Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ottawa County
Domestic Violence
Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary …………………………………………………………. i
II. Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. ii
III. Descriptive Statistical Analysis A. Overview ………………………………………………………………. 1 B. Charges
1. Number of Charges …………………………………………… 3 2. Level of Domestic Violence Charges Filed …………………… 4 3. Age …………………………………………………………….. 5 4. Gender …………………………………………………………. 6 5. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 7 6. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 9 7. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 10
C. Case Disposition
1. Outcome of Case……………………………………………… 11 2. Age …………………………………………………………… 14 3. Gender ………………………………………………………… 15 4. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 16 5. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 17 6. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 19
D. Convictions
1. Number of Convictions ……………………………………… 20 2. Age …………………………………………………………… 22 3. Gender ………………………………………………………… 23 4. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 24 5. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 25 6. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 26
E. Bonds/Sentencing/Treatment
1. Bonds ………………………………………………………… 27 2. Fines and Costs ……………………………………………… 30 3. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 33 4. Jail Time Served ……………………………………………… 36 5. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 39 6. Community Service …………………………………………… 39 7. Probation Length ……………………………………………….40 8. Probation Type …………………………………………………43 9. Non-Reporting Probation……………………………………… 44 10. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program)………………….. 45 11. Substance Abuse Treatment ……………………………………47
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
12. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 49 13. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 51 14. Other Treatment ……………………………………………… 52 15. Spouse Abuse Act …………………………………….……….. 53
F. Probation Violation
1. Probation Outcome …………………………………………… 55 2. Probation Violation …………………………………………… 57 3. Sentencing For Probation Violation ……………………………59
G. Recidivism 1. 0-2 Years ……………………………………………………… 61 2. 3-5 Years ……………………………………………………… 63
IV. Inferential Statistical Analysis
A. Overview ……………………………………………………………… 65 B. Variables Exhibiting a Significant Relationship to Recidivism 0-2 Years
1. Gender ………………………………………………………… 68 2. Race/Ethnicity …………………………………………………. 70 3. Incident Location ……………………………………………… 73 4. Type of Charges Filed ………………………………………… 74 5. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 76 6. Case Disposition ……………………………………………… 78 7. Jail Time Served … …………………………………………… 80 8. Probation Length ……………………………………………… 82 9. Probation Type ………………………………… ……………... 84 10. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………… ……………... 85 11. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) …………………. 86 12. Other Treatment ……………………………………………….. 87 13. First Probation Violation ……………………………………… 89 14. Second Probation Violation …………………………………… 90 15. Sentence for First Probation Violation …………………………92 16. Sentence for Second Probation Violation ……………... ……... 94 17. Sentence for Third Probation Violation ……………………….. 96 18. Probation Outcome …………………………………………… 98 19. Bond Type ……………………………………………... ………100 20. Bond Violation ………………………………………… ………101 21. Spouse Abuse Act ……………………………………………... 102
C. Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship to Recidivism 0-2 Years
1. Fines and Costs ………………………………………………... 104 2. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 106 3. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 108 4. Community Service …………………………………………… 109 5. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………… ………110
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
6. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 111 7. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 112 8. Third Probation Violation ……………………………………... 113
D. Variables Exhibiting a Significant Relationship to Recidivism 3-5 Years
1. Gender …………………………………………………………. 114 2. Type of Charges Filed ………………………………………… 116 3. Prior Criminal Record ………………………………………… 118 4. Case Disposition ………………………………………………. 120 5. Probation Length ……………………………….……………… 122 6. Probation Outcome ……………………………………………. 124 7. Bond Violation ………………………………………… ………126 8. Spouse Abuse Act ……………………………………... ………127
E. Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship to Recidivism 3-5 Years
1. Race/Ethnicity ………………………………………………… 129 2. Incident Location ……………………………………… ………130 3. Fines and Costs ……………………………………………… 131 4. Jail Time Sentenced …………………………………………… 133 5. Jail Time Served ……………………………….……………… 135 6. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………… 137 7. Community Service …………………………………………… 137 8. Probation Type ………………………………………… ………138 9. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………………………… 138 10. Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) ………………… 139 11. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………………... 139 12. Individual Counseling ………………………………………… 140 13. Couples Counseling …………………………………………… 140 14. Other Treatment ……………………………………………….. 141 15. First Probation Violation………………………………………. 141 16. Second Probation Violation …………………………………… 142 17. Third Probation Violation …………………………………… 142 18. Sentence for First Probation Violation ……...………………… 143 19. Sentence for Second Probation Violation……………………… 143 20. Bond Type ……………………………………………... ………144
V. Financial Analysis
A. Overview ……………………………………………………………… 145 B. Jail Time Served ………………………………………………………. 147 C. Electronic Monitoring ………………………………………………. 148 D. Community Service …………………………………………………… 149 E. Traditional Probation ………………………………………………….. 150 F. ISP Probation ………………………………………………………… 151 G. Non-Reporting Probation ……………………………………………… 152 H. Duluth Program ……………………………………………………… 153 I. Substance Abuse Treatment …………………………………………. 154
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
J. Individual Counseling ……………………………………………… 155 K. Couples Counseling ………………………………………………… 156 L. Youthful Intervention Program ……………………………………… 157 M. Comparative Summary ……………………………………………… 158
VI. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 161
VII. Appendix A
VIII. Appendix B
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
Ottawa County Planning Department –Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003) i
Executive Summary
This evaluation of Ottawa County domestic violence offenses provides insight into the demographic, trend, and relational aspects of this community problem that will assist County leaders with future policy decisions. It will also allow leaders to better assess the impact of present programs and policies on domestic violence. Further, information in this report will improve the County’s ability to measure the impact that future policy and program adjustments have on future occurrences and subsequent recidivism rates. All of the data utilized for this study resulted from domestic violence cases that occurred between January 1995 and December 1999. The data is compiled into detailed tables and charts which are presented throughout the document. The information was so exhaustive that it was difficult to narrow the selection of data for this Executive Summary. After much deliberation, the data was encapsulated into the following highlights: The number of domestic violence charges was 2,753. The mean age of those charged with a domestic violence offense was 31.5. Males accounted for 81% of domestic violence charges and females accounted for 19%. Whites represented 88.6% of the population and accounted for 72.7% of domestic violence
charges; Hispanics represented 7.0% of the population and accounted for 13.1% of the charges; Asians represented 2.1% of the population and accounted for 1.6% of the charges; Blacks represented 1.0% of the population and accounted for 10% of the charges.
Although Holland City and Holland Township represented only 23.7% of the population, these entities accounted for 51.4% of the total domestic violence charges.
Although Georgetown Township, Jamestown Township, and Hudsonville City represented 22.5% of the population, these entities accounted for only 6.1% of the total domestic violence charges.
54.6% of individuals charged with domestic violence had a previous criminal record. 64.9% (1,787) of those charged were convicted of domestic violence between 1995 and 1999. 31.2% of the charges involving domestic violence resulted in “dismissals” or “acquittals”. 3.9% of those charged were allowed to plea to another charge. 25.3% of the individuals convicted of domestic violence had their cases expunged through a
special Spouse Abuse Act probationary designation. The mean “fines and costs” assessed to those convicted of domestic violence was $295.10. The mean “jail time sentence” for those convicted of domestic violence was 57 days. The mean “jail time served” for those sentenced to jail time was 31 days. 9.9% of those convicted of domestic violence recidivated in the first two years. 10.6% of male domestic violence offenders and 6.5% of females recidivated in the first two years. 21.4% of Blacks recidivated in the first two years; 17.3% of Hispanics; 7.6% of Whites; and 0%
of Asians. The recidivism rate for those domestic violence offenders that “plead to a lesser domestic
violence charge” was 22.4%. The recidivism rate for those domestic violence offenders that received a “Spouse Abuse Act”
probationary designation was 5.4%.
This summary provides a very modest glimpse of the entire data, trends, and findings that are reported in this evaluation. A more thorough overview of the domestic violence data is provided in the subsequent sections of this document.
Ottawa County Planning Department –Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003) ii
Introduction In 1993, the Michigan Legislature began updating several state statutes to address domestic violence and other related offenses. One of the legislative changes created a new criminal charge entitled “Domestic Violence” and, shortly thereafter, Ottawa County began charging perpetrators with this offense. Information regarding these “Domestic Violence” offenses is entered into the Criminal Justice Users System by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and probation personnel. The data collected on each of these cases is extensive. It includes information regarding demographics, arrests, charges, criminal history, treatment, probation violations, and other pertinent information. In all, there are 28 separate variables and 158 sub-variables included in the domestic violence database that were used to produce this study (see Appendix A). This data is now being used to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of domestic violence related programs, policies, and activities that are being implemented by Ottawa County. This study utilized quantitative statistical techniques, specialized statistical software (SPSS), and two Grand Valley State University statisticians to ensure that study results were accurate, valid, and unbiased. The study summarizes and analyzes data for domestic violence cases that occurred in Ottawa County between January 1995 and December 1999. Prior to analyzing data, the Ottawa County Planning Department first worked collaboratively with County agencies (law enforcement, prosecutorial, community corrections, and probation) to define measurable goals, clarify roles and responsibilities, and analyze the criminal justice procedures and processes that are used to manage domestic violence cases (see Appendix B). This strategic planning process resulted in a domestic violence study that provides four primary categories of information: a descriptive analysis, an inferential analysis, a financial analysis, and a conclusion. The “descriptive analysis” provides information about demographics, charges, case dispositions, convictions, sentencing, treatments, and probation violations. The “inferential analysis” utilizes the data to determine if there are relationships between certain variables and recidivism. The “financial analysis” provides information about the costs of the various sentencing/treatment options. The “conclusion” provides suggestions for domestic violence related data collection activities, as well as overall recommendations that may be explored further to determine if domestic violence recidivism can be reduced. The statistical techniques that are used in this evaluation can be intimidating to the casual reader. However, many of these techniques often only confirm and verify conclusions that can be inferred by viewing many of the trend-lines, charts, graphs, and tables. In other words, as this evaluation is reviewed, a fair amount of common sense should be used. The statistical methodologies should not be allowed to overwhelm any assessments that are based on common sense.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 1 of 163
Descriptive Statistical Analysis Overview
This section utilizes several descriptive statistical techniques to provide domestic violence related information that includes the following: demographics, charges, case dispositions, convictions, sentencing, treatment, and probation violations. The primary techniques that are used to describe this data are as follows: Frequency Distribution - organizing raw data into tables and graphs Mean - average value of all numeric measurements in a data set
Median - the value that falls in the middle of a set of numeric measurements when they are arranged in order of magnitude
Mode - most frequently occurring numeric measurement in a data set Standard Deviation - numeric measurement that provides information about the
dispersion or variability of data The data in this section has been systematically arranged in tables and graphs to allow in-depth scrutiny of the domestic violence information that is included in this evaluation. A few highlights from this section are listed below: Charges The number of domestic violence charges filed between 1995 and 1999 was 2,753. The mean age of those charged with a domestic violence offense was 31.5; the age range of those
charged was between 16 and 81. Males accounted for 81% of domestic violence charges and females accounted for 19%. Whites represented 88.6% of the population and accounted for 72.7% of domestic violence
charges; Hispanics represented 7.0% of the population and accounted for 13.1% of the charges; Asians represented 2.1% of the population and accounted for 1.6% of the charges; Blacks represented 1.0% of the population and accounted for 10% of the charges.
