After reading Chapter 3 of the Mosher textbook, “An Arresting Experiment: Domestic Violence Victim and Perceptions” by Miller, and “Controlling a Jail Population by Partially Closing the Front Door” by Baumer and Adams, discuss the following prompts:

• How Important is it to use official crime data?
• What are some issues with using official crime data?
• What public policy changes could be made by relying upon the 2 articles?
• 500 word
• 3 references 

386

Controlling a Jail
Population by Partially
Closing the Front Door

An Evaluation of a “Summons
in Lieu of Arrest” Policy

Terry L. Baumer
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
Kenneth Adams
University of Central Florida, Orlando

This study reports on an evaluation of a strategy designed to reduce crowd-
ing of a county jail. The local judiciary sought to reduce the jail population
by ordering local police agencies to issue a summons rather than arrest indi-
viduals accused of seven misdemeanor offenses. The study compares all
cases booked during the first 8 months of the policy with all cases booked
during the same months in the previous year. The results indicate that the policy
was implemented, that it did reduce the intake population, and that there were
minimal side effects; however, the potential impact was considerably overes-
timated in the planning stage.

Keywords: jails; overcrowding; summons; alternatives to arrest

During the past two and one half decades, correctional populations inthe United States have experienced exceptional growth. Between 1980
and 2004, the total number of people under correctional supervision
increased by 280% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Although all forms
of corrections experienced increases, the largest changes occurred in the
most restrictive and costly dispositions: prisons and jails. During this same

The Prison Journal
Volume 86 Number 3

September 2006 386-402
© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/0032885506291036
http://tpj.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: This research was supported by a grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice
Institute. Points of view or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
those of the supporting agency. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November 2003.

time frame, prison populations increased 345% and jail populations
increased 288% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005).

These dramatic increases have resulted in crowded conditions for both
prisons and jails. At the end of 2004, state prisons were operating at 99%
of their highest capacity and 115% of their lowest capacity estimates
(Harrison & Beck, 2005b). When the lowest capacity estimate for each
state is used, all but five states exceeded the 90% guideline established by
the American Correctional Association. The situation is similar in local
jails. At midyear 2004, 94% of jail capacity was occupied (Harrison &
Beck, 2005a). The 50 largest jails in the United States hold approximately
31% of the jail population. At midyear 2004, 20 (40%) of these exceeded
their capacity, whereas 33 (66%) were more than 90% full (Harrison &
Beck, 2005a).

At its broadest level, the dynamics of prison and jail populations are the
same. At any given time, the population is a direct function of the number
of admissions and the length of stay (see Cushman, 2002; Pretrial Services
Resource Center, 2000). Although the effect of the former is immediate and
the effect of the latter delayed by the current length of stay, the final result
is the same: Any change to either will result in a corresponding change in
the overall population. In this sense, the sources of the dramatic increases
in prison and jail populations are conceptually the same. A number of
authors have identified policy changes that affected one or both of these
factors for prison populations (Blumstein, 1995; Tonry, 1990).

The factors that drive admissions and length of stay, however, are quite
different for prisons and jails. Much of the prison population is legislatively
driven. In any given jurisdiction the type of sentences (determinate–
indeterminate), type of release (discretionary–mandatory), length of sentence,
extent of credit time, mandatory minimums, sentence enhancements (three
strikes), and a host of other factors are largely controlled by the relevant
sentencing statutes. As a result, significant reductions in prison populations
must rely on statutory changes (or administrative sleight of hand), which
are difficult to come by.

Jail populations, on the other hand, are potentially much more amenable
to change. Nationally, slightly more than 60% of jail inmates are pretrial
detainees (Harrison & Beck, 2005a) who either have been denied bail or do
not have the resources to obtain release through bail. Most, but not all, of
those individuals serving sentences in jail were convicted of misdemeanor or
minor felony offenses. Arrest policies and bail standards are generally estab-
lished at the local level by police agencies and the county courts. Similarly,
misdemeanor sentences seldom suffer the constraints and mandates of their

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 387

felony counterparts. This leaves the nature of the disposition potentially
much more open to negotiations among the interested parties. As a result,
local officials can manipulate both the number of admissions and the length
of stay through changes in local policies (see Cunniff, 2002; Cushman,
2002; Pretrial Services Resource Center, 2000).

This article reports on one approach by a county to control its local jail pop-
ulation. This jurisdiction focused on a “front door” strategy (Blumstein, 1995)
designed to reduce admissions to the county jail system. The executive com-
mittee of the local judiciary ordered police agencies to issue a summons to
appear rather than arrest individuals accused of seven misdemeanor offenses.
At initiation of the policy, it was estimated that this change might reduce
admissions to the county jail system by approximately 20% to 25%. If suc-
cessful, this would have a substantial effect on the local jail population.

Background

Like many others around the United States, the county under study had
a long history of litigation concerning the county jail. In 1972, inmates filed
suit in federal court seeking relief from the overcrowded condition in the
jail. Three years later, in 1975, the judge assigned to the case imposed a cap
on the jail population. The county added capacity to the jail on at least three
separate occasions, but by 1999 the crowding had backed up to include the
county lockup facility. In that year, the population in the county lockup was
added to the existing litigation, and later that year the federal court imposed
a population cap of 213 on the lockup facility. Two years later, with the
mutual assent of the county and the plaintiffs, the cap was raised to 297.

The litigation continued with regular reviews and hearings by the federal
court, but the county was doing little to abate the chronic crowding in the
facility. In April 2002, the federal judge handling the case held county offi-
cials in contempt for their failure to comply with the agreed-on cap of 297
and indicated that financial penalties, and potentially contempt citations,
would be imposed for violations of the cap after May 1. The county was
now on notice that something must be done to control the population of the
county lockup or they would pay the price.

In response to the federal judge’s action, the executive committee of the
county court system, noting “its obligation to assist the Sheriff and other
county officials in complying with the Federal Court Order and to maintain
public safety within our community,” issued a court order on April 18,
2002, designed to help control the population of the county lockup facility.

388 The Prison Journal

This order noted the need to comply with the population cap and, pursuant
to that goal, established a “summons in lieu of arrest” policy for seven non-
violent, misdemeanor offenses: possession of marijuana, possession of
paraphernalia, driving with a suspended license, operating a vehicle never
having received a license, prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, and conver-
sion (generally shoplifting). The order did not apply to individuals charged
with the felony versions of these offenses.

This order contained two substantive provisions. The first ordered the
sheriff to advise all law enforcement agencies operating within the county
to issue a summons (a ticket) in lieu of arrest for these offenses. This
applied to any combination of these seven offenses and any nonarrestable
infraction or ordinance violations that might be included in the same inci-
dent. If the individuals had any other criminal charges or an outstanding
warrant (even for one of the eligible offenses), the sheriff could still accept
and book them into the lockup just like any other criminal offense.

Because the above order was contrary to long-standing policies within
the county and many of its constituent police departments, the executive
committee anticipated a potential for noncompliance: Simply telling the police
agencies within the county to stop arresting individuals for these offenses
probably was not going to be very effective. To ensure compliance with the
new policy, the second provision ordered the sheriff to stop accepting, at the
lockup facility, individuals charged only with the above offenses. Thus, if a
particular department or individual officer arrested an individual for one of
the eligible charges, the sheriff’s department was instructed to turn them
away by refusing to book them into the lockup facility. The court ordered
the sheriff to advise all agencies within the county of this policy.

Although no formal analysis was conducted prior to issuance of the
order, it appears that a substantial impact on the lockup population was
anticipated. The order noted, “During an average week, the lock-up
receives between 180-250 individuals charged with [the above] non-violent
misdemeanor offenses.” No indication was given as to whether the policy
was expected to apply to all of these individuals or some subset of them.
Assuming the former, the anticipated impact on the intake population
would have been a reduction of between 26 and 36 individuals per day.
Given that the county booked approximately 142 people per day (slightly
fewer than 1,000 per week), the policy offered the potential to reduce the
intake population by 18% to 25%.

The impact on the total lockup population would depend on the length
of stay for these individuals. For example, if prior to implementation of the
new policy, the individuals charged with these minor offenses were booked

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 389

out within 24 hours, the impact would be between 26 and 36 people. This
would be a reduction of approximately 10% (10% of 297 = 29.7). However,
if prior to implementation of the policy these individuals stayed 2 days, the
lockup population would be reduced by between 52 and 72 people (20%).
Under any of these scenarios, the projected impact of the court order would
be substantial.

The following analysis will focus on three areas related to the policy.
First, implementation of the policy will be reviewed. An initial analysis will
assess the actual size of the target population as defined by the court order
and interpreted by the sheriff’s department employees at the lockup. These
estimates will form the outer boundaries of potential for the outcome analy-
sis. This will be followed by an analysis of the extent of implementation for
the policy.

Next, the primary impact of the policy on the county lockup facility will
be assessed. Given that the policy was explicitly designed to divert individu-
als charged with the seven misdemeanor offenses from lockup, the reduction
in number of lockup bookings will be investigated. As noted above, the effect
of the policy on the overall lockup population depended on both the extent of
implementation and the length of stay for the target population. The impact
of the policy on length of stay and total “bed days” will be assessed.

Finally, secondary outcomes of the new policy will be reviewed. Although
the court order issued by the county executive committee did not address pos-
sible secondary outcomes for the new policy, a number of plausible hypothe-
ses are possible. For example, it would be reasonable to anticipate an increase
in the failure to appear (FTA) rate for the target cases. In addition, it might be
hypothesized that the new policy would affect case disposition in a number
of ways. The analysis will look at the number of cases without a disposition
at least 10 months later and the nature of the disposition.

