Domestic Violence Evaluation - miOttawa

Ottawa County

Domestic Violence

Evaluation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary …………………………………………………………. i

II. Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. ii

III. Descriptive Statistical Analysis A. Overview ………………………………………………………………. 1 B. Charges

1. Number of Charges …………………………………………… 3 2. Level of Domestic Violence Charges Filed …………………… 4 3. Age …………………………………………………………….. 5 4. Gender …………………………………………………………. 6 5. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 7 6. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 9 7. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 10

C. Case Disposition

1. Outcome of Case……………………………………………… 11 2. Age …………………………………………………………… 14 3. Gender ………………………………………………………… 15 4. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 16 5. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 17 6. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 19

D. Convictions

1. Number of Convictions ……………………………………… 20 2. Age …………………………………………………………… 22 3. Gender ………………………………………………………… 23 4. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 24 5. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 25 6. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 26

E. Bonds/Sentencing/Treatment

1. Bonds ………………………………………………………… 27 2. Fines and Costs ……………………………………………… 30 3. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 33 4. Jail Time Served ……………………………………………… 36 5. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 39 6. Community Service …………………………………………… 39 7. Probation Length ……………………………………………….40 8. Probation Type …………………………………………………43 9. Non-Reporting Probation……………………………………… 44 10. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program)………………….. 45 11. Substance Abuse Treatment ……………………………………47

Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)

12. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 49 13. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 51 14. Other Treatment ……………………………………………… 52 15. Spouse Abuse Act …………………………………….……….. 53

F. Probation Violation

1. Probation Outcome …………………………………………… 55 2. Probation Violation …………………………………………… 57 3. Sentencing For Probation Violation ……………………………59

G. Recidivism 1. 0-2 Years ……………………………………………………… 61 2. 3-5 Years ……………………………………………………… 63

IV. Inferential Statistical Analysis

A. Overview ……………………………………………………………… 65 B. Variables Exhibiting a Significant Relationship to Recidivism 0-2 Years

1. Gender ………………………………………………………… 68 2. Race/Ethnicity …………………………………………………. 70 3. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 73 4. Type of Charges Filed ………………………………………… 74 5. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 76 6. Case Disposition ……………………………………………… 78 7. Jail Time Served … …………………………………………… 80 8. Probation Length ……………………………………………… 82 9. Probation Type ………………………………… ……………... 84 10. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………… ……………... 85 11. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) …………………. 86 12. Other Treatment ……………………………………………….. 87 13. First Probation Violation ……………………………………… 89 14. Second Probation Violation …………………………………… 90 15. Sentence for First Probation Violation …………………………92 16. Sentence for Second Probation Violation ……………... ……... 94 17. Sentence for Third Probation Violation ……………………….. 96 18. Probation Outcome …………………………………………… 98 19. Bond Type ……………………………………………... ………100 20. Bond Violation ………………………………………… ………101 21. Spouse Abuse Act ……………………………………………... 102

C. Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship to Recidivism 0-2 Years

1. Fines and Costs ………………………………………………... 104 2. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 106 3. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 108 4. Community Service …………………………………………… 109 5. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………… ………110


6. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 111 7. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 112 8. Third Probation Violation ……………………………………... 113

D. Variables Exhibiting a Significant Relationship to Recidivism 3-5 Years

1. Gender …………………………………………………………. 114 2. Type of Charges Filed ………………………………………… 116 3. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 118 4. Case Disposition ………………………………………………. 120 5. Probation Length ……………………………….……………… 122 6. Probation Outcome ……………………………………………. 124 7. Bond Violation ………………………………………… ………126 8. Spouse Abuse Act ……………………………………... ………127

E. Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship to Recidivism 3-5 Years

1. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 129 2. Incident Location ……………………………………… ………130 3. Fines and Costs ……………………………………………… 131 4. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 133 5. Jail Time Served ……………………………….……………… 135 6. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 137 7. Community Service …………………………………………… 137 8. Probation Type ………………………………………… ………138 9. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………………………… 138 10. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) ………………… 139 11. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………………... 139 12. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 140 13. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 140 14. Other Treatment ……………………………………………….. 141 15. First Probation Violation………………………………………. 141 16. Second Probation Violation …………………………………… 142 17. Third Probation Violation …………………………………… 142 18. Sentence for First Probation Violation ……...………………… 143 19. Sentence for Second Probation Violation……………………… 143 20. Bond Type ……………………………………………... ………144

V. Financial Analysis

A. Overview ……………………………………………………………… 145 B. Jail Time Served ………………………………………………………. 147 C. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………………. 148 D. Community Service …………………………………………………… 149 E. Traditional Probation ………………………………………………….. 150 F. ISP Probation ………………………………………………………… 151 G. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………………………………… 152 H. Duluth Program ……………………………………………………… 153 I. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………………………. 154


J. Individual Counseling ……………………………………………… 155 K. Couples Counseling ………………………………………………… 156 L. Youthful Intervention Program ……………………………………… 157 M. Comparative Summary ……………………………………………… 158

VI. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 161

VII. Appendix A

VIII. Appendix B


Ottawa County Planning Department –Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003) i

Executive Summary

This evaluation of Ottawa County domestic violence offenses provides insight into the demographic, trend, and relational aspects of this community problem that will assist County leaders with future policy decisions. It will also allow leaders to better assess the impact of present programs and policies on domestic violence. Further, information in this report will improve the County’s ability to measure the impact that future policy and program adjustments have on future occurrences and subsequent recidivism rates. All of the data utilized for this study resulted from domestic violence cases that occurred between January 1995 and December 1999. The data is compiled into detailed tables and charts which are presented throughout the document. The information was so exhaustive that it was difficult to narrow the selection of data for this Executive Summary. After much deliberation, the data was encapsulated into the following highlights: The number of domestic violence charges was 2,753. The mean age of those charged with a domestic violence offense was 31.5. Males accounted for 81% of domestic violence charges and females accounted for 19%. Whites represented 88.6% of the population and accounted for 72.7% of domestic violence

charges; Hispanics represented 7.0% of the population and accounted for 13.1% of the charges; Asians represented 2.1% of the population and accounted for 1.6% of the charges; Blacks represented 1.0% of the population and accounted for 10% of the charges.

Although Holland City and Holland Township represented only 23.7% of the population, these entities accounted for 51.4% of the total domestic violence charges.

Although Georgetown Township, Jamestown Township, and Hudsonville City represented 22.5% of the population, these entities accounted for only 6.1% of the total domestic violence charges.

54.6% of individuals charged with domestic violence had a previous criminal record. 64.9% (1,787) of those charged were convicted of domestic violence between 1995 and 1999. 31.2% of the charges involving domestic violence resulted in “dismissals” or “acquittals”. 3.9% of those charged were allowed to plea to another charge. 25.3% of the individuals convicted of domestic violence had their cases expunged through a

special Spouse Abuse Act probationary designation. The mean “fines and costs” assessed to those convicted of domestic violence was $295.10. The mean “jail time sentence” for those convicted of domestic violence was 57 days. The mean “jail time served” for those sentenced to jail time was 31 days. 9.9% of those convicted of domestic violence recidivated in the first two years. 10.6% of male domestic violence offenders and 6.5% of females recidivated in the first two years. 21.4% of Blacks recidivated in the first two years; 17.3% of Hispanics; 7.6% of Whites; and 0%

of Asians. The recidivism rate for those domestic violence offenders that “plead to a lesser domestic

violence charge” was 22.4%. The recidivism rate for those domestic violence offenders that received a “Spouse Abuse Act”

probationary designation was 5.4%.

This summary provides a very modest glimpse of the entire data, trends, and findings that are reported in this evaluation. A more thorough overview of the domestic violence data is provided in the subsequent sections of this document.

Ottawa County Planning Department –Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003) ii

Introduction In 1993, the Michigan Legislature began updating several state statutes to address domestic violence and other related offenses. One of the legislative changes created a new criminal charge entitled “Domestic Violence” and, shortly thereafter, Ottawa County began charging perpetrators with this offense. Information regarding these “Domestic Violence” offenses is entered into the Criminal Justice Users System by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and probation personnel. The data collected on each of these cases is extensive. It includes information regarding demographics, arrests, charges, criminal history, treatment, probation violations, and other pertinent information. In all, there are 28 separate variables and 158 sub-variables included in the domestic violence database that were used to produce this study (see Appendix A). This data is now being used to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of domestic violence related programs, policies, and activities that are being implemented by Ottawa County. This study utilized quantitative statistical techniques, specialized statistical software (SPSS), and two Grand Valley State University statisticians to ensure that study results were accurate, valid, and unbiased. The study summarizes and analyzes data for domestic violence cases that occurred in Ottawa County between January 1995 and December 1999. Prior to analyzing data, the Ottawa County Planning Department first worked collaboratively with County agencies (law enforcement, prosecutorial, community corrections, and probation) to define measurable goals, clarify roles and responsibilities, and analyze the criminal justice procedures and processes that are used to manage domestic violence cases (see Appendix B). This strategic planning process resulted in a domestic violence study that provides four primary categories of information: a descriptive analysis, an inferential analysis, a financial analysis, and a conclusion. The “descriptive analysis” provides information about demographics, charges, case dispositions, convictions, sentencing, treatments, and probation violations. The “inferential analysis” utilizes the data to determine if there are relationships between certain variables and recidivism. The “financial analysis” provides information about the costs of the various sentencing/treatment options. The “conclusion” provides suggestions for domestic violence related data collection activities, as well as overall recommendations that may be explored further to determine if domestic violence recidivism can be reduced. The statistical techniques that are used in this evaluation can be intimidating to the casual reader. However, many of these techniques often only confirm and verify conclusions that can be inferred by viewing many of the trend-lines, charts, graphs, and tables. In other words, as this evaluation is reviewed, a fair amount of common sense should be used. The statistical methodologies should not be allowed to overwhelm any assessments that are based on common sense.

Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 1 of 163

Descriptive Statistical Analysis Overview

This section utilizes several descriptive statistical techniques to provide domestic violence related information that includes the following: demographics, charges, case dispositions, convictions, sentencing, treatment, and probation violations. The primary techniques that are used to describe this data are as follows: Frequency Distribution - organizing raw data into tables and graphs Mean - average value of all numeric measurements in a data set

Median - the value that falls in the middle of a set of numeric measurements when they are arranged in order of magnitude

Mode - most frequently occurring numeric measurement in a data set Standard Deviation - numeric measurement that provides information about the

dispersion or variability of data The data in this section has been systematically arranged in tables and graphs to allow in-depth scrutiny of the domestic violence information that is included in this evaluation. A few highlights from this section are listed below: Charges The number of domestic violence charges filed between 1995 and 1999 was 2,753. The mean age of those charged with a domestic violence offense was 31.5; the age range of those

charged was between 16 and 81. Males accounted for 81% of domestic violence charges and females accounted for 19%. Whites represented 88.6% of the population and accounted for 72.7% of domestic violence

charges; Hispanics represented 7.0% of the population and accounted for 13.1% of the charges; Asians represented 2.1% of the population and accounted for 1.6% of the charges; Blacks represented 1.0% of the population and accounted for 10% of the charges.

Although Holland City and Holland Township represented only 23.7% of the population, these entities accounted for 51.4% of the total domestic violence charges.

Although Georgetown Township, Jamestown Township, and Hudsonville City represented 22.5% of the population, these entities accounted for only 6.1% of the total domestic violence charges.

54.6% of individuals charged with domestic violence had a previous criminal record. Case Disposition 31.2% of the domestic violence charges were “dismissed” or ended in “acquittals”. 29.9% of males and 36.7% of females had their cases dismissed, or were acquitted of domestic

violence. 66.2% of males and 59.3% of females were either convicted or entered a domestic violence plea.

Convictions The number of individuals convicted of domestic violence between 1995 and 1999 was 1,787. 64.9% of those charged were convicted. 82.6% of those convicted were male and 17.3% female. 72.7% of those convicted were White; 14.5% Hispanic, 8.6 % Black; 1.8% Asian.


49.7% of those convicted of domestic violence pled guilty; 11.9% pled no contest; 4.5% were convicted at trial; 2.8% pled to a lesser domestic violence offense; and 31.1% received a Spouse Abuse Act designation *.

27.5% of males and 47.9% of females received a Spouse Abuse Act designation. 25.3% of all domestic violence convictions were expunged after successfully completing the

provisions of their Spouse Abuse Act probation. * Spouse Abuse Act: This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. If this probation order is violated, a conviction is entered and the defendant is sentenced. A non-public record is kept by the State Police. Offenders are only eligible to be granted this type of probation once. Sentencing/Treatment 91.7% of those convicted of domestic violence were ordered to pay fines and costs. The median amount of fines and costs included in court orders was $250; the mode was $220. The range of fines and costs was between $15 and $3,401. 42.0% of those convicted were sentenced to jail time. The median number of jail days that were sentenced in court orders was 42; the mode was 30. The number of jail days sentenced ranged between 1 and 540. 70.2% of those sentenced to serve jail time did serve some time. The median number of days served in jail was 15; the mode was 2. The number of jail days served ranged between 1 and 540 days. 4 offenders received “electronic monitoring” as a part of their sentence. 31 offenders received “community service” as a part of their sentence. 81.2% of those convicted received “probation” as a part of their sentence. The median (and mode) number of probation months sentenced was 12. 70.3% of those sentenced to probation were ordered to participate in “traditional probation”;

29.7% were ordered into “Intensively Supervised Probation”. 41.9% of those convicted were ordered to participate in a program based on the Duluth Model

(i.e. Family Violence Program). 12.9% of those convicted received treatment for substance abuse. 29.4% of those convicted were ordered to attend “individual counseling”. .4% of those convicted were ordered to attend “couples counseling”.

Probation Outcomes 42.7% of those sentenced to probation received satisfactory discharge; 31.1% received

satisfactory discharge with Spouse Abuse Act expungement; 12.7% had probation revoked; 8.2% received an unsatisfactory discharge.

26.0% of those sentenced to probation had a single probation violation; 9.4% had two probation violations; and 2.1% had three probation violations.

The majority of probation violations were caused by an alcohol/drug related charge or failure of the offender to attend counseling.

56.9% of offenders were sentenced to jail time for probation violations; 14.1% received extended probation.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL

ANALYSIS

CHARGES

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CHARGES

Number of Charges

Year Number Percent of Total Rate per Thousand of Ottawa County Population*

1995 464 16.9 2.21 1996 508 18.5 2.36 1997 541 19.7 2.45 1998 684 24.7 3.03 1999 556 20.2 2.41 Total 2753 100.0 --

*Based on US Census Bureau population estimates for Ottawa County.