Although Holland City and Holland Township represented only 23.7% of the population, these entities accounted for 51.4% of the total domestic violence charges.
Although Georgetown Township, Jamestown Township, and Hudsonville City represented 22.5% of the population, these entities accounted for only 6.1% of the total domestic violence charges.
54.6% of individuals charged with domestic violence had a previous criminal record. Case Disposition 31.2% of the domestic violence charges were “dismissed” or ended in “acquittals”. 29.9% of males and 36.7% of females had their cases dismissed, or were acquitted of domestic
violence. 66.2% of males and 59.3% of females were either convicted or entered a domestic violence plea.
Convictions The number of individuals convicted of domestic violence between 1995 and 1999 was 1,787. 64.9% of those charged were convicted. 82.6% of those convicted were male and 17.3% female. 72.7% of those convicted were White; 14.5% Hispanic, 8.6 % Black; 1.8% Asian.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 2 of 163
49.7% of those convicted of domestic violence pled guilty; 11.9% pled no contest; 4.5% were convicted at trial; 2.8% pled to a lesser domestic violence offense; and 31.1% received a Spouse Abuse Act designation *.
27.5% of males and 47.9% of females received a Spouse Abuse Act designation. 25.3% of all domestic violence convictions were expunged after successfully completing the
provisions of their Spouse Abuse Act probation. * Spouse Abuse Act: This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. If this probation order is violated, a conviction is entered and the defendant is sentenced. A non-public record is kept by the State Police. Offenders are only eligible to be granted this type of probation once. Sentencing/Treatment 91.7% of those convicted of domestic violence were ordered to pay fines and costs. The median amount of fines and costs included in court orders was $250; the mode was $220. The range of fines and costs was between $15 and $3,401. 42.0% of those convicted were sentenced to jail time. The median number of jail days that were sentenced in court orders was 42; the mode was 30. The number of jail days sentenced ranged between 1 and 540. 70.2% of those sentenced to serve jail time did serve some time. The median number of days served in jail was 15; the mode was 2. The number of jail days served ranged between 1 and 540 days. 4 offenders received “electronic monitoring” as a part of their sentence. 31 offenders received “community service” as a part of their sentence. 81.2% of those convicted received “probation” as a part of their sentence. The median (and mode) number of probation months sentenced was 12. 70.3% of those sentenced to probation were ordered to participate in “traditional probation”;
29.7% were ordered into “Intensively Supervised Probation”. 41.9% of those convicted were ordered to participate in a program based on the Duluth Model
(i.e. Family Violence Program). 12.9% of those convicted received treatment for substance abuse. 29.4% of those convicted were ordered to attend “individual counseling”. .4% of those convicted were ordered to attend “couples counseling”.
Probation Outcomes 42.7% of those sentenced to probation received satisfactory discharge; 31.1% received
satisfactory discharge with Spouse Abuse Act expungement; 12.7% had probation revoked; 8.2% received an unsatisfactory discharge.
26.0% of those sentenced to probation had a single probation violation; 9.4% had two probation violations; and 2.1% had three probation violations.
The majority of probation violations were caused by an alcohol/drug related charge or failure of the offender to attend counseling.
56.9% of offenders were sentenced to jail time for probation violations; 14.1% received extended probation.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
CHARGES
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CHARGES
Number of Charges
Year Number Percent of Total Rate per Thousand of Ottawa County Population*
1995 464 16.9 2.21 1996 508 18.5 2.36 1997 541 19.7 2.45 1998 684 24.7 3.03 1999 556 20.2 2.41 Total 2753 100.0 --
*Based on US Census Bureau population estimates for Ottawa County.
Number of Charges by Year
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Number of Charges by Quarter
Quarter
4th
'99
3rd
'99
2nd
'99
1st '
99
4th
'98
3rd
'98
2nd
'98
1st '
98
4th
'97
3rd
'97
2nd
'97
1st '
97
4th
'96
3rd
'96
2nd
'96
1st '
96
4th
'95
3rd
'95
2nd
'95
1st '
95
Freq
uenc
y
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 3 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: LEVEL OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES FILED
Number Percent of Total
Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2553 92.7 Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 167* 6.1 Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 33* 1.2
Total 2753 100.0 *The 341 Domestic Violence offenders with a “Prior Domestic Violence Conviction” (page 10) differs from the 200 that were charged with Domestic Violence 2nd or 3rd Offense (listed above). Of those 341 listed as having a prior Domestic Violence conviction on page 10, 141 were prosecuted on other alternative, more severe charges (including felonies).
Charges Filed (1995-1999)
1.2%
6.1%
92.7%
Domestic Violence #3
Domestic Violence #2
Domestic Violence
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 4 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGE SSUBSECTION: AGE
Age Distribution
Number Age
Minimum Age
Maximum Age Mean Age Standard
Deviation Age 2752 16 81 31.48 9.030
None Recorded 1 Total 2753
Age
80.075.0
70.065.0
60.055.0
50.045.0
40.035.0
30.025.0
20.015.0
Age Distribution
Freq
uenc
y
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Std. Dev = 9.03 Mean = 31.5
N = 2752.003280
183
366
476
581551
388
77
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 5 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: GENDER
Gender Distribution
Frequency Percent of Total Total Percentage of Population in Ottawa County*
Male 2230 81.0 49.2Female 521 18.9 50.8None Recorded 2 0.1 --
Total 2753 100.0 100.0
*Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.
Number of Charges by Gender (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
570
530
490
450
410
370
330
290
250
210
170
130
90
5010
Gender
Female
Male
Number of Charges by Gender (Quarterly)
Quarter
4th
'99
3rd
'99
2nd
'99
1st '
994t
h '9
83r
d '9
8
2nd
'98
1st '
984t
h '9
7
3rd
'97
2nd
'97
1st '
974t
h '9
63r
d '9
6
2nd
'96
1st '
964t
h '9
5
3rd
'95
2nd
'95
1st '
95
Freq
uenc
y
170160150140130120110100
908070605040302010
0
Gender
Female
Male
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 6 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Race/Ethnicity of Those Charged
Frequency Percent of Total
Total Percentage of Population in
Ottawa County* White 2002 72.7 88.6 Black 276 10.0 1.0 Hispanic 360 13.1 7.0 Asian 44 1.6 2.1 Other 4 0.2 1.3 None Recorded 67 2.4 --
Total 2753 100.0 100.0
*Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.
Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
500
400
300
200
100
0
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 7 of 163
In this graph, the “white” race/ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in categories containing smaller values.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Quarterly)
Quarter4t
h '9
93r
d '9
92n
d '9
91s
t '99
4th
'98
3rd
'98
2nd
'98
1st '
984t
h '9
73r
d '9
72n
d '9
71s
t '97
4th
'96
3rd
'96
2nd
'96
1st '
964t
h '9
53r
d '9
52n
d '9
51s
t '95
Freq
uenc
y160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Number of Charges by Race/Ethnicity (Quarterly)
Quarter
4th
'99
3rd
'99
2nd
'99
1st '
994t
h '9
83r
d '9
82n
d '9
81s
t '98
4th
'97
3rd
'97
2nd
'97
1st '
974t
h '9
63r
d '9
62n
d '9
61s
t '96
4th
'95
3rd
'95
2nd
'95
1st '
95
Freq
uenc
y
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
In this graph, the “white” ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in the other categories.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 8 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 9 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Frequency Percent of Total
Total Percentage of Population in
Ottawa County*
Allendale Township 76 2.8 5.4Blendon Township 19 0.7 2.4Chester Township 14 0.5 1.0Coopersville City 57 2.1 1.6Crockery Township 55 2.0 1.6Ferrysburg City 19 0.7 1.2Georgetown Township 132 4.8 17.4Grand Haven City 132 4.8 4.7Grand Haven Township 133 4.8 5.5Holland City 701 25.5 11.6Holland Township 713 25.9 12.1Hudsonville City 26 0.9 3.0Jamestown Township 11 0.4 2.1Olive Township 59 2.1 1.9Park Township 108 3.9 7.3Polkton Township 23 0.8 1.0Port Sheldon Township 34 1.2 1.8Robinson Township 45 1.6 2.3Spring Lake Township 134 4.9 5.5Spring Lake Village 22 0.8 1.0Tallmadge Township 46 1.7 2.8Wright Township 34 1.2 1.3Zeeland City 72 2.6 2.4Zeeland Township 84 3.1 3.1 None Recorded 4 0.2
Total 2753 100.0 100.0
* Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CHARGES SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Frequency Percent of Total
No Prior Criminal Record 1250 45.4Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 341 12.4Prior Misdemeanor (other than Domestic Violence) 930 33.8Prior Felony (other than Domestic Violence) 232 8.4
Total 2753 100.0
Prior Criminal Record
8.4%
33.8%
12.4%
45.4%
Prior Felony
Prior Misdemeanor
Prior Domestic Viol
No Prior Crim Rec
Charges by Prior Criminal Record (Annually)
05
101520253035404550
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
No PriorsPrior Domestic Viol.Prior MisdemeanorPrior Felony
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 10 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CASE DISPOSITION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: OUTCOME OF CASE
Case Outcome by Year
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e C
harg
e)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal*
Spo
use
Abu
se
Act
**
Tot
al
N
umbe
r
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l Tot
al
1995 190 40.9 42 9.1 8 1.7 8 1.7 18 3.9 19 4.1 135 29.1 44 9.5 464 100.0
1996 170 33.5 42 8.3 7 1.4 16 3.1 21 4.1 16 3.1 150 29.5 86 16.9 508 100.0
1997 163 30.1 48 8.9 4 0.7 15 2.8 14 2.6 16 3.0 148 27.4 133 24.6 541 100.0
1998 168 24.6 37 5.4 20 2.9 36 5.3 16 2.3 19 2.8 201 29.4 187 27.3 684 100.0
1999 197 35.5 44 7.9 10 1.8 32 5.8 12 2.2 17 3.1 137 24.7 106 19.1 555 100.0
Total 888 32.3 213 7.7 49 1.8 107 3.9 81 2.9 87 3.2 771 28.0 556 20.2 2752 100.0
Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.