Method

The county stored information for all criminal cases on a mainframe
case management system. The researchers worked with a county program-
mer to generate cases from the first 8 months of the new policy period and
a comparison group selected from the same period of the preceding year.

The time frame was dictated by a policy revision made by the county.
From the time of implementation on April 19, 2002, criminal justice offi-
cials were under some pressure to rescind the order. In particular, some
neighborhood groups objected strenuously to the issuance of citations for

390 The Prison Journal

prostitution. They argued that issuing tickets for prostitution did nothing to
reduce prostitution in their areas of the city. During the summer and fall of
2002, the policy became one of the issues in the election for county sheriff,
with the eventually winner calling the county a “laughingstock” for issuing
citations for misdemeanor prostitution. The judges revised the order by
removing prostitution from the list of eligible offenses on December 20,
2002—almost exactly 8 months after the original order. The present study
focused on cases originating during the initial 8-month period when all
seven offenses were included.

Selection of cases was the same for both 2002 and the comparison group
from the previous year. For the primary analytic files, all cases that included
at least 1 of the 7 charges and that fell between April 19 and December 20
were selected. The files included information on all charges associated with
this case (level, type), date of booking, date of disposition, nature of dispo-
sition for all charges, and basic characteristics of the individual charged in
the case (race, sex, date of birth). Because case was the unit of analysis,
individuals might be included multiple times. This generated 6,110 cases
from the target year and 6,221 for the comparison year. Because all cases
occurring in the county during the sampling frame were included and it
cannot be inferred that these cases represent a random sample of cases in
other jurisdictions, no statistical tests of significance are reported.

Results

Eligible Cases and Level of Implementation

The general parameters of the target population are presented in Table 1.
The number of cases with any of the seven misdemeanor offenses declined
slightly from 6,221 for the comparable period of the previous year to 6,110
during the 8-month study period. However, cases covered by the summons in
lieu of arrest order increased from 58.6% to 65.8% of all cases with one or
more of the seven charges. This amounted to an increase of 379 cases in which
individuals were charged with one, or more, of the misdemeanor target
offenses and no other criminal offenses. Overall, 4,022 cases were potentially
eligible for a citation only during the first 8 months of the policy, whereas
3,643 would have been eligible during the same 8 months in the prior year.

The above findings indicate that the potential impact of the change in
policy was considerably lower than suggested in the court order. The original
order noted that the target cases accounted for between 180 and 250 cases per

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 391

392 The Prison Journal

week. When translated to the 8-month study period (243 days), this estimate
would be between 6,245 and 8,675 cases. The total number of cases with at
least one of these charges (6,110) was fairly close to the lesser of the two esti-
mates. Because the total number of cases is similar for each period, the sug-
gestion is that the lower estimate of 180 per week was actually the more
accurate of the two. However, when cases with other criminal charges are
excluded, the number of eligible cases (4,022) was only 65.8% of this esti-
mate during the study period and only 58.6% in the comparable period the
preceding year. This overestimate of the target population limited the poten-
tial impact of the policy change to less than two thirds the original estimate.

Although the target population was smaller than anticipated, with full
implementation the summons in lieu of arrest policy could still substan-
tially reduce the number of people booked into the county lockup. Four
types of booking were possible for the eligible cases: (a) An “outright”
booking occurred when the officer made an arrest and the defendant was
brought to lockup, (b) a “summons” booking occurred when the officer
issued a citation and the defendant was booked when he or she appeared in
court, (c) a “warrant” booking occurred when the defendant was arrested on
a warrant for one of the targeted offenses, and (d) “no booking” occurred
when the defendant was cited by the officer but failed to appear and was
never arrested on the subsequent warrant. Cases subject to the summons in
lieu of arrest policy could be any of the latter three types, although it explic-
itly sought to eliminate outright bookings for the targeted offenses.

Table 2 presents the type of booking for eligible cases. This table shows
that under the summons in lieu of arrest policy, only 20.2% of the eligible
cases experienced outright bookings, whereas for the comparison period,
59.5% were outright bookings.

These numbers have double implications for policy implementation.
First, these figures could be interpreted as an indication of 80% compliance

Table 1
Target Charges and Eligible Cases

Prior to Policy During Policy

n % n %

Eligible cases 3,643 58.6 4,022 65.8
Not eligible cases 2,578 41.4 2,088 34.2
Total 6,221 100.0 6,110 100.0

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 393

with the court order not to arrest these individuals. Consultation with sheriff’s
department personnel who worked in the lockup during this time indicates
that an outright booking for an apparently eligible case could occur in
several ways. If an officer stopped an individual for an eligible offense and
discovered an outstanding warrant for that individual from another case, the
officer was obliged to make an arrest. This resulted in both a warrant book-
ing for the old case and an outright booking for the new offense. Without
the old warrant, the person may have received a citation only. Another sit-
uation occurred when an officer arrested an individual for an offense eligi-
ble for a citation and brought him or her to lockup for booking, and the
booking officers entered the information into the case management system
before noticing that the individual should not have been arrested. Another,
less common situation occurred as above, but the arresting officer had left
the lockup before the processing officers noticed that the case should not be
processed as an outright arrest. A fourth exception occurred when the pro-
cessing officers noted that the police officer had arrested a summons in lieu
of arrest case, but the arresting officer refused to take the defendant back
and issue a citation. In these cases, rather than fight about the correct pro-
cessing of the case, the processing officers tended to go ahead and book it
as an outright case. Thus, the figures in Table 2 clearly indicate substantial
compliance with the court order.

However, Table 2 indicates a second, more serious, complication for the
potential impact of the new policy. A substantial number of cases were han-
dled in a way consistent with the summons in lieu of arrest policy even
before its implementation. During the comparison period, a full year before
implementation, only 59.5% of the eligible cases involved an arrest and
outright booking, whereas 25.4% involved a summons booking. Thus, the

Table 2
Type of Booking for Eligible Cases

Prior to Policy During Policy

Type of Booking n % n %

Outright arrest 2,166 59.5 814 20.2
Warrant 338 9.3 727 18.1
Summons 926 25.4 1,942 48.3
Never booked 213 5.8 539 13.4
Total 3,643 100.0 4,022 100.0

394 The Prison Journal

target population, of people actually arrested for one of the target offenses,
was only about 60% the size of the original estimate. Thus, in addition to
the overestimate of the number of eligible cases noted earlier, the announced
policy represented only an incremental change in existing practices. The
result was that the potential for the policy was about 40% that estimated in
the court order (.658 × .595 = .392). Rather than having the potential of
reducing the intake population by 180 to 250 people per week, the more
realistic figure was 71 per week (about 10 per day).

Primary Outcomes

Lockup bookings. The summons in lieu of arrest policy was intended to
directly reduce the number of bookings at the county lockup. Specifically,
it was directed at a reduction in the number of outright bookings at the facil-
ity. Individuals who were cited for the target offenses would still be booked
when they appeared in court, but this was accomplished on the nonsecure
side of the lockup, which was not part of the federal court order. However,
warrant bookings were processed through the lockup facility just as out-
right bookings. To the extent that the new policy reduced outright bookings
but increased warrant bookings, its impact would be limited. Multiple
bookings for specific cases, usually created by multiple arrests on warrants,
could also limit the policy impact.

Both the number and percentage of outright bookings decreased during the
study period (Table 3). During the comparison period, cases with one or more
of the target offenses accounted for 4,589 outright bookings, or 73.8% of the
cases. During the study period, however, these numbers dropped to 2,634 out-
right bookings (43.1%). The difference between the two periods was 1,955

Table 3
Type of Booking for All Cases With One or More Target Charge

Prior to Policy During Policy
Type of Booking n % n %

Outright 4,589 73.8 2,634 43.1
Warrant 427 6.9 900 14.7
Summons 976 15.7 2,002 32.8
No booking 229 3.7 574 9.4
Total 6,221 100.1 6,110 100.0

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 395

fewer outright bookings. This impact was moderated considerably, however,
by an increase in the number of warrant bookings, which more than doubled
from 427 to 900. The result was that the number of eligible cases booked
through the county lockup (outright and warrant) dropped 29.6%, from 5,016
during the comparison period to 3,534 during the study period. The difference
of 1,482 amounted to an average of 6.1 fewer cases booked per day (1,482 ÷
243 = 6.1). This is considerably lower than the 26 to 36 per day projected by
the court order and closer to the two-fifths figure (39.2%) identified above.

Another potential impact of the new policy might be through the total
number of outright or warrant bookings for each case. Because of FTA and
other violations of court orders, it is possible that the individual charged in
a single case might have multiple arrests and bookings for that case. For the
present study, the researchers captured the type of booking for up to four
bookings for each case. Table 4 presents the number of lockup bookings
(outright or warrant) for the two study periods. The total number of lockup
bookings for all cases with any of the target offenses dropped from 7,720
during the comparison period to 5,443 during the study period. This
decrease of 2,277 fewer lockup bookings for these cases amounted to 9.4
bookings (2,277 ÷ 243) per day.

Not all of the reduction in lockup bookings, however, can be attributed to
the new policy. If the number of bookings for eligible and noneligible cases is
compared, the reduction for policy-eligible cases was reduced by only about
1,219 bookings (3,616 – 2,397) between the two periods. This amounts to only

Table 4
Number of Outright and Warrant Bookings by Eligible Case

Prior to Policy During Policy

Not Eligible Eligible Not Eligible EligibleLockup
Bookings
Per Case

n % n % n % n %

None 60 —a 1,031 — 80 — 2,256 —
One 1,521 37.1 1,908 52.8 1,305 42.8 1,285 53.6
Two 1,160 28.3 946 26.2 912 29.9 718 29.9
Three 735 17.9 486 13.4 477 15.7 282 11.8
Four 688 16.8 276 7.6 352 11.7 112 4.7
Total 4,104 100.1 3,616 100.0 3,046 100.0 2,397 100.0

Note: For this table, the unit is booking (cases multiplied by the number of lockup bookings).
a. No bookings counts as 0.