Number of Charges by Year

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Number of Charges by Quarter

Quarter

4th

'99

3rd

'99

2nd

'99

1st '

99

4th

'98

3rd

'98

2nd

'98

1st '

98

4th

'97

3rd

'97

2nd

'97

1st '

97

4th

'96

3rd

'96

2nd

'96

1st '

96

4th

'95

3rd

'95

2nd

'95

1st '

95

Freq

uenc

y

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: LEVEL OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES FILED

Number Percent of Total

Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2553 92.7 Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 167* 6.1 Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 33* 1.2

Total 2753 100.0 *The 341 Domestic Violence offenders with a “Prior Domestic Violence Conviction” (page 10) differs from the 200 that were charged with Domestic Violence 2nd or 3rd Offense (listed above). Of those 341 listed as having a prior Domestic Violence conviction on page 10, 141 were prosecuted on other alternative, more severe charges (including felonies).

Charges Filed (1995-1999)

1.2%

6.1%

92.7%

Domestic Violence #3

Domestic Violence #2

Domestic Violence


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGE SSUBSECTION: AGE

Age Distribution

Number Age

Minimum Age

Maximum Age Mean Age Standard

Deviation Age 2752 16 81 31.48 9.030

None Recorded 1 Total 2753

Age

80.075.0

70.065.0

60.055.0

50.045.0

40.035.0

30.025.0

20.015.0

Age Distribution

Freq

uenc

y

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Std. Dev = 9.03 Mean = 31.5

N = 2752.003280

183

366

476

581551

388

77


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: GENDER

Gender Distribution

Frequency Percent of Total Total Percentage of Population in Ottawa County*

Male 2230 81.0 49.2Female 521 18.9 50.8None Recorded 2 0.1 --

Total 2753 100.0 100.0

*Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.

Number of Charges by Gender (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

570

530

490

450

410

370

330

290

250

210

170

130

90

5010

Gender

Female

Male

Number of Charges by Gender (Quarterly)

Quarter

4th

'99

3rd

'99

2nd

'99

1st '

994t

h '9

83r

d '9

8

2nd

'98

1st '

984t

h '9

7

3rd

'97

2nd

'97

1st '

974t

h '9

63r

d '9

6

2nd

'96

1st '

964t

h '9

5

3rd

'95

2nd

'95

1st '

95

Freq

uenc

y

170160150140130120110100

908070605040302010

0

Gender

Female

Male


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Race/Ethnicity of Those Charged

Frequency Percent of Total

Total Percentage of Population in

Ottawa County* White 2002 72.7 88.6 Black 276 10.0 1.0 Hispanic 360 13.1 7.0 Asian 44 1.6 2.1 Other 4 0.2 1.3 None Recorded 67 2.4 --

Total 2753 100.0 100.0


Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

500

400

300

200

100

0

Race/Ethnicity

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

Asian


In this graph, the “white” race/ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in categories containing smaller values.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Quarterly)

Quarter4t

h '9

93r

d '9

92n

d '9

91s

t '99

4th

'98

3rd

'98

2nd

'98

1st '

984t

h '9

73r

d '9

72n

d '9

71s

t '97

4th

'96

3rd

'96

2nd

'96

1st '

964t

h '9

53r

d '9

52n

d '9

51s

t '95

Freq

uenc

y160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

Asian

White

Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Quarterly)

Quarter

4th

'99

3rd

'99

2nd

'99

1st '

994t

h '9

83r

d '9

82n

d '9

81s

t '98

4th

'97

3rd

'97

2nd

'97

1st '

974t

h '9

63r

d '9

62n

d '9

61s

t '96

4th

'95

3rd

'95

2nd

'95

1st '

95

Freq

uenc

y

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

Asian

In this graph, the “white” ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in the other categories.



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION



Ottawa County*

Allendale Township 76 2.8 5.4Blendon Township 19 0.7 2.4Chester Township 14 0.5 1.0Coopersville City 57 2.1 1.6Crockery Township 55 2.0 1.6Ferrysburg City 19 0.7 1.2Georgetown Township 132 4.8 17.4Grand Haven City 132 4.8 4.7Grand Haven Township 133 4.8 5.5Holland City 701 25.5 11.6Holland Township 713 25.9 12.1Hudsonville City 26 0.9 3.0Jamestown Township 11 0.4 2.1Olive Township 59 2.1 1.9Park Township 108 3.9 7.3Polkton Township 23 0.8 1.0Port Sheldon Township 34 1.2 1.8Robinson Township 45 1.6 2.3Spring Lake Township 134 4.9 5.5Spring Lake Village 22 0.8 1.0Tallmadge Township 46 1.7 2.8Wright Township 34 1.2 1.3Zeeland City 72 2.6 2.4Zeeland Township 84 3.1 3.1 None Recorded 4 0.2

Total 2753 100.0 100.0

* Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD


No Prior Criminal Record 1250 45.4Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 341 12.4Prior Misdemeanor (other than Domestic Violence) 930 33.8Prior Felony (other than Domestic Violence) 232 8.4

Total 2753 100.0

Prior Criminal Record

8.4%

33.8%

12.4%

45.4%

Prior Felony

Prior Misdemeanor

Prior Domestic Viol

No Prior Crim Rec

Charges by Prior Criminal Record (Annually)

05

101520253035404550

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent

No PriorsPrior Domestic Viol.Prior MisdemeanorPrior Felony


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

CASE DISPOSITION

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: OUTCOME OF CASE

Case Outcome by Year

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e C

harg

e)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal*

Spo

use

Abu

se

Act

**

Tot

al

N

umbe

r

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l Tot

al

1995 190 40.9 42 9.1 8 1.7 8 1.7 18 3.9 19 4.1 135 29.1 44 9.5 464 100.0

1996 170 33.5 42 8.3 7 1.4 16 3.1 21 4.1 16 3.1 150 29.5 86 16.9 508 100.0

1997 163 30.1 48 8.9 4 0.7 15 2.8 14 2.6 16 3.0 148 27.4 133 24.6 541 100.0

1998 168 24.6 37 5.4 20 2.9 36 5.3 16 2.3 19 2.8 201 29.4 187 27.3 684 100.0

1999 197 35.5 44 7.9 10 1.8 32 5.8 12 2.2 17 3.1 137 24.7 106 19.1 555 100.0

Total 888 32.3 213 7.7 49 1.8 107 3.9 81 2.9 87 3.2 771 28.0 556 20.2 2752 100.0

Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.

*Reasons for Dismissal

Total Dismissals Number Percent of Total

No Law Violations for Set Period 45 5.8 Victim Request 49 6.4 Victim Failed to Appear for Court 49 6.4 Victim Recantation 12 1.6 Prosecutor Motion after Victim Testimony 68 8.8 Subpoena/Witness Problems 51 6.6 Best Interest of Justice 44 5.7 Insufficient Evidence 14 1.8 None Recorded 439 56.9 Total 771 100.0 **This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged (removed) from an offender’s criminal record if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. If a conviction is expunged, it is not possible to determine how the offender was originally convicted (plea or trial) because the original conviction disposition is replaced with a dismissal in the criminal justice database. Therefore, Spouse Abuse Act cases are counted separately.



Outcome of Case

32.3

7.71.8 3.9 2.9 3.2

2820.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Plea (Guilty)

Plea (No Contest)

Plea (Lesser Domestic Violence Charge)

Plea (Another Charge)

Conviction (Trial)

Acquittal (Trial)

Dismissal

Spouse Abuse Act

Perc

ent



Case Outcome by Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Perc

ent

Plea

Conviction

Acquittal

Dismissal

Spouse Abuse Act



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: AGE

Age Distribution (Frequency)

Age

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

V

iole

nce

Cha

rge)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal

Spou

se A

buse

A

ct

Tot

al

15-19 81 14 1 10 5 10 38 38 197 20-29 367 68 15 34 34 38 276 220 1052 30-39 307 74 25 39 27 29 285 188 974 40-49 110 49 7 22 13 8 137 85 431 50-59 18 7 1 2 2 2 29 23 84 60-69 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 70-79 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 80+ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 887 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2751 Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have age designated in the database and 1 case did not have case disposition designated.

Age Distribution (Percent)

Age

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

V

iole

nce

Cha

rge)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal

Spou

se A

buse

A

ct

Tot

al

15-19 41.1 7.1 0.5 5.1 2.5 5.1 19.3 19.3 100.0 20-29 34.9 6.5 1.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 26.2 21.0 100.0 30-39 31.5 7.6 2.6 4.0 2.8 3.0 29.3 19.3 100.0 40-49 25.5 11.4 1.6 5.1 3.0 1.9 31.8 19.7 100.0 50-59 21.4 8.3 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 34.5 27.4 100.0 60-69 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 100.0 70-79 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 100.0 80+ 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 32.2 7.7 1.8 3.9 2.9 3.2 28.0 20.2 100.0


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: GENDER

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e C

harg

e)Pl

ea (A

noth

er

Cha

rge)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal

Spou

se A

buse

Act

Tot

al

Number 116 30 6 21 9 12 179 148 521

Female Percent

of Females

22.3 5.8 1.2 4.0 1.7 2.3 34.3 28.4 100.0

Number 772 183 43 86 72 75 592 406 2229

Male Percent of

Males 34.6 8.2 1.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 26.6 18.2 100.0

None Recorded 2 2

Total Number

888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e C

harg

e)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal

Spou

se A

buse

Act

Tot

al

Number 633 158 34 74 56 60 568 418 2001 White

Percent of White 31.6 7.9 1.7 3.7 2.8 3.0 28.4 20.9 100.0

Number 81 25 9 18 11 13 91 28 276 Black

Percent of Black 29.3 9.1 3.3 6.5 4.0 4.7 33.0 10.1 100.0

Number 142 24 6 13 11 9 78 77 360 Hispanic

Percent of

Hispanic 39.4 6.7 1.7 3.6 3.0 2.5 21.7 21.4 100.0

Number 10 3 0 1 2 0 11 17 44 Asian

Percent of Asian 22.7 6.8 0.0 2.3 4.5 0.0 25.0 38.6 100.0

Number 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 Other

Percent of Other 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0

None Recorded 21 3 0 1 0 5 22 15 67

Total 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION

Incident Location (Frequency)

Incident Location

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(N

o C

onte

st)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

V

iole

nce

Cha

r ge)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al

(Tri

al)

Dis

mis

sal

Spo

use

Abu

se A

ct

Tot

als

Allendale 43 7 0 3 2 2 19 0 76 Blendon 9 1 0 0 1 0 8 0 19 Chester 8 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 14 Coopersville 32 2 1 1 5 1 15 0 57 Crockery 23 1 1 0 0 3 15 12 55 Ferrysburg 6 1 1 0 1 1 4 5 19 Georgetown 60 8 1 8 6 11 35 3 132 Grand Haven 32 7 4 11 5 9 33 31 132 Grand Haven Twp 32 14 0 3 3 0 48 33 133 Holland 221 63 17 34 18 15 163 170 701 Holland Township 198 54 16 23 17 23 211 170 712 Hudsonville 14 3 1 1 2 3 2 0 26 Jamestown 4 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 11 Olive 17 5 1 2 3 3 16 12 59 Park 20 11 1 4 4 1 32 35 108 Polkton 9 0 0 1 0 0 11 2 23 Port Sheldon 4 0 2 1 1 1 14 11 34 Robinson 9 3 0 1 0 1 20 11 45 Spring Lake Twp 34 12 1 4 2 1 43 37 134 Spring Lake 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 7 22 Tallmadge 22 4 0 2 1 1 15 1 46 Wright 18 3 0 2 2 3 6 0 34 Zeeland 24 5 1 3 1 4 19 15 72 Zeeland Township 42 5 0 3 3 3 27 1 84 None Recorded 2 2 4 Totals 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION

Incident Location (Percent)

Incident Location

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(N

o C

onte

st)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

V

iole

nce

Cha

r ge)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al

(Tri

al)

Dis

mis

sal

Spo

use

Abu

se A

ct

Tot

als

Allendale 56.6 9.2 0.0 4.0 2.6 2.6 25.0 0.0 100.0 Blendon 47.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 42.1 0.0 100.0 Chester 57.1 14.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 100.0 Coopersville 56.1 3.5 1.8 1.8 8.8 1.8 26.3 0.0 100.0 Crockery 41.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.5 27.3 21.8 100.0 Ferrysburg 31.6 5.3 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.3 21.1 26.3 100.0 Georgetown 45.5 6.1 0.8 6.1 4.6 8.3 26.5 2.3 100.0 Grand Haven 24.2 5.3 3.0 8.3 3.9 6.8 25.0 23.5 100.0 Grand Haven Twp 24.1 10.5 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 36.1 24.8 100.0 Holland 31.5 9.0 2.4 4.6 2.6 2.1 23.3 24.3 100.0 Holland Township 27.8 7.6 2.2 3.2 2.4 3.2 29.6 23.8 100.0 Hudsonville 53.8 11.5 3.8 3.8 7.7 11.5 7.7 0.0 100.0 Jamestown 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 9.1 36.4 0.0 100.0 Olive 28.8 8.5 1.7 3.4 5.1 5.1 27.1 20.3 100.0 Park 18.5 10.2 1.0 3.7 3.7 1.0 29.6 32.4 100.0 Polkton 39.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 47.8 8.7 100.0 Port Sheldon 11.8 0.0 5.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 41.2 32.4 100.0 Robinson 20.0 6.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 44.4 24.4 100.0 Spring Lake Twp 25.4 9.0 0.7 3.0 1.5 0.7 32.1 27.6 100.0 Spring Lake 22.7 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 31.8 100.0 Tallmadge 47.8 8.7 0.0 4.3 2.2 2.2 32.6 2.2 100.0 Wright 52.9 8.8 0.0 5.9 5.9 8.8 17.6 0.0 100.0 Zeeland 33.3 7.0 1.4 4.2 1.4 5.6 26.4 20.8 100.0 Zeeland Township 50.0 6.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 32.1 1.2 100.0


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e C

harg

e)

Plea

(Ano

ther

C

harg

e)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Acq

uitt

al (T

rial

)

Dis

mis

sal

Spou

se A

buse

Act

Tot

al

Number 371 70 2 35 29 40 339 364 1250 No Prior Criminal Record Percent

of No Prior

29.7 5.6 0.2 2.8 2.3 3.2 27.1 29.1 100.0

Number 97 35 35 16 16 10 131 1 341 Prior Domestic Violence

Conviction Percent of Prior

DV 28.4 10.3 10.3 4.7 4.7 2.9 38.4 0.3 100.0

Number 335 87 8 49 28 34 214 174 929 Prior

Misdemeanor Percent of Prior Misd.

