountabilitybyrelyingonacomprehensivecoordinatedcommunityresponsebasedonactiveparticipationofthecourt,criminaljusticeagencies,thecommunity,andprofessionalserviceproviderstoholdoffendersaccountablefortheirbehavior.WithinthecontextoftheIDVDProjectresponsestonon-compliancewithcourtorderswereswift,consistent,andproportionatetotheviolationandneedsoftheoffenderandvictim.IDVDProjectresponsesincluded:1)immediatearrestforviolationofanycriminalorabusepreventionorder;2)additionalappropriatecriminalsanctions;and3)referraltothebatterers'interventionprogramand/orothertreatmentoreducationalprogramsasappropriate.Toensurethatoffendersunderstoodorderswhichwereissuedaswellastheirrightsandresponsibilities,publicdefendersprovidedassistanceduringtheabusepreventionorderprocessaswellasthecriminalprocess.Inthismanner,allpartieshadlegaladvice
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
4
regardlessofthetypeofcasewhichinitiallybroughtthosepartiestothecourthouseandregardlessoftheirabilitytohirecounsel.
TheIDVDProject,inconjunctionwiththeProbationandParoleOffice,createdaspecializedcriminalprobationwarrantwhichhelpedfacilitatemoreeffectiveandclosemonitoringofthedefendant'scompliancewithcourtorders.ThisenabledswiftactionbytheCourtwhendealingwithviolationsofprobation.ProbationandParoleofficersassertivelyenforcedjudicialordersandconditionsofprobation.Theresponsewasimmediateandgenerallyresultedinimmediatearrestandincarcerationuntilthefirstappearanceonaviolationofprobation.Atthattimeallpartiesthenattemptedtoreachapromptresolutionbestdesignedtoassurefuturecompliance.
EVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY
Anoutcomeevaluationattemptstodeterminetheeffectsthataprogramhasonparticipants.InthecaseoftheIDVDProjecttheobjectiveoftheoutcomeevaluationwastodeterminewhetherornottheprojectreducedthefrequencyofpostprogramcriminalbehavioronthepartofparticipantsascomparedtothepostprogramcriminalbehaviorofdefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinDistrictCourtwithoutthebenefitoftheservicesprovidedbytheIDVDProject.Anindicatorofpostprogramcriminalbehaviorthatiscommonlyusedinoutcomeevaluationsofcriminaljusticeprogramsisthenumberofparticipantswhorecidivate--thatis,areconvictedofacrimeaftertheycompletetheprogram.
RecidivismMeasuresForthisparticularprojectthereareseveralmeasuresofrecidivismthatarerelevant:1)reconvictionforadomesticviolenceoffense;2)reconvictionforaviolentoffense;and3)reconvictionforanyoffense.Asamatterofinterestconvictioninformationforviolationsofcourtordershasalsobeenprovided.
Ananalysisofthecriminalhistoryrecordsofthe140subjectswhowerereferredtotheIDVDprojectandthe102subjectswhosecaseswereprosecutedinBenningtonCountyDistrictCourtwithoutthebenefitoftheIDVDProjectfromJanuary1,2007throughJune30,2010wasconductedusingtheVermontcriminalhistoryrecordofparticipantsasprovidedbytheVermontCriminalInformationCenterattheDepartmentofPublicSafety.TheVermontcriminalhistoryrecordonwhichtherecidivismanalysiswasbasedincludedallchargesandconvictionsprosecutedinaVermontDistrictCourtthatwereavailableasofJuly17,2011.ThecriminalrecordsonwhichthestudywasbaseddonotcontainFederalprosecutions,out-of-stateprosecutions,ortraffictickets.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
5
RecidivismTimelineTypicallyoutcomeevaluationsinvestigatethecriminalbehaviorofprogramparticipantsforaperiodofthreeyearsafterprogramcompletion.Thethree-yearreviewperiodofpostprogrambehaviorwasnottheprotocolforthisevaluationfortworeasons:1)IDVDProjectadministratorswantedtoobtaininterimoutcomefindings;and2)approximately36%(N=51)oftheparticipantsfromtheIDVDProjecthadtheircriminalrecordsexpungedoneyearorsoaftertheircasesweredisposedbythecourtasaconditionoftheirdeferredsentenceagreement.Whentheparticipant’srecordwasexpungedsoalsowasanyrecordthattheyparticipatedintheprogram.However,criminalrecordswereonlyexpungedifanIDVDProjectparticipantwasnotreconvictedofanewcrimeduringtheperiodoftheirone-yearorsodeferredsentence.Assuch,all51subjectswhoserecordswereexpungedduetosuccessfulcompletionoftheirdeferredsentencewereconsiderednottohavebeenreconvictedforatleastoneyearaftertheircasewasdisposedbythecourt.However,becauseitwasnotpossibletoobtainacriminalrecordforthese“unknownparticipants”itwasalsonotpossibletodeterminewhetherornotthesesubjectswerereconvictedofacrimeaftertheirrecordwasexpunged.Consequentlytheanalysisisnotabletoaddressthepostprojectcriminalbehaviorofthese“unknownparticipants’inthesecondorthirdyearafterprojectcompletion.
ParticipantDescriptionDataSimilarly,thedescriptiveinformationregardingtheIDVDProjectparticipantspresentedinthisreportisonlybasedonthe89participantswhodidnothavetheirrecordsexpunged.Sincedescriptiveinformationismissingon36%ofthesubjects,discussionsregardingthecharacteristicsoftheIDVDProjectgroupneedtobeviewedwithcaution.EssentiallydescriptivedataregardingIDVDProjectparticipantsisonlybasedonasampleoftheIDVDProjectgroup–asamplewhichmaynormaynotberepresentativeoftheentiregroup.
StatewideDomesticAssaultRecidivismDataInadditiontorecidivismreportsforIDVDProjectparticipantsandDistrictCourtgroupparticipantsthisreportalsocontainsstatewiderecidivismdatafordefendantschargedwithdomesticassaultinVermontbetween2004and2008.ThisdataisdrawnfromaSeptember,2011,studyentitled,DomesticAssaultRecidivisminVermont:2004–2008,conductedbyDr.RobinAdler,theSeniorResearchAssociateattheVermontCenterForJusticeResearch.Themeasuresofrecidivismandthetypeofcriminalhistoryrecordsusedfortheanalysisinthestatewidereportareidenticaltothoseusedinthisoutcomeevaluation.Therecidivismfindings,lessdefendantsfromBenningtonCounty,havebeenincludedinthisanalysisforcomparativepurposes.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
6
RECIDIVISM
Inthisreportthreedifferentrecidivismmeasuresarediscussed:1)reconvictionforadomesticviolenceoffense;2)reconvictionforaviolentoffense;and3)reconvictionforanyoffense.Asamatterofinterestconvictioninformationforviolationsofcourtordersarealsopresented.
ReconvictionforDomesticViolenceTable1belowpresentstherecidivismresultsforsubjectswhosefirstreconvictionwasforadomesticassaultcharge.AnanalysisoftheVermontcriminalrecordsforallsubjectsinthestudyindicatesthat4.3%ofIDVDProjectparticipantswereconvictedofadomesticviolenceoffenseastheirfirstreconviction.ForthoseparticipantswhosecaseswereprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourt,2.9%ofparticipantswereconvictedofadomesticviolenceoffenseastheirfirstreconvictionafterdispositionoftheircase.Analysisfromaseparatestatewiderecidivismstudy(excludingBenningtonCountycases)conductedbytheCenterfordefendantsconvictedofdomesticassaultoffensesbetween2004and2008indicatedthat7.4%ofdefendantsfromthatstudywerereconvictedofadomesticviolenceoffenseastheirfirstreconviction.
Table1SubjectsReconvictedofDomesticViolenceOffenses
IDVD Participant District Court Case Statewide
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Recidivist 6 4.3% 3 2.9% 127 7.4%
Non-recidivist 134 95.7% 99 97.1% 1597 92.6%
Total 140 100.0% 102 100.0% 1724 100.0%
Thoughthepercentageofparticipantswhowerereconvictedofadomesticviolenceoffenseastheirfirstreconvictionwaslowforallthreegroups,thepercentageofreconvictionswaslowerforboththeIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroupwhencomparedwithstatewidefigures.ReconvictionforadomesticviolencechargeforIDVDProjectparticipantswasapproximately3%lowerthanthepercentageforstatewidedefendants.ReconvictionforadomesticviolencechargefortheDistrictCourtgroupwas4.5%lowerthanthepercentageforstatewidedefendants.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
7
ReconvictionforViolentOffensesTable2presentsthereconvictionresultsforsubjectswhosefirstreconvictionwasforaviolentoffense(whichincludesdomesticviolencereconvictions).AnanalysisoftheVermontcriminalrecordsforallsubjectsindicatesthatthelevelofreconvictionforaviolentoffensewas6.4%forIDVDProjectparticipantsascomparedto8.8%fordefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourtand10.4%fordomesticviolencedefendantsstatewide.
Table2
SubjectsReconvictedofViolentOffenses
IDVD Participant District Court Case Statewide
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Recidivist 9 6.4% 9 8.8% 179 10.4%
Non-recidivist 131 93.6% 93 91.2% 1545 89.6%
Total 140 100.0% 102 100.0% 1724 100.0%
Recidivismbasedonreconvictionforaviolentoffensewaslowforallthreegroups.However,onceagainparticipantsinboththeIDVDProjectandtheDistrictCourtgroupwerereconvictedofviolentoffensesastheirfirstreconvictionlessoftenthanweredefendantsstatewide.Reconvictionforaviolentcrimewas4%lowerforIDVDProjectparticipantsthanfordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.ViolentcrimereconvictionsforparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroupwere1.6%lowerthantheirstatewidecounterparts.