*Reasons for Dismissal
Total Dismissals Number Percent of Total
No Law Violations for Set Period 45 5.8 Victim Request 49 6.4 Victim Failed to Appear for Court 49 6.4 Victim Recantation 12 1.6 Prosecutor Motion after Victim Testimony 68 8.8 Subpoena/Witness Problems 51 6.6 Best Interest of Justice 44 5.7 Insufficient Evidence 14 1.8 None Recorded 439 56.9 Total 771 100.0 **This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged (removed) from an offender’s criminal record if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. If a conviction is expunged, it is not possible to determine how the offender was originally convicted (plea or trial) because the original conviction disposition is replaced with a dismissal in the criminal justice database. Therefore, Spouse Abuse Act cases are counted separately.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 11 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: OUTCOME OF CASE
Outcome of Case
32.3
7.71.8 3.9 2.9 3.2
2820.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Plea (Guilty)
Plea (No Contest)
Plea (Lesser Domestic Violence Charge)
Plea (Another Charge)
Conviction (Trial)
Acquittal (Trial)
Dismissal
Spouse Abuse Act
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 12 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: OUTCOME OF CASE
Case Outcome by Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Perc
ent
Plea
Conviction
Acquittal
Dismissal
Spouse Abuse Act
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 13 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 14 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: AGE
Age Distribution (Frequency)
Age
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
V
iole
nce
Cha
rge)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal
Spou
se A
buse
A
ct
Tot
al
15-19 81 14 1 10 5 10 38 38 197 20-29 367 68 15 34 34 38 276 220 1052 30-39 307 74 25 39 27 29 285 188 974 40-49 110 49 7 22 13 8 137 85 431 50-59 18 7 1 2 2 2 29 23 84 60-69 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 70-79 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 80+ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 887 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2751 Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have age designated in the database and 1 case did not have case disposition designated.
Age Distribution (Percent)
Age
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
V
iole
nce
Cha
rge)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal
Spou
se A
buse
A
ct
Tot
al
15-19 41.1 7.1 0.5 5.1 2.5 5.1 19.3 19.3 100.0 20-29 34.9 6.5 1.4 3.2 3.2 3.6 26.2 21.0 100.0 30-39 31.5 7.6 2.6 4.0 2.8 3.0 29.3 19.3 100.0 40-49 25.5 11.4 1.6 5.1 3.0 1.9 31.8 19.7 100.0 50-59 21.4 8.3 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 34.5 27.4 100.0 60-69 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 16.7 100.0 70-79 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 100.0 80+ 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 32.2 7.7 1.8 3.9 2.9 3.2 28.0 20.2 100.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 15 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: GENDER
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e C
harg
e)Pl
ea (A
noth
er
Cha
rge)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal
Spou
se A
buse
Act
Tot
al
Number 116 30 6 21 9 12 179 148 521
Female Percent
of Females
22.3 5.8 1.2 4.0 1.7 2.3 34.3 28.4 100.0
Number 772 183 43 86 72 75 592 406 2229
Male Percent of
Males 34.6 8.2 1.9 3.9 3.2 3.4 26.6 18.2 100.0
None Recorded 2 2
Total Number
888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752
Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 16 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e C
harg
e)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal
Spou
se A
buse
Act
Tot
al
Number 633 158 34 74 56 60 568 418 2001 White
Percent of White 31.6 7.9 1.7 3.7 2.8 3.0 28.4 20.9 100.0
Number 81 25 9 18 11 13 91 28 276 Black
Percent of Black 29.3 9.1 3.3 6.5 4.0 4.7 33.0 10.1 100.0
Number 142 24 6 13 11 9 78 77 360 Hispanic
Percent of
Hispanic 39.4 6.7 1.7 3.6 3.0 2.5 21.7 21.4 100.0
Number 10 3 0 1 2 0 11 17 44 Asian
Percent of Asian 22.7 6.8 0.0 2.3 4.5 0.0 25.0 38.6 100.0
Number 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 Other
Percent of Other 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0
None Recorded 21 3 0 1 0 5 22 15 67
Total 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752
Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 17 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Incident Location (Frequency)
Incident Location
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(N
o C
onte
st)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
V
iole
nce
Cha
r ge)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al
(Tri
al)
Dis
mis
sal
Spo
use
Abu
se A
ct
Tot
als
Allendale 43 7 0 3 2 2 19 0 76 Blendon 9 1 0 0 1 0 8 0 19 Chester 8 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 14 Coopersville 32 2 1 1 5 1 15 0 57 Crockery 23 1 1 0 0 3 15 12 55 Ferrysburg 6 1 1 0 1 1 4 5 19 Georgetown 60 8 1 8 6 11 35 3 132 Grand Haven 32 7 4 11 5 9 33 31 132 Grand Haven Twp 32 14 0 3 3 0 48 33 133 Holland 221 63 17 34 18 15 163 170 701 Holland Township 198 54 16 23 17 23 211 170 712 Hudsonville 14 3 1 1 2 3 2 0 26 Jamestown 4 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 11 Olive 17 5 1 2 3 3 16 12 59 Park 20 11 1 4 4 1 32 35 108 Polkton 9 0 0 1 0 0 11 2 23 Port Sheldon 4 0 2 1 1 1 14 11 34 Robinson 9 3 0 1 0 1 20 11 45 Spring Lake Twp 34 12 1 4 2 1 43 37 134 Spring Lake 5 2 0 0 0 0 8 7 22 Tallmadge 22 4 0 2 1 1 15 1 46 Wright 18 3 0 2 2 3 6 0 34 Zeeland 24 5 1 3 1 4 19 15 72 Zeeland Township 42 5 0 3 3 3 27 1 84 None Recorded 2 2 4 Totals 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752
Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 18 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Incident Location (Percent)
Incident Location
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(N
o C
onte
st)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
V
iole
nce
Cha
r ge)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al
(Tri
al)
Dis
mis
sal
Spo
use
Abu
se A
ct
Tot
als
Allendale 56.6 9.2 0.0 4.0 2.6 2.6 25.0 0.0 100.0 Blendon 47.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 42.1 0.0 100.0 Chester 57.1 14.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 100.0 Coopersville 56.1 3.5 1.8 1.8 8.8 1.8 26.3 0.0 100.0 Crockery 41.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.5 27.3 21.8 100.0 Ferrysburg 31.6 5.3 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.3 21.1 26.3 100.0 Georgetown 45.5 6.1 0.8 6.1 4.6 8.3 26.5 2.3 100.0 Grand Haven 24.2 5.3 3.0 8.3 3.9 6.8 25.0 23.5 100.0 Grand Haven Twp 24.1 10.5 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 36.1 24.8 100.0 Holland 31.5 9.0 2.4 4.6 2.6 2.1 23.3 24.3 100.0 Holland Township 27.8 7.6 2.2 3.2 2.4 3.2 29.6 23.8 100.0 Hudsonville 53.8 11.5 3.8 3.8 7.7 11.5 7.7 0.0 100.0 Jamestown 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 9.1 36.4 0.0 100.0 Olive 28.8 8.5 1.7 3.4 5.1 5.1 27.1 20.3 100.0 Park 18.5 10.2 1.0 3.7 3.7 1.0 29.6 32.4 100.0 Polkton 39.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 47.8 8.7 100.0 Port Sheldon 11.8 0.0 5.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 41.2 32.4 100.0 Robinson 20.0 6.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 44.4 24.4 100.0 Spring Lake Twp 25.4 9.0 0.7 3.0 1.5 0.7 32.1 27.6 100.0 Spring Lake 22.7 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 31.8 100.0 Tallmadge 47.8 8.7 0.0 4.3 2.2 2.2 32.6 2.2 100.0 Wright 52.9 8.8 0.0 5.9 5.9 8.8 17.6 0.0 100.0 Zeeland 33.3 7.0 1.4 4.2 1.4 5.6 26.4 20.8 100.0 Zeeland Township 50.0 6.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 32.1 1.2 100.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 19 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CASE DISPOSITION SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e C
harg
e)
Plea
(Ano
ther
C
harg
e)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Acq
uitt
al (T
rial
)
Dis
mis
sal
Spou
se A
buse
Act
Tot
al
Number 371 70 2 35 29 40 339 364 1250 No Prior Criminal Record Percent
of No Prior
29.7 5.6 0.2 2.8 2.3 3.2 27.1 29.1 100.0
Number 97 35 35 16 16 10 131 1 341 Prior Domestic Violence
Conviction Percent of Prior
DV 28.4 10.3 10.3 4.7 4.7 2.9 38.4 0.3 100.0
Number 335 87 8 49 28 34 214 174 929 Prior
Misdemeanor Percent of Prior Misd.