36.1 9.3 0.9 5.3 3.0 3.7 23.0 18.7 100.0

Number 85 21 4 7 8 3 87 17 232 Prior Felony

Percent of Prior Felony

36.6 9.1 1.7 3.0 3.5 1.3 37.5 7.3 100.0

Total 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752



CONVICTIONS

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS

Number of Convictions

Year Number Percent of Total Rate per Thousand of Ottawa County

Population* 1995 302 16.9 1.44 1996 326 18.2 1.51 1997 362 20.3 1.64 1998 428 24.0 1.90 1999 369 20.6 1.60 Total 1787 100.0 --

Number of Convictions by Year

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

500

400

300

200

100

0


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS

Total Convictions Number Percent of

Total Plea (Guilty) 888 49.7 Plea (No Contest) 213 11.9 Plea (Lesser Domestic Violence Charge) 49 2.8 Conviction (Trial) 81 4.5 Spouse Abuse Act* (see table) 556 31.1

Totals 1787 100.0

*Final Outcome of Spouse Abuse Act Cases

Total Spouse Abuse Act Cases Number Percent of Total

Revoked (Guilty Plea) 70 12.6 Revoked (No Contest Plea) 32 5.7 Revoked (Conviction) 2 0.4 Expungement 452 81.3 Total 556 100.0

Convictions

49.7

11.92.8 4.5

31.1

0102030405060708090

100

Plea (Guilty)

Plea (No Contest)

Plea (Lesser D.V. Charge)

Conviction (Trial)

Spouse Abuse Act

Perc

ent


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: AGE

Age Distribution

Number Age

Minimum Age

Maximum Age Mean Age Standard

Deviation Age 1786 17 81 31.14 8.956

None Recorded 1 Total 1787

Age

80.075.0

70.065.0

60.055.0

50.045.0

40.035.0

30.025.0

20.015.0

Age Distribution

Freq

uenc

y

400

300

200

100

0

Std. Dev = 8.96 Mean = 31.1

N = 1786.002347

118

228

294

376374

263

53


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: GENDER

Gender Distribution

Plea

(Gui

lty)

Plea

(No

Con

test

)

Plea

(Les

ser

Dom

estic

V

iole

nce

Cha

rge)

Con

vict

ion

(Tri

al)

Spou

se A

buse

A

ct

Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f G

ende

r T

otal

Male 772 52.3 183 12.4 43 2.9 72 4.9 406 27.5 1476 82.6

Female 116 37.6 30 9.7 6 1.9 9 2.9 148 47.9 309 17.3

None Recorded 2 2 0.1

Total 888 49.7 213 11.9 49 2.8 81 4.5 556 31.1 1787 100.0


Number of Convictions by Gender (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

400

360

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0

Gender

Female

Male

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Race/Ethnicity of Those Convicted



Ottawa County* White 1299 72.7 88.6 Black 154 8.6 1.0 Hispanic 260 14.5 7.0 Asian 32 1.8 2.1 Other 3 0.2 1.3 None Recorded 39 2.2 --

Total 1787 100.0 100.0


Number of Convictions by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

300

200

100

0

Race/Ethnicity

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Number of Convictions by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Freq

uenc

y

100

80

60

40

20

0

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

Asian

In this graph, the “white” ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in the other categories.



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION



Ottawa County*

Allendale Township 52 2.9 5.4Blendon Township 11 0.6 2.4Chester Township 11 0.6 1.0Coopersville City 40 2.2 1.6Crockery Township 37 2.1 1.6Ferrysburg City 14 0.8 1.2Georgetown Township 78 4.4 17.4Grand Haven City 79 4.4 4.7Grand Haven Township 82 4.6 5.5Holland City 488 27.3 11.6Holland Township 456 25.5 12.1Hudsonville City 20 1.1 3.0Jamestown Township 6 0.3 2.1Olive Township 38 2.1 1.9Park Township 71 4.0 7.3Polkton Township 11 0.6 1.0Port Sheldon Township 18 1.0 1.8Robinson Township 23 1.3 2.3Spring Lake Township 86 4.8 5.5Spring Lake Village 14 0.8 1.0Tallmadge Township 28 1.6 2.8Wright Township 23 1.3 1.3Zeeland City 46 2.6 2.4Zeeland Township 51 2.9 3.1 None Recorded 4 0.2

Total 1787 100.0 100.0

* Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD


No Prior Criminal Record 836 46.8Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 184 10.3Prior Misdemeanor (other than Domestic Violence) 632 35.4Prior Felony (other than Domestic Violence) 135 7.5

Total 1787 100.0

Prior Criminal Record

Prior Misdmnr.

35.4%

Prior Domestic Viol

10.3%

No Prior Crim Rec

46.8%

Prior Felony7.5%



BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: BONDS

Bond Type by Year*

Personal Recognizance

10% Cash Cash Cash

Surety Denied None Recorded Total

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

1995 99 32.8 84 27.8 71 23.5 28 9.3 3 1.0 17 5.6 302 100.0 1996 79 24.2 153 46.9 54 16.6 19 5.8 1 0.3 20 6.1 326 100.0 1997 73 20.2 168 46.4 40 11.0 54 14.9 7 1.9 20 5.5 362 100.0 1998 102 23.8 207 48.4 40 9.3 62 14.5 4 0.9 13 3.0 428 100.0 1999 56 15.2 167 45.3 56 15.2 57 15.4 24 6.5 9 2.4 369 100.0 Total 409 22.9 779 43.6 261 14.6 220 12.3 39 2.2 79 4.4 1787 100.0

*The Criminal Justice Users System only reflects the latest bond information for each conviction. If bond type is changed, the original bond type information is superseded and deleted. Therefore, it is possible that the numbers in this table are slightly skewed by any changes made to bond type after the original bond type was determined.

Bond Type by Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Perc

ent

Personal Recognizance10% CashCashCash SuretyDeniedNone Recorded



Bond Dollar Range by Year

0-500 501-1500 1501-5000 5001-10000 10001-25000 Total

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

1995 93 33.0 84 29.8 102 36.2 3 1.0 0 0.0 282 100.01996 67 22.0 126 41.3 108 35.4 4 1.3 0 0.0 305 100.01997 60 17.8 182 54.2 92 27.4 2 0.6 0 0.0 336 100.01998 61 14.8 237 57.7 103 25.1 9 2.2 1 0.2 411 100.01999 52 15.5 138 41.1 135 40.2 8 2.4 3 0.8 336 100.0Total 333 19.9 767 45.9 540 32.3 26 1.5 4 0.2 1670* 100.0

*Note: This figure does not include the 117 cases that had no bond info recorded or were denied bond.

Bond Dollar Range by Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Perc

ent

0-500501-15001501-50005001-1000010001-25000




Type of Bond Violation by Year

No Violation Alcohol No Contact Clause

Type Unknown Total

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Perc

ent

1995 290 96.0 1 0.3 4 1.4 7 2.3 302 100.0 1996 315 96.6 3 0.9 3 0.9 5 1.5 326 100.0 1997 347 95.9 3 0.8 3 0.8 9 2.5 362 100.0 1998 414 96.7 2 0.5 3 0.7 9 2.1 428 100.0 1999 348 96.9 2 0.6 3 0.8 6 1.7 359 100.0 Total 1714 96.5 11 0.6 16 0.9 36 2.0 1777 100.0

Note: 10 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Violation designated in the database.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS

Domestic

Violence 1st Offense

Domestic Violence 2nd

Offense*

Domestic Violence 3rd

Offense* Total

Cases with Fines and Costs 1569 62 7 1638Cases with No Fines and Costs 126 22 1 149Mean 288.37 457.26 366.57 295.10Median 250.00 371.00 255.00 250.00Mode 220 220 Multiple 220Standard Deviation 141.994 455.552 249.131 168.327Minimum 15 30 60 15Maximum 1715 3401 697 3401 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.

Dollars

3200.0

2800.0

2400.0

2000.0

1600.0

1200.0

800.0400.0

0.0

Fines and Costs

Freq

uenc

y

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 168.33 Mean = 295.1

N = 1638.00120

446

1025




Comparison of Fines and Costs (Annually)

Fines and Costs

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Cases With Fines and Costs 274 90.7 Cases With No Fines and Costs 28 9.3 Total 302 100.0

Mean 243.58 Median 192.50

1995

Maximum 1385 Cases With Fines and Costs 304 93.3 Cases With No Fines and Costs 22 6.7 Total 326 100.0


1996



1997



1998



1999

Maximum 3401 Total Cases With Fines and Costs 1638 91.7 Total Cases With No Fines and Costs 149 8.3


Percent of Cases with Fines and Costs (Annually)

90.7 93.3 94.5 93.586.2

0102030405060708090

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent

Median Fines and Costs (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Dol

lars

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

200


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Jail Time Sent. 668 76 7 751 Cases With No Jail Time Sent. 1027 8 1 1036 Mean 44.05 149.00 261.43 56.70Median 30.00 90.00 330.00 42.00Mode 30 90 365 30Standard Deviation 38.448 118.144 187.188 66.239Minimum 1 20 30 1Maximum 365 365 540 540

* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.

Days

380.0340.0

300.0260.0

220.0180.0

140.0100.0

60.020.0

Jail Time Sentenced in Days*

Freq

uenc

y

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Std. Dev = 66.24 Mean = 56.7

N = 751.00

171168

370

* For display purposes, one case has been omitted from the histogram of Jail Time Sentenced in which the

subject was sentenced 540 days.




Comparison of Jail Time Sentenced (Annually)

Jail Time Sentenced

(days)

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 139 46.0 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 163 54.0 Total 302 100.0


1995

Maximum 365 Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 137 42.0 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 189 58.0 Total 326 100.0


1996



1997



1998



1999

Maximum 365 Total Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 751 42.0 Total Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 1036 58.0


Percentage of Cases with Jail Time Sentenced (Annually)

4642 40.3

35.5

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Years

Perc

ent

Median Jail Time Sentenced in Days (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Day

s

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Jail Time Served 460 61 6 527** Cases With No Jail Time Served 208 15 1 224 Mean 24.30 65.25 229.00 31.37Median 10.50 46.00 181.50 15.00Mode 2 45 Multiple 2Standard Deviation 27.513 58.701 184.213 44.704Minimum 1 2 61 1Maximum 93 260 540 540

* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court. **The number of cases with Jail Time Sentenced (page 32) is higher than the above number of cases with Jail Time Served. This difference is due to the fact that in some cases the Court sentences individuals to Jail Time at the Court’s discretion. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be sentenced to Jail Time but to not serve any because the Court does not order the time to actually be served.

Days

310.0290.0

270.0250.0

230.0210.0

190.0170.0

150.0130.0

110.090.0

70.050.0

30.010.0

Jail Time Served, In Days*

Freq

uenc

y

300

275

250

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

250

Std. Dev = 44.70 Mean = 31.4

N = 527.0040

5433

93

292


* For display purposes, one case has been omitted from the histogram of Jail Time Served in which the

subject served 540 days.



Summary of Jail Time Served (Annually)

Jail Time Served (days)

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Cases With Jail Time Served 93 66.9 Cases With No Jail Time Served 46 33.1 Total 139 100.0


1995

Maximum 159 Cases With Jail Time Served 78 56.9 Cases With No Jail Time Served 59 43.1 137 100.0


1996



1997



1998



1999

Maximum 260 Total Cases With Jail Time Served 527 70.2 Total Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 224 29.8


Median Jail Time Served (Annually)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Day

s

Comparison of Median Jail Time Sentenced vs. Served

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Day

s ServedSentenced



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Frequency Percent of Total Cases with Electronic Monitoring 4 0.2Cases with No Electronic Monitoring 1783 99.8

Total 1787 100.0

SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE

Frequency Percent of Total Cases with Community Service 31 1.7Cases with No Community Service 1756 98.3

Total 1787 100.0

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Probation 1385 60 6 1451 Cases With No Probation 310 24 2 336 Mean 10.12 16.15 23.00 10.42Median 12.00 12.00 27.00 12.00Mode 12 12 Multiple 12Standard Deviation 3.791 6.227 13.900 4.250Minimum 1 6 6 1Maximum 30 24 36 36

* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court. Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.

Months

35.030.025.020.015.010.05.00.0

Probation Length in Months

Freq

uenc

y

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Std. Dev = 4.25 Mean = 10.4

N = 1451.0062

941

412




Summary of Probation Length (Annually)

Probation Length (Months)

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Cases With Probation 240 79.5 Cases With No Probation 62 20.5 Total 302 100.0


1995

Maximum 36 Cases With Probation 255 78.2 Cases With No Probation 71 21.8 Total 326 100.0


1996



1997



1998



1999

Maximum 36 Total Cases With Probation 1451 81.2 Total Cases With No Probation 336 18.8

Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.


Median Probation Length (Annually)

12 12

9 9

12

0123456789

101112131415

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Mon

ths

Median Probation Length (Annually)

Year

19991998199719961995

Mon

ths

13.0

12.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.00.0


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Traditional Probation** 988 29 5 1022Intensively Supervised Probation*** 400 31 1 432

Total 1388 84 6 1454

* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.

Probation Type

Traditional70.3%

Intensively Supervised

29.7%

**Traditional Probation: In this type of probation, offenders are ordered to report to a probation officer for regularly scheduled appointments. The probation officer ensures that the offender complies with the requirements of the probation order. The probation order can include requirements to attend counseling, eliminate contact with the victim, prohibit verbal or physical threats, and/or other restrictions. ***Intensive Supervised Probation (DAIP): This type of probation is for offenders that need a higher than normal level of supervision because the domestic violence act was particularly severe, the offender has a history of violent behavior, or because the offender has serious substance abuse problems.



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION


Cases With Non-Reporting Probation* 243 13.6Cases With No Non-Reporting Probation 1544 86.4

Total 1787 100.0

*Non-Reporting Probation: An offender may be placed in a “non-reporting probation” program if it is determined that the offender is not a threat to society and/or the offender has moved out of the area.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Duluth Program** 713 33 2 748Cases With No Duluth Program 982 51 6 1039

Total 1695 84 8 1787 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.