396 The Prison Journal

about one half (53.5%) of the total reduction noted above. The remainder
(1,058 lockup bookings) can be attributed to a drop of 25.8% in the number of
bookings for noneligible cases with one or more of the eligible offenses.

Lockup population. All things being equal, fewer lockup bookings
should translate into some relief for the lockup population. The following
analysis looks at the median length of stay and total bed days occupied by
this population. Because no time of day was recorded in the data system for
when an individual was booked into the lockup or when they were released,
the analysis will use the less precise measure of day. Thus, if a person is
booked in and booked out on the same day, as would be the case under the
summons in lieu of arrest policy, their length of stay should be zero. To
make the comparisons meaningful, a cutoff date of October 27 of the fol-
lowing year was enforced for both groups. Cases with no jail start date
and/or no jail end date were excluded.

Cases originating during the summons in lieu of arrest period were more
likely to be booked and released on the same day than were cases during
the comparison period (Table 5). For cases eligible for the summons in lieu
of arrest policy, the percentage booked out on the same day jumped from
49.8% to 67.4%. However, the people charged in these cases tended not to
stay very long either before or during the policy period. The mean length of
stay for eligible cases was only 1.8 days before the policy was implemented
and 1.5 days during the policy period. The longer stays were reserved for
other cases, as reflected in the mean stays of 8.4 and 7.3 days for all cases
with one of the target offenses.

Table 5
Length of Stay and Bed Days Consumed

Prior to Policy During Policy

One or More One or More
Target Offenses Eligible Target Offenses Eligible

Booked and released same day
n 2,372 1,693 2,844 2,342
% 39.9 49.8 51.5 67.4

Stay in days
Mdn 1 1 0 0
M 8.4 1.8 7.3 1.5
Total bed days 49,796 6,024 40,168 5,061

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 397

Total bed days in jail were calculated for both groups. For all cases with
one or more of the target offenses, the total number of bed days occupied
changed from 49,796 for the cases originating during the comparison
period to 40,168 for cases originating during the summons in lieu of arrest
period. This amounted to 9,628 fewer bed days. As a percentage of possi-
ble bed days, using the population cap of 297 and the exposure period of
544 days, these cases accounted for about a 6.0% reduction in total bed
days during the study periods.

Unfortunately, the above reduction was largely the result of factors other
than the summons in lieu of arrest policy. The eligible population consumed
6,024 bed days in the comparison period compared with 5,061 during the
summons in lieu of arrest period. A difference of 963 bed days is attribut-
able to the cases potentially eligible for the new policy. This is about 10%
of the difference noted above and amounts to 0.6% of total bed days during
the study periods. As Table 5 shows, the eligible cases tended to be booked
in and out fairly quickly before the new policy, making a significant impact
on the lockup population difficult to achieve (cf. Cunniff, 2002).

Secondary Outcomes

FTA. Two potential secondary outcomes of the summons in lieu of arrest
policy were reviewed: FTA and case disposition. Large differentials in
either of these could affect the viability of the policy independent of the
effect on the lockup population.

FTA was measured by counting the number of FTA entries in the court
record for each case. The number of FTAs for all cases with a target offense
is presented in Table 6. The percentage of cases with no FTA decreased
from 52.4% in the comparison year to 46.7% following implementation of

Table 6
Failure to Appear (FTA) for All Cases

With One or More Target Offenses

Prior to Policy During Policy

Number of FTAs n % n %

No FTAs 3,258 52.4 2,854 46.7
One FTA 1,977 31.8 2,280 37.3
Two or more FTAs 986 15.8 976 16.0
Total 6,221 100.0 6,110 100.0

398 The Prison Journal

the policy. A corresponding increase from 31.8% to 37.3% was recorded in
the percentage of cases with one FTA. However, the percentage of cases
with two or more FTAs was nearly identical: 15.8% versus 16.0%. Overall,
this amounted to a net increase of 293 cases with one or more FTAs.

The target cases for the summons in lieu of arrest policy had a higher
rate of FTA in both the comparison and treatment periods. Table 7 indicates
that the percentage of target cases with one or more FTAs increased from
51.5% to 60.7% when the policy went into effect. The corresponding
figures for cases with one of the seven offenses but also another criminal
offense, which made them ineligible for a simple citation, actually dropped
from 42.2% to 39.0% with one or more FTAs. As with the figures for the
entire sample, for the target group of eligible cases the percentage with two
or more FTAs remained about the same: 17.1% versus 18.0%.

The FTA rate was even higher for eligible cases treated in compliance
with the summons in lieu of arrest policy (no outright booking; Table 8).

Table 7
Failure to Appear (FTA) Rates for Policy Eligible Cases

Prior to Policy During Policy

Not Eligible Eligible Not Eligible Eligible

n % n % n % n %

No FTAs 1,490 57.8 1,768 48.5 1,274 61.0 1,580 39.3
One FTA 722 28.0 1,255 34.4 564 27.0 1,716 42.7
Two or more FTAs 366 14.2 620 17.1 250 12.0 726 18.0
Total 2,578 100.0 3,643 100.0 2,088 100.0 4,022 100.0

Table 8
Failure to Appear (FTA) for Eligible Cases

With No Outright Booking

Prior to Policy During Policy
Number of FTAs n % n %

No FTAs 524 35.5 1,131 35.3
One FTA 630 42.7 1,460 45.5
Two or more FTAs 323 21.9 617 19.2
Total 1,477 100.1 3,208 100.0

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 399

For the cases occurring after implementation of the summons in lieu of
arrest policy and with no outright booking, only 35.3% had no FTA for their
case, whereas 45.5% recorded one and 19.2% recorded two or more. It is
noteworthy that the percentages for the same group from the comparison
period are virtually the same: 35.5%, 42.7%, and 21.9%, respectively.
These figures have several implications. First, for cases handled with a cita-
tion, there will probably be an initial FTA. However, approximately 80% of
the cases experience no more than one FTA. The ultimate disposition of
these cases is discussed below. Second, given the similarity of the results
between the two periods, the high FTA rate could have been anticipated.

Case disposition. To allow meaningful comparisons of case disposition
between the treatment and comparison cases, a cutoff date of October 27 of
the following year was used for both groups. This would allow a minimum
of approximately 10 months for the last cases selected to be disposed. After
this time frame, 75.3% of all cases with one or more of the target charges
during the summons in lieu of arrest period had been disposed, whereas
80.6% had been disposed in this time frame during the comparison period.
In actual numbers, this translated to 1,209 cases in 2001 and 1,510 cases in
2002 that were still unresolved by the end of October the following year.
However, of the cases eligible for summons in lieu of arrest, 766 remained
open for the comparison period, compared with 1,126 for the policy
period—a difference of 360 more open cases after the same period.

Table 9 summarizes the nature of the outcome for cases reaching dispo-
sition during the above described period. Both before and during the imple-
mentation of the summons in lieu of arrest policy, the majority of all cases
with any eligible charge resulted in a dismissal of all charges. This per-
centage was slightly higher during the policy period (52.9%) than during
the comparison period (50.6%). The percentage of cases with at least one
guilty verdict decreased from 48.9% in the comparison period to 46.4%

Table 9
Type of Disposition for All Cases With an Eligible Charge

Prior to Policy During Policy

Type of Disposition n % n %

All dismissed 2,535 50.6 2,422 52.9
All not guilty 25 0.5 33 0.7
Any guilty 2,447 48.9 2,126 46.4
Total 5,007 100.0 4,581 100.0

400 The Prison Journal

during the summons in lieu of arrest period, whereas the percentage of
cases with all charges not guilty remained about the same (0.5% vs. 0.7%).

Discussion and Conclusions

The target population for the policy was considerably smaller than antic-
ipated. The original court order indicated that between 180 and 250 indi-
viduals were charged weekly for the target offenses (26-36 per day). The
total number of cases including any one of the target offenses in either
the comparison or policy implementation periods almost approximated the
lower of these two numbers but was not close to the 215 implied by the
court order.

The court order further restricted applicability of the policy to arrestees
“who are only charged with the following misdemeanor crimes.” Any case
involving any other arrestable offense was excluded, as were individuals
charged by the officer with a felony version of any of the target offenses. In
addition, individuals with outstanding warrants on other charges were
excluded. These restrictions reduced the eligible cases to fewer than two
thirds of all cases involving the target offenses. Taken together, the above
considerations reduced the potential target population from the projected
26 to 36 per day to fewer than 17 per day.

Implementation issues further complicated the picture. The police depart-
ments in the county did comply substantially with the new policy. Of all cases
with the appropriate mix of charges, only approximately 20% involved
arrests and outright bookings during the first 8 months of the policy. This sug-
gested approximately 80% compliance with the court order. Unfortunately,
this was only an incremental change over existing practices. In the compari-
son period, 1 year prior to the study period, 59.5% of the target cases involved
an arrest and outright booking, with the remaining cases handled in a way
consistent with the summons in lieu of arrest policy. This further reduced the
potential of the policy to 60% of the target cases. When combined with the
overestimate of the target population, the potential impact of the new policy
on the lockup population was only about 40% of the lowest original estimate,
or 10 per day rather than the projected 26 per day.

The impact of the policy on the lockup population was measured in three
ways: the number of cases booked into the lockup, total number of book-
ings for eligible cases, and the number of bed days saved by the policy. The
number of cases booked at the lockup (outright or warrant initial booking)
dropped 29.6% between the comparison and study periods. This decrease
of 1,482 cases amounted to 6.1 fewer cases booked at lockup each day.

