Volume 5 • Number 2 CASELOAD HIGHLIGHTS EXAMINING THE WORK OF STATE COURTS

Tracking and Understanding Family Caseloads

Domestic violence is one of obstacle impeding these typically impose on offend- Furthermore, state courts the most significant issues efforts, however, is a gen- ers convicted of family have been hampered in their state courts face today, and eral lack of accurate and violence crimes? How do efforts to assess the effec- cases are sufficiently detailed data on family violence caseloads tiveness of resources allo- a large and rising portion of family violence caseloads. compare across the states, cated to reducing family the domestic relations The courts’ inability to track and do caseload trends indi- violence, demonstrate the caseload in state courts.1 the incidents of family vio- cate the effects of the nu- need for legislative support State court leaders conse- lence from filing through merous and diverse state and grant funds for family quently are striving to de- post-adjudication leaves and federal initiatives to violence initiatives, and vise effective responses to many basic questions unan- address family violence? implement effective case family violence and its im- swered. For example, how management systems. pact on case management many felony family vio- This issue of Caseload and adjudication. A major lence, misdemeanor family Highlights introduces the The Family Violence Data violence, and protection Family Violence Data Re- Reporting Prototype ad-

1 Brian J. Ostrom and Neal B. Kauder order cases are filed in trial porting Prototype, which dresses these problems by (eds.), Examining the Work of State courts annually, and how are proposing a minimum set of Courts, 1997: A National Perspective was conceived by the Court from the Court Statistics Project these cases disposed? What Statistics Project (CSP)2 as four categories of family (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1998), p. 39. types of sanctions do judges a tool for state courts to use violence cases: felony do- in identifying, classifying, mestic violence, misde- counting, and reporting meanor domestic violence, civil protection orders, and Family Violence Data Reporting Prototype: family violence cases. The civil claims. For courts that Definition of Family Violence need for a data reporting prototype emerged when the are better able to distinguish Family violence means the occurrence of an act of vio- rising volume of family the details of domestic vio- lence, coercion, or by a family or household violence cases was being lence cases, the prototype member against another household or family member that reported to the CSP in over outlines subcategories for could result in the filing of felony or misdemeanor charges, 20 different categories. This each of the four main cat- the issuance of a civil protection order, or an action for lack of clear and coherent egories. For example, the civil damages. Family or household members include: reporting has severely im- subcategories for felony and (a) persons who are current or former spouses; (b) persons peded the CSP’s ability to misdemeanor family vio- who are intimate partners who live together or who have track and analyze family lence cases are homicide lived together; (c) persons who are dating or who have violence caseload trends (felony only), physical as- dated; (d) persons who are engaged in or who have en- over time or to compare sault, sexual assault, prop- gaged in a sexual relationship; (e) persons who are related caseloads across states. erty crimes, and . by blood or adoption; (f) persons who are related or for- The prototype also includes merly related by marriage; (g) persons who have a child in sections for reporting infor- common; and (h) minor children of a person in a relation- 2 A principal goal of the Court Statistics mation on the manner of ship that is described in paragraphs (a) through (g). Project (CSP) is to overcome data collec- tion problems by promulgating nationally case disposition, trial out- accepted terms and definitions that make statistics uniform and comparable. comes, and sentencing.

National Center for State Courts Brian J. Ostrom, Project Director • Susan Keilitz, Ann M. Jones, and Brian J. Ostrom, Authors April 1999 Tracking and Understanding Family Violence Caseloads