Duluth Program (FVP)

No58.1%

Yes41.9%

**Duluth Program (Family Violence Program): This domestic violence offender therapy program consists of twenty-six weeks of group therapy. This program is designed to help offenders recognize their abusive and violent behavior and to teach the offenders that the use of power and control tactics can lead to domestic violence.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)

Duluth

Program No Duluth Program

Total

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 106 35.1 196 64.9 302 100.0 1996 143 43.9 183 56.1 326 100.0 1997 181 50.0 181 50.0 362 100.0 1998 195 45.6 233 54.4 428 100.0 1999 123 33.3 246 66.7 369 100.0 Total 748 41.9 1039 58.1 1787 100.0

Duluth Program (FVP) (Annually)

0102030405060708090

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Perc

ent


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Substance Abuse Treatment** 215 14 1 230Cases With No Substance Abuse Treatment 1480 70 7 1557


Substance Abuse Treatment

No87.1%

Yes12.9%

**Substance Abuse Treatment: Treatment for substance abuse can include many different options. Treatment can include the following: outpatient counseling, intensive inpatient counseling, residential treatment, education, and enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Treatment may be ordered before and/or in conjunction with individual counseling, couples counseling or other similar treatments.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

Substance

Abuse Treatment

No Substance

Abuse Treatment

Total

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 40 13.2 262 86.8 302 100.0 1996 41 12.9 285 87.1 326 100.0 1997 38 10.5 324 89.5 362 100.0 1998 51 11.9 377 88.1 428 100.0 1999 60 16.3 309 83.7 369 100.0 Total 230 12.9 1557 87.1 1787 100.0

Substance Abuse Treatment (Annually)

0102030405060708090

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING


Cases With Individual Counseling* 526 29.4Cases With No Individual Counseling 1261 70.6

Total 1787 100.0

Individual Counseling

No70.6%

Yes29.4%

*Individual Counseling: This type of counseling involves individual contact with a therapist. Individual counseling is typically used for individuals with serious mental health issues who do not function well in a group setting.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING


No Individual Counseling

Total

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 85 28.1 217 71.9 302 100.0 1996 75 23.0 251 77.0 326 100.0 1997 89 24.6 273 75.4 362 100.0 1998 145 33.9 283 66.1 428 100.0 1999 132 35.8 237 64.2 369 100.0 Total 526 29.4 1261 70.6 1787 100.0


0102030405060708090

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING


Cases with Couples Counseling* 7 0.4Cases with No Couples Counseling 1780 99.6

Total 1787 100.0

Couples Counseling

No99.6%

Yes0.4%

*Couples Counseling: This type of counseling involves contact with a therapist by an offender and the offender’s victim. Because power and control issues are often associated with Domestic Violence cases, couples counseling is considered to be the least desirable method of therapy because it may increase the risk to the victim.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION


Case With Other Treatment* 12 0.7Cases With No Other Treatment 1775 99.3

Total 1787 100.0

Note: 9 of the 12 sentences for “Other Treatment” were for the Youthful Offender Intervention Program.

Other Treatment

No99.3%

Yes0.7%

*Other Treatment: This treatment may include drug therapy for seriously disturbed clients, mental health treatment for clients with emotional and/or psychological problems, specialized probation, anger management, and other case specific treatment options.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT

Domestic



Offense*


Offense* Total

Cases With Spouse Abuse Act** 555 0 1 556Cases With No Spouse Abuse Act 1140 84 7 1231


Spouse Abuse Act

No68.9%

Yes31.1%

**Spouse Abuse Act: This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged (removed) from an offender’s criminal record if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. A nonpublic record is kept by the State Police. Offenders are only eligible to be granted this type of probation once.


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT

Spouse

Abuse Act No Spouse Abuse Act

Totals

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 44 14.6 258 85.4 302 100.0 1996 86 26.4 240 73.6 326 100.0 1997 133 36.7 229 63.3 362 100.0 1998 187 43.7 241 56.3 428 100.0 1999 106 28.7 263 71.3 369 100.0 Total 556 31.1 1231 68.9 1787 100.0

Spouse Abuse Act Participation (Annually)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent



PROBATION VIOLATION

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME


Satisfactory Discharge 621 42.7Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement 452 31.1Unsatisfactory Discharge 119 8.2Probation Revoked 185 12.7Cases With Probation Still Pending 22 1.5None Recorded 55 3.8

Total 1454 100.0

Probation Outcome

Satisfactory Discharge

42.7%

Sat Discharge w/ SAA

31.1%

Unsatisfactory Discharge

8.2%

Probation Revoked12.7%

Pending1.5%

None Recorded3.8%


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME

Sa

tisfa

ctor

y D

isch

arge

Satis

fact

ory

Dis

char

ge w

ith

Spou

se A

buse

Act

E

xpun

gem

ent

Uns

atis

fact

ory

Dis

char

ge

Prob

atio

n R

evok

ed

Cas

es W

ith

Prob

atio

n St

ill

Pend

ing

Non

e R

ecor

ded

Tot

al

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 145 57.3 39 15.4 26 10.3 29 11.5 0 0.0 14 5.5 253 100.0 1996 131 50.2 74 28.4 19 7.3 27 10.3 0 0.0 10 3.8 261 100.0 1997 118 37.6 108 34.4 35 11.1 41 13.1 0 0.0 12 3.8 314 100.0 1998 127 35.0 144 39.7 25 6.9 53 14.6 4 1.1 10 2.7 363 100.0 1999 100 38.0 87 33.1 14 5.3 35 13.3 18 6.8 9 3.4 263 100.0 Total 621 452 119 185 22 55 1454 100.0

Probation Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Perc

ent

Satis. DischgSatis. Dischg w/ SAAUnsatis. DischgProbation Revoked

In this graph, the lines for Cases with Probation Still Pending and Non-Recorded have been removed.



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION

First Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tors

New Offense (other than Dom Viol.) 48 12.7 Curfew Violation 17 4.5 Alcohol or Drug Violation 181 47.9 No Contact Violation 29 7.7 Failure to Work 1 0.3 Failure to Attend Counseling 75 19.8 Change of Address w/o Permission 7 1.8 Leaving the State 3 0.8 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 17 4.5

Total 378 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 26.0

Second Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tors

New Offense (other than Dom. Viol.) 17 12.5 Curfew Violation 7 5.2 Alcohol or Drug Violation 37 27.2 No Contact Violation 1 0.7 Failure to Work 1 0.7 Failure to Attend Counseling 23 16.9 Change of Address w/o Permission 8 5.9 Leaving the State 2 1.5 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 6 4.4 None Recorded 34 25.0



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION

Third Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tors

New Offense (other than Dom. Viol.) 1 3.2 Curfew Violation 1 3.2 Alcohol or Drug Violation 9 29.1 No Contact Violation 0 0.0 Failure to Work 0 0.0 Failure to Attend Counseling 1 3.2 Change of Address w/o Permission 3 9.7 Leaving the State 0 0.0 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 3 9.7 None Recorded 13 41.9



DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: SENTENCING FOR PROBATION VIOLATION

Sentence for First Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tions

Continue Probation 12 3.2 Extend Probation 35 9.2 Intensively Supervised Prob. 4 1.1 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 40 10.6 Delayed Sentencing 6 1.6 Superseding Offense 10 2.6 Jail Time 241 63.8 Community Service 24 6.3 None Recorded 6 1.6


Sentence for Second Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tions

Continue Probation 3 2.2 Extend Probation 36 26.5 Intensively Supervised 7 5.2 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 16 11.8 Delayed Sentencing 1 0.7 Superseding Offense 4 2.9 Jail Time 52 38.2 Community Service 17 12.5

Total 136 100.0 Percent of Probationers 9.4


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: SENTENCING FOR PROBATION VIOLATION

Sentence for Third Probation Violation

Total Cases

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f V

iola

tions

Continue Probation 0 0 Extend Probation 6 19.4 Intensively Supervised Probation 1 3.2 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 1 3.2 Delayed Sentencing 0 0 Superseding Offense 0 0 Jail Time 17 54.8 Community Service 6 19.4



RECIDIVISM

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: RECIDIVISM SUBSECTION: 0-2 YEARS


Cases With 0-2 Year Recidivism 177 9.9Cases With No 0-2 Year Recidivism 1610 90.1

Total 1787 100.0

Recidivism within 0-2 Years

No90.1%

Yes9.9%



Recidivism 0-2 Years No Recidivism 0-2 Years

Totals

Year of Original Offense

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 36 11.9 266 88.1 302 100.0 1996 28 8.6 298 91.4 326 100.0 1997 54 14.9 308 85.1 362 100.0 1998 36 8.4 392 91.6 428 100.0

1999* 23 6.2 346 93.8 369 100.0 Totals 177 9.9 1610 90.1 1787 100.0

*Some cases did not reach the two-year threshold at the time this study was completed

0-2 Year Recidivism (Annually)

02468

101214161820

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year of Original Offense

Perc

ent

0-2 Year Recidivism (Quarterly)

02468

1012141618

1st '

952n

d '9

5

3rd

'95

4th

'95

1st '

96

2nd

'96

3rd

'96

4th

'96

1st '

972n

d '9

73r

d '9

74t

h '9

7

1st '

982n

d '9

83r

d '9

8

4th

'98

1st '

992n

d '9

9

3rd

'99

4th

'99

Quarter of Original Offense

Perc

ent




Cases With 3-5 Year Recidivism 44 2.5Cases With No 3-5 Year Recidivism 1743 97.5

Total 1787 100.0


No97.5%

Yes2.5%



Recidivism 3-5 Years No Recidivism 3-5 Years

Totals


Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

Num

ber

Perc

ent o

f A

nnua

l T

otal

1995 25 8.3 277 91.7 302 100.0 1996* 13 4.0 313 96.0 326 100.0 1997* 6 1.7 356 98.3 362 100.0 1998* 0 0.0 428 100.0 428 100.0 1999* 0 0.0 369 100.0 369 100.0 Totals 44 2.5 1743 97.5 1787 100.0

*Some cases did not reach the 3-5 year threshold at the time this study was completed

3-5 Year Recidivism (Annually)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


Perc

ent

Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) 163 Page 64 of

3-5 Year Recidivism (Quarterly)

0

5

10

15

1st '

95

2nd

'95

3rd

'95

4th

'95

1st '

96

2nd

'96

3rd

'96

4th

'96

1st '

97

2nd

'97

3rd

'97

4th

'97

1st '

98

2nd

'98

3rd

'98

4th

'98

1st '

99

2nd

'99

3rd

'99

4th

'99

Quarter of Original Offense

Perc

ent


Inferential Statistics Overview

This section of the evaluation provides information that allows conclusions to be inferred or drawn from the data. These conclusions may be formed with a methodology that is as simple as comparing the average recidivism rates of all offenders to the recidivism rate of those offenders that received traditional probation; and by deductive reasoning determine whether those individuals receiving traditional probation are doing better or worse than the average. Other deductive methods involving common sense and judicious examination may be used to form conclusions. In any case, comparisons and deductive methods allow evaluators to determine if a possible relationship exists between one or more variables. In order to validate these conclusions, inferential analysis techniques were used to determine the statistical significance level of perceived relationships between variables. The inferential techniques used in this section are Chi-Square and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Tests. A Chi-Square test determines dependence or strength of a relationship between two categorical (qualitative) variables. As an example, a Chi-Square analysis may be used to determine the relationship between recidivism and variables such as gender, incident location, or sentencing. An Analysis of Variance is used to compare the “means” of two or more quantitative data sets to determine whether there are significant differences. For instance, if statistically significant differences exist between the mean values of jail time served between those offenders who recidivate and those who do not recidivate, there is likely to be a relationship between the amount of jail time served and recidivism. Inferential statistics can also be used to build models (logistic regression analysis) from data to predict which combination of variables result in increased levels of recidivism. The use of this technique was attempted in this evaluation to determine if certain combinations of variables affected recidivism. However, it was determined that the data sets were too small at this point in time to permit such analysis. A more detailed discussion of “models” occurs in the Conclusion Section. It is important to note that the data in this section may be influenced by “hidden or lurking” factors. For instance, inferential analysis indicates that a significant relationship exists between jail time served and recidivism. As a matter of fact, the analysis indicates that the more jail time an individual serves, the more likely it is that he/she will recidivate. Upon further investigation, it becomes evident that this apparent cause and effect relationship is likely unrelated. In reality, this relationship is likely the result of judges accurately and appropriately sentencing the most precarious and serious offenders to larger amounts of jail time. These types of offenders are likely to be more predisposed to recidivism and therefore this “lurking” factor impacts the analysis. To that point, it is necessary to exercise a degree of common sense and discretion when interpreting statistical results. The highlights from this section are divided into variables that affect recidivism in the first two years and variables that affect recidivism in three-to-five years. Since this evaluation only encompasses a five-year time frame (1994-1999), it will take several years to more accurately reflect the three-to-five year recidivism rates for 1997-1999. To that point, the data for three-to-five year recidivism rates will be less statistically reliable until several more years of data are collected. A few highlights from this section are listed below: General Observations 20 variables exhibit a statistically significant relationship with recidivism.


In 8 variables there is not enough statistical evidence to prove that a significant relationship exists.

Recidivism (0-2 years) – Variables Exhibiting a Statistically Significant Relationship 9.9% of domestic violence offenders recidivate in the first two years. 10.6% of male domestic violence offenders recidivate and 6.5% of females recidivate. The recidivism rate for Blacks was 21.4%; for Hispanics 17.3%; for Whites 7.6%; and for Asians

0.0%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 1st Offense was 9.7%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 2nd Offense was 15.5%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 3rd Offense (8 cases) was 0.0%. The recidivism rate for those with no prior criminal record was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior domestic violence conviction was 16.3%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior misdemeanor was 10.8%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior felony was 11.1%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by a guilty plea was 12.5%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by trial was 8.4%. The recidivism rate for those who pled to a lesser domestic violence charge was 22.4%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by a no contest plea was 11.0%. The recidivism rate for those who received a Spouse Abuse Act expungement was 2.7%.

The recidivism rate for those who served 1-7 days in jail was 9.7%. The recidivism rate for those who served 8-15 days in jail was 12.9%. The recidivism rate for those who served 16-23 days in jail was 25.0%. The recidivism rate for those who served 24-31 days in jail was 18.2%. The recidivism rate for those who served more than 32 days in jail was 19.4%.

The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 0-6 months probation was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 7-12 months probation was 9.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 13-18 months probation was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 19-24 months probation was 14.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to more than 25 months probation was 25.0%.

The recidivism rate for those sentenced to traditional probation was 7.9%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to intensive supervised probation (DAIP) was 11.6%. The recidivism rate for those convicted with Spouse Abuse Act designation was 5.4%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to non-reporting probation was 5.3%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to the Duluth Program was 10.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to other treatment (12 cases) was 33.3%.

The recidivism rate for those with a single probation violation was 19.0%. The recidivism rate for those with two probation violations was 23.5%. The recidivism rate for those with three probation violations was 16.7%.

The recidivism rate for those with a satisfactory discharge (probation) was 7.1%. The recidivism rate for those with an unsatisfactory discharge (probation) was 29.4%. The recidivism rate for those with revoked probation was 21.1%.

The recidivism rate for those receiving a personal recognizance bond was 8.6%. The recidivism rate for those receiving a 10% cash bond was 8.5%.