ReconvictionforAnyOffenseThoughthedifferencesinreconvictionsfordomesticviolenceandviolentcrimeswererelativelyminorbetweenparticipantsintheIDVDProject,theDistrictCourtgroup,andthestatewidecohort,morepronounceddifferencesbetweenthethreegroupsappearintheanalysisofreconvictiondataforanyoffense.
Table3providesdataregardingthepercentageofsubjectswhosefirstreconvictionwasforanyoffense.ForthismeasurerecidivismwasdefinedasanewconvictionoccurringduringthestudyperiodforanycrimeprosecutedinDistrictCourtincludingmotorvehicleoffenses.Thismeasureismorecomparabletothetypeofrecidivismmeasurestypicallyusedincriminaljusticeprogramevaluations.AnanalysisoftheVermontcriminalrecordsforallsubjectsindicatesthat22.1%ofIDVDProjectparticipantswerereconvictedofsometypeofcrimeascomparedto36.3%ofdefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourtand47.7%ofdomesticviolenceoffendersstatewide.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
8
Table3SubjectsReconvictedforAnyOffense
IDVD Participant District Court Case Statewide
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Recidivist 31 22.1% 37 36.3% 822 47.7%
Non-recidivist 109 77.9% 65 63.7% 902 52.3%
Total 140 100.0% 102 100.0% 1724 100.0%
WhenlookingatareconvictionforanycrimeprosecutedinaVermontDistrictCourt,reconvictionsfortheparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwasapproximately25%lowerand54%lessoftenthanwasthecasefordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.Reconvictionsforanycrimewereapproximately11%lowerand24%lessoftenforDistrictCourtparticipantsthanforthestatewidegroup.Withinthisrecidivismcategory,participantsintheIDVDProjectweresubstantiallylesslikelytobereconvictedthanwereparticipantsintheothertwogroups.
ConvictionforViolationsofCourtOrdersInadditiontothethreerecidivismmeasurespresentedabove,analysiswasalsoconductedonconvictionsforviolationsofcourtorders.Courtorderviolationsincludedviolationofabusepreventionordersandviolationsofconditionsofrelease.Thoughviolationsofcourtordersarenotcharacterizedasviolentorpropertycrimes,theysometimesindicatethatthedefendantishavingdifficultyconformingtheirbehaviortosupervisionandmaybeprecursorstomoreseriouscriminalbehavior.
AnanalysisoftheVermontcriminalrecordsforallsubjectsindicatesinTable4that5.0%ofIDVDprogramparticipantswereconvictedofanewcourtorderviolationascomparedto4.9%ofdefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourt.
Table4SubjectsConvictedForViolationsofCourtOrders
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Recidivist 7 5.0% 5 4.9% 12 5.0%
Non-recidivist 133 95.0% 97 95.1% 230 95.0%
Total 140 100.0% 102 100.0% 242 100.0%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
9
WHENWERESUBJECTSCONVICTED?
Inadditiontorecidivismmeasures,programeffectivenesscanbealsomeasuredintermsofhowlongaparticipantremainsconvictionfreeinthecommunity.Evenifaparticipantisconvictedofanotheroffenseafterprogramcompletion,thelongerthesubjectremainsconvictionfreeisimportantinevaluatingthecrimepreventionpotentialforaproject.Forthisstudytherecidivismclockwasstartedforeachsubjectaftertheircasewasdisposedbythecourtandthesubjectwaslivinginthecommunityandcapableofbeingreconvicted.Incaseswhereincarcerationwasnotpartofasubject’ssentence,thesubject’srecidivismclockbeganupondispositionoftheircase.Incaseswherethesubjectwasincarcerated,theirrecidivismclockbeganafterthesubjectwasreleasedfromincarceration.Theelapsedtimewasthenmeasuredbetweenthestartoftheparticipant’srecidivismclockandwhentheparticipantwasconvictedofanotheroffense.Tobeconsistentwiththepreviousanalysisinthisreport,threedifferenttypesofrecidivismtimelinesarepresented;onefordomesticviolence,oneforviolentoffenses,andoneforanycriminaloffense.Asamatterofinterestarecidivismtimelineforviolationsofcourtordershasalsobeenincluded.
TheMethodologysectionofthisreportreferstothefactthatitwasnotpossibletoidentify36%(N=51)oftheIDVDparticipantsbecausetheirrecordofparticipationintheIDVDProjecthadbeenexpungedasaresultofsuccessfullycompletingthetermsofadeferredsentenceagreement.However,sincecriminalrecordswereonlyexpungedifaparticipantwasnotreconvictedofanewcrimeduringtheperiodoftheirdeferredsentence(whichwastypicallyoneyearfromthedatethecasewasdisposedbythecourt),itisreasonabletoconcludethatnoneofthese51participantswerereconvictedwithinoneyearaftertheirrecidivismclockswerestarted.However,becauseitwasnotpossibletoobtainacriminalrecordforthese“unknownparticipants”itwasalsonotpossibletodeterminewhetherornotthesesubjectswerereconvictedofacrimeaftertheirrecordwasexpunged;thatis,itcouldnotbedeterminedwhetherornottheparticipanthadbeenconvictedinthesecondorsubsequentyearsafterprogramcompletion.Consequentlythetimeanalysispresentedinthefollowingtablesisbasedonall140IDVDProjectparticipantsforthefirstyearand89participantsforsubsequentyears.
Table5presentstheelapsedrecidivismclockforsubjectswhowereconvictedofanewdomesticviolencecrimeduringthestudyperiod.FortheIDVDparticipants5ofthe6reconvictionsfordomesticviolenceoccurredinlessthanoneyearand1occurredbetweenoneandtwoyearsafterthestartoftherecidivismclock.FortheDistrictCourtgroup2ofthe3reconvictionsfordomesticviolenceoccurredinlessthanoneyearand1occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
10
Table5TimeToRecidivism:DomesticViolence
Participant Code When 1st Recidivated Total
Percentage
IDVD Participant
< 1 year 5 83.3% 1 - 2 years 1 16.7% 2 - 3 years > 3 years Total 6 100%
District Court Case
< 1 year 2 67% 1 - 2 years 2 - 3 years 1 33% > 3 years Total 3 100%
Arecidivismmeasurecanbedevelopedbasedonreconvictionandtherecidivismtimeline.If“successfuloutcome”fortheprogramisdefinedasnoreconvictionforadomesticviolencecrimewithinoneyearofrecidivismeligibilitythanthelevelofsuccessfortheIDVDProjectwouldbe96.4%(135subjectswithnodomesticviolencereconvictionwithinoneyeardividedby140programparticipants).TheoneyearsuccesslevelfortheDistrictCourtgroupisslightlyhigherat98.0%(100dividedby102).
Table6presentstheelapsedrecidivismclockforsubjectswhowereconvictedofanewviolentcrimeduringthestudyperiod.FortheIDVDparticipants7ofthe9reconvictionsforviolentcrimesoccurredinlessthanoneyear,1occurredbetweenoneandtwoyears,and1occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.FortheDistrictCourtgroup5outof9reconvictionsforcrimesofviolenceoccurredinlessthanoneyear,3occurredbetweenoneandtwoyears,and1occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.
Table6TimeToRecidivism:ViolentCrimes
Participant Code When 1st Recidivated Total
Percentage
IDVD Participant
< 1 year 7 77.8% 1 - 2 years 1 11.1% 2 - 3 years 1 11.1% > 3 years Total 9 100%
District Court Case
< 1 year 5 55.6% 1 - 2 years 3 33.3% 2 - 3 years 1 11.1% > 3 years Total 9 100%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
11
If“successfuloutcome”fortheprogramisdefinedasnoreconvictionforaviolentcrimewithinoneyearofrecidivismeligibilitythanthesuccessratefortheIDVDProgramwouldbe95.0%(133subjectswithnoreconvictionforaviolentcrimewithinoneyeardividedby140programparticipants).ThesuccessratefortheDistrictCourtgroupisnearlyidenticalat95.1%(97dividedby102).
Table7indicatestheelapsedrecidivismclockforsubjectswhowereconvictedofanynewcrimeduringthestudyperiod.FortheIDVDparticipants77.4%ofthosereconvictionsforanynewcrimeoccurredinlessthanoneyear,16.2%occurredbetweenoneandtwoyears,and6.4%occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.FortheDistrictCourtgroup70%ofreconvictionsforanynewcrimeoccurredinlessthanoneyear,19%occurredbetweenoneandtwoyears,and11%occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.Intermsofreconvictionforanynewcrime,theIDVDProjectparticipantstendedtorecidivatesomewhatmorequicklythandidtheparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.
Table7
TimetoRecidivism:AllConvictions
Participant Code When 1st Recidivated Total
Percentage
IDVD Participant
< 1 year 24 77.4% 1 - 2 years 5 16.2% 2 - 3 years 2 6.4% > 3 years Total 31 100%
District Court Case
< 1 year 26 70.0% 1 - 2 years 7 19.0% 2 - 3 years 4 11.0% > 3 years Total 37
100%
If“successfuloutcome”fortheprogramisdefinedasnoreconvictionforanynewcrimewithinoneyearofrecidivismeligibilitythanthesuccessratefortheIDVDProgramwouldbe82.9%(116subjectswithnoreconvictionforanynewcrimewithinoneyeardividedby140programparticipants).Thesuccessrateof74.5%fortheDistrictCourtProgramgroup(76dividedby102)islowerthanthatoftheIDVDProject.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
12
Table8indicatestheelapsedrecidivismclockforsubjectswhowereconvictedofanewcourtorderviolationduringthestudyperiod.FortheIDVDparticipants,6outof7ofthosereconvictionsforanewcourtorderviolationoccurredinlessthanoneyearand1occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.FortheDistrictCourtgroup3outof5reconvictionsforanewcourtorderviolationoccurredinlessthanoneyearand2occurredbetweenyearsoneandtwo.