Total lockup bookings for each case also declined following implemen-
tation of the policy. During the study period, the total number of lockup
bookings for all cases with at least one of the target offenses decreased by
2,277 after the policy was implemented. Unfortunately, because the total
number of bookings for ineligible cases also declined, only about one half
(53.5%) of this decrease was attributable to cases covered by the summons
in lieu of arrest policy.

Holding time at risk constant, the total number of bed days consumed by
these cases also decreased. For all cases involving at least one of the target
offenses, the number of bed days decreased by 9,628 during an exposure
frame of 544 days. However, only about 10% (963 bed days) of this decline
could be attributed to cases eligible for the summons in lieu of arrest policy.
Even when accompanied by an arrest, the eligible cases in the comparison
period obtained release fairly quickly. Further reductions would be very dif-
ficult. As it turns out, most of the reduction in bed days was attributable to
changes in the length of stay for the noneligible cases.

FTA and case disposition were also investigated as possible secondary
outcomes of the summons in lieu of arrest policy. For eligible cases, the
percentage of cases with one or more FTAs increased from 51.5% in the
comparison period to 60.7% for cases initiated during the first 8 months
of the policy. The corresponding figures for cases with one or more of the
target offenses, but additional criminal charges, dropped from 42.2% to
39.0%. This resulted in a net increase of 293 cases with one or more FTAs.

The primary change in case disposition was for the percentage with any
disposition. For both groups, the time available was held constant to
approximately 18 months from initial case selection. During this period, the
percentage of cases with any disposition decreased from 80.6% for the
comparison period to 75.3% for the cases initiated. Eligible cases experi-
enced a similar decrease from 79% disposed to 72% disposed after the
same period. The net number of cases not disposed 18 months after the
beginning of the study period increased by 310 for all cases with one or
more of the target offenses. However, 360 more eligible cases remained
open after comparable time frames.

Successful initiatives require both careful design and full implementa-
tion. In the present case, the idea to control the county jail population
through a reduction in the number of arrests was a viable approach.
However, the target population was overestimated, and many of the cases
were processed in compliance with the new policy even before it was
implemented. Although the program evaluation literature is littered with
examples of programs or policies hampered by partial implementation, this

Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 401

was not the problem for this county. The effects of the new summons in lieu
of arrest policy were in the projected direction, but the impact fell consid-
erably short of expectations, primarily because of design and planning fail-
ures. More detailed data analysis and planning could have identified these
issues during the policy formation period.

In the present case, the financial cost of implementation was minimal,
and the substantive outcomes were small, but positive. However, it does not
always turn out this way. Substantially overestimating the size of the target
population or not understanding the exact nature of current practice can, at
best, as was seen in this case, dilute the potential impact of a proposed
change. In other situations, the changes can be both financially and politi-
cally expensive while making minimal improvement in the situation.

References

Blumstein, A. (1995). Prisons. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime (pp. 387-419). San
Francisco: ICS Press.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Number of persons under correctional supervision [Table].
Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/corr2tab.htm

Cunniff, M. (2002). Jail crowding: Understanding jail population dynamics (NIC 017209).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Cushman, R. (2002). Preventing jail crowding: A practical guide (NIC 016720). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2005a). Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Prison and jail inmates
at midyear 2004 (NCJ 208801). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs.

Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2005b). Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin: Prisoners in 2004 (NCJ
210677). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Pretrial Services Resource Center. (2000). A second look at alleviating jail crowding: A systems
perspective (NCJ 182507). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Tonry, M. (1990). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Terry L. Baumer is an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs
at Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis. He has published work in the areas of
fear of crime, electronic monitoring, and drug dependence in arrestees. He most recently com-
pleted an evaluation of a new Arrestee Processing Center.

Kenneth Adams is a professor of public affairs in the College of Health and Public Affairs at
the University of Central Florida. His areas of expertise include mentally ill offenders, police–
community relations, institutional corrections, and evaluation of crime control strategies, such
as gun control and juvenile curfews.

402 The Prison Journal

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description << /FRA
/JPN
/DEU
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

10.1177/0886260503251130ARTICLEJOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT

An Arresting Experiment
Domestic Violence Victim Experiences

and Perceptions

JOANN MILLER
Purdue University

This study looks at the experiences and perceptions that domestic violence victims
reported with Mills’s power model. The victims’ partners were the primary research
participants in an arrest experiment. The following were empirically examined: the
occurrence of violence following suspect arrest, victim perceptions of personal and
legal power, victim satisfaction with the police, and victim perceptions of safety fol-
lowing legal intervention. Race and two victim resource measures (i.e., employment
status and income advantage) explained variance in perceptions of independence. A
police empowerment scale was used to measure legal power. It was found that arrest
affected the probability of reoccurring domestic violence. Suspect arrest and the vic-
tim’s perceptions of legal power were related to perceptions of safety following
police intervention. The study concludes with some implications for domestic vio-
lence research, programs, and perspectives.

Keywords: domestic violence; intimate partner violence; perceptions; victim; arrest

We analyzed the victim interviews that were conducted as part of a random-
ized domestic violence arrest experiment, in Dade County, Florida, that was
designed to examine how police responses affected the likelihood of reoccur-
ring violence. Domestic violence suspects, the primary participants in the
field experiment, were assigned to an arrest or to a no arrest condition. The
nature of their offenses, domestic violence, generated a second type of
research participant: The victims, like the suspects, were subjected to the
arrest experiment. We examined the arrest study from the victim’s perspec-
tive by analyzing the interviews that were conducted soon after police inter-
vention and 6 months later. We examined the victims’ reports of reoccurring
violence, their perceptions of power, and their subjective experiences follow-

695

Author’s Note: This study was sponsored by a Social and Behavioral Science Center Fellow-
ship, Purdue University, and a Fellowship in Law and Sociology, Harvard Law School. The
author is most grateful to R. Gartner, Jonathan Miller, G. D. Hill, and two anonymous reviewers
who made useful comments on earlier drafts.

JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 18 No. 7, July 2003 695-716
DOI: 10.1177/0886260503251130
© 2003 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

ing police intervention, including their feelings of safety and their satisfac-
tion with how the police responded to their preferences. We discuss this
study’s implications for domestic violence explanations and programs,
focusing on the importance of understanding the role of victim perceptions
and empowerment.

THE SPOUSE ASSAULT REPLICATION PROGRAM

For two decades researchers have used randomized or experimental
designs to study how police practices can decrease the probability, frequency,
and severity of reoccurring family or domestic violence (Davis & Taylor,
1997; Ford, 1991; Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001; Sherman, 1992). There
are few field experiments more controversial than the collection of six stud-
ies, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, that are known as the
Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP). Endorsed by feminist advo-
cates and crime control proponents alike, the earliest results were reported on
television and in major metropolitan newspapers. Most urban police depart-
ments in the United States, in response to the widely publicized initial experi-
ment, developed mandatory or preferred arrest policies for domestic vio-
lence, although some analysts issued sharp warnings of likely victim harms
and injuries (Sherman, 1992).

The initial experiment was fielded in Minneapolis, and five quasi-
replication studies were fielded in Omaha, Colorado Springs, Milwaukee,
Charlotte, and Metro Dade County, Florida. An Atlanta experiment was also
conducted, but the data were not made available to social science researchers.
All the SARP studies were originally designed to explain the specific deter-
rent effect of suspect arrest on reoccurring or repeated family or domestic
violence. (Some of the post hoc explanations of the empirical findings are
based on social control theories.) Various methods were used across the
SARP sites to assign domestic violence suspects to an arrest treatment group
or to a no arrest control group.

Maxwell et al. (2001) reported that the SARP studies generated at least
300 potential outcome measures. Most of them, collected at two or three
points in time, focused on the suspect’s reoccurring violence that was perpe-
trated against the same intimate partner. One key type of outcome measure
examined the number and types of violent events that occurred following
police intervention. Another important type examined time to failure, or the
amount of time between the initial police response and a police record of a
subsequent offense.

696 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

The domestic violence victims were interviewed in all the SARP experi-
ments, primarily to corroborate police reports or other records of suspect
behavior. The typical victim interview schedule was designed to measure
characteristics of the victim’s relationship with the suspect and get detailed
reports of violent events and threats. In two of the experiments, Omaha and
Dade County, interviewers asked the victims to disclose detailed reports of
their perceptions and feelings following police intervention. This study is
based on the victims of the Dade County experiment.

SARP Results

Results from all but one of the SARP experiments were reported, some-
times to the press and often in social science journal articles (Lempert, 1989).
Sherman and Berk (1984), architects of the original Minneapolis experiment,
found that “the arrest intervention certainly did not make things worse and
may well have made things better” (p. 269). Reports from the other experi-
ments were more cautious. Analysis of the suspect data from the Colorado
Springs experiment showed that arrest had no deterrent effect. Analysis of the
victim interview data, however, uncovered modest deterrence, especially
among employed suspects (Berk, Campbell, Klap, & Western, 1992). Pate
and Hamilton (1992) reported an interaction effect between arrest and sus-
pect employment status in the Dade County experiment, leading them to sug-
gest that “the deterrent effect of arrest is influenced by the informal sanctions
implicit in employment status” (p. 695). Perhaps worst of all, early reports
based on the Charlotte, Milwaukee, and Omaha experiments concluded that
arrest had either no deterrent effect, or an escalation of violence effect, by 6
months following police intervention (Dunford, Huizinga, & Elliott, 1991;
Hirschel, Hutchison, & Dean, 1992; Sherman et al., 1991).