▼ of definitions and data ele- a family violence physical experts and practitioners; 5 National Initiatives to ments for the surveillance of assault may potentially be a comprehensive review Measure Family Violence family violence.3 linked with many interrelated of state statutes relating to Family violence has implica- cases, including felony family violence; and a sur- Few state courts currently tions for many fields of charges, civil protection or- vey of 18 courts. have the capacity to collect criminal justice, social wel- ders, divorce filings, and data on specific types of fare, health care, victim ad- petitions for child custody, family violence cases (e.g., vocacy, and community ser- child support, dependency, ▼ New Jersey, Washington, and Testing the Family vices. The courts are begin- and juvenile delinquency. Florida), but as this Caseload Violence Data ning to catch up with law Therefore, depending on the Highlights reveals, this situa- Reporting Prototype enforcement, prosecution, individual court’s classifica- tion is improving. However, and social services in devel- tion strategy, a case involving The prototype was pilot greater availability and com- oping ways to identify, clas- family violence may be tested for six months in 1998 parability of family violence sify, and count incidents of counted multiple times as to gain a better understanding information from the state family violence. For ex- civil, criminal, and/or juve- of the current availability of courts will be critical to the ample, for the past decade nile cases. family violence data in state success of the national move- law enforcement agencies courts and the ability of ment to explore and address The challenge in developing have been moving toward courts to report this data. issues of family violence the Family Violence Data standardized local and state Demonstration courts were through multiple perspectives. Reporting Prototype was to Incidence-Based Reporting recruited randomly and se- present a clear, informed, and (IBR) systems and participa- lected primarily on their inclusive definition of family tion in the National Incident- willingness to test the proto- ▼ violence 4 while offering a Based Reporting System. type. A basic premise of the Developing the Family flexible classification and These IBR systems capture demonstration test was that Violence Data Reporting reporting model that can be individual case characteris- Prototype court structure and automated adjusted to accommodate tics that can be used to iden- system constraints would individual state statutes and tify family violence offenses Implementing an instrument limit the number of courts address the evolving needs and other victim and offender such as the Family Violence that could collect data for all and capabilities of state information that can be criti- Data Reporting Prototype is of the reporting categories. courts across the country. cal for successfully prosecut- difficult because of the wide Major impediments to full The prototype was developed ing and appropriately adjudi- variation among courts on a reporting by the individual to meet this challenge using cating family violence cases. number of relevant factors, courts included the lack of the expert opinion of the Like the courts, the health including the scope and re- jurisdiction for all of the case Conference of State Court care system is a relative new- finement of automated data types in the prototype, the Administrators Court Statis- comer to measuring family systems, jurisdiction over jurisdiction of more than one tics Committee and an advi- violence. The Centers for family violence cases, and court or division over the sory committee of court man- Disease Control, the National the types of crime or actions same case types, the lack of agers and domestic violence Institute of Health, and the defined or identified as fam- integration of the data from National Institute of Justice ily violence. In addition, each court or division, and family violence cases rarely 4 Child dependency cases are not included recently have been partner- in the definition of family violence, but conform to traditional, non- criminal and neglect cases are ing to promote data collec- 5 included. The members of the advisory committee tion and analysis from clini- overlapping case classifica- were Sharon Denaro, Domestic Violence Project Manager, Superior Court for the cal studies of family vio- tion strategies. For example, District of Columbia; Daniel J. Hall, Direc- tor of Planning & Analysis, Colorado lence and the standardization Judicial Department; Barbara J. Hart, Associate Director, Battered Women’s 3 The Family and Intimate Violence Justice Project; Jennifer Juhler, Domestic Prevention Team (FIVPT) has defined and Abuse Intervention Coordinator, State of pilot tested a minimum set of data elements Iowa; Howard P. Schwartz, Judicial Admin- needed for surveillance of intimate partner istrator, State of Kansas; and Linda Saltzman violence. For more information, see the (liaison), Centers for Disease Control. FIVPT’s Web site at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/ dvp/fivpt/fivpt.htm. the inability of the case infor- utility of the prototype and ings, but may not be able to these 12 courts reflects the mation system to distinguish their suggestions for improv- distinguish misdemeanor drill-down design of the proto- the case types in the proto- ing it. All but one of the family violence cases in the type. Moreover, the inconsis- type or capture the event or courts reported that the pro- general misdemeanor case- tencies in the data underscore outcome data it specifies. totype was easy to under- load. Case information sys- the challenges many courts stand, sufficiently compre- tems that can identify and face in tracking family vio- 6 Twelve courts ultimately hensive, and useful for col- count more detailed data can lence caseloads that led to the were able to use the proto- lecting family violence case use the prototype to report development of the prototype. type to provide at least some data. Most of the demonstra- not only misdemeanor family data during the reporting tion