36.1 9.3 0.9 5.3 3.0 3.7 23.0 18.7 100.0
Number 85 21 4 7 8 3 87 17 232 Prior Felony
Percent of Prior Felony
36.6 9.1 1.7 3.0 3.5 1.3 37.5 7.3 100.0
Total 888 213 49 107 81 87 771 556 2752
Note: 1 of the 2753 cases did not have case disposition designated in the database.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CONVICTIONS
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS
Number of Convictions
Year Number Percent of Total Rate per Thousand of Ottawa County
Population* 1995 302 16.9 1.44 1996 326 18.2 1.51 1997 362 20.3 1.64 1998 428 24.0 1.90 1999 369 20.6 1.60 Total 1787 100.0 --
Number of Convictions by Year
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
500
400
300
200
100
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 20 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS
Total Convictions Number Percent of
Total Plea (Guilty) 888 49.7 Plea (No Contest) 213 11.9 Plea (Lesser Domestic Violence Charge) 49 2.8 Conviction (Trial) 81 4.5 Spouse Abuse Act* (see table) 556 31.1
Totals 1787 100.0
*Final Outcome of Spouse Abuse Act Cases
Total Spouse Abuse Act Cases Number Percent of Total
Revoked (Guilty Plea) 70 12.6 Revoked (No Contest Plea) 32 5.7 Revoked (Conviction) 2 0.4 Expungement 452 81.3 Total 556 100.0
Convictions
49.7
11.92.8 4.5
31.1
0102030405060708090
100
Plea (Guilty)
Plea (No Contest)
Plea (Lesser D.V. Charge)
Conviction (Trial)
Spouse Abuse Act
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 21 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: AGE
Age Distribution
Number Age
Minimum Age
Maximum Age Mean Age Standard
Deviation Age 1786 17 81 31.14 8.956
None Recorded 1 Total 1787
Age
80.075.0
70.065.0
60.055.0
50.045.0
40.035.0
30.025.0
20.015.0
Age Distribution
Freq
uenc
y
400
300
200
100
0
Std. Dev = 8.96 Mean = 31.1
N = 1786.002347
118
228
294
376374
263
53
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 22 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: GENDER
Gender Distribution
Plea
(Gui
lty)
Plea
(No
Con
test
)
Plea
(Les
ser
Dom
estic
V
iole
nce
Cha
rge)
Con
vict
ion
(Tri
al)
Spou
se A
buse
A
ct
Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f G
ende
r T
otal
Male 772 52.3 183 12.4 43 2.9 72 4.9 406 27.5 1476 82.6
Female 116 37.6 30 9.7 6 1.9 9 2.9 148 47.9 309 17.3
None Recorded 2 2 0.1
Total 888 49.7 213 11.9 49 2.8 81 4.5 556 31.1 1787 100.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 23 of 163
Number of Convictions by Gender (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
Gender
Female
Male
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Race/Ethnicity of Those Convicted
Frequency Percent of Total
Total Percentage of Population in
Ottawa County* White 1299 72.7 88.6 Black 154 8.6 1.0 Hispanic 260 14.5 7.0 Asian 32 1.8 2.1 Other 3 0.2 1.3 None Recorded 39 2.2 --
Total 1787 100.0 100.0
*Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.
Number of Convictions by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
300
200
100
0
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Number of Convictions by Race/Ethnicity (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Freq
uenc
y
100
80
60
40
20
0
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
In this graph, the “white” ethnicity category was removed to permit a better illustration of the trends in the other categories.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 24 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 25 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Frequency Percent of Total
Total Percentage of Population in
Ottawa County*
Allendale Township 52 2.9 5.4Blendon Township 11 0.6 2.4Chester Township 11 0.6 1.0Coopersville City 40 2.2 1.6Crockery Township 37 2.1 1.6Ferrysburg City 14 0.8 1.2Georgetown Township 78 4.4 17.4Grand Haven City 79 4.4 4.7Grand Haven Township 82 4.6 5.5Holland City 488 27.3 11.6Holland Township 456 25.5 12.1Hudsonville City 20 1.1 3.0Jamestown Township 6 0.3 2.1Olive Township 38 2.1 1.9Park Township 71 4.0 7.3Polkton Township 11 0.6 1.0Port Sheldon Township 18 1.0 1.8Robinson Township 23 1.3 2.3Spring Lake Township 86 4.8 5.5Spring Lake Village 14 0.8 1.0Tallmadge Township 28 1.6 2.8Wright Township 23 1.3 1.3Zeeland City 46 2.6 2.4Zeeland Township 51 2.9 3.1 None Recorded 4 0.2
Total 1787 100.0 100.0
* Based on 2000 population data from the United States Census Bureau.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: CONVICTIONS SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Frequency Percent of Total
No Prior Criminal Record 836 46.8Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 184 10.3Prior Misdemeanor (other than Domestic Violence) 632 35.4Prior Felony (other than Domestic Violence) 135 7.5
Total 1787 100.0
Prior Criminal Record
Prior Misdmnr.
35.4%
Prior Domestic Viol
10.3%
No Prior Crim Rec
46.8%
Prior Felony7.5%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 26 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: BONDS
Bond Type by Year*
Personal Recognizance
10% Cash Cash Cash
Surety Denied None Recorded Total
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
1995 99 32.8 84 27.8 71 23.5 28 9.3 3 1.0 17 5.6 302 100.0 1996 79 24.2 153 46.9 54 16.6 19 5.8 1 0.3 20 6.1 326 100.0 1997 73 20.2 168 46.4 40 11.0 54 14.9 7 1.9 20 5.5 362 100.0 1998 102 23.8 207 48.4 40 9.3 62 14.5 4 0.9 13 3.0 428 100.0 1999 56 15.2 167 45.3 56 15.2 57 15.4 24 6.5 9 2.4 369 100.0 Total 409 22.9 779 43.6 261 14.6 220 12.3 39 2.2 79 4.4 1787 100.0
*The Criminal Justice Users System only reflects the latest bond information for each conviction. If bond type is changed, the original bond type information is superseded and deleted. Therefore, it is possible that the numbers in this table are slightly skewed by any changes made to bond type after the original bond type was determined.
Bond Type by Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Perc
ent
Personal Recognizance10% CashCashCash SuretyDeniedNone Recorded
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 27 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: BONDS
Bond Dollar Range by Year
0-500 501-1500 1501-5000 5001-10000 10001-25000 Total
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
1995 93 33.0 84 29.8 102 36.2 3 1.0 0 0.0 282 100.01996 67 22.0 126 41.3 108 35.4 4 1.3 0 0.0 305 100.01997 60 17.8 182 54.2 92 27.4 2 0.6 0 0.0 336 100.01998 61 14.8 237 57.7 103 25.1 9 2.2 1 0.2 411 100.01999 52 15.5 138 41.1 135 40.2 8 2.4 3 0.8 336 100.0Total 333 19.9 767 45.9 540 32.3 26 1.5 4 0.2 1670* 100.0
*Note: This figure does not include the 117 cases that had no bond info recorded or were denied bond.
Bond Dollar Range by Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Perc
ent
0-500501-15001501-50005001-1000010001-25000
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 28 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 29 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: BONDS
Type of Bond Violation by Year
No Violation Alcohol No Contact Clause
Type Unknown Total
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
Num
ber
Ann
ual
Perc
ent
1995 290 96.0 1 0.3 4 1.4 7 2.3 302 100.0 1996 315 96.6 3 0.9 3 0.9 5 1.5 326 100.0 1997 347 95.9 3 0.8 3 0.8 9 2.5 362 100.0 1998 414 96.7 2 0.5 3 0.7 9 2.1 428 100.0 1999 348 96.9 2 0.6 3 0.8 6 1.7 359 100.0 Total 1714 96.5 11 0.6 16 0.9 36 2.0 1777 100.0
Note: 10 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Violation designated in the database.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases with Fines and Costs 1569 62 7 1638Cases with No Fines and Costs 126 22 1 149Mean 288.37 457.26 366.57 295.10Median 250.00 371.00 255.00 250.00Mode 220 220 Multiple 220Standard Deviation 141.994 455.552 249.131 168.327Minimum 15 30 60 15Maximum 1715 3401 697 3401 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Dollars
3200.0
2800.0
2400.0
2000.0
1600.0
1200.0
800.0400.0
0.0
Fines and Costs
Freq
uenc
y
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Std. Dev = 168.33 Mean = 295.1
N = 1638.00120
446
1025
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 30 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 31 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Comparison of Fines and Costs (Annually)
Fines and Costs
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Cases With Fines and Costs 274 90.7 Cases With No Fines and Costs 28 9.3 Total 302 100.0
Mean 243.58 Median 192.50
1995
Maximum 1385 Cases With Fines and Costs 304 93.3 Cases With No Fines and Costs 22 6.7 Total 326 100.0
Mean 281.51 Median 250.00
1996
Maximum 1687 Cases With Fines and Costs 342 94.5 Cases With No Fines and Costs 20 5.5 Total 362 100.0
Mean 313.86 Median 260.00
1997
Maximum 1381 Cases With Fines and Costs 400 93.5 Cases With No Fines and Costs 28 6.5 Total 428 100.0
Mean 297.81 Median 250.00
1998
Maximum 1715 Cases With Fines and Costs 318 86.2 Cases With No Fines and Costs 51 13.8 Total 369 100.0
Mean 327.92 Median 250.00
1999
Maximum 3401 Total Cases With Fines and Costs 1638 91.7 Total Cases With No Fines and Costs 149 8.3
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Percent of Cases with Fines and Costs (Annually)
90.7 93.3 94.5 93.586.2
0102030405060708090
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
Median Fines and Costs (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Dol
lars
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
200
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 32 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Jail Time Sent. 668 76 7 751 Cases With No Jail Time Sent. 1027 8 1 1036 Mean 44.05 149.00 261.43 56.70Median 30.00 90.00 330.00 42.00Mode 30 90 365 30Standard Deviation 38.448 118.144 187.188 66.239Minimum 1 20 30 1Maximum 365 365 540 540
* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Days
380.0340.0
300.0260.0
220.0180.0
140.0100.0
60.020.0
Jail Time Sentenced in Days*
Freq
uenc
y
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Std. Dev = 66.24 Mean = 56.7
N = 751.00
171168
370
* For display purposes, one case has been omitted from the histogram of Jail Time Sentenced in which the
subject was sentenced 540 days.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 33 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 34 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Comparison of Jail Time Sentenced (Annually)
Jail Time Sentenced
(days)
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 139 46.0 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 163 54.0 Total 302 100.0
Mean 39.09 Median 30.00
1995
Maximum 365 Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 137 42.0 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 189 58.0 Total 326 100.0
Mean 39.09 Median 30.00
1996
Maximum 365 Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 146 40.3 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 216 59.7 Total 362 100.0
Mean 64.51 Median 45.00
1997
Maximum 540 Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 152 35.5 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 276 64.5 Total 428 100.0
Mean 53.52 Median 45.00
1998
Maximum 365 Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 177 48.0 Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 192 52.0 Total 369 100.0
Mean 69.74 Median 60.00
1999
Maximum 365 Total Cases With Jail Time Sentenced 751 42.0 Total Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 1036 58.0
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Percentage of Cases with Jail Time Sentenced (Annually)
4642 40.3
35.5
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Years
Perc
ent
Median Jail Time Sentenced in Days (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Day
s
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
50
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 35 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Jail Time Served 460 61 6 527** Cases With No Jail Time Served 208 15 1 224 Mean 24.30 65.25 229.00 31.37Median 10.50 46.00 181.50 15.00Mode 2 45 Multiple 2Standard Deviation 27.513 58.701 184.213 44.704Minimum 1 2 61 1Maximum 93 260 540 540
* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court. **The number of cases with Jail Time Sentenced (page 32) is higher than the above number of cases with Jail Time Served. This difference is due to the fact that in some cases the Court sentences individuals to Jail Time at the Court’s discretion. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to be sentenced to Jail Time but to not serve any because the Court does not order the time to actually be served.