Berk et al. (1992), Sherman (1992), Garner, Fagan, and Maxwell (1995),
Gelles (1993), Mills (1998), and Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan (1999) con-
ducted meta-analyses of some or all of the SARP studies and reached sharply
divided conclusions. Did arrest deter domestic violence? Gelles concluded
that “a more complete and sobering look at . . . [the arrest experiments] indi-
cates that the initial claim of the deterrent value of mandatory arrest policies
may well be the social science equivalent of cold fusion” (p. 578). His posi-
tion was challenged by Berk (1993a, 1993b), and more recently by Maxwell
et al. (1999), who reported a slight or modest relationship between arrest and
repeat offending.

Maxwell et al. (2001) pooled select data elements across all the SARP
sites to resolve the basic questions advanced by the six randomized arrest

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 697

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

experiments. They found no evidence to conclude that arrest escalated
domestic violence. Arrest, they reported, had a small and, in some experi-
ments, a statistically nonsignificant effect on suspect behavior. Most sus-
pects, regardless of the type of police intervention, did not reoffend. All told,
researchers who have studied empirical findings across SARP sites have
reported that arrest, along with individual and social psychological attributes
and characteristics, differentially affected recidivistic, misdemeanor domes-
tic violence. Suspects who experienced shame as a consequence of arrest, at
work or in their communities, were less likely to reoffend. However, those
with relatively low “stakes in conformity” (Toby, 1957) were not likely to be
deterred by arrest. The SARP studies showed that “the size of the reduction in
repeat offending associated with arrest is modest compared with the effect of
other factors (such as the batterer’s age and prior criminal record) on the like-
lihood of repeat offending” (Maxwell et al., 2001, p. 2; see also Garner et al.,
1995).

Victim Reports

Mills (1998) and Stephens and Sinden (2000) challenged any attempt to
reach definitive conclusions from the SARP experiments: “It is the victims
who have the most to gain (or lose) from the current [arrest] trend . . . but we
know little about victims’ experiences . . . and their interactions. . . . Their
voices are needed” (Stephens & Sinden, 2000, p. 535). Thus, our research
was designed to complement the published SARP studies by focusing exclu-
sively on the victims of one of the arrest experiments. Specifically, it
advances the Pate and Hamilton (1992) study, and it takes a step in the direc-
tion called for by Stephens and Sinden. We studied the Dade County victims’
reports to examine how their objective and subjective experiences were
related to police intervention, including suspect arrest. Based on victim data,
we analyzed reports of reoccurring violence immediately following the ini-
tial police call and 6 months later. In addition, we examined perceptions and
subjective experiences that were related to the arrest experiment.

PERCEPTIONS OF POWER

Mills (1998) analyzed the publications resulting from the SARP experi-
ments and concluded that uniform and mandatory programs, such as the
mandatory arrest of all domestic violence suspects or no-drop prosecution,
fail to stop the violence and protect the victims. Women, controlled and

698 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

abused initially by their partners, can be victimized once again by a “one size
fits all” legal response that does not consider the unique person’s needs to sur-
vive episodes of domestic violence. Mills also argued that the victim’s power
can be enhanced by effective legal intervention that incorporates the individ-
ual’s requirements and preferences. The victim, empowered by appropriate
police and prosecutorial responses, can prevent revictimization.

We adapted Mills’s (1998, 1999) model to distinguish two types of power,
personal power and legal power, that domestic violence victims in the Metro
Dade arrest experiment perceived and could use to prevent or stop violence.
We conceptualized personal power as a person’s perceived control over eco-
nomic and social resources. We conceptualized legal power as perceived
empowerment in response to police intervention.

Personal Power

Mills (1998) defined personal power as the social actor’s sense of control
when dealing with others, including a domestic partner. We analyzed per-
ceived independence as an indicator or a proxy measure for personal power.
That is, we believe that the women who perceived high levels of independ-
ence, relative to others, perceived higher levels of personal power.

We hypothesized that personal power is a function of work and earned
income. We expected to find that employed women and those with an income
advantage within their intimate relationships had stronger perceptions of
independence compared to unemployed women or compared to those with an
income disadvantage. Furthermore, we hypothesized that levels of independ-
ence were related to domestic violence experiences. Women with higher lev-
els of personal power, we hypothesized, would be less likely to experience
repeated acts of domestic violence following police intervention.

Our research hypothesis pertaining to personal power and reoccurring
domestic violence was derived from the empirical studies that examine how
levels of personal resources, or the control over resources, can empower vic-
tims to prevent repeated violence (see, e.g., Gelles, 1993; Jasinski, 2001c;
Johnson, 1992; McCloskey, 1996; Miller & Knudsen, 1999; Teichman &
Teichman 1989). Being employed outside the home is a social resource,
whereas income advantage is an economic resource. Employed women, in
principle, have access to information, and to social resources such as friend-
ships or work networks, at a higher level than unemployed women. An
income advantage can give a woman greater control or access to the financial
or economic resources of a household.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 699

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Legal Power

Mills (1998) defined court system or legal power as the victims’ “percep-
tions of their role in the court process” (p. 310). We believe that legal power is
similar to Ford’s (1991) “power by alliance.” Ford’s concept is based on his
findings from a domestic violence prosecution study (Ford, 1991; Ford &
Regoli, 1993, 1998). A domestic violence victim can form a partnership or an
alliance with a legal actor, a police officer or a prosecuting attorney, who con-
veys respect and a concern for her safety. The alliance itself can be a powerful
resource that victims can use to prevent violence. The threat to call an ally
who has the power of the state to dispense in response to a criminal code vio-
lation has a greater deterrent effect than the threat to call a stranger or a friend.
An ally in criminal justice can also provide information and connections to a
network of social service providers. Legal power, used by victims of domes-
tic violence, can prevent reoccurring violence. It can also mediate the effects
of arrest or other forms of police intervention, similar to how informal mech-
anisms of social control mediate the deterrent effects of arrest on the suspects
(Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman, 1992; Toby, 1957).

Legal power represents the woman’s perceived ability to control criminal
justice decisions and their consequences. We hypothesized that legal power,
regardless of whether the suspect was arrested, increased when the police
took legal actions that corresponded to the victim’s preferences. Further-
more, we hypothesized that victims’ subjective responses to police interven-
tion were related to their perceptions of legal power. We expected to find that
women who were satisfied with what the police did perceived higher levels of
legal power. Finally, we expected to find that women who perceived higher
levels of legal power following a police response experienced greater percep-
tions of personal safety.

RESEARCH METHODS

A Randomized Field Experiment

The data we analyzed are from the victim interviews that were conducted
as a part of the Dade County, Florida, arrest experiment from the SARP. The
principal investigators of the experiment designed the study to explain how
legal and informal sanctions deter misdemeanor domestic violence perpetra-
tors from repeated acts of abuse or violence (Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Pate,
Hamilton, & Annan, 1994). Whereas Pate and Hamilton (1992) focused on
the suspects and the consequences of formal and informal social controls,

700 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

this study focused on the victims. Thus, our research was designed to com-
plement Pate and Hamilton’s work. We examined empirically what the police
did in response to a domestic violence call, characteristics of the victim and
the suspect, the victim’s perceptions of personal and legal power, and victim
reports of domestic violence following police intervention.

The Dade County arrest experiment, conducted over a 3-year period, used
a unique, two-assignment design. Police randomly assigned each case to an
arrest or to a no arrest condition. Independently, they randomly assigned 50%
of the cases to a police Safe Streets Unit for counseling and follow-up investi-
gation. We examined arrest and Safe Streets assignment as two types of
experimental conditions that could influence recidivistic domestic violence.
Arguably, close police follow up, the hallmark of the Safe Streets Program, is
like intensive probation that is used to prevent recidivistic criminal behavior.

Of the assigned responses (arrest versus no arrest), 90% were actually
delivered in the Dade County experiment. The misassignment rate, or depar-
tures from the treatment or control group assigned, was higher in Dade
County than it was in some of the other sites (e.g., Milwaukee or Omaha) but
lower than it was in Charlotte (13%). Across all the SARP sites, the average
misassignment rate was approximately 3% (Maxwell et al., 2001). Sherman
(1993) argued that the misassignment rate, albeit considerably higher than
the ideal, does not severely challenge the internal validity of the study.

A total of 50.4% of the suspects were arrested, as assigned, and a total of
39.5% of the suspects were not arrested, as assigned. A correlation analysis
(not reported here in table form) showed that departures from the conditions
assigned were not related to the following characteristics, which have been
found in previous research to be related to the occurrence of domestic vio-
lence: a woman’s pregnancy, employment status, marital status, or race or
ethnicity (see, e.g., Jasinski, 2001a, 2001b; McCloskey, 1996; Straus &
Gelles, 1986). Likewise, personal and relationship characteristics were not
correlated with the second type of treatment assigned (i.e., the assignment of
the case to the Safe Streets Unit for follow-up investigation and counseling).

The data we used to examine personal and legal power were taken exclu-
sively from victim interviews for two reasons. First, we were interested in
how arrest and other police responses were related to the victims’ experi-
ences. Second, although there is a substantial research literature on the SARP
experiments, most studies, including the only one that examined pooled data
across all sites, analyzed suspect behavior. Because the victims were the con-
cern in this research, we examined how their personal and legal power can be
enhanced and thus used to prevent reoccurring or repeated domestic
violence.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 701

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Interviews with the Dade County victims were conducted in Spanish or in
English, shortly after the initial domestic violence incident occurred (i.e., the
event that made the suspect and his partner eligible for the field experiment)
and 6 months later. The victims were paid $20 for each completed interview.
A total of 595 victims completed the first interview, but only 385 victims
completed the follow-up or second interview. The study’s attrition rate, simi-
lar to all the other SARP studies, has no verifiable explanation, although it
likely includes refusals from fearful women and the inability to locate women
who moved away from the suspects (Sherman, 1992). The analysis of the
data based on the second interviews, because of the high attrition rate, was
conducted for exploratory purposes only.