courts also indicated that violence filings, but also period of January 1, 1998, to the prototype was useful in filings and dispositions by June 30, 1998. To collect data ▼ selecting elements to be in- type of misdemeanor, manner Filings for the prototype reporting cluded in a data collection of disposition, and sentenc- categories, three courts ac- system, designing data re- ing outcomes. Courts with Each of the 12 demonstration cessed data solely from auto- porting forms, and reporting this level of data system courts was able to provide mated systems, seven courts family violence case data. development can examine filing data for at least one of utilized data from both auto- The demonstration courts and analyze more meaning- the main case categories mated systems and case files, also recommended revisions fully the dynamics of the (Table 1). Boulder, Seattle, and two collected all of the to the prototype to clarify family violence caseload and Miami collected filing data manually from case files. terminology, provide addi- and its impact on court work- data for felonies, misdemean- Three-quarters of the demon- tional examples of terms, and load and case outcomes. ors, and protection orders. stration courts indicated that refine some case type and Only a few courts could pro- changes in their established other reporting categories. Tables 1-5 present family vide complete, detailed infor- data collection procedures violence data provided by mation on filings for specific were necessary to report the the demonstration courts on case types. For example, data included in the proto- filings, dispositions, and sen- Boulder reported filings for type’s categories and subcat- ▼ Family Violence Data tencing outcomes. The varia- each of the prototype felony egories. The difficulties of Collected During the tion in the type and level of subcategories (homicide, tracking data across various Demonstration of the data collected and reported by sources using different col- Prototype lection methods are demon- By outlining the basic case strated by incomplete or Table 1: Family Violence Case Filings, January- June 1998 inconsistent data for some of type categories (felony, mis- the more detailed prototype demeanor, and civil) and the Felony Misdemeanor Protection Orders categories, such as manner of breakdown of associated Boulder, CO 107 476 227 1 disposition and sentencing subcategories of case types Seattle, WA 272 127 2,513 Miami, FL2 1,213 3,215 5,225 outcomes (see Tables 4 and 5). and outcomes, the prototype Santa Ana, CA 57 199 offers a “drill-down” design Wilmington, DE 2,646 1,275 that accommodates the vari- 3 As the pilot project came to Tampa, FL 2,407 2,808 ous levels of court data sys- 3 a close, the demonstration Wailuku, HI 262 331 Hillsboro, OR 3, 4 44 315 courts were surveyed to so- tem development. For ex- ample, courts with less re- Ventura, CA 3, 5 363 708 licit their opinions about the San Francisco, CA 267 fined data collection systems Fort Lauderdale, FL 3,189 6 Boulder, Colorado; Fort Lauderdale, may be able to use the proto- Norristown, PA 741 Florida; Santa Ana, California; Norristown, type to report the total num- Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; 1 Miami, Florida; Wailuku, Hawaii; Tampa, Felony filings are missing January data. ber of protection order fil- 2 Florida; Hillsboro, Oregon (two months Felony and misdemeanor filings are missing June data. only); Ventura, California; Seattle, 3 Misdemeanors include family violence physical assaults only. Washington; and Wilmington, Delaware. 4 Data are for January and February only. 5 Protection orders include protection from harassment involving violence. physical assault, sexual as- ▼ Table 3: Protection Orders Issued, January-June 1998 Dispositions and sault, property crime, and Sentencing Boulder Seattle Miami Wailuku stalking) (Table 2). Temporary 123 1,718 3,970 214 Over half of the demonstration Final 104 795 1,255 117 Filing data were more com- courts were able to collect Total 227 2,513 5,225 331 monly available for misde- some disposition data. Boul- meanor cases and protection der, Seattle, Miami, and Boulder, Seattle, Miami, Tam- structure to allow a more orders than for felony cases. Wailuku provided a breakdown pa, Wailuku, Ventura, and complete view of the adjudi- All of the ten courts with of temporary and final protec- Hillsboro supplied data on cation process and to assess jurisdiction for misdemean- tion orders granted (Table 3).7 the manner of disposition for court workloads. ors reported misdemeanor These data indicate a wide felony and/or misdemeanor filings, and ten of the eleven disparity across these four cases (Table 4). Most of these 7 courts with jurisdiction for Three courts (Delaware, Miami, and courts in the proportions of cases are resolved by plea Wailuku) reported some type of informa- protection orders reported tion on trial outcomes for protection order temporary orders that result (guilty or nolo contendre).8 hearings and/or manner of disposition. protection order filings. In However, the data varied too greatly across in a final protection order. Six of these seven courts also contrast, only half of the courts to present comparisons. These proportions range from reported data on sentencing eight courts with jurisdiction 8 In Miami and Tampa, a significant number a high of 85 percent in Boulder, outcomes for felony and/or of cases are disposed by diversion to a treat- for felony cases reported which is uncommonly high, misdemeanor cases (Table 5). ment program offered primarily to first- felony filings. This experi- time offenders. The nolle pros category in to a low of 32 percent in Mi- This level of detail capitalizes Miami and Tampa includes the cases of ence indicates that the proto- offenders who successfully complete the ami, which is not uncommon on the drill-down nature of diversion program as well as prosecutor type may be more useful dismissals. for a large jurisdiction. the prototype’s content and initially for reporting misde- meanor family violence cases and protection order cases. Table 4: Dispositions for Criminal Family Violence Cases, January-June 1998