Days
310.0290.0
270.0250.0
230.0210.0
190.0170.0
150.0130.0
110.090.0
70.050.0
30.010.0
Jail Time Served, In Days*
Freq
uenc
y
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
250
Std. Dev = 44.70 Mean = 31.4
N = 527.0040
5433
93
292
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 36 of 163
* For display purposes, one case has been omitted from the histogram of Jail Time Served in which the
subject served 540 days.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 37 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Summary of Jail Time Served (Annually)
Jail Time Served (days)
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Cases With Jail Time Served 93 66.9 Cases With No Jail Time Served 46 33.1 Total 139 100.0
Mean 14.73 Median 2.00
1995
Maximum 159 Cases With Jail Time Served 78 56.9 Cases With No Jail Time Served 59 43.1 137 100.0
Mean 15.54 Median 2.00
1996
Maximum 161 Cases With Jail Time Served 112 76.7 Cases With No Jail Time Served 34 23.3 146 100.0
Mean 26.59 Median 9.00
1997
Maximum 540 Cases With Jail Time Served 109 71.7 Cases With No Jail Time Served 43 28.3 152 100.0
Mean 23.14 Median 7.00
1998
Maximum 190 Cases With Jail Time Served 135 76.3 Cases With No Jail Time Served 42 23.7 177 100.0
Mean 29.33 Median 10.00
1999
Maximum 260 Total Cases With Jail Time Served 527 70.2 Total Cases With No Jail Time Sentenced 224 29.8
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Median Jail Time Served (Annually)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
Day
s
Comparison of Median Jail Time Sentenced vs. Served
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Day
s ServedSentenced
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 38 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 39 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Frequency Percent of Total Cases with Electronic Monitoring 4 0.2Cases with No Electronic Monitoring 1783 99.8
Total 1787 100.0
SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Frequency Percent of Total Cases with Community Service 31 1.7Cases with No Community Service 1756 98.3
Total 1787 100.0
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Probation 1385 60 6 1451 Cases With No Probation 310 24 2 336 Mean 10.12 16.15 23.00 10.42Median 12.00 12.00 27.00 12.00Mode 12 12 Multiple 12Standard Deviation 3.791 6.227 13.900 4.250Minimum 1 6 6 1Maximum 30 24 36 36
* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court. Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
Months
35.030.025.020.015.010.05.00.0
Probation Length in Months
Freq
uenc
y
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Std. Dev = 4.25 Mean = 10.4
N = 1451.0062
941
412
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 40 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 41 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Summary of Probation Length (Annually)
Probation Length (Months)
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Cases With Probation 240 79.5 Cases With No Probation 62 20.5 Total 302 100.0
Mean 11.73 Median 12.00
1995
Maximum 36 Cases With Probation 255 78.2 Cases With No Probation 71 21.8 Total 326 100.0
Mean 10.69 Median 12.00
1996
Maximum 24 Cases With Probation 306 84.5 Cases With No Probation 56 15.5 Total 362 100.0
Mean 9.52 Median 9.00
1997
Maximum 24 Cases With Probation 356 83.2 Cases With No Probation 72 16.8 Total 428 100.0
Mean 9.79 Median 9.00
1998
Maximum 30 Cases With Probation 294 79.7 Cases With No Probation 75 20.3 Total 369 100.0
Mean 10.72 Median 12.00
1999
Maximum 36 Total Cases With Probation 1451 81.2 Total Cases With No Probation 336 18.8
Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Median Probation Length (Annually)
12 12
9 9
12
0123456789
101112131415
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Mon
ths
Median Probation Length (Annually)
Year
19991998199719961995
Mon
ths
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.00.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 42 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Traditional Probation** 988 29 5 1022Intensively Supervised Probation*** 400 31 1 432
Total 1388 84 6 1454
* 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Probation Type
Traditional70.3%
Intensively Supervised
29.7%
**Traditional Probation: In this type of probation, offenders are ordered to report to a probation officer for regularly scheduled appointments. The probation officer ensures that the offender complies with the requirements of the probation order. The probation order can include requirements to attend counseling, eliminate contact with the victim, prohibit verbal or physical threats, and/or other restrictions. ***Intensive Supervised Probation (DAIP): This type of probation is for offenders that need a higher than normal level of supervision because the domestic violence act was particularly severe, the offender has a history of violent behavior, or because the offender has serious substance abuse problems.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 43 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 44 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION
Frequency Percent of Total
Cases With Non-Reporting Probation* 243 13.6Cases With No Non-Reporting Probation 1544 86.4
Total 1787 100.0
*Non-Reporting Probation: An offender may be placed in a “non-reporting probation” program if it is determined that the offender is not a threat to society and/or the offender has moved out of the area.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Duluth Program** 713 33 2 748Cases With No Duluth Program 982 51 6 1039
Total 1695 84 8 1787 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Duluth Program (FVP)
No58.1%
Yes41.9%
**Duluth Program (Family Violence Program): This domestic violence offender therapy program consists of twenty-six weeks of group therapy. This program is designed to help offenders recognize their abusive and violent behavior and to teach the offenders that the use of power and control tactics can lead to domestic violence.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 45 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)
Duluth
Program No Duluth Program
Total
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 106 35.1 196 64.9 302 100.0 1996 143 43.9 183 56.1 326 100.0 1997 181 50.0 181 50.0 362 100.0 1998 195 45.6 233 54.4 428 100.0 1999 123 33.3 246 66.7 369 100.0 Total 748 41.9 1039 58.1 1787 100.0
Duluth Program (FVP) (Annually)
0102030405060708090
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 46 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Substance Abuse Treatment** 215 14 1 230Cases With No Substance Abuse Treatment 1480 70 7 1557
Total 1695 84 8 1787 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Substance Abuse Treatment
No87.1%
Yes12.9%
**Substance Abuse Treatment: Treatment for substance abuse can include many different options. Treatment can include the following: outpatient counseling, intensive inpatient counseling, residential treatment, education, and enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Treatment may be ordered before and/or in conjunction with individual counseling, couples counseling or other similar treatments.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 47 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Substance
Abuse Treatment
No Substance
Abuse Treatment
Total
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 40 13.2 262 86.8 302 100.0 1996 41 12.9 285 87.1 326 100.0 1997 38 10.5 324 89.5 362 100.0 1998 51 11.9 377 88.1 428 100.0 1999 60 16.3 309 83.7 369 100.0 Total 230 12.9 1557 87.1 1787 100.0
Substance Abuse Treatment (Annually)
0102030405060708090
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 48 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING
Frequency Percent of Total
Cases With Individual Counseling* 526 29.4Cases With No Individual Counseling 1261 70.6
Total 1787 100.0
Individual Counseling
No70.6%
Yes29.4%
*Individual Counseling: This type of counseling involves individual contact with a therapist. Individual counseling is typically used for individuals with serious mental health issues who do not function well in a group setting.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 49 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING
Individual Counseling
No Individual Counseling
Total
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 85 28.1 217 71.9 302 100.0 1996 75 23.0 251 77.0 326 100.0 1997 89 24.6 273 75.4 362 100.0 1998 145 33.9 283 66.1 428 100.0 1999 132 35.8 237 64.2 369 100.0 Total 526 29.4 1261 70.6 1787 100.0
Individual Counseling
0102030405060708090
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 50 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING
Frequency Percent of Total
Cases with Couples Counseling* 7 0.4Cases with No Couples Counseling 1780 99.6
Total 1787 100.0
Couples Counseling
No99.6%
Yes0.4%
*Couples Counseling: This type of counseling involves contact with a therapist by an offender and the offender’s victim. Because power and control issues are often associated with Domestic Violence cases, couples counseling is considered to be the least desirable method of therapy because it may increase the risk to the victim.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 51 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION
Frequency Percent of Total
Case With Other Treatment* 12 0.7Cases With No Other Treatment 1775 99.3
Total 1787 100.0
Note: 9 of the 12 sentences for “Other Treatment” were for the Youthful Offender Intervention Program.