Measures

Victims, shortly after police intervention, reported to female interviewers
whether the domestic violence had continued. They also reported the type
and number of violent events that they experienced following the police call.
During their second or follow-up interviews, the victims reported the number
of physical assaults, threats, and property damage incidents that had
occurred. Based on victim responses during the first interview, we con-
structed a variable to indicate whether physical violence occurred subsequent
to a police call. Based on responses to the follow-up interview questions, we
counted the number of times a victim was hit, threatened, or experienced
property damage. We also constructed a summed scale to represent the total
number and type of incidents that victims reported over a period of 6 months.

Both interview schedules included items to measure each domestic part-
ner’s employment status, all sources and levels of income, levels of educa-
tional attainment, marital status, household composition, and whether the
victim and the suspect lived together. The initial interview included a single
question that asked victims how independent they are. Independence was
used to measure perceptions of personal power in this study. It was coded on a
5-point scale, in the direction of independence.

We constructed a measure of the victim’s income advantage that is based
only on categories of earned income: victim’s earned income divided by sus-
pect’s earned income. Values greater than 1.0 indicate that the victim had an
earned income advantage. Values less than 1.0 indicate that the victim had an
earned income disadvantage. Zero values indicate no earned income for one
or both domestic partners.

A single question asked how safe victims felt following police interven-
tion. Responses ranged from very unsafe (coded 1) to very safe (coded 4). The
victims reported whether they wanted the suspect arrested (yes or no) and

702 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

how satisfied they were, measured on a 4-point scale and coded in the direc-
tion of very safe, with what the police did in response to domestic violence
calls.

Six semantic-differential type items were used to measure legal power, or
the victim’s perceptions of how she was affected by the action that the police
took: (a) helpless or powerful, (b) out of control or in control, (c) afraid or
brave, (d) weak or strong, (e) discouraged or encouraged, and (f) hesitant or
determined. Respondents rated each item on a 7-point scale that was coded in
the direction of high levels of perceived power. Responses to the seven items
were summed to form a legal power scale. The Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., the
reliability measure for the summed scale) is .903.

The follow-up interview measured acts of violence that were perpetrated
by the suspect within 6 months after police intervention. A summed scale was
created to represent the total number of times the suspect threatened the vic-
tim, the number of assaults perpetrated, and the number of times the suspect
damaged the victim’s property. The Cronbach’s alpha for the reoccurring
violence scale is .804.

During the second or follow-up interviews, victims indicated how likely
or willing they were to call the police in the future if necessary. Willingness to
call was rated on a 3-point scale, in the direction of more likely to call. Vic-
tims rated the amount of stress they experienced in their relationships, coded
on a 0 to 4-point scale in the direction of increased stress. They told inter-
viewers whether the suspect recognized the wrongfulness of domestic vio-
lence. “Do not know” responses were coded 0.5, no responses were coded 0,
and yes responses were coded 1.0.

RESULTS

A Descriptive Profile

No segment of the adult population is immune to domestic violence. How-
ever, certain types of women, especially poor and minority women, are more
likely to be victimized and much more likely to be trapped within abusive
households (Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Mann, 1996; Richie, 1996; West,
1999). Moreover, police arrests and court actions affect a disproportionate
number of African Americans, relative to their representation in U.S. society
or their representation in the population of criminal offenders (Davis, 1997;
Gottfredson & Jarjoura, 1996; Hagan & Albonetti, 1982; Humphrey &
Fogarty, 1987; Jacobs & O’Brien, 1998; Klein, Petersilia, & Turner, 1990;
McCoy, 1997; Wortley, Macmillan, & Hagan, 1997). The Dade County arrest

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 703

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

experiment, conducted in the urban area ranked seventh in the nation in
Latino population, appears to reflect the deeply institutionalized race dispar-
ity in the legal arena. The Dade County population, according to the 1990
U.S. census, was 20.5% African American, yet 42.6% of the suspects in the
Dade County experiment were African American. Compared to Anglo
women, African American women are much less likely to call the police to
arrest domestic violence suspects, or to use court procedures to stop the vio-
lence (Lee, Thompson, & Mechanic, 2002; Weis, 2001). However, African
American men, and their partners, were vastly overrepresented in the Dade
County experiment.

Approximately 21% of the couples in the experiment were Latino, 20%
were Anglo, and the remaining couples were mostly Asian American. Most
couples (79.4%) were married at the time, and 80% had at least one other per-
son, usually a child, living with them. Both the suspects and the victims
tended to have completed their formal education by earning a high school
diploma (71% of the suspects and 61% of the victims). At the follow-up inter-
view, 62% of the victims reported that they were employed and that 82% of
the suspects were employed.

Arrest and Reoccurring Domestic Violence

Table 1, based on the first victim interviews, shows the effect of arrest on a
binary-coded variable that indicates whether the victims experienced reoc-
curring physical violence shortly after police intervention. ANOVA was used

704 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

TABLE 1: Victim Reports of Violence Following Police Intervention, Suspect Assigned
to Control or Experimental Groupsa

More Violence Since
Police Intervention (Yes or No)

Treatment or Control Group (Actually Delivered) M SD n

No arrest, no Safe Streets (control group) 0.31 0.46 71
Arrest only 0.14 0.35 95
Safe Streets only 0.24 0.43 73
Both arrest and Safe Streets 0.18 0.39 100

Range 0-1
Overall M 0.21
Overall F (group differences, post hoc Tukey test) 2.761* (no arrest and no Safe

.Streets, and arrest only)

a. An ANOVA was run.

*p < .05.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

to examine the statistical significance of differences in mean values across
groups, with a post hoc Tukey test to identify significant differences across
pairs of groups.

Overall, 21% of the victims reported that at least one episode of violence
followed the police intervention. We found that arrest, according to the Metro
Dade victims, had a moderate, short-term effect on reoccurring domestic vio-
lence. Of the victims in the control group (i.e., those whose partners were not
arrested or assigned to a Safe Streets Unit), 31% experienced subsequent acts
of violence shortly after the police call. Of the victims whose partners were
arrested (but not assigned to Safe Streets), 14% experienced reoccurring vio-
lence after the police call. The post hoc Tukey test showed that the only statis-
tically significant difference in reoccurring domestic violence was found
between the control and the arrest-only treatment group.

Personal power. An ordinary least squares regression model was specified
(see Table 2) to explain variance in the victim’s perception of independence
(personal power) as a function of suspect arrest, race, marital status and living
arrangements, and the victim’s social and economic resources. We found that
suspect arrest was not significantly related to the victim’s perception of per-
sonal power. This supports Mills’s (1998) distinction between the two types
of power that women can experience within their interpersonal relationships:
A legal response to violence was not related to perceptions of personal power.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 705

TABLE 2: Personal Power—Victim Perceptions of Independencea (n = 595)

Independent Variable b SE β t

Suspect arrested 0.018 0.116 .006 0.158
Anglo suspect –0.642 0.134 –.173*** –4.783
Married couple –0.540 0.146 –.137*** –3.705
Couple lives together –0.564 0.128 –.164*** –4.418
Suspect employed –0.790 0.155 –.196*** –5.104
Victim employed 0.847 0.133 .258*** 6.362
Victim earned income advantageb 0.289 0.121 .099* 2.383

Intercept 4.180 0.202 20.668
Adjusted R2 (F) .246*** (27.335)
M (SD) 3.200 (1.601)

a. A 5-point rating scale (1 = totally dependent, 5 = not dependent at all) was used, and an ordi-
nary least squares model was run.
b. Victim earned income advantage = victim’s earned income divided by suspect’s earned
income. Range = 0.05 to 4.80. Values less than 1.0 indicate victim’s disadvantage. Values greater
than 1.0 indicate victim’s advantage. A zero value indicates that either partner was unemployed
at the time of the police response.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

A woman abused by an Anglo man in the Metro Dade County experiment,
compared to a woman abused by an African American or Latino man, experi-
enced less personal power. Richie’s (1996) gender entrapment theory offers a
counterintuitive explanation for this finding. Richie argued that a dual expo-
sure to racism and sexism makes African American women unusually vul-
nerable to domestic violence. The physical and emotional consequences of
violence within the home discourage women from reaching outside to social
control agencies that are presumed to be racist. Instead, many African Ameri-
can women are empowered by their relationships with friends and family to
control behaviors within their intimate relationships. African American
women are likely to “speak openly and directly about the violence in their
homes” (Weis, 2001, p. 156). Anglo women, however, are far more likely
than minority women to “deal silently with their ‘secret’” of domestic vio-
lence. They work to maintain the ideology of the “‘good’ white family life”
(Weis, 2001, p. 156). The contradiction, experiencing abuse while talking up
the “good husband,” can diminish or destroy perceptions of personal power
or independence.

We found that a victim’s perception of personal power was negatively
related to being married and to living with the suspect. The disadvantage of
marriage for some domestic violence victims has been documented empiri-
cally by family violence researchers, and it is explained by criminal opportu-
nity theory (McCloskey, 1996; Miller & Knudsen, 1999; Straus & Gelles,
1986). Domestic violence victims who are married to their offenders often
have little control over economic and social resources. Threats to leave a mar-
riage can result in the escalation of violence. Yet being married to, and living
with a domestic violence perpetrator, increases his opportunities to commit
reoccurring acts of violence.

In support of our research hypothesis, we found that employed victims,
compared to unemployed victims, perceived more personal power. The
greater the earned income advantage a victim had within her interpersonal
relationship, the more personal power she perceived. However, personal
power, contrary to our research hypothesis, was not related to whether the
victim experienced reoccurring violence following a police response. We
found (not reported here in table form) no significant empirical relationship
between a victim’s perception of independence and her report of domestic
violence following police intervention.