Boulder Seattle1 Miami2 Tampa3 Wailuku 3 Ventura3 Hillsboro 3, 4

Table 2: Felony Misd. Felony Misd. Felony Misd. Misd. Misd. Misd. Misd. Criminal Family Violence Filings for Boulder, Colorado, Dismissed 4 145 10 5 1 33 15 5 16 3 January-June 1998 Guilty plea/stipula- tion/nolo plea 4 181 159 135 738 587 1,030 82 187 16 Felony Misdemeanor Diversion/discharge/ Homicide 1 N/A conditional discharge 0 0 1 0 103 673 587 0 1 15 Physical Assault 71 456 Nolle pros N/A N/A N/A N/A 132 1,723 473 52 N/A N/A Sexual Other 1 1 0 0 204 6 51 0 0 1 Assault 11 4 Property Total dispositions 8 327 170 140 2,177 3,022 2,156 139 204 35 Crime 18 16 1 Felony dispositions are missing January data. 3 Misdemeanors include family violence physical assaults only. Stalking 6 0 2 Felony and misdemeanor dispositions are missing June data. 4 Data are for January and February only. Total 107 476

Table 5: Criminal Family Violence Cases by Type of Sentence, January-June 1998

Boulder Seattle1 Miami 2 Tampa3 Wailuku 3 Ventura 3 Felony Misd. Felony Misd. Felony Misd. Misd. Misd. Misd.

Probation 4 131 2 1 414 552 671 1 12 Probation with incarceration 5 71 124 117 147 68 31 92 155 Incarceration 0 32 31 14 190 62 372 12 9

1 Felony figures are missing January data. 3 Misdemeanors include family violence physical assaults only. 2 Felony and misdemeanor figures are missing June data. The Family Violence Data Reporting Prototype

Definition of Family Violence Family violence means the occurrence of an act of violence, coercion, or intimidation by a family or household member against another household or family member that could result in the filing of felony or misdemeanor charges, the issuance of a civil protection order, or an action for civil damages. Family or household members include: (a) persons who are current or former spouses; (b) persons who are intimate partners who live together or who have lived together; (c) persons who are dating or who have dated; (d) persons who are engaged in or who have engaged in a sexual relationship; (e) persons who are related by blood or adoption; (f) persons who are related or formerly related by marriage; (g) persons who have a child in common; and (h) minor children of a person in a relationship that is described in paragraphs (a) through (g).

