National Institute of Justice funding of experimental studies of violence against women: A critical look at implementation issues and policy implications

Journal of Experimental Criminology

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 377-395

  Davis, Robert C ^a   Auchter, Bernard ^b  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Arrest policies; Domestic violence; Violence against women

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149498624     PISSN: 15733750     EISSN: 15728315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11292-010-9105-5     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alexander, P. C. (2007). Stages of change and group treatment of batterers. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2004-WG-BX-0001. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
2. Apsler, R., Carl, S., & Cummins, M. R. (2000). Locally-initiated research partnership: The Framingham, Massachusetts Police Department and Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 96-IJ-CX-0070. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
3. Berk, R. S. (2005). Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 416-433.
4. Berk, R. A., Black, H., Lilly, J., & Rikoski, G. (1991). ColoradoSprings spouse assault replication project. Final report for National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
5. Boruch, R. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
6. Boruch, R., Victor, T., & Cecil, J. (2000). Resolving ethical and legal problems in randomized experiments. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 330-354.
7. Brame, R., Kaukinen, C., Gover, A. R., & Lattimore, P. (2009). Impact of proactive enforcement of no-contact orders on victim safety and repeat victimization. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2004-WG-BX-0007. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
8. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
9. Clarke, R., & Cornish, D. (1972). The controlled trial in institutional research: Paradigm or pitfall for penal evaluators? London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
10. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
11. Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. (1994). The effects of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions: A test in an urban setting. Justice Quarterly, 11, 453-470.
12. Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A synthesis of the literature. Women and Criminal Justice, 10, 69-93.
13. Davis, R. C. & Medina-Ariz, J. (2001). Results from an elder abuse prevention experiment in New YorkCity. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
14. Davis, R. C., Taylor, B. G., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. New York: Victim Services.
15. Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Hamilton, E. E. (2007). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: a randomized field test of a second responder program in Redlands, CA. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2004-WG-BX-0002 Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219840. pdf.
16. Dunford, F. (2000). Determining program "success": The importance of employing experimental research designs. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 425-436.
17. Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliot, D. S. (1989). Omaha Domestic Violence Police Experiment. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice (Final report, grant # 85-IJ-CX-K435).
18. Eck, J. E. (2002). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational crime prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for crime prevention. Crime prevention studies 14 (pp. 93-119). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
19. Feder, L. & Boruch, R. F. (2000). Need for experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime and Delinquency, 46(3), 291-294.
20. Feder, L., & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 96-WT-NX-0008. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 2000, NCJ 184752. http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=184752.
21. Garner, J. H., & Visher, C. A. (2003). The production of criminological experiments. Evaluation Review, 27, 316-335.
22. Goldkamp, J. (1996). The role of drug and alcohol abuse in domestic violence and its treatment: Dade County's Domestic Violence Court experiment. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 93-IJ-CX-0028. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996, NCJ 163410. http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=163410.
23. Goldkamp, J. S. (2008). Missing the target and missing the point: 'Successful random assignment but misleading results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 83-115.
24. Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Limitations of experimental evaluation of batterer programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 2, 79-88.
25. Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 9, 605-631.
26. Gondolf, E. (2005). Culturally-focused batterer counseling for African-American men. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2001-WT-BX-0003. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 10, 2005, NCJ 210828. http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=210828.
27. Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2003-MU-MU-0002. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
28. Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W. III, Dean, C. W., Kelley, J. J., & Pesackis, C. E. (1991). Charlotte spouse assault replication project. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 87-IJ-CX-K004. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=130096.
29. Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89-106.
30. Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1999). Beyond arrest: The Portland, Oregon domestic violence experiment final report. Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Justice (Final report, grant # 95-IJ-CX-0054).
31. Kunz, R., & Oxman, A. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 317, 1185-1190.
32. Labriola, M., Rempel, M. & Davis, R. (2005) Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: results from a randomized trial at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2001-WT-BX-0506. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://www. courtinnovation. org/_uploads/documents/battererprogramseffectiveness. pdf.
33. Labriola, M., Rempel, M., O'Sullivan, C., & Frank, P. (2007). Court Responses to Batterer Program Noncompliance: A National Perspective, Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
34. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. The American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
35. Lum, C., & Yang, S. M. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191-213.
36. Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate violence: New evidence from the spouse assault replication program. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
37. McFarlane, J. (2003). Increasing victim safety and system accountability: Evaluating a collaborativeintervention between health care and criminal justice. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2000-WT-VX-0020. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/201945. pdf.
38. Pate, A., Hamilton, E., & Annan, S. (1991). Metro-Dade spouse abuse replication project technical report. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 87-IJ-CX-K003. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1991, NCJ 139734. http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=139734.
39. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
40. Perry, A. E., Weisburd, D., & Hewitt, C. (2010). Are criminologists describing randomized controlled trials in ways that allow us to assess them? Findings from a sample of crime and justice trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, http://springerlink. com/content/9016644n2736473r/fulltext. pdf.
41. Petersilia, J. (1989). Implementing randomized experiments: Lessons from BJA's intensive supervision project. Evaluation Review, 13, 435-458.
42. Safe Horizon (2008). Introducing the impact of domestic violence on children into a batterer program curriculum: Does an emphasis on the kids improve the response? Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2003-WG-BX-1005. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
43. Shadish, W. R., & Steiner, P. M. (2008). Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 1334-1343.
44. Sherman, L. W. & Berk, R. A. (1984). The Minneapolis domestic violence experiment. Washington, D. C.: The Police Foundation.
45. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2004). Verdicts or interventions: Results from randomized controlled experiments in criminology. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 575-607.
46. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Milwaukee domestic violence experiment, 1987-1989. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 86-IJ-CX-K043. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
47. Smyth, K. F., & Schorr, L. B. (2009). A lot to lose: A call to rethink what constitutes "evidence" in finding social interventions that work. Cambridge: Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government.
48. Taylor, B. G. (n. d.) The effects of a short-term treatment program for detained arrestees: A randomized experiment in the Sacramento (California) jail. Final report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 98-IJ-CX-K014. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
49. U. S. General Accounting Office. (2002). One Byrne grant evaluation was rigorous: All reviewed violence against women office evaluations were problematic. Washington: Author.
50. Victoria, C. G., Habicht, J. P., & Bryce, J. (2004). Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 400-405.
51. Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and problems. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 181-193.
52. Weisburd, D. (2005). Hot spots policing experiments and criminal justice research: Lessons from the field. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 599, 220-245.
53. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect outcomes of criminal justice studies? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50-70.