Legal power. We measured legal power with six items from the victim
interviews and used ANOVA to examine whether the arrest of a partner per se
was related to the degree of legal power perceived by the victims. All the

706 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

responses to the separate items were coded in the direction of increased
power, reflecting the degree to which victims felt more powerful, in control,
brave, strong, encouraged, and determined in response to the action taken by
the police.

The summed scale showed a high level of inter-item reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha = .903), but there was no significant difference in the legal
power scores across the victim-participant groups (not shown here in table
form). We noted, however, a distinctive pattern in the data. Victims whose
partners were arrested, compared to those whose partners were not arrested,
scored slightly higher on each item of the legal power scale. These “non-
findings” are potentially informative because they support Ford’s (1991)
argument that a criminal justice response can help a victim form an alliance
with a legal actor. The alliance may protect the victim from an escalation in
violence.

Table 3 shows the results of a regression model that was specified to
explain variance in legal power as a function of suspect arrest, the victim’s
preference for arrest, race, and the victim’s satisfaction with the police
response. We found that arrest per se was negatively related to perceptions of
legal power. It is quite possible that many women in the experiment wanted
the police to respond to their domestic violence problems but not to arrest
their partners (Mullings, 1997; Weis, 2001). This premise is supported
empirically. We found that if a victim wanted the police to arrest a suspect and
the police did arrest the suspect, the victim perceived a higher level of legal
power. The more satisfied she was with the police action that was taken,
whether or not the police action included arresting the suspect, the more legal
power she perceived. These findings clearly support Mills’s (1998, 1999)
argument that effective responses to domestic violence are those that reflect

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 707

TABLE 3: Explaining Variance in Perceived Legal Powera (n = 588)

Independent Variable b SE β t

Suspect arrested –2.097 0.819 –.102** –2.560
Anglo suspect –3.319 0.866 –.141*** –3.832
Victim wanted and got suspect arrested 2.319 1.174 .077** 1.980
Victim satisfied with police action 3.444 0.291 .453*** 11.838

Intercept 18.026 1.109 16.250
Adjusted R2 (F) .213*** (40.792)
M (SD) 29.900 (10.148)

a. A 6-item scale was used (alpha = .903), and an ordinary least squares model was run.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

the victim’s preferences and autonomy. A legal response that respects the
victim’s needs can have positive consequences. It can partner the victim
with a powerful social control agent and empower her to prevent reoccurring
violence.

The analysis shown in Table 4 partly supports Mills’s (1998, 1999) argu-
ment. We found that suspect arrest was positively related to a victim’s percep-
tion of safety. Feeling safe was not related to race or to the victim’s satisfac-
tion with the police action that was taken. However, perceptions of safety
were significantly related to perceptions of legal power. The more legal
power a victim perceived, the safer she felt following a domestic violence
incident. The analysis permits the inference that arrest can increase percep-
tions of safety, even for some victims who preferred the police to stop the vio-
lence without arresting the domestic violence suspect.

Six-Month Follow-Up Interviews

Due to the high attrition rate among the victim-participants in the Dade
County experiment, we analyzed the 6-month follow-up interviews as an
exploratory study. We drew inferences from our empirical findings only for
the purpose of encouraging discussion.

Table 5 shows that the three different types of reoccurring domestic vio-
lence that were measured by the follow-up victim interviews were not
affected by suspect arrest. We contend that on average, the victims in the
Dade County arrest experiment were unlikely to have experienced long-term
benefits as a consequence of suspect arrest. We also noticed that the standard
deviations, especially for batteries and threats (shown in Table 5), are sub-

708 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

TABLE 4: Victim Felt Safea (n = 588)

Independent Variable b SE β t

Suspect arrested 0.974 0.122 .327*** 7.964
Anglo suspect –0.007 0.129 –.002 –0.057
Victim wanted and got suspect arrested –0.221 0.173 –.051 –1.279
Legal power 0.044 0.006 .302*** 7.122
Victim satisfied with police action –0.028 0.048 .025 –0.572

Intercept 1.991 0.199 10.027
Adjusted R2 (F) .177*** (26.212)
M (SD) 3.83 (1.67)

a. A 4-point rating scale (1 = very unsafe, 4 = very safe) was used, and an ordinary least squares
model was run.
***p < .001.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

709

TABLE 5: Six-Month Follow-Up Interviews, Victim Reports of Reoccurring Violencea

Number of Times Number of Times Number of Times
Hit or Battered Property Damaged Threatened

Treatment or Control Group (Actually Delivered) M SD n M SD n M SD n

No arrest, no Safe Streets control group 0.47 1.05 76 0.07 0.27 76 2.66 12.06 76
Arrest only 0.46 2.14 106 0.28 1.98 106 1.17 5.87 106
Safe Streets only 0.49 1.12 75 0.17 0.81 75 1.83 11.63 75
Both arrest and Safe Streets 0.26 0.88 115 0.06 0.27 115 0.59 2.48 115

Range 0-20 0-20 0-90
Overall M 0.41 0.15 1.42
Overall F 0.604 0.824 1.031

a. An ANOVA was run.

a
t S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lica

tio
n
s o

n
D

e
ce

m
b
e
r 7

, 2
0
1
2

jiv.sa
g
e
p
u
b
.co

m
D

o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
fro

m

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

stantial. It is possible that for some victims, suspect arrest, without Safe
Streets follow up, resulted in an escalation of battery and threats. For other
victims, arrest could have prevented repeated acts or threats of violence.

In Table 6, a summed scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .804) that represents the
total number and types of reoccurring domestic violence is regressed on the
victim’s subjective experiences. We found that victims who, according to
their reports, experienced relatively high levels of stress in their marital or
intimate relationships also experienced higher levels of reoccurring violence.
Those who reported that the suspects realized the wrongfulness of domestic
violence reported less reoccurring violence.

Personal and Legal Power

Our research hypotheses, derived from Mills’s (1998, 1999) power model,
were partly supported by the analysis of the victim interviews that were con-
ducted as part of the Dade County arrest experiment. Women victimized by
Anglo suspects, ceteris paribus, perceived less personal power within their
intimate relationships and less legal power. Employed victims and those who
had an income advantage within their interpersonal relationships reported
relatively higher levels of personal power. In principle, personal power gives
victims a tool or an instrument to prevent reoccurring domestic violence.
Empirically, we could not, however, confirm the expected relationship
between the victim’s personal power and the suspect’s desistance of domestic
violence following a police response.

710 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

TABLE 6: Victim Reports of Domestic Violence Following Police Intervention, Sum of
Number of Times Hit, Threatened, and Property Damaged (alpha = .804)
(n = 345)

Independent Variable b SE β t

Victim’s perception of relationship stress 0.363 0.128 .157** 2.838
Victim thinks she is more likely to call

police in future 0.160 0.212 .039 0.754
Suspect realizes wrongfulness of

domestic violence –1.312 0.321 –.229*** –4.082

Intercept 0.414 0.701
Adjusted R2 (F) .102 (12.948)***
M (SD) 0.834 (2.619)

a. An ordinary least squares model was run.
**p < .01. *** p < .001.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

A police response to domestic violence, including suspect arrest, can
increase the victim’s legal power that can be used to prevent reoccurring vio-
lence. The more satisfied a victim was with the police action that was taken,
the more legal power she perceived. Victims who experienced high levels of
legal power felt more safe as they anticipated and controlled future social
interactions with their partners.

Six months following police intervention, it was the level of stress within a
relationship and the victim’s perception that the suspect recognized the
wrongfulness of domestic violence that were related to the probability of
reoccurring violence. Based on these findings, we posit that the most reason-
able criminal justice and social service responses to domestic violence are
those that consider the victim’s needs by taking into account her subjective
experiences, her cultural and social resources, and her personal and legal
resources. In addition, the most effective responses are likely to be those that
convincingly demonstrate, to the suspect, the wrongfulness of domestic
violence.

DISCUSSION

Method Issues

The limitations of this study are clear. The research participants, all
women, were in heterosexual relationships and experienced at least one inci-
dent of misdemeanor domestic violence that was brought to the attention of
the police. The victim-participants in the arrest experiment do not represent
victims in Dade County, or domestic violence victims in other areas of the
United States. Most serious are the disadvantages imposed by the short-term
(6 month) victim follow-up period and by the unacceptably high attrition rate
among the research participants.

This study also makes clear the advantages of an experimental field
design. We pose two crucial questions that all experiments should ask and
answer: Did the Dade County arrest experiment cause harm to domestic vio-
lence victims? We found no evidence that victims faced an increased likeli-
hood of reoccurring violence as a consequence of the arrest experiment. Did
the failure to arrest those randomly assigned to a control group cause victim
harm? We conclude, ironically, that it did not. Arrest may have had a statisti-
cally significant albeit weak effect on the probability of reoccurring domestic
violence.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 711

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Responses to Domestic Violence

Our analysis of the Metro Dade victim data contributes to the literature on
social and legal responses to domestic violence. We conclude that personal
and legal power are subjectively experienced perceptions that can be effec-
tive resources for domestic violence victims. Legal actors can form partner-
ships with victims by recognizing that each person is unique and faces cul-
tural, economic, family, and emotional circumstances that can increase or
decrease the probability of reoccurring violence. Partnerships and alliances
empower victims. They are, however, precluded by police or court actions
that fail to consider the unique victim’s characteristics and needs.

Perceptions of personal power can be reaffirmed by legal power. Together,
personal and legal power can be used to influence and control the suspect’s
behaviors, as they simultaneously assure the victim’s perceptions of safety.