Case Type Categories and • Simple assault Manner of Disposition Trial Outcomes Subcategories • Criminal/malicious mischief Report separately for felonies • Terrorist threats Case types listed are examples of and misdemeanors. Criminal case types that typically are in- • Disorderly conduct cluded in the main category (e.g., • Violation of protection • Jury trial conviction felony family violence) and the order Criminal • Jury trial acquittal subcategory (e.g., homicide). • Harassment • Jury • Plea after jury trial • Unlawful restraint • Non-jury commenced Felony Family Violence • Menacing/threatening • Dismissed • Bench trial conviction • Guilty plea/stipulation/nolo • Bench trial acquittal 1. Homicide 2. Sexual Assault contendre • Plea after bench trial • Homicide • Criminal sexual conduct • Guilty plea/deferred sentence commenced • Manslaughter • Offensive touching • Diversion/discharge • Attempted homicide 3. Property Crimes • Diversion/conditional Protection Orders • Negligent manslaughter • Criminal trespass/ discharge • Order granted/contested 2. Physical Assault unlawful entry • Nolle pros • Order granted/uncontested • Assault with a weapon • Motor vehicle theft • Bind down to misdemeanor • Order granted/by consent • Kidnapping/abduction • Burglary/breaking and • Other (e.g., transfer) • Order extended • Assault with serious injuries entering • Order denied • Enhancements to a felony • Possession of a firearm Protection Orders • Dismissed for repeated misdemeanors • Embezzlement • Contempt found • False imprisonment/ • Forgery • Emergency proceeding • Contempt not found unlawful imprisonment • Property damage/vandalism • Temporary hearing • Robbery • Extortion • Final/full hearing • Theft/larceny • Default Civil Claims 3. Sexual Assault • Firearms violation • Dismissed • Rape • Jury verdict/plaintiff • Sodomy 4. Stalking • Jury verdict/defendant Civil Damages • Attempted rape • Stalking • Bench verdict/plaintiff • Enhancements to a felony • Jury • Bench verdict/defendant for repeated misdemeanors Protection Orders • Non-jury • Sexual assault • Temporary protection order • Arbitration 4. Property Crimes petition • Settled • Arson • Emergency protection • Dismissed • Firearms violation order petition • Default Sentencing Types • Attempted arson • Final protection order petition • Transferred • Enhancements to a felony • Motion for extension of a • Other for repeated misdemeanors protection order • Probation* • Burglary/breaking and • Motion for modification of • Probation with incarceration entering a protection order • Incarceration • Robbery • Civil contempt motion • Criminal contempt motion 5. Stalking * This category assumes proba- • Stalking tion is subject to some conditions. Civil Claims Misdemeanor Family Violence • Civil damages/ 1. Physical Assault intentional tort • Assault/domestic assault • • Reckless endangerment Act civil rights claim • Breach of peace • Property damage Conclusion

The outcomes of the demon- totype therefore should be violence data. It also offers competent case manage- stration of the Family Vio- useful both as a guide for a foundation for developing ment systems, and inform- lence Data Reporting Proto- reporting family violence a state court model statisti- ing the creation and eval- type indicate that the proto- data currently available and cal reporting dictionary uation of effective court type is a viable tool for state as a tool for designing or for family violence cases. initiatives to reduce courts to use in identifying, revising data collection Finally, the drill-down family violence. classifying, counting, and systems for family vio- characteristics of the proto- reporting family violence lence cases. Second, the type demonstrate signifi- The development of the Family cases. First, the prototype prototype provides a stan- cant potential for the identi- Violence Data Reporting Proto- appears to be sufficiently dardized framework for re- fication and analysis of type and the production of this flexible to be used by courts porting and comparing data family violence caseload Caseload Highlights were supported by a grant from the with varying capacities for from different jurisdictions trends that are essential for State Justice Institute (SJI-96- data identification, collec- with varying terminology assessing individual court 18E-B-24). tion, and reporting. The pro- and categories for family workloads, implementing

The Court Statistics Project (CSP)

In existence since 1975, the CSP is administered by the Na- through its Court Statistics Project Advisory Committee. tional Center for State Courts, with generous support by the Those wishing a more comprehensive review and analysis of State Justice Institute (Grant SJI-91-N-007-O98-1) and the the business of state trial and appellate courts are invited to Bureau of Justice Statistics. The CSP receives general policy read the CSP’s latest publication, Examining the Work of direction from the Conference of State Court Administrators State Courts, 1997.

Non Profit Org. U. S. Postage CASELOAD HIGHLIGHTS PAID Richmond, VA Permit No. 750 NCSC President NCSC Vice President National Center for State Courts Roger K. Warren Research Division Victor E. Flango 300 Newport Avenue (Zip 23185) P.O. Box 8798 A joint project of the Court Statistics Project Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798 and the Family Violence Data Reporting Prototype Project 757/253-2000 FAX 757/220-0449 Brian J. Ostrom, CSP Project Director Susan Keilitz, Prototype Project Director Fred Cheesman, Research Associate Carol R. Flango, Research Associate Venessa Garcia, Research Associate Ann M. Jones, Research Associate Neal B. Kauder, Consultant, VisualResearch Robert C. LaFountain, Research Analyst Karen Gillions Way, Research Analyst Margaret J. Fonner, Program Specialist Karin Armstrong, Senior Administrative Specialist Valerie Hansford, Senior Administrative Specialist

Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

State Justice SJI Institute