Table8TimetoRecidivism:CourtOrderViolations
Participant Code When 1st Recidivated Total
Percentage
IDVD Participant
< 1 year 6 85.7% 1 - 2 years 0 0.0% 2 - 3 years 1 14.3% > 3 years Total 7 100%
District Court Case
< 1 year 3 60.0% 1 - 2 years 2 40.0% 2 - 3 years > 3 years Total 5 100%
CRIMESFORWHICHPARTICIPANTSWERECONVICTED
WhenconsideringtheeffectthattheIDVDProjecthadonparticipantsitisimportanttodifferentiatebetweenthenumberofparticipantswhorecidivatedandthenumberofcrimesforwhichparticipantswereconvictedduringthestudyperiod.Forexample,ifaparticipant’scaseweredisposedin2007ands/hewasconvictedoftwocrimesin2008andthenthreecrimesin2009,theparticipantwouldbecountedasarecidivistonlyonce.However,inordertounderstandthefulloffensepatternofparticipantsandtoassessthefullimpactoftheIDVDProjectonthecriminalbehaviorofparticipantsitisimportanttoalsonotethatthedefendantwasconvictedofthosefiveadditionalcrimesduringthestudyperiod.Whilethefirstsectionofthisevaluationfocusedonwhetherornotaparticipantwasreconvictedduringthestudyperiod,thissectionoftheanalysisfocusesonthenumberofcrimesforwhichparticipantswerereconvicted.
ParticipantOffensePatternsTable9indicatesthatthesubjectsfromtheIDVDProgramandtheDistrictCourtGroupcombinedwereconvictedofatotalof115crimesduringthefollow-upperiodfromJanuary1,2007throughJune30,2011.ParticipantsintheIDVDProjectwereconvictedof52crimes(45%)
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
13
comparedtotheDistrictCourtgroupwhowereconvictedof63crimes(55%).Table5issortedbythefrequencyofthetotalconvictionspercrime.
Table9AllCrimesForWhichSubjectsWereReconvicted
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total
Number of Convictions Percent Number of
Convictions Percent Number of Convictions Percent
DMV 6 11.5% 10 15.9% 16 13.9%
ASSAULT 6 11.5% 6 9.5% 12 10.4%
DRUGS 6 11.5% 3 4.8% 9 7.8%
DUI 5 9.6% 4 6.3% 9 7.8%
ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 5 9.6% 3 4.8% 8 7.0%
ALCOHOL 2 3.8% 5 7.9% 7 6.1% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 6 11.5% 1 1.6% 7 6.1%
THEFT 2 3.8% 4 6.3% 6 5.2%
VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 1 1.9% 5 7.9% 6 5.2%
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 0 .0% 4 6.3% 4 3.5%
FALSE INFO-LE OFFICER/IMPLICATE ANOTHER 1 1.9% 3 4.8% 4 3.5%
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 2 3.8% 2 3.2% 4 3.5%
PROHIBITED ACT-ENGAGE IN #1 0 .0% 3 4.8% 3 2.6%
UNLAWFUL TRESPASS 1 1.9% 2 3.2% 3 2.6% ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-2ND DEG SUBSEQUENT WITH INJURY 1 1.9% 1 1.6% 2 1.7%
STOLEN PROPERTY 0 .0% 2 3.2% 2 1.7%
CRUELTY-CHILD <10 YRS 2 3.8% 0 .0% 2 1.7%
ESCAPE CUSTODY-FURLOUGH 0 .0% 2 3.2% 2 1.7%
RESISTING ARREST #1 2 3.8% 0 .0% 2 1.7%
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT-2ND DEG 0 .0% 2 3.2% 2 1.7%
ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-1ST DEG WITH WEAPON 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9%
INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9%
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9%
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY - FAILURE TO COMPLY 1ST 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9%
UNLAWFUL MISCHIEF >$1000 0 .0% 1 1.6% 1 .9%
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS 52 100.0% 63 100.0% 115 100.0%
FortheIDVDProjectparticipants,approximately50%oftheirreconvictionsincluded(listedinorderoffrequency)DMVcharges,assault,drugcrimes,DUI,anddomesticassault.FortheDistrictCourtgroup,approximately50%oftheirreconvictionsincluded(listedinorderoffrequency)DMVcharges,assault,violationofanabusepreventionorder,alcoholcharges,DUI,andtheft.Otherchargesforbothgroupsinvolvedavarietyofviolent,property,andpublicorderconvictions.Itisclearfromthisdatathatrecidivistsfrombothprogramsengagedinavarietyofdifferentcriminalbehaviorsaftertheircasesweredisposedbythecourtwhichsuggestsahighlevelofserviceneedbeyondthepresentingproblemofdomesticviolence.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
14
Table10presentsthenumberofconvictionsforbothgroupsofparticipantsforthecrimesofdomesticviolence,violentcrimes,andviolationsofcourtordersduringthefollow-upperiodfromJanuary1,2007throughJune30,2011.ThepercentageofdomesticassaultreconvictionswashigherfortheIDVDProjectparticipants(13.5%)thanforortheDistrictCourtgroup(6.3%).Howeverthepercentageofreconvictionsforviolentcrimewassimilarforbothgroups.ThepercentageofviolationsofcourtorderswasslightlyhigherfortheIDVDProjectparticipants(17.3%)thanfortheDistrictCourtgroup(12.5%).
Table10SelectedCrimesForWhichSubjectsWereReconvicted
IDVD Participant District Court
Case Total
Number of Convictions Percent Number of
Convictions Percent Number of Convictions Percent
Domestic Assault - Total 7 13.5% 4 6.3% 11 9.6%
ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-1ST DEG WITH WEAPON 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9% ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-2ND DEG SUBSEQUENT WITH INJURY 1 1.9% 1 1.6% 2 1.7%
ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 5 9.6% 3 4.8% 8 7.0%
Violent Crime - Total 15 28.8% 17 27.0% 32 27.8%
ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-1ST DEG WITH WEAPON 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9% ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-2ND DEG SUBSEQUENT WITH INJURY 1 1.9% 1 1.6% 2 1.7%
ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 5 9.6% 3 4.8% 8 7.0%
ASSAULT-AGG 2 3.8% 0 .0% 2 1.7%
ASSAULT-SIMPLE 3 5.8% 6 9.5% 9 7.8%
ASSAULT-SIMPLE-LE OFFICER/1ST 1 1.9% 0 .0% 1 .9%
DISORDERLY CONDUCT-FIGHT, ETC 0 .0% 2 3.2% 2 1.7%
PROHIBITED ACT-ENGAGE IN #1 0 .0% 3 4.8% 3 2.6%
RESISTING ARREST #1 2 3.8% 0 .0% 2 1.7%
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT-2ND DEG 0 .0% 2 3.2% 2 1.7%
Violation of Court Order - Total 9 17.3% 8 12.7% 17 14.8%
VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 1 1.9% 5 7.9% 6 5.2% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 6 11.5% 1 1.6% 7 6.1%
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 2 3.8% 2 3.2% 4 3.5%
TOTAL OF ALL CONVICTIONS 52 63 115
ProjectImpactForpurposesoftheIDVDProjectevaluationitisimportanttodeterminewhetherparticipantsintheIDVDprogramwereconvictedofmoreorlesscrimesthansubjectsprosecutedinDistrictCourt.Aside-by-sidecomparisoniscomplicatedbytwofactors:1)thenumberofparticipantsineachgroupisdifferent(theIDVDgrouphad140subjectswhiletheDistrictCourtgrouphad
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
15
102subjects);and2)36%oftheIDVDProjectparticipantsaremissingcriminalhistoriesonwhichtobaseadetailedanalysisofconvictions.Thefirstissuewasresolvedbyreportingthedatainratesper100persons.Thesecondissueismorecomplicatedandrequiresamoredetaileddiscussion.
TheMethodologysectionofthisreportreferstothefactthatitwasnotpossibletoidentify36%(N=51)ofIDVDparticipantsbecausetheirrecordofparticipationintheIDVDProjecthadbeenexpunged.AssuchitwasnotpossibletoconductadetailedanalysisoftheircriminalhistoryafterthecompletionoftheprogramotherthantonotethattheyhadnotbeenconvictedofacrimeforthefirstyearaftertheycompletedtheIDVDProject.Themissingdatafromthe“unknownparticipants”createsaproblemfortheanalysisoftotalcrimesforwhichparticipantswereconvictedafterprogramcompletion.
Thereareavarietyofstrategiesfordealingwithmissingdata.Themostcommonapproachistoomitthosecaseswhichhavemissingdata.Forthisanalysisthatwouldmeaneliminatingthe51participantswhoserecordswereexpungedfromtheanalysis.However,eliminatinganyparticipantforwhomacriminalhistoryisnotavailablewouldignorethepostprogrambehaviorof51participants(36%)whowerenotconvictedofanycrimeforoneyearaftertheirrecidivismclockwasstarted.EliminatingthesecasesfromthestudywouldsignificantlybiastheoutcomeresultsfortheIDVDProject.