The recidivism rate for those receiving a cash bond (full amount) was 11.1%. The recidivism rate for those receiving no bond was 11.5%. The recidivism rate for those denied bond was 12.8%. The recidivism rate for those with no bond violation was 9.5%. The recidivism rate for those with an alcohol related bond violation was 27.3%. The recidivism rate for those with a no contact clause violation was 25.0%.

Recidivism (0-2 Years) – Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $0-$250 was 9.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $251-$500 was 9.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $501-$750 was 10.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $751-$1,000 was 9.1%. The recidivism rate for those with fines and costs of more than $1,000 (10 cases) was 0.0%.

The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 1-30 days in jail was 11.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 31-60 days in jail was 15.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 61-90 days in jail was 10.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 91-120 days in jail was 19.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to more than 120 days in jail was 12.2%.

The recidivism rate for those sentenced to electronic monitoring (4 cases) was 0.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to community service (31 Cases) was 16.1%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to substance abuse treatment was 7.8%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to individual counseling was 8.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to couples counseling (7 cases) was 14.3%.

INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 0-2 YEARS

INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER

Gender Distribution


No Yes Total Gender Female Actual Count 289 20 309 Expected Count 278.4 30.6 309.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Females 93.5% 6.5% 100.0% Male Actual Count 1319 157 1476 Expected Count 1329.6 146.4 1476.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Males 89.4% 10.6% 100.0%Total Count 1608 177 1785 Expected Count 1608.0 177.0 1785.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1 9.9 100.0%

Note: 2 of the 1787 cases did not have gender designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

4.960b 1 .0264.505 1 .0345.460 1 .019

.027 .014

4.958 1 .026

1785

Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona

Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)

Exact Sig.(1-sided)

Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is30.64.

b.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER

Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Years and Gender

9.9 6.5 10.6

90.193.5

89.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected Female Male

Perc

ent

YesNo


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (O-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Crosstab Recidivism within

0-2 Years No Yes Total Race/Ethnicity White Actual Count 1200 99 1299 Expected Count 1167.5 131.5 1299.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Whites 92.4% 7.6% 100.0% Black Actual Count 121 33 154 Expected Count 138.4 15.6 154.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Blacks 78.6% 21.4% 100.0% Hispanic Actual Count 215 45 260 Expected Count 233.7 26.3 260.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Hispanics 82.7% 17.3% 100.0% Asian Actual Count 32 0 32 Expected Count 28.8 3.2 32.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% 100.0%Actual Recidivism Rate for Asians 100.0% 0.0% Other Actual Count 3 0 3 Expected Count 2.7 0.3 3.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total 1748Count 1571 177 Expected Count 1571.0 177.0 1748.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0%

Note: 39 of the 1787 cases did not have race/ethnicity designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

49.252a 4 .00046.563 4 .000

17.865 1 .000

1748

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .30.

a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY

Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Yearsand Race/Ethnicity*

10.1

21.417.3

7.6

92.4

82.778.6

89.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected Black Hispanic White

Perc

ent

YesNo

* “Asian” and “Other” are not included due to 100% “No”



INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION

Crosstab


No Yes Total Actual Count 50 2 52 Incident

Location Allendale Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Allendale Township 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

Actual Count 11 0 11 Blendon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Blendon Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 9 2 11 Chester Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Chester Township 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Actual Count 38 2 40 Coopersville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Coopersville City 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Actual Count 35 2 37 Crockery Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Crockery Township 94.6% 5.4% 100.0% Actual 13 Count 1 14 Ferrysburg City Actual Recidivism Rate for Ferrysburg City 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 74 4 78 Georgetown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Georgetown Township 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Actual Count 72 7 79 Grand Haven City Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven City 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% Actual Count 76 6 82 Grand Haven Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven Town. 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% Actual Count 432 56 488 Holland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland City 88.5% 11.5% 100.0% Actual Count 398 58 456 Holland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland Township 87.3% 12.7% 100.0% Actual Count 16 4 20 Hudsonville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Hudsonville City 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Actual Count 6 0 6 Jamestown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Jamestown Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 2 38 Olive Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Olive Township 94.7% 5.3% 100.0% Actual 71 Count 68 3 Park Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Park Township 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% Actual Count 8 3 11 Polkton Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Polkton Township 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Actual Count 16 2 18 Port Sheldon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Port Sheldon Town. 88.9% 11.1% 100.0% Actual Count 23 0 23 Robinson Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Robinson Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 82 4 86 Spring Lake Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Township 100.0% 95.3% 4.7% Actual Count 13 1 14 Spring Lake Village Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Village 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 23 5 28 19.9% 100.0% Tallmadge Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Tallmadge Township 82.1% Actual Count 21 2 23 Wright Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Wright Township 91.3% 8.7% 100.0% Actual Count 39 7 46 Zeeland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland City 84.8% 15.2% 100.0% Actual Count 47 4 51 Zeeland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland Township 92.2% 7.8% 100.0% Total Actual Count 1606 177 1783 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 4 of the 1787 cases did not have incident location designated in the database.

INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION

Chi-Square Tests

33.976a 24 .08538.582 24 .030

1787

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Years and Location*

90.1 91.1 88.5

8084.8 81.8

92.787.3

72.7

88.982.1

91.3 92.29.9 8.9 11.5

2015.2 18.2

7.312.7

27.3

11.117.9

8.7 7.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ExpectedCity of Grand Haven

City of HollandCity of HudsonvilleCity of ZeelandChester TownshipGrand Haven Township

Holland TownshipPolkton TownshipPort Sheldon Township

Tallmadge Township

Wright Township

Zeeland TownshipPe

rcen

t

YesNo

*Only municipalities for which “yes” is greater than 7% are included.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED


0-2 Years No Yes Total

Actual Count 1496 156 1652Domestic Violence 1st Offense Expected Count 1488.4 163.6 1652.0

Type of Charges Filed Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for those Charged with Domestic Violence 1st Offense 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

Actual Count 97 18 115

Domestic Violence 2nd Offense Expected Count 103.6 11.4 115.0

Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 84.3% 15.7% 100.0%


Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 20.0Expected Count 18.0 2.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

Total Actual Count 1610 177 1787 Expected Count 1610.0 177.0 1787.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

5.233a 2 .0734.596 2 .100

4.613 1 .032

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 1.98.

a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED

Recidivism within 0-2 Yearsand Type of Charges Filed

90.1 90.684.3 85

9.9 9.415.7 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected DomesticViolence 1st

Offense

DomesticViolence 2nd

Offense

DomesticViolence 3rd

Offense

Perc

ent

YesNo


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD



Actual Count 772 64 836Criminal History

No Prior Criminal Record Expected Count 753.2 82.8 836.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for No Prior Criminal Record 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%


Prior Domestic Violence Convct.* Expected Count 165.8 18.2 184.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Domestic Violence Charge 83.7% 16.3% 100.0%

Prior Misdemeanor Actual Count 564 68 632 Expected Count 569.4 62.6 632.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Misdemeanor 89.2% 10.8% 100.0%

Prior Felony Actual Count 120 15 135 Expected Count 121.6 13.4 135.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Felony 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%


*Note: The 184 convictions with a Prior Domestic Violence Conviction differs from the 135 convictions (page 73) that were charged with Domestic Violence 2nd and 3rd Offense. The 49 cases that make up the difference were allowed to plea to a lesser domestic violence charge (page 77).

Chi-Square Tests

13.922a 3 .00313.030 3 .005

4.212 1 .040

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 13.37.

a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD

Recidivism within 0-2 Yearsand Prior Criminal Record

90.1 92.383.7

89.2 88.9

9.9 7.716.3

10.8 11.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected

No Prior Criminal Record

Prior Domestic Violence Conviction

Prior Misdemeanor

Prior Felony

Perc

ent

YesNo


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION



Actual Count 838 120 958Case Disposition

Conviction by Guilty Plea Expected Count 863.1 94.9 958.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Guilty Plea 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

76 83Conviction by Trial Actual Count 7 Expected Count 74.8 8.2 93.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Trial 91.6% 8.4% 100.0%

Actual Count 38 11 49 Expected Count 44.1 4.9 49.0

Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence Charge Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for

Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge

77.6% 22.4% 100.0%


No Contest Expected Count 220.7 24.3 245.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for No Contest 89.0% 11.0% 100.0%


Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act) Expected Count 407.2 44.8 452.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Expungement 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%


Note: These numbers are adjusted to incorporate the Spouse Abuse Act Outcome numbers (page 21).

Chi-Square Tests

43.183a 4 .00050.522 4 .000

26.252 1 .000

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCase Disposition

90.1 87.591.6

77.6

8997.39.9 12.5

8.4

22.4

112.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected

Conviction by Guilty Plea

Conviction by Trial

Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge

No Contest

Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act)

Perc

ent

YesNo




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED

Summary

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Standard Deviation

Standard Error Lower

Bound Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 447 30.35 45.360 2.145 28.39 32.31 1 540Yes 80 37.08 40.640 4.544 35.12 39.04 1 260

Total 527 31.37 44.704 1.947 29.41 33.33 1 540

ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3067.698 1 3067.698 1.537 .216Within Groups 1048125.4 525 1996.429 -- --

Total 1051193.1 526 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Ja

il Ti

me

Serv

ed, i

n da

ys

383634323028262422201816141210

86420


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED



Actual Count 168 18 186Jail Time Served

1-7 Days Expected Count 157.8 28.2 186.0


Actual Recidivism Rate 0-7 Days 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%

8-15 Days Actual Count 74 11 85 Expected Count 12.9 72.1 85.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 8-15 Days 87.1% 12.9% 100.0%


16-23 Days







Actual Count 133 32 165 32+ Days Expected Count 140.0 25.0 165.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 32+ Days 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH

Summary

95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard

Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 1320 10.16 4.009 .112 9.95 10.38 1 36Yes 131 11.24 4.737 .411 10.43 12.05 4 30

Total 1451 10.27 4.093 .109 9.96 10.39 1 36

ANOVA Test Mean Square


Sum of Squares df F Sig. Between Groups 110.312 1 110.312 6.129 .013Within Groups 26077.716 1449 17.997 -- --

Total 26188.028 1450 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Pr

obat

ion

Leng

th, i

n m

onth

s

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0






Actual Count 383 32 415Probation Length,

0-6 Months Expected Count 377.5 37.5 415.0

Months Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate 0-6 Months 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%

7-12 Months Actual Count 857 87 944 Expected Count 858.8 85.2 944.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 7-12 Months 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%


13-18 Months

91.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 9.0% 100.0%






Actual Count 3 1 4 25+ Months Expected Count 3.6 .4 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 25+ Months 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%



INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE


No Yes Total Actual Count 941 81 1022Probation

Type Traditional Probation Expected Count 920.8 101.2 1022.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Traditional 92.1% 7.9% 100.0%

Actual Count 382 50 432 Expected Count 389.2 42.8 432.0 100.0%

Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Intensively Supervised 88.4% 11.6% 100.0%


Chi-Square Tests

11.537a 2 .00311.212 2 .004

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years and Probation Type

90.1 92.1 88.4

9.9 7.9 11.6

0102030405060708090

100

Expected TraditionalProbation

IntensivelySupervisedProbation

(DAIP)

Perc

ent

YesNo


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION


No Yes Total No Actual Count 1039 118 1157Non-Reporting

Probation Expected Count 1042.4 114.6 1157.0 100.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 89.8% 10.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 230 13 243 Expected Count 218.9 24.1 243.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 94.7% 5.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1269 131 1400 131.0 Expected Count 1269.0 1400.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 387 cases of the 1787 did not have Non-Reporting designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

7.465a 2 .0248.395 2 .0151787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andNon-Reporting Probation

90.1 89.8 94.79.9 10.2 5.3

0102030405060708090

100

Expected No Non-ReportingProbation

Non-ReportingProbationRecipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)


No Yes Total No Actual Count 604 51 655Duluth Program

(FVP) Expected Count 590.1 64.9 655.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Duluth Program 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%

Yes Actual Count 668 80 748 Expected Count 673.9 74.1 748.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Duluth Program Recipients 89.3% 10.7% 100.0%


Note: 384 of the cases did not have Duluth Program designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

5.670a 2 .0595.789 2 .0551787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years and Duluth Program (FVP)

90.1 92.2 89.39.9 7.8 10.7

0102030405060708090

100

Expected No DuluthProgram

DuluthProgram

Recipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION


0-2 Years No Yes Total Other Treatment No Actual Count 1258 127 1385 Expected Count 1247.8 137.2 1385.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Other Treatment 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%


33.3% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other Treatment Recipients 66.7% 100.0%


Note: 390 of the 1787 cases did not have Other Treatment designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

9.781a 2 .0087.228 2 .0271787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andOther Treatment/Specialized Probation

90.1 90.8

66.7

9.9 9.2

33.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected No OtherTreatment

OtherTreatmentRecipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 28 20 481st Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 58.3% 41.7% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 12 5 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 70.6% 29.4% 100.0% Actual Count 159 22 181

Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%


No Contact Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 86.2% 13.8% 100.0%

Failure to Work Actual Count 0 1 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Count 61 14 75

Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

Actual Count 4 3 7

Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%

Leaving the State Actual Count 3 0 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 14 3 17

Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

Total Actual Count 306 72 378 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 81.0% 19.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

30.765a 8 .00027.491 8 .001

1.611 1 .204

378


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 7 10 172nd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 41.2% 58.8% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 4 3 7 Actual Recidivism Rate 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Actual Count 31 6 37


Actual Count 0 1 1




Actual Count 8 0 8





Note: 34 of the 1787 cases did not have Second Probation Violation designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

22.520a 8 .00422.688 8 .004

9.861 1 .002

102


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSecond Probation Violation

76.5

41.2

57.1

83.887

100

83.323.5

58.8

42.9

16.213

16.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected

New Offense (other than DV)

Curfew Violation

Alcohol or Drug Violation

Failure to Attend Counseling

Change Address w/o Permission

Failure to Pay Fines & Costs

Perc

ent

YesNo

Note: Three of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “No Contact Violation”, “Failure to Work”, and “Leaving the State”.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION



Continue Probation Actual Count 10 2 12 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

Sentence for 1st Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 32 3 35 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0% Actual Count 3 1 4

Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%


Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 5 1 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Superseding Offense Actual Count 5 5 10 Actual Recidivism Rate 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 191 50 241 Actual Recidivism Rate 79.3% 20.7% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 21 3 24 Actual Recidivism Rate 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%Total Actual Count 303 69 372 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

Note: 6 of the 1787 cases did not have Sentence for 1st Probation Violation designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

12.293a 7 .09111.578 7 .115

2.694 1 .101

372


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 1st Probation Violation

81.5 83.391.4

75

9083.3

50

79.387.5

8.6

25

10

20.712.518.5 16.7

50

16.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected

Continue Probation

Extended Probation

ISP Probation

Loss of Spouse Abuse Act

Delayed Sentencing

Superseding Offense

Jail Time

Community Service

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION


Crosstab

Yes No Total Continue Probation Actual Count 3 0 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Sentence for 2nd Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 33 3 36 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0% Actual Count 7 0 7





Chi-Square Tests

20.045a 7 .00516.286 7 .023

.405 1 .524

136


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 2nd Probation Violation

8691.7

100

68.8

25

86.594.1

31.2

75

14 13.5 5.98.3

0102030405060708090

100

Expected

Extend Probation

Intensively Supervised Probation

Loss of Spouse Abuse Act

Superseding Offense

Jail Time

Community Service

Perc

ent

YesNo

Note: Two of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “Continue Probation” and “Delayed Sentencing”.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION



Extend Probation Actual Count 5 1 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

Sentence for 3rd Probation Violation Actual Count 0 1 1


Actual Count 1 0 1


Jail Time Actual Count 16 1 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 6 0 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 28 3 31 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

10.699a 4 .0306.699 4 .153

2.249 1 .134

31


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 3rd Probation Violation

9083

9410010 17

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected ExtendProbation

Jail Time CommunityService

Perc

ent

YesNo

Note: Two of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “Intensively Supervised Probation” and “Loss of Spouse Abuse Act”.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME



Actual Count 577 44 621Probation Outcome

Satisfactory Discharge Expected Count 562.7 58.3 621.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Satisfactory Discharge 92.9% 7.1% 100.0%

440 Actual Count 12 452 Expected Count 426.8 44.2 471.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement Actual Recidivism Rate for Sat.

