BENNINGTON COUNTY INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET PROJECT… · 2020. 3. 17. · BENNINGTON...

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


ii

DemographicProfile..................................................................................................................21

CriminalHistoryProfile.............................................................................................................24

CaseProfile................................................................................................................................25

REGRESSIONANALYSIS:.................................................................................................................28

CASEPROCESSINGTIMEFROMARRAIGNMENTTODISPOSITION................................................34

FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................37

CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................40


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


7

ReconvictionforViolentOffensesTable2presentsthereconvictionresultsforsubjectswhosefirstreconvictionwasforaviolentoffense(whichincludesdomesticviolencereconvictions).AnanalysisoftheVermontcriminalrecordsforallsubjectsindicatesthatthelevelofreconvictionforaviolentoffensewas6.4%forIDVDProjectparticipantsascomparedto8.8%fordefendantswhohadtheircasesprosecutedinBenningtonDistrictCourtand10.4%fordomesticviolencedefendantsstatewide.

Table2

SubjectsReconvictedofViolentOffenses



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.


8

Table3SubjectsReconvictedforAnyOffense



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


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%


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.


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


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



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


Percentage

IDVD Participant


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.


12

Table8indicatestheelapsedrecidivismclockforsubjectswhowereconvictedofanewcourtorderviolationduringthestudyperiod.FortheIDVDparticipants,6outof7ofthosereconvictionsforanewcourtorderviolationoccurredinlessthanoneyearand1occurredbetweenyearstwoandthree.FortheDistrictCourtgroup3outof5reconvictionsforanewcourtorderviolationoccurredinlessthanoneyearand2occurredbetweenyearsoneandtwo.

Table8TimetoRecidivism:CourtOrderViolations


Percentage

IDVD Participant


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%)


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.


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%


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-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


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”


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.


17

Table11ReconvictionRatesPer100ParticipantsForSelectedCrimes

IDVD Participant

District Court Case Total

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.


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.


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.


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


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.


22

Table16presentstheagedistributionofbothstudygroupsatthetimetheirbasedockets(cases)weredisposedbyeithertheIDVDProjectortheDistrictCourt.ThecasethatresultedintheirreferraltotheIDVDProjectorDistrictCourtisreferredtoasthe“BaseDocket”sinceitservesasthebasisforallrecidivismcalculations.Morethan61%oftheparticipantsfrombothgroupswerelessthan36yearsoldatthetimetheirbasedocketwasdisposed.Another30%oftheparticipantsfrombothgroupswerebetweentheagesof36–55atthetimetheirbasedocketwasdisposed.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsregardingageatthetimeofbasedocketdisposition.

Table16

AgeAtDispositionofBaseDocket


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


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%


23

Table18presentsinformationregardingthestateswhereparticipantswereborn.Only54%oftheIDVDProjectparticipantswereborninVermont.Approximately60%oftheDistrictCourtparticipantswereborninVermont.AfterVermontthemostcommonstateofbirthforbothgroupswasNewYorkandMassachusetts.

Table18

StateOfBirth


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%


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.


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%


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


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%



26

Table22displaysinformationregardingthetypeofsentencereceivedbyparticipantsinthetwogroups.Casedispositionsandsentencesweresimilarforbothgroupsexceptforthepercentageofparticipantswhoweresentencedtoincarcerationorreceiveddeferredsentences.Whereas7.9%ofIDVDparticipantsweresentencedtoincarceration,28.4%ofDistrictCourtgroupparticipantsweresentencedtoincarceration.Notunexpectedly,alargerpercentageofIDVDparticipantsreceiveddeferredsentences(38.2%)thanwasthecasefortheDistrictCourtgroup(6.9%).Assuch,theIDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytobesentencedtoincarcerationandsignificantlymorelikelytoreceivedeferredsentencesthantheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.

Table22CaseDispositions&TypeofSentence



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%


Table23presentsinformationregardingthemaximumnumberofdaysthatdefendantsweresentencedtoserveinjail.Maximumsentencetoincarcerationdataincludessentencesforboththe“incarceration”categoryandthe“splitsentence”categoriesfromTable22.Inreferencetosentencestoincarcerationversuscommunity-basedsentencestherewasasignificantdifferencebetweentheIDVDProjectparticipantsandtheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.IDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytobesentencedtojail(85.5%notsentencedtoincarceration)thanwereDistrictCourtgroupparticipants(64.7%notsentencedtoincarceration).Forthosesubjectswhodidreceiveasentencetojail,thedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupswerenotsignificantexceptinthecategoryofsentencesfrom“180daysto1year”injail.IDVDProjectparticipantsweresignificantlylesslikelytoreceiveamaximumofsentenceof“180daysto1year”injailthanweretheDistrictCourtgroupparticipants.


27

Table23

MaximumSentencesToIncarceration



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%


Table24presentsinformationforthenumberofparticipantsfrombothgroupswhowerechargedwithviolationsofprobationafterthecourtdisposedofthebasedocket.Approximately60%ofparticipantsfrombothgroupswerechargedwithprobationviolationsaftertheircasewasdisposedbythecourt.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroupsonthisvariable.

Table24

ViolationsofProbation

IDVD Participant


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%


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


29

Dependentvariables:

RecidivistIndex: Acontinuousscalethatisbasedonyearstorecidivateand providesa“degree”ofrecidivism.Thescalerangesfrom negativevalues(thelargerthenegativevaluethelongerthe subjecthasremainedconvictionfree)topositivevalues(the largerthepositivevaluethesoonerthesubjectwas reconvicted).

Recidivist: 1=recidivistand0=non-recidivist


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

BENNINGTON COUNTY INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET PROJECT… · 2020. 3. 17. · BENNINGTON...

Documents

Transcript of BENNINGTON COUNTY INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET PROJECT… · 2020. 3. 17. · BENNINGTON...