Anotherapproachwouldbetouseastatisticalimputationmethodtoestimatethemissingdata.Forthisprojectthepost-programbehaviorofthe“unknownparticipants”wouldbeestimatedfromthecriminalhistoriesofparticipantsforwhomcriminalhistorieswereavailable.However,thesmallsizeofthestudygroupsandthemodestfinancialresourcesaffordedtheevaluationeffortmadethisapproachanunrealisticoption.
Analternativestrategycouldbetolimitthestudytojustthefirstyearofeachparticipant’srecidivismclock.Thisapproachwouldnoteliminateanyparticipantsbutitwouldignoreanyincidentsofrecidivismthatoccurredafterthefirstyearwhichwouldresultinunderreportingthelevelofrecidivismforbothgroups.InthecaseoftheIDVDProjectthepercentageofrecidivistswoulddropfrom22%to17%.FortheDistrictCourtgroupthepercentageofrecidivistswoulddropfrom36%to25%.Bythesametokenthesuccessesof75IDVDProjectparticipants(54%)and56DistrictCourtgroupparticipants(55%)whoremainedconvictionfreemorethanoneyearwouldbeignoredaswell.Inadditiontothelossofdata,limitingthestudytothefirstyeardoesnotresolvetheproblemofamissingcriminalhistoryandthecorrespondinglackofinformationregardinganyofthedemographiccharacteristicsofthe“unknownparticipants”.
BecauseofthefactthateachoftheapproachestoresolvingthemissingdataissuehadsignificantdrawbackstovalidlyassessingtheoutcomeeffectsoftheIDVDProjectitwasdeterminedthatalloftheparticipantswouldbeincludedinthestudyandnodataregardingthepost-programbehaviorofparticipantswouldbeexcludedfromtheanalysis.Thereaderwould,however,beadvisedthatthemissingdatafor36%oftheIDVDProject’s“unknownparticipants”
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
16
couldnegativelyaffecttheoutcomeresultsoftheIDVDProjectifthosesubjectshadbeenreconvictedaftertheirfirstyearofpost-programrelease.Forexample,ifthebehaviorofthe“unknownparticipants”weresimilartothebehaviorofIDVDProjectparticipantsforwhomacriminalhistorywasavailableduringtheirsecondandsubsequentyearsofpost-programrelease,itispossiblethat8%ofthem(4individuals)couldhavebeenreconvictedforanaverageof1.4crimesperperson–addingatotalof6reconvictionstotheIDVDProjectgroup’stotal.
Similarlyitispossiblethatsomeofthe“unknownparticipants”whowerenotreconvictedinthefirstyearwentontobereconvictedmorethanonceduringthestudyperiod.Usingthecriminalhistoriesfromthe89IDVDProjectparticipantswhoserecordshadnotyetbeenexpungeditwasdeterminedthat12participants(13.5%)werereconvictedmorethanonceforatotalof33crimes.Onaverageeachpersonwasconvictedof2.75additionalcrimes.Itispossiblethenthat13.5%ofthe51“unknownparticipants”--7persons--mighthavebeenidentifiedasmultiplerecidivistsiftheirrecordshadnotbeenexpungedandcouldhavebeenconvictedofanaverageof2.75crimesresultinginanadditional19convictions.Betweenthesetwotypesofrecidivismscenariositispossiblethatthe“unknownparticipants”couldhavecontributedanadditional25convictionstotheIDVDProjectgroup’stotal.AssuchthereadershouldbeawarethattherecidivismdataandthecrimeconvictiondatapresentedinthisreportareconservativeestimatesforthereoffendingbehaviorofIDVDProjectparticipants.
Table11presentstheconvictionratesper100participantsforboththeIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroup.ThedatainTable11indicatesthattheIDVDProjectparticipantshadaslightlyhigherreconvictionratefordomesticassaultthandidtheDistrictCourtgroup.However,thereconvictionratesforviolentcrimewerelowerfortheIDVDProjectparticipantsascomparedtotheDistrictCourtgroup.Thereconvictionratesforviolationofcourtordersarecomparablebetweenthetwogroups.Onceagain,themoresubstantialdifferencesinreconvictionratesappearinthetotalcrimecategory.HerethereconvictionratefortheIDVDProjectis25.6%lower(41%less)thantheDistrictCourtgroup.TheIDVDProjectwassubstantiallymoresuccessfulatpreventingpost-programreconvictionsthanwastheDistrictCourt.Putanotherway,theIDVDProjectprevented26criminalconvictionsper100programparticipantswhencomparedtoDistrictCourtprosecutionswithoutthebenefitofIDVDProjectservices.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
17
Table11ReconvictionRatesPer100ParticipantsForSelectedCrimes
IDVD Participant
District Court Case Total
Conviction Rate per 100
Conviction Rate per 100
Conviction Rate per 100
Domestic Assault – Total 5.0 3.9 4.5
ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-1ST DEG WITH WEAPON 0.7 0.0 0.4 ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-2ND DEG SUBSEQUENT WITH INJURY 0.7 1.0 0.8 ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 3.6 2.9 3.3
Violent Crime – Total 10.7 16.7 13.2
ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-1ST DEG WITH WEAPON 0.7 0.0 0.4 ASSAULT-AGG DOMESTIC-2ND DEG SUBSEQUENT WITH INJURY 0.7 1.0 0.8
ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 3.6 2.9 3.3 ASSAULT-AGG 1.4 0.0 0.8 ASSAULT-SIMPLE 2.1 5.9 3.7 ASSAULT-SIMPLE-LE OFFICER/1ST 0.7 0.0 0.4 DISORDERLY CONDUCT-FIGHT, ETC 0.0 2.0 0.8 PROHIBITED ACT-ENGAGE IN #1 0.0 2.9 1.2 RESISTING ARREST #1 1.4 0.0 0.8 UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT-2ND DEG 0.0 2.0 0.8
Violation of Court Order – Total 6.4 7.8 7.0
VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 0.7 4.9 2.5 VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 4.3 1.0 2.9 VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 1.4 2.0 1.7
TOTAL OF ALL CONVICTIONS 37.1 62.7 47.9
INWHICHCOUNTIESWERESUBJECTSRECONVICTED?
AllreconvictionsforbothstudygroupswereconfinedtoBennington,Rutland,andWindhamCounties.Approximately94%ofthe52newconvictionsforIDVDparticipantsoccurredinBenningtonCounty.Approximately95%ofthe63newconvictionsfortheDistrictCourtgroupoccurredinBenningtonCounty.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
18
Table12providesthedistributionofreconvictionsforIDVDProjectparticipantsbythecountyinwhichthecasewasprosecutedand,morethanlikely,thecountywherethecrimewascommitted.AllreconvictionswereprosecutedinBenningtonCountyotherthantwoDUIconvictionsandoneunlawfultrespassconvictionwhichwereprosecutedinWindhamCounty.
Table12CountyofProsecutionforReconvictions:IDVDParticipants
Bennington Windham
# of Convictions %
# of Convictions %
ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 7 14.3% 0 .0% DMV 6 12.2% 0 .0% ASSAULT 6 12.2% 0 .0% DRUGS 6 12.2% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 6 12.2% 0 .0%
DUI 3 6.1% 2 66.7% ALCOHOL 2 4.1% 0 .0% THEFT 2 4.1% 0 .0% CRUELTY-CHILD <10 YRS 2 4.1% 0 .0% RESISTING ARREST #1 2 4.1% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 2 4.1% 0 .0% FALSE INFO-LE OFFICER/IMPLICATE ANOTHER 1 2.0% 0 .0% INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES 1 2.0% 0 .0% RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT 1 2.0% 0 .0% SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY - FAILURE TO COMPLY 1ST 1 2.0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 1 2.0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL TRESPASS 0 .0% 1 33.3%
Total 49 100.0% 3 100.0%
Table13providesthecountydistributionofreconvictionsfortheDistrictCourtgroup.AllofthereconvictionswereprosecutedinBenningtonCountywiththeexceptionofonedisorderlyconductconvictionandaviolationofanabusepreventionorderprosecutedinRutlandCountyandaDUIconvictionprosecutedinWindhamCounty.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
19
Table13CountyofProsecutionforReconvictions:DistrictCourtGroup
Bennington Rutland Windham
# of Convictions %
# of Convictions %
# of Convictions %
DMV 10 16.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% ASSAULT 5 8.3% 0 .0% 1 100.0% DUI 4 6.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 4 6.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% ALCOHOL 5 8.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% THEFT 4 6.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% DISORDERLY CONDUCT 3 5.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL TRESPASS 2 3.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% STOLEN PROPERTY 2 3.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% DRUGS 3 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% ESCAPE CUSTODY-FURLOUGH 2 3.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% FALSE INFO-LE OFFICER/IMPLICATE ANOTHER 3 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% PROHIBITED ACT-ENGAGE IN #1 3 5.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL MISCHIEF >$1000 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT-2ND DEG 2 3.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 4 6.7% 1 50.0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 1 1.7% 0 .0% 0 .0%
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 2 3.3% 0 .0% 0 .0%
Total 60 100.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0%
Table14providesthedistributionofreconvictionsforallsubjectsinthestudy.Approximately95%ofallreconvictionswereprosecutedinBenningtonCounty.Thedataclearlyshowthatthevastmajorityofpost-programreleasereconvictionsoccurinBenningtonCounty.ThisfactreinforcesthenotionthatajudgewhopresidesoveranintegratedDistrictandFamilyCourtdocketcanbefullyinformedaboutthepost-programcriminalbehaviorofprogramparticipants.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
20
Table14CountyofProsecutionforNewConvictions:AllSubjects
Bennington Rutland Windham
# of Convictions %
# of Convictions %
# of Convictions %
DMV 16 14.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% ASSAULT 11 10.1% 0 .0% 1 25.0% ASSAULT-DOMESTIC 11 10.1% 0 .0% 0 .0% DRUGS 9 8.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% DUI 7 6.4% 0 .0% 2 50.0% ALCOHOL 7 6.4% 0 .0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 2ND OR SUBSEQUENT 7 6.4% 0 .0% 0 .0%
THEFT 6 5.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER 5 4.6% 1 50.0% 0 .0% FALSE INFO-LE OFFICER/IMPLICATE ANOTHER 4 3.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 4 3.7% 0 .0% 0 .0% DISORDERLY CONDUCT 3 2.8% 1 50.0% 0 .0% PROHIBITED ACT-ENGAGE IN #1 3 2.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL TRESPASS 2 1.8% 0 .0% 1 25.0% STOLEN PROPERTY 2 1.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% CRUELTY-CHILD <10 YRS 2 1.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% ESCAPE CUSTODY-FURLOUGH 2 1.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% RESISTING ARREST #1 2 1.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT-2ND DEG 2 1.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES 1 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0%
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT 1 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0% SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY - FAILURE TO COMPLY 1ST 1 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0%
UNLAWFUL MISCHIEF >$1000 1 .9% 0 .0% 0 .0%
Total 109 100.0% 2 100.0% 4 100.0%
PARTICIPANTPROFILECOMPARISONSInthisevaluationtherecidivismresultsoftheIDVDProjectparticipantsarebeingcomparedwiththoseoftheparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.Thiscomparisonisbasedonthenotionthatdifferencesinthepost-programbehavioroftheparticipantsreportedintheprevioussectionscanbeattributedtothebenefitsoftheprograminwhichtheyparticipated.ThehypothesiswasthatparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwouldhavelessofatendencytobereconvictedafterprogramcompletionthanpersonswhosecaseswereprosecutedinDistrictCourtwhodidnothavethebenefitoftheservicesprovidedintheIDVDProject.Theassumptionthatdifferencesinpost-programbehaviorareduetoprogramservicesisonlyvalid
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
21
ifa“quasiexperimental”designcanbeassumed.Thatis,wecanonlyconcludethatdifferencesinpost-programbehaviorareduetotheprogramandnottootherfactorsincludingthecharacteristicsoftheparticipantsifitcanbeestablishedthattheparticipantsinthedifferentgroupsareessentiallythesameoratleastarenotsignificantlydifferentonvariableswhicharerelatedtothetendencytobereconvicted.Nodatawasavailableregardingthecharacteristicsofparticipantsotherthanthatwhichcouldbegleanedfromparticipants’criminalrecords.Assuch,thefollowingprofilesandvariablesweretheonlyfactorsusedtoexaminewhetherthetwogroupswereequivalentornot.