Discharge w/ SAA Expung. 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%


Unsatisfactory Discharge Expected Count 107.8 11.2 119.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Unsatisfactory Discharge 70.6% 29.4% 100.0%

Probation Revoked Actual Count 146 39 185 Expected Count 167.6 17.4 185.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Probation Revoked 78.9% 21.1% 100.0%


Note: 410 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Outcome designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

114.062a 3 .00097.769 3 .000

53.042 1 .000

1396


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.




Recidivism within 0-2 Years andProbation Outcome

90.6 92.997.8

70.678.929.421.1

9.4 7.1 2.2

0102030405060708090

100

Expected


Sat. Discharge w/SAA Expungement


Probation Revoked

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND TYPE



Personal Recog. Actual Count 374 35 409 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0%

Bond Type

10% Cash Actual Count 713 66 779 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.5% 8.5% 100.0% Actual Count 232 29 261

Cash Actual Recidivism Rate 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%


Cash Surety Actual Recidivism Rate 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%

Denied Actual Count 34 5 39 Actual Recidivism Rate 87.2% 12.8% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1540 168 1708 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.2% 9.8% 100.0%

Note: 79 of the 1787 Cases did not have Bond Type designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

10.049a 5 .0749.339 5 .096

6.647 1 .010

1786


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND VIOLATION



No Violation Actual Count 1552 162 1714 Actual Recidivism Rate 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

Bond Violation

Alcohol Actual Count 8 3 11 Actual Recidivism Rate 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Actual Count 12 4 16

No Contact Clause Actual Recidivism Rate 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%


None Recorded Actual Recidivism Rate 77.8% 22.2% 100.0%



Chi-Square Tests

14.241a 3 .00310.747 3 .013

9.573 1 .002

1777


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT



No Actual Count 752 101 853Spouse Abuse Act Expected Count 768.5 84.5 853.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Spouse Abuse Act 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%


Actual Recidivism Rate for Spouse Abuse Act Recipients 94.6% 5.4% 100.0%

Total Actual Count 1278 131 1409 Expected Count 1278.0 131.0 1409.0 100.0%0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9%

Note: 378 of the 1787 cases did not have Spouse Abuse Act Designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

18.422a 2 .00020.363 2 .000

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.


INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSpouse Abuse Act

90.1 88.294.6

9.9 11.85.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected No SpouseAbuse Act

Spouse AbuseAct Recipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 0-2 YEARS


SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS

Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard

Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 1489 295.52 171.774 3.947 282.43 297.13 15 1715Yes 149 290.89 129.311 10.492 257.28 361.57 30 783

Total 1638 295.10 168.327 3.708 282.97 297.52 15 1715


Between Groups 2899.189 1 2899.189 .102 .749Within Groups 46380088 1636 28349.687 -- --

Total 46382987 1637 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Fi

nes

And

Cos

ts

300

275

250

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0







Actual Count 791 78 869Fines and Costs

0-250 Dollars Expected Count 790.0 79.0 869.0


Actual Recidivism Rate 0-250 Dollars 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%

251-500 Dollars Actual Count 580 59 639 Expected Count 580.9 58.1 639.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 251-500 Dollars 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%


501-750 Dollars







Actual Count 9 0 9 1000+ Dollars Expected Count 8.2 .8 9.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 1000+ Dollars 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED


Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 653 56.78 68.222 2.682 49.69 60.22 1 540Yes 98 56.19 51.386 5.191 45.89 66.50 1 365

Total 751 56.70 66.239 2.421 50.37 59.87 1 540



Total 3290752 750 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Ja

il Ti

me

Sent

ence

d, in

day

s

60.0

55.0

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0






Actual Count 323 42 365Jail Time Sentenced







61-90 Days





13.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 100.0%

100.0%Actual Recidivism Rate for 751-1000 Dollars 80.5% 19.5%





SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING



No Actual Count 1319 131 1450Electronic Monitoring Expected Count 1306.4 143.6 1450.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 91.0% 9.0% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 4 0 4 Expected Count 3.6 0.4 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1323 131 1454 Expected Count 1323.0 131.0 1454.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Electronic Monitoring designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

7.373a 2 .0257.242 2 .0271787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE



No Actual Count 1297 127 1424Community Service Expected Count 1283.0 141.0 1424.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% Yes 31Actual Count 26 5 Expected Count 27.9 3.1 31.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 83.9% 16.1% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1323 132 1455 Expected Count 1323.0 132.0 1455.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 8.9% 100.0%

Note: 332 of the 1787 Cases did not have Community Service designated in the database.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCommunity Service

90.1 91.1

83.9

9.9 8.9

16.1

70

80

90

100

Expected NoCommunity

Service

CommunityService

Recipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT



No Actual Count 1071 113 1184Substance Abuse Treatment Expected Count 1066.7 117.3 1184.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.5% 9.5% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 212 18 230 Expected Count 207.2 22.8 230.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 92.2% 7.8% Total Actual Count 1283 131 1414 Expected Count 1283.0 131.0 1414.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 373 of the 1787 cases did not have Substance Abuse Treatment designated in the database.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSubstance Abuse Treatment

90.1 90.5 92.29.9 9.5 7.8

0102030405060708090

100

Expected No SubstanceAbuse

Treatment

SubstanceAbuse

TreatmentRecipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING


Crosstab

No Yes Total No 905Actual Count 817 88 Individual

Counseling Expected Count 815.4 89.6 905.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.3% 9.7% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 483 43 526 Expected Count 473.9 52.1 526.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 91.8% 8.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1300 131 1431 Expected Count 1300.0 131.0 1431.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 356 of the 1787 cases did not have Individual Counseling designated in the database.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andIndividual Counseling

90.1 90.3 91.89.9 9.7 8.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected No IndividualCounseling

IndividualCounselingRecipients

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING



No Actual Count 1262 130 1392Couples Counseling Expected Count 1254.1 137.9 1392.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.7% 9.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 6 1 7 Expected Count 6.3 0.7 7.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1268 131 1399 1399.0Expected Count 1268.0 131.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%

Note: 388 of the 1787 cases did not have Couples Counseling designated in the database.

Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCouples Counseling

90.1 90.785.7

9.9 9.3 14.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected No CouplesCounseling

CouplesCounselingRecipients

Perc

ent

YesNo




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 1 0 13rd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 8 1 9


Actual Count 1 0 1


Actual Count 3 0 3


Actual Count 1 2 3

Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 33.3% 66.7% 3


Note: 13 of the 1787 cases did not have Third Probation Violation designated in the database.


VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 3-5 YEARS


SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER

Crosstab


No Yes Total Gender Female Actual Count 305 4 309 Expected Count 301.4 7.6 309.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Females 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% Male Actual Count 1436 40 1476 Expected Count 1439.6 36.4 1476.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Males 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%Total Count 1741 44 1785 Expected Count 1741.0 44.0 1738.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 2 of the 1787 cases did not have Gender designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

2.129b 1 .1441.581 1 .2092.482 1 .115

.163 .098

2.128 1 .145

1785

Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona

Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)

Exact Sig.(1-sided)

Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is7.62.

b.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER

Recidivism within 3-5 Years and Gender

97.5 98.7 97.3

2.5 1.3 2.7

0102030405060708090

100

Expected Female Male

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED



Domestic Violence Actual Count 1614 38 16521st Offense Expected Count 1611.3 40.7 1652.0

Type of Charges Filed Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

97.7% Actual Recidivism Rate for those Charged with Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2.3% 100.0%


Domestic Violence 2nd Offense Expected Count 112.2 2.8 115.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%


Domestic Violence 3rd Offense Expected Count 19.5 0.5 19.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%


Chi-Square Tests

13.282a 2 .0016.358 2 .042

6.159 1 .013

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED

Recidivism within 3-5 Yearsand Type of Charges Filed

97.5 97.7 97.4

85

15

2.5 2.3 2.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected DomesticViolence 1st

Offense

DomesticViolence 2nd

Offense

DomesticViolence 3rd

Offense

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD



Actual Count 827 9 836Criminal History

No Prior Criminal Record Expected Count 815.4 20.6 836.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for No Prior Criminal Record 98.9% 1.1% 100.0%


Prior Domestic Violence Convct. Expected Count 179.5 4.5 184.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Domestic Violence Charge 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%

Prior Misdemeanor Actual Count 611 21 632 Expected Count 616.4 15.6 632.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Misdemeanor 96.7% 3.3% 100.0%

Prior Felony Actual Count 128 7 135 Expected Count 131.7 3.3 135.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Felony 94.8% 5.2% 100.0%


Chi-Square Tests

14.181a 3 .00314.565 3 .002

12.328 1 .000

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)

SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD

Recidivism within 3-5 Yearsand Prior Criminal Record

97.5 98.9 96.2 96.7 94.8

2.5 3.8 3.3 5.21.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected

No Prior Criminal Record

Prior Domestic Violence Conviction

Prior Misdemeanor

Prior Felony

Perc

ent

YesNo




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION


3-5 Years No Yes Total Case Disposition Actual Count 928 30 958

Conviction by Guilty

Expected Count 934.4 23.6 958.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Guilty Plea 96.9% 3.1% 100.0%

Conviction by Trial Actual Count 81 2 83 Expected Count 81.0 2.0 83.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Trial 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%


Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence Charge Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge 95.9% 4.1% 100.0%


No Contest (Nolle Contendre) Expected Count 239.0 6.0 245.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for No Contest 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%


Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act) Expected Count 440.9 11.1 452.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Expungement 99.1% 0.9% 100.0%


Note: These numbers are adjusted to incorporate the Spouse Abuse Act Outcome numbers (page 22).

Chi-Square Tests

7.005a 4 .1368.284 4 .082

5.657 1 .017

1787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.


SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION

Recidivism within 3-5 Years andCase Disposition

97.5 96.9 95.9 97.6 97.6 99.12.4 0.93.12.5 4.1 2.4

0102030405060708090

100

Expected

Conviction by Guilty Plea

Plea to Lesser DV Charge

Conviction by Trial

No Contest

Expungement

Perc

ent

YesNo





Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 1419 10.36 4.139 .107 9.99 10.41 1 30Yes 32 13.31 10.717.231 1.278 15.92 2 36

Total 1451 10.0510.27 4.093 .109 10.48 1 36



Between Groups 273.301 1 273.301 15.281 .000Within Groups 25914.727 1449 17.885 -- --

Total 26188.028 1450 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Pr

obat

ion

Leng

th, i

n m

onth

s

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0






3-5 Years Yes Total No

Actual Count 408 7 415Probation Length,


Months Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%

98.3% 1.7% Actual Recidivism Rate 0-6 Months 100.0%

7-12 Months Actual Count 926 18 944 Expected Count 923.2 20.8 944.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%


Actual Count 25 1 26 Expected Count 25.4 .6 26.0

13-18 Months







Actual Count 3 1 4 25+ Months Expected Count 3.9 .1 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for 25+ Months 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%







Actual Count 603 18 621Probation Outcome

Satisfactory Discharge Expected Count 606.8 14.2 621.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Satisfactory Discharge 97.1% 2.9% 100.0%

Actual Count 448 4 452 Expected Count 460.2 10.8 471.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%

Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement Actual Recidivism Rate for Sat.

Discharge w/ SAA Expung. 99.2% 0.8% 100.0%


Unsatisfactory Discharge Expected Count 116.3 2.7 119.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Unsatisfactory Discharge 95.8% 4.2% 100.0%

Probation Revoked Actual Count 180 5 185 Expected Count 180.8 4.2 185.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Probation Revoked 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%


Note: 410 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Outcome designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

7.474a 3 .0588.382 3 .039

.000 1 .996

1396


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.