This research, because it is based on an arrest experiment that included an
extremely disproportionate representation of African American victims,
accentuates the need for domestic violence programs to appeal to our African
American communities. Police arrests, safe shelters, and prosecution pro-
grams have been the preferred solutions for domestic violence problems in
the United States since the mid-1970s. However, many African American
women remain unwilling to turn to safe shelters because they are not “cultur-
ally friendly” (Nelson, 2002, p. 2). In other research (Miller, 2002), we found
that African American victims were compelled to move from a safe shelter to
a homeless shelter to avoid assault by Anglo clients within the domestic vio-
lence shelter.

Other victims refuse to call the police to avoid turning their partners over
to a criminal justice system that, they perceive, discriminates against African
Americans (Nelson, 2002, p. 4). African American victims can be empow-
ered by police and other sociolegal actors who recognize the circumstances
that the individual African American victim and her community encounter.
Oliver (2000) illustrated the possibilities. He recognized the limits of typical
domestic violence programs that are based on what he called a “one size fits
all” model, and he urged the development of prevention and intervention pro-
grams that are based on African American popular culture. He cited success-
ful programs that focus on culture-specific radio campaigns, gospel music,
and African American icons in public service announcements. Some advo-
cates may argue that only our urban areas with the most diverse populations
and the healthiest fiscal conditions can afford the culturally diverse programs
that are needed to respond to the various types of domestic violence victims
in the United States. We agree with Oliver and with Richie (2000) who

712 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

reminded advocates that “the assumed race and class neutrality of gender
violence led to the erasure of low-income women and women of color from
the dominant view” (p. 1135). No city and no intervention program can
afford to ignore all the violence and all the victims.

Future Research and Domestic Violence Perspectives

Social science theories of domestic violence tend to explain the reoccur-
rence or desistance of battery and threats of violence (Miller & Knudsen,
1999). Many feminist perspectives examine the consequences of patriarchy
for women in general and for specific women within their intimate relation-
ships (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 2000). Other feminists plait
race and class into their explanations (Richie, 1996; Weis, 2001). We offer
three modest suggestions for the continued development of perspectives that
focus on what women can do to prevent and stop domestic violence.

First, we argue that domestic violence theory and research should con-
tinue to focus on explaining the subjective experiences of women. Emotions
and perceptions, such as empowerment, stress, and feeling safe, can have
important effects for women who face the risk of domestic violence. Emo-
tions and perceptions are central because outside actors, the police or
extended family members, do not share a bedroom with a potential abuser.

Second, we argue that a woman’s culture, her resources, and her connec-
tions to legal actors can enhance perceptions of personal and legal power.
Cultural and social resources can empower women to talk and disclose
shared problems, thus insulating women from the dangers of isolation.
Shared accounts can protect individual women. Financial resources, espe-
cially earned income, can empower women by making them agents of social
control within an intimate relationship. Legal alliances can enhance percep-
tions of safety and trust.

Third, we take the feminist position that the only reasonable explanation
of domestic violence is one that considers simultaneously the unique person
and the intersection of race, gender, and class in U.S. society. We contend that
it is absolutely unacceptable for any woman to be subjected to the injuries of
domestic violence. Concomitantly, we contend that an explanation of domes-
tic violence that fails to address race and class differences is insufficient.

Although “every woman” can be a victim of domestic violence, according
to the slogan, I realize full well that I sit comfortably in my office to write
about a problem that too many women, often poor, homeless, and minority
women, will not get the opportunity to avoid.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 713

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

REFERENCES

Berk, R. A. (1993a). Reply: Policy correctness in the ASR. American Sociological Review, 58,
889-890.

Berk, R. A. (1993b). What the scientific evidence shows: On average, we can do no better than
arrest. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence
(pp. 323-336). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in inci-
dents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Socio-
logical Review, 57, 698-708.

Davis, A. J. (1997). Race, cops, and traffic stops. University of Miami Law Review, 51, 425-443.
Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (1997). A proactive response to family violence: The results of a

randomized experiment. Criminology, 35, 307-333.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Confronting violent men. In

J. Hanmer & C. Itzin (Eds.) (with S. Quaid & D. Wigglesworth), Home truths about domestic
violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice—A reader (pp. 289-309). London:
Routledge.

Dunford, F., Huizinga, D., & Elliott. D. S. (1991). The role of arrest in domestic assault. The
Omaha experiment. Criminology, 28, 183-206.

Ford, D. A. (1991). Preventing and provoking wife battery through criminal sanctions: A look at
the risks. In D. D. Knudsen & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Abused and battered: Social and legal
responses to family violence (pp 191-209). New York: Aldine.

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaults: Process, prob-
lems, and effects. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and
evaluation (pp. 127-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1998). The Indianapolis domestic violence prosecution experi-
ment. In National Institute of Justice and American Bar Association (Eds.), Legal interven-
tions in family violence: Research findings and policy implications (pp. 62-64). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Garner, J., Fagan, J., & Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the Spouse Assault Repli-
cation Program: A critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 3-28.

Gelles, R. J. (1993). Constraints against family violence: How well do they work? American
Behavioral Scientist, 36, 575-586.

Gottfredson, S. D., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1996). Race, gender, and guidelines-based decision mak-
ing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 49-69.

Hagan, J., & Albonetti, C. (1982). Race, class, and the perception of criminal injustice in Amer-
ica. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 329-355.

Hampton, R. L., & Gelles, R. J. (1994). Violence toward Black women in a nationally represen-
tative sample of Black families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 105-119.

Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W., III, & Dean, C. W. (1992). The failure of arrest to deter spouse
abuse. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 7-33.

Humphrey, J. A., & Fogarty, T. J. (1987). Race and plea bargained outcomes: A research note.
Social Forces, 66, 176-182.

Jacobs, M. S., & O’Brien, R. M. (1998). The determinants of deadly force: A structural analysis
of police violence. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 837-862.

Jasinski, J. L. (2001a). Physical violence among Anglo, African American, and Hispanic cou-
ples: Ethnic differences in persistence and cessation. Violence and Victims, 16, 479-490.

714 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Jasinski, J. L. (2001b). Pregnancy and violence against women: An analysis of longitudinal data.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 712-733.

Jasinski, J. L. (2001c). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C. M. Renzetti,
J. L. Edelson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5-22).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, I. M. (1992). Economic, situational, and psychological correlates of the decision-
making process of battered women. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 73, 168-176.

Klein, S., Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1990). Race and imprisonment decisions in California. Sci-
ence, 247, 812-816.

Lee, R. K., Thompson, V. L., & Mechanic, M. B. (2002). Intimate partner violence and women of
color: A call for innovations. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 530-534.

Lempert, R. (1989). Humility is a virtue: On the publication of policy relevant research. Law and
Society Review, 23, 145-161.

Mann, C. R. (1996). When women kill. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Maxwell, C., Garner, J., & Fagan, J. (1999). The impact of arrest on domestic violence: Results

from five policy experiments. National Institute of Justice Journal, 241, 27-28.
Maxwell, C., Garner, J., & Fagan, J. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence:

New evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program. Research in brief. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender & Soci-
ety, 10, 449-463.

McCoy, C. (1997). Sentencing and the underclass. Law & Society Review, 31, 589-612.
Miller, J. (2002). Remedial work: Accounts of violent events and interpersonal relationships.

Unpublished manuscript.
Miller, J. L., & Knudsen, D. (with Copenhaver, S.) (1999). Family abuse and violence. In M. B.

Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family
(pp. 705-756). New York: Plenum.

Mills, L. G. (1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution policies for domestic violence: A critical
literature review and the case for more research to test victim empowerment approaches.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 306-319.

Mills, L. G. (1999). Commentary: Killing her softly: Intimate abuse and the violence of state
interventions. Harvard Law Review, 113, 550-611.

Mullings, L. (1997). On our own terms: Race, class and gender in the lives of African American
women. New York: Routledge.

Nelson, L. I. (2002). Community solutions to domestic violence must address cultural roots and
beliefs. Assembling the Pieces: An African American Perspective on Community and Family
Violence, 3, 2-5.

Oliver, W. (2000). Preventing domestic violence in the African American community: The ratio-
nale for popular culture interventions. Violence Against Women, 6, 533-549.

Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The
Dade County spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57, 691-697.

Pate, A. M., Hamilton, E. E., & Annan, S. (1994). Spouse abuse replication project in Metro-
Dade County Florida, 1987-1989. Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 1991 (Producer).
Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (Distributor).

Richie, B. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New
York: Routledge.

Richie, B. E. (2000). A Black feminist reflection on the antiviolence movement. Signs: Journal
of Women in Culture and Society, 25, 1113-1137.

Miller / AN ARRESTING EXPERIMENT 715

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free
Press.

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Deviance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of criminal sanction.
Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 445-473.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic
assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.

Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., Collins, D. J., et al.
(1991). From initial deterrence to long-term escalation: Short-custody arrest for poverty
ghetto domestic violence. Criminology, 29, 821-850.

Stephens, B. J., & Sinden, P. G. (2000). Victims’ voices: Domestic assault victims’ perceptions
of police demeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 534-547.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. A. (1986). Societal change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as
revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.

Teichman, M., & Teichman, Y. (1989). Violence in the family: An analysis in terms of interper-
sonal resource-exchange. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 128-139.

Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the
predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,
48, 12-17.

Weis, L. (2001). Race, gender, and critique: African-American women, White women, and
domestic violence in the 1980s and 1990s. Signs: Journal of Culture and Society, 27, 139-
169.

West, T. C. (1999). Wounds of the spirit: Black women, violence and the resistance ethic. New
York: New York University Press.

Wortley, S., Macmillan, R., & Hagan, J. (1997). Just des(s)erts? The racial polarization of per-
ceptions of criminal injustice. Law & Society Review, 31, 637-676.

JoAnn Miller is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology
at Purdue University. Her research and interests focus on social problems, social
inequalities, and interpersonal violence. She and Robert Perrucci are the editors of Con-
temporary Sociology.

716 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / July 2003

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/