Other Treatment
No99.3%
Yes0.7%
*Other Treatment: This treatment may include drug therapy for seriously disturbed clients, mental health treatment for clients with emotional and/or psychological problems, specialized probation, anger management, and other case specific treatment options.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 52 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Domestic
Violence 1st Offense
Domestic Violence 2nd
Offense*
Domestic Violence 3rd
Offense* Total
Cases With Spouse Abuse Act** 555 0 1 556Cases With No Spouse Abuse Act 1140 84 7 1231
Total 1695 84 8 1787 * 3 of the Domestic Violence 2nd Offense convictions and all 8 of the Domestic Violence 3rd Offense convictions were adjudicated in Circuit Court.
Spouse Abuse Act
No68.9%
Yes31.1%
**Spouse Abuse Act: This statute authorizes a Court to grant a special type of probation that permits a domestic violence conviction to be expunged (removed) from an offender’s criminal record if an offender does not violate the conditions of the probation order. A nonpublic record is kept by the State Police. Offenders are only eligible to be granted this type of probation once.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 53 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: BONDS/SENTENCING/TREATMENT SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Spouse
Abuse Act No Spouse Abuse Act
Totals
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 44 14.6 258 85.4 302 100.0 1996 86 26.4 240 73.6 326 100.0 1997 133 36.7 229 63.3 362 100.0 1998 187 43.7 241 56.3 428 100.0 1999 106 28.7 263 71.3 369 100.0 Total 556 31.1 1231 68.9 1787 100.0
Spouse Abuse Act Participation (Annually)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 54 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PROBATION VIOLATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Frequency Percent of Total
Satisfactory Discharge 621 42.7Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement 452 31.1Unsatisfactory Discharge 119 8.2Probation Revoked 185 12.7Cases With Probation Still Pending 22 1.5None Recorded 55 3.8
Total 1454 100.0
Probation Outcome
Satisfactory Discharge
42.7%
Sat Discharge w/ SAA
31.1%
Unsatisfactory Discharge
8.2%
Probation Revoked12.7%
Pending1.5%
None Recorded3.8%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 55 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Sa
tisfa
ctor
y D
isch
arge
Satis
fact
ory
Dis
char
ge w
ith
Spou
se A
buse
Act
E
xpun
gem
ent
Uns
atis
fact
ory
Dis
char
ge
Prob
atio
n R
evok
ed
Cas
es W
ith
Prob
atio
n St
ill
Pend
ing
Non
e R
ecor
ded
Tot
al
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 145 57.3 39 15.4 26 10.3 29 11.5 0 0.0 14 5.5 253 100.0 1996 131 50.2 74 28.4 19 7.3 27 10.3 0 0.0 10 3.8 261 100.0 1997 118 37.6 108 34.4 35 11.1 41 13.1 0 0.0 12 3.8 314 100.0 1998 127 35.0 144 39.7 25 6.9 53 14.6 4 1.1 10 2.7 363 100.0 1999 100 38.0 87 33.1 14 5.3 35 13.3 18 6.8 9 3.4 263 100.0 Total 621 452 119 185 22 55 1454 100.0
Probation Outcome
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Perc
ent
Satis. DischgSatis. Dischg w/ SAAUnsatis. DischgProbation Revoked
In this graph, the lines for Cases with Probation Still Pending and Non-Recorded have been removed.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 56 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 57 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION
First Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tors
New Offense (other than Dom Viol.) 48 12.7 Curfew Violation 17 4.5 Alcohol or Drug Violation 181 47.9 No Contact Violation 29 7.7 Failure to Work 1 0.3 Failure to Attend Counseling 75 19.8 Change of Address w/o Permission 7 1.8 Leaving the State 3 0.8 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 17 4.5
Total 378 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 26.0
Second Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tors
New Offense (other than Dom. Viol.) 17 12.5 Curfew Violation 7 5.2 Alcohol or Drug Violation 37 27.2 No Contact Violation 1 0.7 Failure to Work 1 0.7 Failure to Attend Counseling 23 16.9 Change of Address w/o Permission 8 5.9 Leaving the State 2 1.5 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 6 4.4 None Recorded 34 25.0
Total 136 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 9.4
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 58 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION
Third Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tors
New Offense (other than Dom. Viol.) 1 3.2 Curfew Violation 1 3.2 Alcohol or Drug Violation 9 29.1 No Contact Violation 0 0.0 Failure to Work 0 0.0 Failure to Attend Counseling 1 3.2 Change of Address w/o Permission 3 9.7 Leaving the State 0 0.0 Failure to Pay Fines and Costs 3 9.7 None Recorded 13 41.9
Total 31 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 2.1
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 59 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: SENTENCING FOR PROBATION VIOLATION
Sentence for First Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tions
Continue Probation 12 3.2 Extend Probation 35 9.2 Intensively Supervised Prob. 4 1.1 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 40 10.6 Delayed Sentencing 6 1.6 Superseding Offense 10 2.6 Jail Time 241 63.8 Community Service 24 6.3 None Recorded 6 1.6
Total 378 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 26.0
Sentence for Second Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tions
Continue Probation 3 2.2 Extend Probation 36 26.5 Intensively Supervised 7 5.2 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 16 11.8 Delayed Sentencing 1 0.7 Superseding Offense 4 2.9 Jail Time 52 38.2 Community Service 17 12.5
Total 136 100.0 Percent of Probationers 9.4
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 60 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: PROBATION VIOLATION SUBSECTION: SENTENCING FOR PROBATION VIOLATION
Sentence for Third Probation Violation
Total Cases
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f V
iola
tions
Continue Probation 0 0 Extend Probation 6 19.4 Intensively Supervised Probation 1 3.2 Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 1 3.2 Delayed Sentencing 0 0 Superseding Offense 0 0 Jail Time 17 54.8 Community Service 6 19.4
Total 31 100.0 Percent of Total Probationers 2.1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
RECIDIVISM
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: RECIDIVISM SUBSECTION: 0-2 YEARS
Frequency Percent of Total
Cases With 0-2 Year Recidivism 177 9.9Cases With No 0-2 Year Recidivism 1610 90.1
Total 1787 100.0
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No90.1%
Yes9.9%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 61 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: RECIDIVISM SUBSECTION: 0-2 YEARS
Recidivism 0-2 Years No Recidivism 0-2 Years
Totals
Year of Original Offense
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 36 11.9 266 88.1 302 100.0 1996 28 8.6 298 91.4 326 100.0 1997 54 14.9 308 85.1 362 100.0 1998 36 8.4 392 91.6 428 100.0
1999* 23 6.2 346 93.8 369 100.0 Totals 177 9.9 1610 90.1 1787 100.0
*Some cases did not reach the two-year threshold at the time this study was completed
0-2 Year Recidivism (Annually)
02468
101214161820
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year of Original Offense
Perc
ent
0-2 Year Recidivism (Quarterly)
02468
1012141618
1st '
952n
d '9
5
3rd
'95
4th
'95
1st '
96
2nd
'96
3rd
'96
4th
'96
1st '
972n
d '9
73r
d '9
74t
h '9
7
1st '
982n
d '9
83r
d '9
8
4th
'98
1st '
992n
d '9
9
3rd
'99
4th
'99
Quarter of Original Offense
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 62 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: RECIDIVISM SUBSECTION: 3-5 YEARS
Frequency Percent of Total
Cases With 3-5 Year Recidivism 44 2.5Cases With No 3-5 Year Recidivism 1743 97.5
Total 1787 100.0
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
No97.5%
Yes2.5%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 63 of 163
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: RECIDIVISM SUBSECTION: 3-5 YEARS
Recidivism 3-5 Years No Recidivism 3-5 Years
Totals
Year of Original Offense
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
Num
ber
Perc
ent o
f A
nnua
l T
otal
1995 25 8.3 277 91.7 302 100.0 1996* 13 4.0 313 96.0 326 100.0 1997* 6 1.7 356 98.3 362 100.0 1998* 0 0.0 428 100.0 428 100.0 1999* 0 0.0 369 100.0 369 100.0 Totals 44 2.5 1743 97.5 1787 100.0
*Some cases did not reach the 3-5 year threshold at the time this study was completed
3-5 Year Recidivism (Annually)
0
2
4
6
8
10
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year of Original Offense
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) 163 Page 64 of
3-5 Year Recidivism (Quarterly)
0
5
10
15
1st '
95
2nd
'95
3rd
'95
4th
'95
1st '
96
2nd
'96
3rd
'96
4th
'96
1st '
97
2nd
'97
3rd
'97
4th
'97
1st '
98
2nd
'98
3rd
'98
4th
'98
1st '
99
2nd
'99
3rd
'99
4th
'99
Quarter of Original Offense
Perc
ent
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 65 of 163
Inferential Statistics Overview
This section of the evaluation provides information that allows conclusions to be inferred or drawn from the data. These conclusions may be formed with a methodology that is as simple as comparing the average recidivism rates of all offenders to the recidivism rate of those offenders that received traditional probation; and by deductive reasoning determine whether those individuals receiving traditional probation are doing better or worse than the average. Other deductive methods involving common sense and judicious examination may be used to form conclusions. In any case, comparisons and deductive methods allow evaluators to determine if a possible relationship exists between one or more variables. In order to validate these conclusions, inferential analysis techniques were used to determine the statistical significance level of perceived relationships between variables. The inferential techniques used in this section are Chi-Square and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Tests. A Chi-Square test determines dependence or strength of a relationship between two categorical (qualitative) variables. As an example, a Chi-Square analysis may be used to determine the relationship between recidivism and variables such as gender, incident location, or sentencing. An Analysis of Variance is used to compare the “means” of two or more quantitative data sets to determine whether there are significant differences. For instance, if statistically significant differences exist between the mean values of jail time served between those offenders who recidivate and those who do not recidivate, there is likely to be a relationship between the amount of jail time served and recidivism. Inferential statistics can also be used to build models (logistic regression analysis) from data to predict which combination of variables result in increased levels of recidivism. The use of this technique was attempted in this evaluation to determine if certain combinations of variables affected recidivism. However, it was determined that the data sets were too small at this point in time to permit such analysis. A more detailed discussion of “models” occurs in the Conclusion Section. It is important to note that the data in this section may be influenced by “hidden or lurking” factors. For instance, inferential analysis indicates that a significant relationship exists between jail time served and recidivism. As a matter of fact, the analysis indicates that the more jail time an individual serves, the more likely it is that he/she will recidivate. Upon further investigation, it becomes evident that this apparent cause and effect relationship is likely unrelated. In reality, this relationship is likely the result of judges accurately and appropriately sentencing the most precarious and serious offenders to larger amounts of jail time. These types of offenders are likely to be more predisposed to recidivism and therefore this “lurking” factor impacts the analysis. To that point, it is necessary to exercise a degree of common sense and discretion when interpreting statistical results. The highlights from this section are divided into variables that affect recidivism in the first two years and variables that affect recidivism in three-to-five years. Since this evaluation only encompasses a five-year time frame (1994-1999), it will take several years to more accurately reflect the three-to-five year recidivism rates for 1997-1999. To that point, the data for three-to-five year recidivism rates will be less statistically reliable until several more years of data are collected. A few highlights from this section are listed below: General Observations 20 variables exhibit a statistically significant relationship with recidivism.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 66 of 163
In 8 variables there is not enough statistical evidence to prove that a significant relationship exists.