Recidivism within 3-5 Years andProbation Outcome

97.7 97.1 99.2 95.8 97.34.2 2.72.3 2.9 0.8

0102030405060708090

100

Expected


Satis. Discharge w/SAA Expungement


Probation Revoked

Perc

ent

YesNo



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND VIOLATION



No Violation Actual Count 1674 40 1714 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%

Bond Violation

Alcohol Actual Count 9 2 11 Actual Recidivism Rate 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Actual Count 15 1 16

No Contact Clause Actual Recidivism Rate 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%


None Recorded Actual Recidivism Rate 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%



Chi-Square Tests

12.338a 3 .0065.642 3 .130

.410 1 .522

1777


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT


3-5 Years Yes No Total

No Actual Count 826 27 853Spouse Abuse Act Expected Count 832.0 21.0 853.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Spouse Abuse Act 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%


Actual Recidivism Rate for Spouse Abuse Act Recipients 99.1% 0.9% 100.0%


Note: 378 of the 1787 cases did not have Spouse Abuse Act designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

8.210a 2 .0169.792 2 .0071787


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT

Recidivism within 3-5 Years andSpouse Abuse Act

97.5 96.8 99.12.5 3.2 0.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Expected No Spouse AbuseAct

Spouse Abuse ActRecipient

Perc

ent

YesNo



VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 3-5 YEARS



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE ETHNICITY


3-5 Years No Yes Total Race/Ethnicity White Actual Count 1269 30 1299 Expected Count 1266.3 32.7 1299.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Whites 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Black Actual Count 150 4 154 Expected Count 150.1 3.9 154.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Blacks 97.4% 2.6% 100.0% Hispanic Actual Count 251 9 260 Expected Count 253.5 6.5 260.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Hispanics 96.5% 3.5% 100.0% Asian Actual Count 31 1 32 Expected Count 31.2 0.8 32.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Asians 96.9% 3.1% 100.0% Other Actual Count 3 0 3 Expected Count 2.9 0.1 3.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Count 1704 44 1748 Expected Count 1704.0 44.0 1748.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 39 0f the 1787 cases did not have Race/Ethnicity designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)

Recidivism within

SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION

Crosstab 3-5 Years

No Yes Total Actual Count 52 0 52 Incident

Location Allendale Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Allendale Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Actual Count 11 0 11 Blendon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Blendon Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 11 0 11 Chester Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Chester Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 40 0 40 Coopersville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Coopersville City 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 37 0 37 Crockery Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Crockery Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 14 0 14 Ferrysburg City Actual Recidivism Rate for Ferrysburg City 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 75 3 78 Georgetown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Georgetown Township 96.2% 3.8% 100.0% Actual Count 75 4 79 Grand Haven City Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven City 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Actual Count 80 2 82 Grand Haven Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven Town. 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Actual Count 480 8 488 Holland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland City 98.4% 1.6% 100.0% Actual Count 440 16 456 Holland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland Township 96.5% 3.5% 100.0% Actual Count 19 1 20 Hudsonville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Hudsonville City 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Actual Count 6 6 0 Jamestown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Jamestown Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 2 38 Olive Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Olive Township 94.7% 5.3% 100.0% Actual Count 70 1 71 1.4% Park Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Park Township 98.6% 100.0% Actual Count 11 0 11 Polkton Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Polkton Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 18 0 18 Port Sheldon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Port Sheldon Town. 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 22 1 23 Robinson Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Robinson Township 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% Actual Count 85 1 86 Spring Lake Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Township 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% Actual Count 13 1 14 Spring Lake Village Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Village 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 28 0 28 Tallmadge Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Tallmadge Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 23 0 23 Wright Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Wright Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 43 3 46 Zeeland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland City 93.5% 6.5% 100.0% Actual Count 50 1 51 Zeeland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland Township 98.0% 2.0% 100.0% Total Actual Count 1743 44 1787 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%




Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 1600 294.76 168.583 3.747 282.43 297.13 15 1715Yes 38 309.42 158.644 25.735 257.28 361.57 90 760

Total 1638 295.10 168.327 3.708 282.97 297.52 15 1715



Total 46382987 1637 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Fi

nes

And

Cos

ts

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)

SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS



Actual Count 850 19 869Fines and Costs




251-500 Dollars Actual Count 625 14 639 Expected Count 624.2 14.8 639.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%


110Actual Count 106 4 Expected Count 107.4 2.6 110.0

501-750 Dollars




751-1000 Dollars Expected Count 10.7 .3 11.0



Actual Count 9 0 9 .2 1000+ Dollars Expected Count 8.8 9.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%






Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 727 56.16 65.136 2.415 49.76 59.25 1 540Yes 24 72.96 94.171 19.223 33.19 112.72 2 365

Total 751 56.70 66.239 2.421 50.37 59.87 1 540


Between Groups 6553.110 1 6553.110 1.495 .222Within Groups 3284198 749 4384.778 -- --

Total 3290752 750 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Ja

il Ti

me

Sent

ence

d, in

day

s

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0







Actual Count 354 11 365Jail Time Sentenced







61-90 Days









Total 751Actual Count 727 24 Expected Count 727.0 24.0 751.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%


SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED


Deviation Standard

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

No 513 30.99 44.681 1.973 29.03 32.95 1 540Yes 14 45.43 44.906 12.002 43.47 47.39 1 159

Total 527 31.37 44.704 1.947 29.41 33.33 1 540


Between Groups 2841.746 1 2841.746 1.423 .233

Within Groups 1048351.4 525 1996.860 -- --Total 1051193.1 526 -- -- --


YesNo

Mea

n Ja

il Ti

me

Serv

ed, i

n da

ys

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED



Actual Count 182 4 186Jail Time Served



Actual Recidivism Rate 0-7 Days 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%




16-23 Days








Actual Recidivism Rate for 32+ Days 96.4% 3.6% 100.0%




SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING



No Actual Count 1418 32 1450Electronic Monitoring Expected Count 1414.3 35.7 1450.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 4 0 4 Expected Count 3.9 0.1 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1422 32 1454 Expected Count 1422.0 32.0 1454.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Electronic Monitoring designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE



No Actual Count 1394 30 1424Community Service Expected Count 1388.9 35.1 1424.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.9% 2.1% Yes Actual Count 29 2 31 Expected Count 30.2 0.8 31.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 93.5% 6.5% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1423 32 1455 Expected Count 1423.0 32.0 1455.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 332 of the 1787 cases did not have Community Service designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE



Actual Count 1002 20 1022Probation Type

Traditional Probation Expected Count 996.8 25.2 1022.0


Actual Recidivism Rate for Traditional 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%


Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Intensively Supervised 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%


Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Type designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION



No Actual Count 1129 28 1157Non-Reporting Probation Expected Count 1128.5 28.5 1157.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 239 4 243 Expected Count 237.0 6.0 243.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 98.4% 1.6% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1368 32 1400 Expected Count 1368.0 32.0 1400.0 2.5% 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 100.0%

Note: 387 of the 1787 cases did not have Non-Reporting Probation designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)



No Actual Count 639 16 655Duluth Program (FVP) Expected Count 638.9 16.1 655.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Duluth Program 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%

Yes Actual Count 732 16 748 Expected Count 729.6 18.4 748.0 2.5% 100.0%Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5%

Actual Recidivism Rate for Duluth Program Recipients 97.9% 2.1% 100.0%

Total Actual Count 1371 32 1403 Expected Count 1371.0 32.0 1403.0 97.5% 2.5% 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 100.0%

Note: 384 of the 1787 cases did not have Duluth Program designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT



No Actual Count 1157 27 1184Substance Abuse Treatment Expected Count 1154.8 29.2 1184.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 225 5 230 Expected Count 224.3 5.7 230.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1382 32 1414 Expected Count 1382.0 32.0 1414.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 373 of the 1787 cases did not have Substance Abuse Treatment designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING



No Actual Count 885 20 905Individual Counseling Expected Count 882.7 22.3 905.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 514 12 526 Expected Count 513.0 13.0 526.0 97.5% Expected Recidivism Rate 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1399 32 1431 Expected Count 1399.0 32.0 1431.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 356 of the 1787 cases did not have Individual Counseling designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING

Crosstab


No Yes Total No Actual Count 1360 32 1392Couples

Counseling Expected Count 1357.7 34.3 1392.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 7 0 7 Expected Count 6.8 0.2 7.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1367 32 1399 Expected Count 1367.0 32.0 1399.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 388 of the 1787 cases did not have Couples Counseling designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION


3-5 Years No Yes Total Other Treatment No Actual Count 1353 32 1385 Expected Count 1350.9 34.1 1385.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Actual Recidivism Rate for No Other Treatment 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%


Actual Recidivism Rate for Other Treatment Recipients 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Note: 390 of the 1787 cases did not have Other Treatment designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 46 2 481st Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 16 1 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Actual Count 174 7 181






Actual Count 7 0 7







SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 16 1 172nd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 7 0 7 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 1 37


Actual Count 1 0 1




Actual Count 7 1 8





Note: 34 of the 1787 cases did not have 2nd Probation Violation designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION



New Offense Actual Count 1 0 13rd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Curfew Violation 1 Actual Count 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 9 0 9


Actual Count 1 0 1


Actual Count 3 0 3


Actual Count 3 0 3



Note: 13 of the 1787 cases did not have 3rd Probation Violation designated in the database.



SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION



Continue Probation Actual Count 11 1 12 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%

Sentence for 1st Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 34 1 35 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.1% 2.9% 100.0% Actual Count 3 1 4




Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 6 0 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 10Superseding Offense Actual Count 9 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 233 8 241 Actual Recidivism Rate 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 23 1 24 Actual Recidivism Rate 95.8% 4.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 358 14 372 100.0%3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 96.2% 3.8%

Crosstab

Note: 6 of the 378 cases did not have Sentence for 1st Probation Violation designated in the database.

SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION


No Yes Total Continue Probation Actual Count 2 1 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

Sentence for 2nd Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 34 2 36 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.4% 5.6% 100.0% Actual Count 7 0 7






SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND TYPE



Person Recog. Actual Count 401 8 409 Actual Recidivism Rate 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%

Bond Type

10% Cash Actual Count 758 21 779 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0% Actual Count 253 8 261

Cash Actual Recidivism Rate 96.9% 3.1% 100.0%


Cash Surety Actual Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%

Denied Actual Count 38 1 39 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1665 43 1708 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Note: 79 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Type designated in the database.

Chi-Square Tests

1.495a 5 .9141.590 5 .902

.001 1 .980

1786


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


Financial Analysis Overview

This section utilizes financial data to analyze the costs associated with the administration and implementation of various sentencing/treatment options that are used in domestic violence cases. This financial data was collected from the following County Departments: Finance, Accounting, Community Corrections, Sheriff, and District Court Probation. A comparison and analysis of the cost of each sentencing/treatment option and the corresponding recidivism rates for each option are included in this section.

Jail Time – The average cost of housing inmates in the jail has been $37 per day. This cost is also the amount that inmates have been billed for each day of incarceration in the jail. The collection rate for these charges is only 9%. The cost of administering this program increases on average 20.5% per year.

Traditional Probation – District Court Probation is responsible for administering Traditional

Probation. Traditional Probation requires offenders to report to a probation officer for regularly scheduled appointments. The probation officer ensures that the offender complies with the requirements of the probation order. The cost of administering this program averages $210.89 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Individuals sentenced to traditional probation are not required to pay any fees.

ISP Probation – ISP Probation is administered by Community Corrections. ISP Probation

consists of a higher than normal level of supervision due to the severity of the domestic violence offense, an inmate’s history of violent behavior, or the offender’s serious substance abuse problems. The cost to administer this program averages $933.70 annually per individual. These costs were calculated by dividing the general ledger expenses associated with the ISP Program (provided by Finance) by the number of ISP enrollees (provided by Community Corrections). This number was then multiplied by the number of domestic violence offenders in ISP. ISP probationers are required to pay $80 per month. The collection rate for these charges is 76%.

Non-reporting Probation – District Court Probation administers Non-reporting Probation. This

probation is used in cases where the offender is not considered to be a threat to society and/or the offender has moved out of the area. The cost to administer this program averages $16.68 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Non-reporting probationers are not required to pay any fees.

Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) – District Court Probation also administers the

Duluth Program. This therapy program consists of twenty-six weeks of group therapy and is designed to help offenders recognize their abusive and violent behavior while teaching them that the use of power and control tactics can lead to domestic violence. The cost to administer this program averages $12.48 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees charged for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.


Substance Abuse Treatment – District Court administers the Substance Abuse Treatment program. Treatment for substance abuse may include any of the following: outpatient counseling, intensive inpatient counseling, residential treatment, education, and enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Various agencies provide the actual treatment. The cost to administer this program averages $12.49 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.

Couples Counseling – District Court Probation administers Couples Counseling. The cost to

administer this program averages $12.32 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.

Individual Counseling –District Court Probation administers Individual Counseling. The cost

to administer this program averages $12.51 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The cost of this treatment is the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.

Youthful Intervention Program – The Youthful Intervention Program is administered by

Community Corrections. The cost to administer this program averages $1,219.70 annually per individual. These costs were calculated by dividing the general ledger expenses associated with the Youthful Intervention Program (provided by Finance) by the number of enrollees (provided by Community Corrections). This number was then multiplied by the number or domestic violence offenders in the program. The offenders in this program are required to pay one (1) day’s wages per week. The average collection rate on these charges is 61%.

Electronic Monitoring – District Court Probation administers Electronic Monitoring. The cost

to administer this program averages $50.24 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Probationers are required to pay $9 per day to have their device monitored by a private sector business.

Community Service – Community Service is administered by Community Corrections. The

cost to administer this program averages $178.69 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by Community Corrections) and salaries (provided by Finance). The offenders in this program are required to pay a one-time $35 Intake Fee. The average collection rate on these charges is 85%.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED

Annual Total Cost of Jail Time Served*

$58,035.00 $62,214.15

$103,587.12$119,184.52

$153,031.79

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

*Less fees collected.

Average Cost of Jail Time Served per Individual (Annually)*

$624.03

$797.62$924.89

$1,093.44 $1,133.57

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Annual Total Cost of Electronic Monitoring

$0.00 $0.00

$100.80 $100.16

$0.000

20

40

60

80

100

120

1995* 1996* 1997 1998 1999*Year

Dol

lars

*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during these years.

Average Cost of Electronic Monitoring per Individual (Annually)

$0.00 $0.00

$50.40 $50.08

$0.000

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995* 1996* 1997 1998 1999*Year

Dol

lars

*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during these years.


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE

Annual Total Cost of Community Service*

$1,244.30

$811.86

$536.16

$1,515.50$1,431.50

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars


Average Cost of Community Service per Individual (Annually)*

$124.43 $135.31

$178.72

$216.50

$286.30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: TRADITIONAL PROBATION

Annual Total Cost of Traditional Probation

$39,259.29 $41,023.72$44,081.38 $46,227.32 $44,936.34

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

Average Cost of Traditional Probation per Individual (Annually)

$267.07$238.51

$203.14

$172.49

$206.13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: ISP PROBATION

Annual Total Cost of ISP Probation*

$54,984.39$66,577.62

$87,100.74

$110,778.30$120,726.06

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars


Average Cost of ISP Probation per Individual (Annually)*

$591.23

$802.14

$978.66

$1,244.70

$1,547.77

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION

Annual Total Cost of Non-reporting Probation

$368.38

$799.76 $806.40

$1,252.00

$825.60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

Average Cost of Non-reporting Probation per Individual (Annually)

$16.02 $16.32 $16.80 $16.69 $17.20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM

Annual Total Cost of Duluth Program

$1,273.59

$1,750.32

$2,280.60$2,441.40

$1,586.70

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

Average Cost of Duluth Program per Individual (Annually)

$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

Annual Total Cost of Substance Abuse Treatment

$480.60 $501.84 $478.80

$638.52

$774.00

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

Average Cost of Substance Abuse Treatment per Individual (Annually)

$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING

Annual Total Cost of Individual Counseling

$1,021.28$918.00

$1,121.40

$1,815.40$1,702.80

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

Average Cost of Individual Counseling per Individual (Annually)

$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year

Dol

lars

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING

Annual Total Cost of Couples Counseling

$24.03

$36.72

$12.60

$0.00

$12.90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1995 1996 1997 1998* 1999Year

Dol

lars

*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.