●DemographicProfile: Gender,ageatdispositionofbasedocket,race,and stateofbirth
●CriminalHistoryProfile: Ageatfirstconvictionandpriorcriminalrecord
●CaseProfile: Offenselevel,casedisposition&sentence,maximum sentencetoincarceration,andviolationsofprobation.
Profileinformationwasnotavailableforanyofthe“unknownparticipants”becausenocriminalrecordswereavailableforthesesubjects.Allcalculationsarebasedonthe89IDVDProjectparticipantsforwhomcriminalhistoryrecordswereavailableandthe102DistrictCourtparticipants.Assuch,thedescriptivedataregardingIDVDProjectparticipantspresentedinthissectionisonlybasedonasampleoftheIDVDProjectgroup–asamplewhichmaynormaynotberepresentativeoftheentiregroup.
DemographicProfileTable15presentsthegendercompositionofthetwostudygroups.TheIDVDProjectgroupconsistedofapproximately30%femalesand70%malesascomparedtotheDistrictCourtgroupwhichwascomprisedofapproximately13%femalesand87%males.SignificantdifferencesindemographiccharacteristicsbetweentheIDVDparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtcaseswereobservedforgender.TheIDVDgrouphadasignificantlyhigherpercentageoffemaleparticipantsascomparedtotheDistrictCourtgroup.
Table15Gender
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total N % N % N %
Female 27 30.3% 13 12.7% 40 20.9% Male 62 69.7% 89 87.3% 151 79.1% Total 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
22
Table16presentstheagedistributionofbothstudygroupsatthetimetheirbasedockets(cases)weredisposedbyeithertheIDVDProjectortheDistrictCourt.ThecasethatresultedintheirreferraltotheIDVDProjectorDistrictCourtisreferredtoasthe“BaseDocket”sinceitservesasthebasisforallrecidivismcalculations.Morethan61%oftheparticipantsfrombothgroupswerelessthan36yearsoldatthetimetheirbasedocketwasdisposed.Another30%oftheparticipantsfrombothgroupswerebetweentheagesof36–55atthetimetheirbasedocketwasdisposed.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsregardingageatthetimeofbasedocketdisposition.
Table16
AgeAtDispositionofBaseDocket
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total N % N % N %
18 and under 3 3.4% 5 4.9% 8 4.2%
19 to 25 24 27.0% 33 32.4% 57 29.8%
26 to 35 27 30.3% 28 27.5% 55 28.8%
36 to 45 18 20.2% 20 19.6% 38 19.9%
46 to 55 13 14.6% 13 12.7% 26 13.6%
56 to 65 4 4.5% 3 2.9% 7 3.7%
Total 89.0 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
Mean 33.9 32.9 33.4
Median 31.3 29.7 30.9 Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
Table17presentstheracialcharacteristicsofthetwostudygroups.Notsurprisingly,over95%ofbothgroupswerewhite.AfricanAmericanscomprisedapproximately4%ofthestudyparticipants.Nootherracialgroupswererepresented.TherewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweentheIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroupinregardstorace.
Table17
RaceOfParticipants
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total N % N % N % African
American 2 2.2% 5 4.9% 7 3.7%
Caucasian 86 96.6% 97 95.1% 182 95.3%
Unknown 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
Total 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
23
Table18presentsinformationregardingthestateswhereparticipantswereborn.Only54%oftheIDVDProjectparticipantswereborninVermont.Approximately60%oftheDistrictCourtparticipantswereborninVermont.AfterVermontthemostcommonstateofbirthforbothgroupswasNewYorkandMassachusetts.
Table18
StateOfBirth
IDVD Participant District Court
Case Total N % N % N %
AZ 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
CT 3 3.4% 5 4.9% 8 4.2%
DE 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
FL 1 1.1% 3 2.9% 4 2.1%
GA 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
HI 0 .0% 1 1.0% 1 .5%
IA 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
IL 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
MA 7 7.9% 10 9.8% 17 8.9%
ME 0 .0% 1 1.0% 1 .5%
MI 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
NC 2 2.2% 0 .0% 2 1.0%
NH 1 1.1% 1 1.0% 2 1.0%
NJ 4 4.5% 3 2.9% 7 3.7%
NM 1 1.1% 0 .0% 1 .5%
NY 14 15.7% 9 8.8% 23 12.0%
PA 1 1.1% 2 2.0% 3 1.6%
TN 0 .0% 1 1.0% 1 .5%
TX 0 .0% 2 2.0% 2 1.0%
VT 48 53.9% 60 58.8% 108 56.5%
Missing 1 1.1% 4 3.9% 5 2.6%
Total 89.0 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
24
CriminalHistoryProfile
Table19presentsdataregardingtheageofparticipantsattheirfirstcriminalconviction.FortheIDVDparticipants,approximately48%wereunder21whentheywerefirstconvictedofacriminaloffense.IntheDistrictCourtgroup,approximately60%ofparticipantswereunder21whentheywereconvictedoftheirfirstcriminaloffense.Ontheotherendoftheagescaleapproximately15%oftheIDVDparticipantswerenotconvictedoftheirfirstcriminaloffenseuntiltheywereover45yearsold,ascomparedto6%fortheDistrictCourtgroup.
SignificantdifferencesinthecriminalhistoryprofilebetweentheIDVDandDistrictCourtstudygroupswereobservedforageatfirstconviction–theIDVDgrouphadsignificantlyfewerparticipantsinthe18to21yearoldcategory(33.7%vs.49.0%),andmoreinthe45to55yearoldcategory(13.5%vs.4.9%)thandidtheDistrictCourtgroup.AssuchtheIDVDgrouptendedtobeconvictedoftheirfirstcriminaloffenselaterinlifethandidparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.
Table19AgeAtFirstConviction
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two- sided test of equality for column proportions.
Table20presentsdataonthepriorconvictionsofprojectparticipants.ThecriminalrecordsofparticipantswereexaminedtodeterminethenumberoftimestheyhadbeenconvictedofcriminaloffensespriortotheirinvolvementwiththeIDVDProjectortheDistrictCourtgroup.Foralltypesofcrimesinvestigated,participantsintheIDVDProjectcollectivelyhadsignificantlyfewerpriorcriminalconvictionsthandidtheparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.Forexample,outofthe30priorconvictionsfordomesticviolenceamongallparticipantsinthestudy,only17%wereattributabletotheIDVDProjectparticipantsversus83%ofthosedomesticviolenceconvictionswereattributabletoparticipantsintheDistrictCourtGroup.ThesametypeofcomparisoncouldbemadeforallofthepriorconvictiontypespresentedinTable20.