Recidivism (0-2 years) – Variables Exhibiting a Statistically Significant Relationship 9.9% of domestic violence offenders recidivate in the first two years. 10.6% of male domestic violence offenders recidivate and 6.5% of females recidivate. The recidivism rate for Blacks was 21.4%; for Hispanics 17.3%; for Whites 7.6%; and for Asians
0.0%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 1st Offense was 9.7%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 2nd Offense was 15.5%. The recidivism rate for those convicted of Domestic Violence 3rd Offense (8 cases) was 0.0%. The recidivism rate for those with no prior criminal record was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior domestic violence conviction was 16.3%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior misdemeanor was 10.8%. The recidivism rate for those with a prior felony was 11.1%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by a guilty plea was 12.5%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by trial was 8.4%. The recidivism rate for those who pled to a lesser domestic violence charge was 22.4%. The recidivism rate for those convicted by a no contest plea was 11.0%. The recidivism rate for those who received a Spouse Abuse Act expungement was 2.7%.
The recidivism rate for those who served 1-7 days in jail was 9.7%. The recidivism rate for those who served 8-15 days in jail was 12.9%. The recidivism rate for those who served 16-23 days in jail was 25.0%. The recidivism rate for those who served 24-31 days in jail was 18.2%. The recidivism rate for those who served more than 32 days in jail was 19.4%.
The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 0-6 months probation was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 7-12 months probation was 9.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 13-18 months probation was 7.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 19-24 months probation was 14.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to more than 25 months probation was 25.0%.
The recidivism rate for those sentenced to traditional probation was 7.9%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to intensive supervised probation (DAIP) was 11.6%. The recidivism rate for those convicted with Spouse Abuse Act designation was 5.4%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to non-reporting probation was 5.3%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to the Duluth Program was 10.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to other treatment (12 cases) was 33.3%.
The recidivism rate for those with a single probation violation was 19.0%. The recidivism rate for those with two probation violations was 23.5%. The recidivism rate for those with three probation violations was 16.7%.
The recidivism rate for those with a satisfactory discharge (probation) was 7.1%. The recidivism rate for those with an unsatisfactory discharge (probation) was 29.4%. The recidivism rate for those with revoked probation was 21.1%.
The recidivism rate for those receiving a personal recognizance bond was 8.6%. The recidivism rate for those receiving a 10% cash bond was 8.5%.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 67 of 163
The recidivism rate for those receiving a cash bond (full amount) was 11.1%. The recidivism rate for those receiving no bond was 11.5%. The recidivism rate for those denied bond was 12.8%. The recidivism rate for those with no bond violation was 9.5%. The recidivism rate for those with an alcohol related bond violation was 27.3%. The recidivism rate for those with a no contact clause violation was 25.0%.
Recidivism (0-2 Years) – Variables Exhibiting a Non-Significant Relationship The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $0-$250 was 9.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $251-$500 was 9.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $501-$750 was 10.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to fines and costs of $751-$1,000 was 9.1%. The recidivism rate for those with fines and costs of more than $1,000 (10 cases) was 0.0%.
The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 1-30 days in jail was 11.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 31-60 days in jail was 15.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 61-90 days in jail was 10.7%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to 91-120 days in jail was 19.5%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to more than 120 days in jail was 12.2%.
The recidivism rate for those sentenced to electronic monitoring (4 cases) was 0.0%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to community service (31 Cases) was 16.1%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to substance abuse treatment was 7.8%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to individual counseling was 8.2%. The recidivism rate for those sentenced to couples counseling (7 cases) was 14.3%.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 0-2 YEARS
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER
Gender Distribution
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No Yes Total Gender Female Actual Count 289 20 309 Expected Count 278.4 30.6 309.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Females 93.5% 6.5% 100.0% Male Actual Count 1319 157 1476 Expected Count 1329.6 146.4 1476.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Males 89.4% 10.6% 100.0%Total Count 1608 177 1785 Expected Count 1608.0 177.0 1785.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1 9.9 100.0%
Note: 2 of the 1787 cases did not have gender designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
4.960b 1 .0264.505 1 .0345.460 1 .019
.027 .014
4.958 1 .026
1785
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is30.64.
b.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 68 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER
Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Years and Gender
9.9 6.5 10.6
90.193.5
89.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected Female Male
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 69 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (O-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total Race/Ethnicity White Actual Count 1200 99 1299 Expected Count 1167.5 131.5 1299.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Whites 92.4% 7.6% 100.0% Black Actual Count 121 33 154 Expected Count 138.4 15.6 154.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Blacks 78.6% 21.4% 100.0% Hispanic Actual Count 215 45 260 Expected Count 233.7 26.3 260.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Hispanics 82.7% 17.3% 100.0% Asian Actual Count 32 0 32 Expected Count 28.8 3.2 32.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% 100.0%Actual Recidivism Rate for Asians 100.0% 0.0% Other Actual Count 3 0 3 Expected Count 2.7 0.3 3.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total 1748Count 1571 177 Expected Count 1571.0 177.0 1748.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 89.9% 10.1% 100.0%
Note: 39 of the 1787 cases did not have race/ethnicity designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
49.252a 4 .00046.563 4 .000
17.865 1 .000
1748
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .30.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 70 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE/ETHNICITY
Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Yearsand Race/Ethnicity*
10.1
21.417.3
7.6
92.4
82.778.6
89.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected Black Hispanic White
Perc
ent
YesNo
* “Asian” and “Other” are not included due to 100% “No”
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 71 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 72 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Crosstab
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No Yes Total Actual Count 50 2 52 Incident
Location Allendale Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Allendale Township 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%
Actual Count 11 0 11 Blendon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Blendon Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 9 2 11 Chester Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Chester Township 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Actual Count 38 2 40 Coopersville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Coopersville City 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Actual Count 35 2 37 Crockery Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Crockery Township 94.6% 5.4% 100.0% Actual 13 Count 1 14 Ferrysburg City Actual Recidivism Rate for Ferrysburg City 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 74 4 78 Georgetown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Georgetown Township 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Actual Count 72 7 79 Grand Haven City Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven City 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% Actual Count 76 6 82 Grand Haven Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven Town. 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% Actual Count 432 56 488 Holland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland City 88.5% 11.5% 100.0% Actual Count 398 58 456 Holland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland Township 87.3% 12.7% 100.0% Actual Count 16 4 20 Hudsonville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Hudsonville City 80.0% 20.0% 100.0% Actual Count 6 0 6 Jamestown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Jamestown Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 2 38 Olive Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Olive Township 94.7% 5.3% 100.0% Actual 71 Count 68 3 Park Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Park Township 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% Actual Count 8 3 11 Polkton Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Polkton Township 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Actual Count 16 2 18 Port Sheldon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Port Sheldon Town. 88.9% 11.1% 100.0% Actual Count 23 0 23 Robinson Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Robinson Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 82 4 86 Spring Lake Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Township 100.0% 95.3% 4.7% Actual Count 13 1 14 Spring Lake Village Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Village 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 23 5 28 19.9% 100.0% Tallmadge Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Tallmadge Township 82.1% Actual Count 21 2 23 Wright Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Wright Township 91.3% 8.7% 100.0% Actual Count 39 7 46 Zeeland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland City 84.8% 15.2% 100.0% Actual Count 47 4 51 Zeeland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland Township 92.2% 7.8% 100.0% Total Actual Count 1606 177 1783 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 4 of the 1787 cases did not have incident location designated in the database.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Chi-Square Tests
33.976a 24 .08538.582 24 .030
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
17 cells (34.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .40.
a.