Average Cost of Couples Counseling per Individual (Annually)

$12.02 $12.24 $12.60

$0.00

$12.90

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998* 1999Year

Dol

lars

*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: YOUTHFUL INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Annual Total Cost of Youthful Intervention Program*

$3,434.16

$2,735.04 $2,601.44

$0.00

$2,994.67

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 1996 1997 1998** 1999Year

Dol

lars

*Less fees collected. **None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year

Average Cost of Youthful Intervention Program per Individual (Annually)*

$1,144.72

$1,367.52 $1,300.72

$0.00

$1,497.34

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1995 1996 1997 1998** 1999Year

Dol

lars

*Less fees collected. **None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.


FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

SECTION: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Average Annual Cost per Sentencing/Treatment Option*

$99,210.52

$100.48 $1,107.86

$61,200.28

$80,672.09

$810.43 $1,866.52 $574.75 $1,315.78 $21.56$2,744.32

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Jail

Elec

troni

c M

onito

ring

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ce

Trad

ition

al P

roba

tion

ISP

Prob

atio

n

Non

-repo

rting

Prob

atio

n

Dul

uth

Prog

ram

Subs

tanc

e Ab

use

Trea

tmen

t

Indi

vidu

al C

ouns

elin

g

Cou

ples

Cou

nsel

ing

Yout

hful

Inte

rven

tion

Prog

ram

Dol

lars



FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


Average Cost per Sentencing/Treatment Option per Individual*

$941.28

$50.24

$178.69$210.89

$933.70

$16.68 $12.48 $12.49 $12.51 $12.32

$1,219.70

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Jail

Elec

troni

c M

onito

ring

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ce

Trad

ition

al P

roba

tion

ISP

Prob

atio

n

Non

-repo

rting

Prob

atio

n

Dul

uth

Prog

ram

Subs

tanc

e Ab

use

Trea

tmen

t

Indi

vidu

al C

ouns

elin

g

Cou

ples

Cou

nsel

ing

Yout

hful

Inte

rven

tion

Prog

ram

Dol

lars




FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


*The individual costs of these treatment options vary based on from where the individual chooses to receive treatment. **This column is presented to compare most recent year (1999) average costs against the 5-year average cost.

Sentence/ Treatment

Recidivism Rate (0-2

Years)

Variance from Overall

Average Recidivism

Rate of 9.8%

Total Number of Individuals

Participating (5 Years)

Cost to Participating

Individual

Five Year Total Cost of Sentencing/ Treatment

Option

Five Year Total Cost Less Fees Collected

Average (5-Year)

Total Cost per

Individual Less Fees Collected

Average (1999) Cost

per Individual Less Fees

Collected**

Jail Time Served 15.2% +5.4% 527 $40 per day $545,112.99 $496,052.58 $941.28 $1,245.68

Traditional Probation 7.9% -1.9% 1021 $0 $215,318.69 $215,318.69 $210.89 $206.13

ISP Probation 11.6% +1.8% 432 $80 per month $730,995.62 $403,360.47 $933.70 $1,547.77

Non-reporting Probation

5.3% -4.5% 243 $0 $4,052.14 $4,052.14 $16.68 $17.20

Duluth Program 10.7% +0.9 748 $570 $9,332.61 $9,332.61 $12.48 $12.90

Substance Abuse Treatment

7.8% -2.0% 230 N/A* $2,873.76 $2,873.76 $12.49 $12.90

Couples Counseling 14.3% +4.5% 7 N/A* $86.25 $86.25 $12.32 $12.90

Individual Counseling 8.2% -1.6% 526 N/A* $12.90 $6,578.88 $6,578.88 $12.51

Youthful Intervention Program

33.3% +23.5% 9 1 day’s wages per week $11,765.31 $10,977.27 $1,219.70 $1,103.31

Electronic Monitoring 0.0% -9.8% 4 $9 per day $200.96 $200.96 $50.24 $51.60

Community Service 16.1% +6.3% 31 $35 $6,622.29 $5,539.31 $178.69 $286.30

Total $1,532,939.50 $1,110,746.12

CONCLUSION


Conclusion This evaluation is the culmination of many months of strategic planning, staff training, workflow analysis, research, database development, data collection, statistical analysis, and collaboration between several agencies and departments. The data and conclusions that result from this study will likely be used to verify information about domestic violence in Ottawa County that was previously assumed - but not documented - and provide new information about domestic violence that was not previously known. The data will allow County agencies and departments to analyze their services and activities in greater detail than ever before. The data will also provide a “point-in-time” or “benchmark” measurement that can be used in forthcoming analyses to determine the impact that future program, policy, or procedural modifications have on recidivism rates.

Other ancillary benefits that have resulted from this study include a greater knowledge of data collection, input, maintenance, and storage for criminal justice related programs. This knowledge will assist in the development of databases as future programs are initiated. Additionally, this knowledge will assist in developing a model for future program evaluations. This model will incorporate criteria for organizational flow-chart development, guidelines for goal setting, standards for quantitative measurements, and principles for statistical analysis.

Overall, this report verifies that the legal system has done an exceptional job of managing domestic violence cases. As a rule, the legal system appropriately selects programs and sentences for individual offenders and their varying levels of offense. Ottawa County is also to be commended for the multitude of sentencing and treatment options that are provided. Several specific recommendations regarding the domestic violence programs reviewed in this study have been developed. These recommendations are as follows:

Data Recommendations

1) The following “fields” should be added to law enforcement reporting forms: a) A field to denote whether a charge or arrest is related to a domestic violence

situation…even if the arrest does not result in a formal “Domestic Violence” charge. b) A field to denote the address of the incident. This would permit the locations to be

plotted in the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS). 2)

a)

The following recommendations are related to the County’s Criminal Justice Users System (CJUS) database:

Several “fields” should be added to the database. The “fields” are as follows: Bond Type, Bond Category, Age Category, Fines and Costs Category, Jail Time Sentenced Category, Jail Time Served Category, Probation Length Category, Spouse Abuse Act Outcome, Charges Filed (1st, 2nd, 3rd offense), Outcome of Case, Counseling Received, and Monetary Restitution. These fields will allow for greater scrutiny of the data.

b) Data entry procedures should be developed to ensure that all relevant data for domestic violence offenses is entered into the CJUS for every domestic violence case. The following database fields had incompletion rates that ranged from 2.4% to 56.9%: Dismissal Reason (56.9% - A policy change was instituted in 2000 to correct


this problem); Third Probation Violation (41.9%); Second Probation Violation (25%); Probation Outcome (3.8%); Race/Ethnicity (2.4%).

c) Data entry procedures should also be standardized for offenders who successfully complete probation for Spouse Abuse Act (SAA). For instance, the Holland Court enters these cases as “dismissal”, the Grand Haven Court enters them as “convictions”, and the Hudsonville Court lists them as “guilty”. All entries should be listed as “expungement”.

d) Data-entry procedures should also require that a “Yes” or “No” entry be recorded for each data “field” related to treatment and sentencing. These “fields” are used to indicate which programs/sentencing options are “ordered” for each offender. Under the current procedures, data processing clerks only enter “Yes” to indicate that an offender was ordered to receive a particular treatment. It is necessary to also enter a “No” for every offender that does not receive a particular treatment option. Otherwise, it is not possible to determine whether a blank field indicates a “No” or if it indicates that no entry was recorded.

e) A drop-down menu with “entry choices” should be created for the CJUS to ensure that data entry is uniform, reliable, and complete among all courts and data processing clerks.

f) Changes or enhancements to the Criminal Justice Users System or other County databases should be reviewed by the Planning and Grants Department to ensure, whenever possible, that new database designs optimize the ability to conduct evaluations.

3) A reporting system should be created to ensure that all changes to programs, policies, and/or procedures related to domestic violence are reported to the Planning and Grants Department. This information will be reflected and reported in future domestic violence studies.

Program Recommendations 1)

2)

3)

A basic “psychological profile” should be developed for each offender. This information will assist in determining which treatment/sentencing practices have the most impact on recidivism rates for specific psychological profiles. One of two “evaluation processes” should be implemented to assist in pinpointing cause-and-effect relationships between sentencing/treatment options and future recidivism rates. The first option would be to utilize a “Trial and Error” process over several years to associate changes in recidivism rates with sentencing/treatment options that change during a specified time period. The second option would be to utilize a “design of experiment” process. This process would assign varying combinations of sentencing/treatment options to each psychological profile category until an optimal (least) recidivism rate is achieved. This process would be conducted in the least amount of time and would provide the highest degree of reliability. Sentencing/treatment programs that exhibit recidivism rates higher than the average recidivism rate (9.9%) should be analyzed to determine if they should be modified, replaced, or eliminated. For instance, it would be beneficial to analyze if some offenders who are sentenced to jail could be sentenced to other options (or combination of options) to reduce recidivism rates and lower costs. Also, it may be advantageous to investigate whether it is possible to have certain offenders who are typically sentenced to ISP Probation report to Traditional Probation Officers multiple times per week. This process of analysis will simply promote strategic thinking that will help determine whether current sentencing practices provide optimal (least) recidivism rates. In any case, it would be preferable to use one of the above mentioned “evaluation processes” (See Program Recommendation 2) to determine if variations in reatment/sentencing could improve the recidivism rate and/or lower costs


4) Programs that exhibit recidivism rates lower than the average recidivism rate (9.9%) should be analyzed to determine if there is any merit in expanding the utilization of these sentencing/treatment options. For instance, it may be worthwhile to investigate whether there is merit in expanding the use of Electronic Monitoring since it had no recidivism (but only four participants) and is proven to be cost-effective. Although the conclusions of such an analysis may prove that “expansion” is unwarranted, the process in and of itself encourages further discussion and innovative ideas that may have not otherwise been considered. Again, it would be preferable to use one of the above mentioned “evaluation processes” (See Program Recommendation 2) to determine if variations in treatment/sentencing could improve the recidivism rate and/or lower costs

5) Education, prevention, and outreach agencies should review the data trends associated with “Age”, “Gender”, “Ethnicity”, “Seasonal Occurrences”, and “Geographic Locations” to ensure that future funding for education, prevention, and outreach activities are utilized most efficiently and effectively.

6) Law enforcement and Prosecuting Attorney agencies should utilize the “Charge”, “Case Disposition”, and “Conviction” data to review the effectiveness and validity of their arrest procedures and prosecutorial strategies.

7) Courts and Community Corrections should utilize the data regarding “Sentencing”, Recidivism”, “Bond”, and “Probation Outcomes” to review the effectiveness of their sentencing and program practices.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Domestic Violence Database Key

Variables Included in Domestic Evaluation Database

Age Gender M = Male F = Female Race/Ethnicity 0 = White 1 = Black 2 = Hispanic 3 = Asian 4 = Other Incident Date Incident Location 1 = City of Coopersville 2 = City of Ferrysburg 3 = City of Grand Haven 4 = City of Holland 5 = City of Hudsonville 6 = City of Zeeland 7 = Village of Spring Lake 8 = Allendale Township 9 = Blendon Township 10 = Chester Township 11 = Crockery Township 12 = Georgetown Township 13 = Grand Haven Township 14 = Holland Township 15 = Jamestown Township 16 = Olive Township 17 = Park Township 18 = Polkton Township 19 = Port Sheldon Township 20 = Robinson Township 21 = Spring Lake Township 22 = Tallmadge Township 23 = Wright Township 24 = Zeeland Township Charges Filed 1 = Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2 = Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 3 = Domestic Violence 3rd Offense Prior Criminal Record 1 = No Prior Criminal Record 2 = Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 3 = Prior Misdemeanor 4 = Prior Felony Bond Level Dollar amount

Bond Violation1 = No Violation 2 = Alcohol 3 = Drugs 4 = No Contact Clause 5 = Assaultive Behavior 6 = Possession of Weapon 7 = Change of Address 8 = None Recorded Bond Type 1 = Personal Recognizance 2 = 10% Cash 3 = Cash 4 = Cash Surety 5 = None 6 = Denied Bond Range 1 = 0-500 2 = 501-1500 3 = 1501-5000 4 = 5001-10000 5 = 10001-25000 Case Disposition1 = Conviction by Guilty Plea 2 = Conviction by Trial 3 = Plea to Another Charge 4 = Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence

Charge 5 = No Contest 6 = Acquittal 7 = Dismissal Dismissal Reason 1 = Dismissal if no criminal violations for

set period 2 = Victim Request 3 = Victim failed to appear for court 4 = Victim Recantation 5 = Prosecutor Motion after Victim Testimony 6 = Subpoena/Witness Problems 7 = Best Interest of Justice 8 = Insufficient Evidence 9 = No Reason Given/Unknown Fines and CostsDollar amount

Fines and Costs, Range 1 = 0-250 2 = 251-500 3 = 501-750 4 = 751-1000 5 = 1000+ Jail Time (Sentenced)Length in days Jail Time Sentenced, Range 1 = 0-30 2 = 31-60 3 = 61-90 4 = 91-120 5 = 121+ Jail Time (Served)Number of days Jail Time Served, Range 1 = 0-7 2 = 8-15 3 = 16-23 4 = 24-31 5 = 32+ Probation Length Number of months Probation Length, Range 1 = 0-6 2 = 7-12 3 = 13-18 4 = 19-24 5 = 25+ Electronic Monitoring Y = Yes N = No Community Service Y = Yes N = No Traditional Probation Y = Yes N = No Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Y = Yes N = No


Appendix A

Domestic Violence Database Key

Variables Included in Domestic Evaluation Database

Spouse Abuse Act Y = Yes N = No Fines and Costs Only Y = Yes N = No Non-Reporting Y = Yes N = No Duluth Program (FVP) Y = Yes N = No Substance Abuse Treatment Y = Yes N = No Individual Counseling Y = Yes N = No Couples Counseling Y = Yes N = No Other Treatment Y = Yes N = No Probation Violation (PV) #1 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Probation Violation (PV) #2 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs

Probation Violation (PV) #3 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Secondary Sentencing for PV #11 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Secondary Sentencing for PV #21 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Secondary Sentencing for PV #31 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Probation Outcome1 = Satisfactory Discharge 2 = Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse

Abuse Act Expungement 3 = Unsatisfactory Discharge 4 = Probation Revoked

0-2 Year Recidivism 0 = Yes 1 = No 3-5 Year Recidivism 0 = Yes 1 = No


APPENDIX B

Date post:	18-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Domestic Violence Evaluation - miOttawa

Documents