IDVD Participant District Court Case Total N % N % N %
17 and under 12 13.5% 11 10.8% 23 12.0%
18 to 21 30 33.7% 50 49.0% 80 41.9%
22 to 35 26 29.2% 25 24.5% 51 26.7%
36 to 45 8 9.0% 10 9.8% 18 9.4%
46 to 55 12 13.5% 5 4.9% 17 8.9%
over 55 1 1.1% 1 1.0% 2 1.0%
Total 89.0 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
25
Therefore,theparticipantsintheIDVDcohorthadsignificantlyfewerpriorcriminalconvictionsthandidtheDistrictCourtcohort.
Table20
PriorConvictions IDVD Participant District Court Case Total
Convictions % Convictions % Convictions %
Domestic Violence 5 16.7% 25 83.3% 30 100.0%
Other Violent Crimes 10 17.9% 46 82.1% 56 100.0%
Violations of Probation 39 26.0% 111 74.0% 150 100.0%
Other Violations of Court Order 7 25.9% 20 74.1% 27 100.0%
DUI Convictions 11 30.6% 25 69.4% 36 100.0%
Drug Convictions 9 24.3% 28 75.7% 37 100.0%
Alcohol Convictions 24 37.5% 40 62.5% 64 100.0%
All Other Convictions 106 26.8% 290 73.2% 396 100.0%
Total 211 26.8% 585 73.2% 796 100.0% Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
CaseProfileTable21presentsdataregardingthemostseriousoffenselevelforchargesfromthebasedocketforparticipantsfrombothgroups.Approximately11%ofIDVDProjectparticipantswerechargedwithfeloniesascomparedtoapproximately28%oftheDistrictCourtgroupbeingchargedwithfelonies.Nearly89%oftheIDVDProjectparticipantswerechargedwithmisdemeanorsascomparedtoapproximately72%oftheDistrictCourtgroupbeingchargedwithmisdemeanors.Significantdifferenceswerefoundintheoffenselevelbetweenthetwogroups.TheIDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlymorelikelytobechargedwithmisdemeanorsascomparedtotheDistrictCourtgroup.
Table21OffenseLevel
IDVD Participant
District Court Case Total
N % N % N % Felony 10 11.2% 29 28.4% 39 20.4%
Misdemeanor 79 88.8% 73 71.6% 152 79.6%
Total 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
26
Table22displaysinformationregardingthetypeofsentencereceivedbyparticipantsinthetwogroups.Casedispositionsandsentencesweresimilarforbothgroupsexceptforthepercentageofparticipantswhoweresentencedtoincarcerationorreceiveddeferredsentences.Whereas7.9%ofIDVDparticipantsweresentencedtoincarceration,28.4%ofDistrictCourtgroupparticipantsweresentencedtoincarceration.Notunexpectedly,alargerpercentageofIDVDparticipantsreceiveddeferredsentences(38.2%)thanwasthecasefortheDistrictCourtgroup(6.9%).Assuch,theIDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytobesentencedtoincarcerationandsignificantlymorelikelytoreceivedeferredsentencesthantheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.
Table22CaseDispositions&TypeofSentence
IDVD Participant District Court
Case Total N % N % N %
Incarceration 7 7.9% 29 28.4% 36 18.8%
Split Sentence 5 5.6% 7 6.9% 12 6.3%
Probation 19 21.3% 28 27.5% 47 24.6%
Fine 4 4.5% 4 3.9% 8 4.2%
Sentence Deferred 34 38.2% 7 6.9% 41 21.5%
Not Convicted 2 2.2% 2 2.0% 4 2.1%
Dropped / Dismissed 17 19.1% 24 23.5% 41 21.5%
Missing / Unknown 1 1.1% 1 1.0% 2 1.0%
Total 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
Table23presentsinformationregardingthemaximumnumberofdaysthatdefendantsweresentencedtoserveinjail.Maximumsentencetoincarcerationdataincludessentencesforboththe“incarceration”categoryandthe“splitsentence”categoriesfromTable22.Inreferencetosentencestoincarcerationversuscommunity-basedsentencestherewasasignificantdifferencebetweentheIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.IDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytobesentencedtojail(85.5%notsentencedtoincarceration)thanwereDistrictCourtgroupparticipants(64.7%notsentencedtoincarceration).Forthosesubjectswhodidreceiveasentencetojail,thedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupswerenotsignificantexceptinthecategoryofsentencesfrom“180daysto1year”injail.IDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytoreceiveamaximumofsentenceof“180daysto1year”injailthanweretheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
27
Table23
MaximumSentencesToIncarceration
IDVD Participant District Court
Case Total N % N % N %
Not Sentenced to Incarceration 77 86.5% 66 64.7% 143 74.9%
1 to 30 days 5 5.6% 4 3.9% 9 4.7%
30 to 90 days 2 2.2% 6 5.9% 8 4.2%
90 to 180 days 1 1.1% 3 2.9% 4 2.1%
180 days to 1 year 2 2.2% 10 9.8% 12 6.3%
1 to 3 years 0 .0% 9 8.8% 9 4.7%
3 to 5 years 1 1.1% 2 2.0% 3 1.6%
5 to 10 years 1 1.1% 1 1.0% 2 1.0%
10+ years 0 .0% 1 1.0% 1 .5%
Total 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
Note: Values in the same row that are shaded in gray are significantly different at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions.
Table24presentsinformationforthenumberofparticipantsfrombothgroupswhowerechargedwithviolationsofprobationafterthecourtdisposedofthebasedocket.Approximately60%ofparticipantsfrombothgroupswerechargedwithprobationviolationsaftertheircasewasdisposedbythecourt.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroupsonthisvariable.
Table24
ViolationsofProbation
IDVD Participant
District Court Case Total
N % N % N %
# Of Participants Charged With Violation Of Probation 54 60.7% 64 62.7% 118 61.8%
# Of Participants Not Charged With Violation of Probation 35 39.3% 38 37.3% 73 38.2%
Total Participants 89 100.0% 102 100.0% 191 100.0%
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
28
REGRESSIONANALYSIS:AreTheDifferencesInTheStudyGroupProfilesImportantWhenAssessingProgramEffects?
Toanswerthisquestionseveralmultivariateregressionmethodologieswereemployedtodetermineifanyoftheprofilecharacteristicsdiscussedabovewerestronglycorrelatedtothetendencytorecidivate.Thisanalysisiscriticalwhenassessingwhetherornotthedifferencesobservedpreviouslyinpost-programcriminalbehaviorbetweentheIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroupareduetothebenefitsoftheIDVDProjectortothecharacteristicsoftheparticipants.Forexample,amongothersignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwogroups,theIDVDProjectparticipantswerefoundtohavefewerpriorcriminalconvictionsthandidparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.Ifthenumberofpriorconvictionsiscorrelatedorrelatedtopost-programreconvictionthenonecouldarguethatthereductioninpost-programreconvictionsfortheIDVDProjectparticipantswasduemoretothelessseriouscriminalhistoriesoftheparticipantsthantotheservicesprovidedbytheIDVDProject.
Thefollowingvariableswereusedintheregressionanalysestodeterminetheextenttowhichtheprofilecharacteristicsofthetwogroupswerecorrelatedtothetendencytoreoffend.NeitherRacenorStateofBirthwasincludedasanindependentvariableintheregressionanalysesbecauseneithervariablewasconsideredanimportantcharacteristicindeterminingtendencytorecidivate.ForbothvariablestherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweentheIDVDandDistrictCourtgroupsandtherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweentheNon-recidivists/Recidivistssegments.Thepriorcriminalrecordvariableandtheviolationofprobationvariablewereexpandedfortheregressionanalysistocreatemoredetaileddatafortheanalysis.
Independentvariables:
GenderAgeatDispositionofBaseDocket
Ageat1stConviction PriorOtherViolentCrimes PriorOtherViolationsofCourtOrder PriorViolationsofProbation PriorDomesticViolenceCrimes PriorDUIConvictions PriorDrugConvictions PriorAlcoholConvictions PriorOtherConvictions
OffenseLevel SentenceType MaximumSentence
ViolationsofProbationViolationsofProbation-convictedViolationsofProbation–charged,notconvicted
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
29
Dependentvariables:
RecidivistIndex: Acontinuousscalethatisbasedonyearstorecidivateand providesa“degree”ofrecidivism.Thescalerangesfrom negativevalues(thelargerthenegativevaluethelongerthe subjecthasremainedconvictionfree)topositivevalues(the largerthepositivevaluethesoonerthesubjectwas reconvicted).
Recidivist: 1=recidivistand0=non-recidivist
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
30
ThefirststepintheanalysiswastocalculateaPearsonCorrelationmatrixusingthesevariables.Pearsoncorrelationcoefficientsrangefrom0.00(nocorrelation)to1.00(perfectcorrelation).Theresultsoftheanalysisrevealedverylowcorrelationcoefficientsindicatingthatonanindividualbasis,noneoftheindependentvariablesweresignificantlycorrelatedwiththetendencytorecidivate.ThedetailsofthecorrelationmatrixarepresentedinFigure1below.OfprimaryinterestinFigure1arethefirstandsecondcolumnsofcoefficientswhichindicatehowtheindependentvariablescorrelatedwiththedependentvariables.
Figure1PearsonCorrelationMatrix
Amultivariatelinearregressionanalysiswasperformednexttodetermineiftherewereanyinterdependenciesbetweenthevariablesthatmightbringtolightmoresignificantassociationswiththetendencytorecidivate.Acustomstepwisemethodologywasusedtoenterorremovevariablesfromtheanalysisbasedonstatisticalsignificancecriteria.“RecidivistIndex”wasusedasthedependentvariable.Theanalysisresultedinarecidivistmodelwithfourpredictorvariables:
GenderPriorOtherConvictionsOffenseLevelViolationsofProbation–Convictions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 Recidivist 1.00
2 Recid Index 0.64 1.00
3 Gender -0.02 -0.11 1.00
4 Age 1st Conv -0.20 0.05 -0.01 1.00
5 Age at Dispo -0.26 -0.10 0.07 0.65 1.00
6 Prior Other Violent -0.01 -0.07 0.01 -0.22 -0.14 1.00
7 Prior Other VCO 0.01 -0.08 0.16 -0.13 -0.07 0.12 1.00
8 Prior VPROB 0.06 -0.10 0.11 -0.26 -0.12 0.16 0.19 1.00
9 Prior DV -0.06 -0.08 0.11 -0.11 -0.03 0.13 0.23 0.21 1.00
10 Prior DUI -0.06 -0.18 0.09 -0.06 0.06 0.22 0.02 0.17 0.07 1.00
11 Prior Drug 0.00 -0.09 0.11 -0.21 -0.10 0.15 0.09 0.25 0.00 0.30 1.00
12 Prior Alc 0.14 -0.02 -0.07 -0.28 -0.26 0.10 0.10 0.32 -0.01 0.00 0.24 1.00
13 Prior Other Conv -0.03 -0.21 0.08 -0.35 -0.16 0.19 0.15 0.52 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.28 1.00
14 Offense Level 0.05 0.25 -0.16 0.09 -0.09 -0.14 -0.15 -0.24 -0.34 -0.15 -0.17 0.03 -0.21 1.00
15 In Study VProb Conv 0.36 0.37 0.11 -0.15 -0.22 0.07 0.18 0.19 -0.04 -0.05 -0.01 0.06 0.08 0.11 1.00
16 Total In Study VProb 0.34 0.36 -0.01 -0.20 -0.25 0.08 0.11 0.18 -0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.83 1.00
17 In Study VProb Non-Conv 0.19 0.20 -0.13 -0.17 -0.19 0.05 -0.01 0.10 -0.11 0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.06 0.11 0.33 0.79 1.00
18 Maximum Incarceration 0.03 -0.01 0.23 -0.13 -0.13 0.16 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.01 0.23 -0.38 0.08 0.01 -0.06 1.00
19 Sentence Type -0.16 -0.11 -0.20 0.27 0.25 -0.18 -0.25 -0.20 -0.11 -0.15 -0.20 -0.06 -0.22 0.11 -0.24 -0.25 -0.16 -0.67 1.00
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
31
AlthoughtheanalysisofvariancefromtheresultingmodelshowsthereisalinearrelationshipbetweentheindependentvariablesandtheRecidivistIndex(F-Ratio=14.1688,Pstatistic<.05),thesquaredmultipleRisverylow(0.234)indicatingaverypoorfitwiththedata.DetailsoftheanalysisareshownbelowinTables25–27.
Table25ModelSummary
DependentVariable
N MultipleR SquaredMultipleR
AdjustedSquaredMultipleR
StandardErroroftheEstimate
RecidivistIndex 191 0.483 0.234 0.217 5.934
Table26AnalysisofVariance
Source Sum-Of-Squares DF Mean-Square F-Ratio P
Regression 1995.3815 4 498.8454 14.1688 0.0000
Residual 6548.5383 186 35.2072
Table27
Coefficients
Variable Coefficient Std Error Std Coef Tolerance T P (2 tail) Constant -3.2350 3.0441 0.0000 . -1.0627 0.2893
Gender -1.8847 1.0801 -.1147 0.9543 -1.7449 0.0826 Prior Other Convictions -0.3602 0.1214 -0.1958 0.9456 -2.9668 0.0034
Offense Level 2.4547 1.1135 0.1479 0.9150 2.2045 0.0287 VOP-convicted 1.3396 0.2277 0.3858 0.9618 5.8821 0.0000
ADiscriminantAnalysiswasrunusingthesamelistofindependentvariables,regressingagainstthedependentvariable“Recidivist”(1=recidivist,0=non-recidivist).Themainpurposeofthistypeofregressionanalysisistopredictwhetherornotaparticipantislikelytorecidivatebasedonalinearcombinationoftheindependentvariables.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
32
Forafirststep,atestofequalityofthegroupmeansoftheindependentvariableswasdone.Table28belowshowsthisanalysisandindicatesthatthevariablesAgeatFirstConviction,AgeatDispositionofBaseDocket,PriorAlcoholConvictions,SentenceType,andViolationsofProbationvariables,showedthegreatestdifferencesbetweentheRecidivistandNon-Recidivistgroups.
Table28TestOfEqualityOfGroupMeans
Non-Recidivists Recidivists F Sig.
AgeatFirstConviction 2.81 2.34 7.712 .006
AgeatDispositionofBaseDocket
3.52 2.88 13.275 .000
Gender 1.80 1.78 .079 .779
OtherViolentCrimes .30 .28 .041 .839
OtherViolationsofCourtOrder .14 .15 .016 .900
ViolationsofProbation .70 .94 .733 .393
DomesticViolence .18 .12 .687 .408
DUIConvictions .21 .15 .760 .384
DrugConvictions .20 .19 .002 .964
PriorAlcoholConvictions .23 .53 3.834 .052
AllOtherConvictions 2.15 1.93 .171 .680
MaximumSentence 1.85 1.96 .141 .707
SentenceType 5.26 4.54 4.966 .027
ViolationsofProbation .90 3.04 25.146 .000
OffenseLevel 1.78 1.82 .495 .482
ViolationsofProbation-convicted
.41 1.85 28.192 .000
ViolationsofProbation-charged,notconvicted
.50 1.19 7.077 .008
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
33
Similartothepreviousanalysis,amultivariateregressionwassubsequentlyperformedtodetermineifacombinationoftheindependentvariablesexiststhataccuratelyassignscasestothetworecidivistgroups.Again,astepwisevariableselectionmethodwasusedtodeterminewhichvariablestoincludeorremovefromthemodel.Thefinalresultshowedthattwoindependentvariablesremainedinthemodel–AgeatBaseDocketDispositionandViolationsofProbation.Table29belowsummarizeshowwellthefinalmodelpredictedgroupmembership.Itshowsthatthemodelcorrectlyclassifiedonly104ofthe123non-recidivistsand19ofthe68recidivists,oronly72%ofthetotalsample.
Table29ClassificationResults
Actual Group
Membership
Predicted Group Membership
Total Non-recidivist Recidivist
Original Count Non-recidivist 104 19 123
Recidivist 34 34 68
% Non-recidivist 84.6 15.4 100.0
Recidivist 50.0 50.0 100.0
Numbers/Percentages in bold are correctly predicted
72.3% of original grouped cases correctly predicted.
Thefinalconclusionfromtheseanalysesisthatthecharacteristicsthatdifferentiatedthetwostudygroupsdonotsignificantlyaffectthetendencytorecidivateandthereforethedifferencesobservedinthedemographic,criminalhistory,andcaseprofileanalysisarenotrelatedtodifferencesinrecidivismlevelsbetweenthetwogroups.Thereforethedifferencesinreconvictionbehaviorbetweenthetwostudygroupsaremorelikelytobetheresultofprogrambenefitsratherthantheresultoftheparticipantcharacteristicsthatwereanalyzedinthisreport.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
34
CASEPROCESSINGTIMEFROMARRAIGNMENTTODISPOSITION
ThisstudyalsoinvestigatedelapsedtimebetweenarraignmentanddispositionfordomesticviolencecasesprosecutedintheIDVDProject,casesprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourt,anddomesticassaultcasesprosecutedstatewide.ThecaseprocessingtimeanalysisfortheIDVDProjectisbasedonlyonthe89caseswhichwerenotexpunged.
Table30presentstheresultsoftheelapsedtimestudy.Themediannumberofdaysfromarraignmenttodispositionwas28daysintheIDVDProjectcomparedto88daysforDistrictCourtCasesand113daysforotherDistrictCourtsstatewide.OnaveragetheIDVDProjectprocesseddomesticviolencecasestwiceasquicklyastheBenningtonCountyDistrictCourt,andthreetimesmorequicklythanotherDistrictCourtsstatewide.
Table30ElapsedTimeFromArraignmenttoDispositionforDomesticViolenceCases
ArraignmenttoDispositionTime(days)
Minimum Maximum Mean Median ModeStandardDeviation Count
IDVDProject 0 358 51 28 5 59 89*
BenningtonCountyDistrictCourt
4 903 125 88 37 134 102
Statewide 0 1102 138 113 0 113 5844
*Thoughtherewere140subjectsintheIDVDProgram,51casescouldnotbeincludedintheArraignmenttoDispositionanalysisbecausetheirrecordshadbeenexpunged.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
35
Figure2presentstheresultsoftheelapsedtimeanalysisbyindicatingthenumberofcasesfromthedifferentstudygroupswhichweredisposedduringdifferentweeklyincrements.Forexample,duringthestudyperiodtheIDVDProjectwasabletodisposeof15casesinlessthanoneweek,whereastheDistrictCourtdisposedofjustthreecasesinlessthanoneweek’stime.
Figure2
Time to Disposition
15
24
15
8 9
14
3 0 03
8
16
10 9
34
17
3 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
<1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12
13-26 27-52 53- 104 >104
Weeks
Nu
mb
er o
f C
ases
IDVD District Court
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
36
Figure3presentsthecumulativepercentagesofcasesdisposedindifferentweeklyincrements.Forexample,61%oftheIDVDcasesweredisposedinlessthansixweeks.InDistrictCourt,only27%ofthecasesweredisposedinlessthansixweeks.
Figure3
Time to Disposition
17%
44%
61%70%
81%
97% 100%
3%11%
27%
37%46%
79%
96% 99% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-26 27-52 53-104 >104Weeks
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
erce
nt
IDVD District Court
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
37
FINDINGS
METHODOLOGICALNOTE
Becausecriminalhistoryrecordswereunavailablefor36%oftheIDVDProjectparticipantstherecidivismandreconvictiondatareportedinthisevaluationmaybeunderreported.SimilarlythedemographiccharacteristicsoftheIDVDProjectparticipantsandthe“TimetoDisposition”analysisarebasedononlyasampleoftheIDVDProjectparticipantsandmaynotberepresentativeoftheentiregroup.
RESEARCHQUESTION#1
Whichsubjectswereconvictedofadditionalcrimesaftertheircasewasdisposed?
1.1 Thoughthereislittledifferencebetweenthepercentageofdefendants reconvictedofadomesticviolenceoffenseastheirfirstreconvictionbetweenthe IDVDProject(4.3%),DistrictCourt(2.9%),andcasesprosecutedstatewide(7.4%),the percentageofreconvictionswaslowerforboththeIDVDProjectparticipantsandthe DistrictCourtgroupthanfordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.
1.2 RecidivismbasedonreconvictionforaviolentoffensewaslowfortheIDVD Project(6.4%), DistrictCourt(8.8%),andcasesprosecutedstatewide(10.4%). However,participantsintheIDVDProjectwerereconvictedofviolentoffensesless oftenthanweretheDistrictCourtgroupanddefendantsstatewide.
1.3 InreferencetoreconvictionforanycrimeprosecutedinaVermontDistrict Court,reconvictionsfortheparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwereapproximately25% lowerand54%lessoftenthanwasthecasefordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.
RESEARCHQUESTION#2
Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,whenweretheyconvicted?
2.1 ForthoseIDVDProjectparticipantswhorecidivated,approximately77%didso inlessthanoneyearaftertheirrecidivismclockwasstarted.FortheDistrictCourtgroup whorecidivated,70%didsoinlessthanoneyearaftertheirrecidivismclockwas started.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
38
2.2 Forallthreemeasuresofrecidivism,agreaterpercentageofIDVDProject recidivistswerereconvictedinlessthanoneyearthanwasthecasefortheDistrict Courtgroup.
RESEARCHQUESTION#3
Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,whatcrimesdidtheycommit?
3.1 ThesubjectsfromtheIDVDProjectandtheDistrictCourtgroupcombinedwere convictedofatotalof115crimesduringthefollow-upperiod.
3.2 Approximately50%oftheIDVDProjectreconvictionsincluded(listedinorderof frequency)DMVcharges,assault,drugcrimes,DUI,anddomesticassault.Asimilar patternexistedfortheDistrictCourtgroup.
3.3 Otherchargesforbothgroupsinvolvedavarietyofviolent,property,andpublic orderconvictions.
3.4 Itisclearfromthisdatathatrecidivistsfrombothprogramsengagedinavariety ofdifferentcriminalbehaviorsaftertheircasesweredisposedbythecourtwhich suggestsahighlevelofserviceneedbeyondthepresentingproblemofdomestic violence.
3.5 Reconvictionratesforbothstudygroupswerecomparableintermsofdomestic violence(5.0vs.3.9per100)whilethereconvictionratefortheIDVDgroupwaslower forviolentcrimereconvictions(10.7per100)thantheratefortheDistrictCourtgroup (16.7per100).
3.6 Thereconvictionrateforallcrimeswas25.6%lower(41%less)fortheIDVD Project thanfortheDistrictCourtgroup.AssuchtheIDVDProjectwassubstantially moresuccessfulatpreventingpost-programreconvictionsthanwastheDistrictCourt. TheIDVDProjectprevented26morecriminalconvictionsper100programparticipants whencomparedtoDistrictCourtprosecutionswithoutthebenefitofIDVDProject services.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
39
RESEARCHQUESTION#4
Forthosesubjectswhowereconvictedaftertheircasewasdisposed,inwhichcountieswerethesubjectsconvicted?
4.1 Approximately95%ofallreconvictionswereprosecutedandthereforewere likelycommittedinBenningtonCounty.Fouroutofthe115reconvictionsoccurredin WindhamCountyandtwooccurredinRutlandCounty.
RESEARCHQUESTION#5
CantheprogrameffectsoftheIDVDProjectbeattributedtotheProjectortootherfactorsincludingthecharacteristicsoftheparticipants?
5.1 MultipleRegressionanalysisdemonstratedthatanycharacteristicsthat differentiatedthetwostudygroupsdidnotsignificantlyaffectthetendencyto recidivateandthereforeanydifferencesobservedbetweenthetwogroupsarenot relatedtodifferencesinrecidivismlevelsbetweenthetwogroups.Thereforethe differencesinreconvictionbehaviorbetweenthetwostudygroupsaremorelikelytobe theresultofprogrambenefitsratherthantheresultofthecharacteristicsofthe participants.
RESEARCHQUESTION#6
Isthereadifferencebetweentheelapsedtimefromarraignmenttodispositionofcasesbetweenthetwostudygroups?
6.1 Themediannumberofdaysfromarraignmenttodispositionwas28daysinthe IDVDProgramcomparedto88daysforDistrictCourtCasesand113daysforother DistrictCourtsstatewide.ThetypicaldomesticviolencecasehandledintheIDVD ProjectwasdisposedtwiceasquicklyasthoseinBenningtonCountyDistrictCourtcases andthreetimesmorequicklyascasesstatewide.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
40
CONCLUSIONS
1. THEIDVDPROJECTAPPEARSTOBEAPROMISINGAPPROACHFORREDUCINGPOST-PROGRAMRECIDIVISMAMONGDEFENDANTSCONVICTEDOFDOMESTICVIOLENCE.
Intermsofallthreerecidivismmeasuresusedinthisevaluation(reconvictionfordomesticviolence,reconvictionforaviolentoffense,andreconvictionforanycrime)theparticipantsfromtheIDVDProjectrecidivatedlessfrequently,oratacomparablelevel,thandidparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroupordefendantsinastatewidedomesticassaultcohort.Themostsubstantialdifferencebetweenthegroupsinvolvedthepercentageofdefendantswhorecidivatedbasedonareconvictionforanycrime.InthiscasethepercentageofparticipantsintheIDVDProjectwhorecidivatedwasapproximately25%lowerand54%lessoftenthanwasthecasefordefendantsinthestatewidecohort.
2. APPROXIMATELY77%OFIDVDPROJECTRECIDIVISTSWEREFIRSTRECONVICTEDINLESSTHANONEYEARAFTERTHEIRRECIDIVISMCLOCKWASSTARTED.
FortheIDVDparticipants77.4%ofreconvictionsforanynewcrimeoccurredinlessthanoneyearascomparedtotheDistrictCourtgroupwhere70%ofreconvictionsforanynewcrimeoccurredinlessthanoneyear.Intermsofreconvictionforanynewcrime,theIDVDProjectparticipantstendedtorecidivatesomewhatmorequicklythandidtheparticipantsintheDistrictCourtgroup.
3. THEIDVDPROJECTAPPEARSTOBEAPROMISINGAPPROACHFORREDUCINGTHENUMBEROFPOST-PROGRAMRECONVICTIONSAMONGDEFENDANTSCONVICTEDOFDOMESTICVIOLENCE.
Inreferencetodomesticviolenceandviolentcrimereconvictions,thereconvictionratefortheIDVDProjectgroupwaseithercomparabletoorlowerthantheDistrictCourtgroupordefendantsinastatewidedomesticassaultcohort.Thereconvictionrateforallcrimeswas25.6%lower(41%less)fortheIDVDProjectthanfortheDistrictCourtgroup.
IDVDProjectOutcomeEvaluation
41
4. RECIDIVISTSFROMBOTHSTUDYGROUPSENGAGEDINAVARIETYOFDIFFERENTPOST-PROGRAMCRIMINALBEHAVIORSWHICHSUGGESTSAHIGHLEVELOFSERVICENEEDSBEYONDTHEPRESENTINGPROBLEMOFDOMESTICVIOLENCE.
ThesubjectsfromtheIDVDProgramandtheDistrictCourtgroupcombinedwereconvictedofatotalof115crimesduringthefollow-upperiod.Morethan50%ofthereconvictionsinvolved(listedinorderoffrequency)DMVoffenses,assaults,drugcrimes,DUI,domesticassault,andalcoholoffenses.Otherchargesforbothgroupsinvolvedavarietyofviolent,property,andpublicorderconvictions.
5. RECIDIVISTSFROMBOTHSTUDYGROUPSTENDEDTOCOMMITPOST-PROGRAMCRIMEINBENNINGTONCOUNTY.
AllreconvictionsforbothstudygroupswereconfinedtoBennington,Rutland,andWindhamCounties.Approximately94%ofthe52newconvictionsforIDVDparticipantsoccurredinBenningtonCounty.Approximately95%ofthe63newconvictionsfortheDistrictCourtgroupoccurredinBenningtonCounty.
6. BASEDONAVAILABLEDATA,ONAVERAGE,THEIDVDPROJECTPROCESSEDDOMESTICVIOLENCECASESTWICEASQUICKLYASTHEBENNINGTONCOUNTYDISTRICTCOURT,ANDTHREETIMESMOREQUICKLYTHANOTHERDISTRICTCOURTSSTATEWIDE.
Themediannumberofdaysfromarraignmenttodispositionwas28daysintheIDVDProjectcomparedto88daysforDistrictCourtcasesand113daysforotherDistrictCourtsstatewide.
top related