Recidivism Rate within 0-2 Years and Location*
90.1 91.1 88.5
8084.8 81.8
92.787.3
72.7
88.982.1
91.3 92.29.9 8.9 11.5
2015.2 18.2
7.312.7
27.3
11.117.9
8.7 7.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ExpectedCity of Grand Haven
City of HollandCity of HudsonvilleCity of ZeelandChester TownshipGrand Haven Township
Holland TownshipPolkton TownshipPort Sheldon Township
Tallmadge Township
Wright Township
Zeeland TownshipPe
rcen
t
YesNo
*Only municipalities for which “yes” is greater than 7% are included.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 73 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 1496 156 1652Domestic Violence 1st Offense Expected Count 1488.4 163.6 1652.0
Type of Charges Filed Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for those Charged with Domestic Violence 1st Offense 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 97 18 115
Domestic Violence 2nd Offense Expected Count 103.6 11.4 115.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 84.3% 15.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 17 3 20
Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 20.0Expected Count 18.0 2.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1610 177 1787 Expected Count 1610.0 177.0 1787.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
5.233a 2 .0734.596 2 .100
4.613 1 .032
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 1.98.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 74 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED
Recidivism within 0-2 Yearsand Type of Charges Filed
90.1 90.684.3 85
9.9 9.415.7 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected DomesticViolence 1st
Offense
DomesticViolence 2nd
Offense
DomesticViolence 3rd
Offense
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 75 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 772 64 836Criminal History
No Prior Criminal Record Expected Count 753.2 82.8 836.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Prior Criminal Record 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 154 30 184
Prior Domestic Violence Convct.* Expected Count 165.8 18.2 184.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Domestic Violence Charge 83.7% 16.3% 100.0%
Prior Misdemeanor Actual Count 564 68 632 Expected Count 569.4 62.6 632.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Misdemeanor 89.2% 10.8% 100.0%
Prior Felony Actual Count 120 15 135 Expected Count 121.6 13.4 135.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Felony 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1610 177 1787 Expected Count 1610.0 177.0 1787.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
*Note: The 184 convictions with a Prior Domestic Violence Conviction differs from the 135 convictions (page 73) that were charged with Domestic Violence 2nd and 3rd Offense. The 49 cases that make up the difference were allowed to plea to a lesser domestic violence charge (page 77).
Chi-Square Tests
13.922a 3 .00313.030 3 .005
4.212 1 .040
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 13.37.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 76 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Recidivism within 0-2 Yearsand Prior Criminal Record
90.1 92.383.7
89.2 88.9
9.9 7.716.3
10.8 11.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected
No Prior Criminal Record
Prior Domestic Violence Conviction
Prior Misdemeanor
Prior Felony
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 77 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 838 120 958Case Disposition
Conviction by Guilty Plea Expected Count 863.1 94.9 958.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Guilty Plea 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
76 83Conviction by Trial Actual Count 7 Expected Count 74.8 8.2 93.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Trial 91.6% 8.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 38 11 49 Expected Count 44.1 4.9 49.0
Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence Charge Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for
Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge
77.6% 22.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 218 27 245
No Contest Expected Count 220.7 24.3 245.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Contest 89.0% 11.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 440 12 452
Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act) Expected Count 407.2 44.8 452.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Expungement 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1610 177 1787 Expected Count 1610.0 177.0 1787.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: These numbers are adjusted to incorporate the Spouse Abuse Act Outcome numbers (page 21).
Chi-Square Tests
43.183a 4 .00050.522 4 .000
26.252 1 .000
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 4.85.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 78 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCase Disposition
90.1 87.591.6
77.6
8997.39.9 12.5
8.4
22.4
112.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected
Conviction by Guilty Plea
Conviction by Trial
Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge
No Contest
Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act)
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 79 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 80 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Summary
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Standard Deviation
Standard Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 447 30.35 45.360 2.145 28.39 32.31 1 540Yes 80 37.08 40.640 4.544 35.12 39.04 1 260
Total 527 31.37 44.704 1.947 29.41 33.33 1 540
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3067.698 1 3067.698 1.537 .216Within Groups 1048125.4 525 1996.429 -- --
Total 1051193.1 526 -- -- --
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Ja
il Ti
me
Serv
ed, i
n da
ys
383634323028262422201816141210
86420
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 81 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 168 18 186Jail Time Served
1-7 Days Expected Count 157.8 28.2 186.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-7 Days 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%
8-15 Days Actual Count 74 11 85 Expected Count 12.9 72.1 85.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 8-15 Days 87.1% 12.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 27 9 36 Expected Count 30.5 5.5 36.0
16-23 Days
Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 16-23 Days 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 45 10 55
24-31 Days Expected Count 46.7 8.3 55.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 24-31 Days 81.8% 18.2% 100.0%
Actual Count 133 32 165 32+ Days Expected Count 140.0 25.0 165.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 32+ Days 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 447 80 527 Expected Count 447.0 80.0 527.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 82 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Summary
95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 1320 10.16 4.009 .112 9.95 10.38 1 36Yes 131 11.24 4.737 .411 10.43 12.05 4 30
Total 1451 10.27 4.093 .109 9.96 10.39 1 36
ANOVA Test Mean Square
Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
Sum of Squares df F Sig. Between Groups 110.312 1 110.312 6.129 .013Within Groups 26077.716 1449 17.997 -- --
Total 26188.028 1450 -- -- --
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Pr
obat
ion
Leng
th, i
n m
onth
s
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 83 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 383 32 415Probation Length,
0-6 Months Expected Count 377.5 37.5 415.0
Months Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-6 Months 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%
7-12 Months Actual Count 857 87 944 Expected Count 858.8 85.2 944.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 7-12 Months 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%
Actual Count 24 2 26 Expected Count 23.7 2.3 26.0
13-18 Months
91.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 9.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 13-18 Months 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 53 9 62
19-24 Months Expected Count 56.4 5.6 62.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 19-24 Months 85.5% 14.5% 100.0%
Actual Count 3 1 4 25+ Months Expected Count 3.6 .4 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 25+ Months 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1320 131 1451 Expected Count 1320.0 131.0 1451.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No Yes Total Actual Count 941 81 1022Probation
Type Traditional Probation Expected Count 920.8 101.2 1022.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Traditional 92.1% 7.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 382 50 432 Expected Count 389.2 42.8 432.0 100.0%
Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Intensively Supervised 88.4% 11.6% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1323 131 1454 Expected Count 1323.0 131.0 1454.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
11.537a 2 .00311.212 2 .004
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 32.98.
a.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years and Probation Type
90.1 92.1 88.4
9.9 7.9 11.6
0102030405060708090
100
Expected TraditionalProbation
IntensivelySupervisedProbation
(DAIP)
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 84 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No Yes Total No Actual Count 1039 118 1157Non-Reporting
Probation Expected Count 1042.4 114.6 1157.0 100.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 89.8% 10.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 230 13 243 Expected Count 218.9 24.1 243.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 94.7% 5.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1269 131 1400 131.0 Expected Count 1269.0 1400.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 387 cases of the 1787 did not have Non-Reporting designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
7.465a 2 .0248.395 2 .0151787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 24.07.
a.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andNon-Reporting Probation
90.1 89.8 94.79.9 10.2 5.3
0102030405060708090
100
Expected No Non-ReportingProbation
Non-ReportingProbationRecipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 85 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
No Yes Total No Actual Count 604 51 655Duluth Program
(FVP) Expected Count 590.1 64.9 655.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Duluth Program 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 668 80 748 Expected Count 673.9 74.1 748.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Duluth Program Recipients 89.3% 10.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1272 131 1403 Expected Count 1272.0 131.0 1403.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 384 of the cases did not have Duluth Program designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
5.670a 2 .0595.789 2 .0551787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 38.03.
a.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years and Duluth Program (FVP)
90.1 92.2 89.39.9 7.8 10.7
0102030405060708090
100
Expected No DuluthProgram
DuluthProgram
Recipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 86 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total Other Treatment No Actual Count 1258 127 1385 Expected Count 1247.8 137.2 1385.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Other Treatment 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 8 4 12 Expected Count 10.8 1.2 12.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
33.3% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other Treatment Recipients 66.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1278 133 1411 Expected Count 1265.9 145.1 1411.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Note: 390 of the 1787 cases did not have Other Treatment designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
9.781a 2 .0087.228 2 .0271787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 1.19.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 87 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andOther Treatment/Specialized Probation
90.1 90.8
66.7
9.9 9.2
33.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected No OtherTreatment
OtherTreatmentRecipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 88 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 28 20 481st Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 58.3% 41.7% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 12 5 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 70.6% 29.4% 100.0% Actual Count 159 22 181
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%
Actual Count 25 4 29
No Contact Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 86.2% 13.8% 100.0%
Failure to Work Actual Count 0 1 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Count 61 14 75
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 81.3% 18.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 4 3 7
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%
Leaving the State Actual Count 3 0 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 14 3 17
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 82.4% 17.6% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 306 72 378 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 81.0% 19.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
30.765a 8 .00027.491 8 .001
1.611 1 .204
378
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
7 cells (38.9%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .19.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 89 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 7 10 172nd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 41.2% 58.8% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 4 3 7 Actual Recidivism Rate 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Actual Count 31 6 37
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 83.8% 16.2% 100.0%
Actual Count 0 1 1
No Contact Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Failure to Work Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 20 3 23
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 8 0 8
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Leaving the State Actual Count 2 0 2 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 5 1 6
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 78 24 102 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 76.5% 23.5% 100.0%
Note: 34 of the 1787 cases did not have Second Probation Violation designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
22.520a 8 .00422.688 8 .004
9.861 1 .002
102
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
11 cells (61.1%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .24.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 90 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSecond Probation Violation
76.5
41.2
57.1
83.887
100
83.323.5
58.8
42.9
16.213
16.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected
New Offense (other than DV)
Curfew Violation
Alcohol or Drug Violation
Failure to Attend Counseling
Change Address w/o Permission
Failure to Pay Fines & Costs
Perc
ent
YesNo
Note: Three of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “No Contact Violation”, “Failure to Work”, and “Leaving the State”.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 91 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Continue Probation Actual Count 10 2 12 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Sentence for 1st Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 32 3 35 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0% Actual Count 3 1 4
Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 36 4 40
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 5 1 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Superseding Offense Actual Count 5 5 10 Actual Recidivism Rate 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 191 50 241 Actual Recidivism Rate 79.3% 20.7% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 21 3 24 Actual Recidivism Rate 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%Total Actual Count 303 69 372 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 81.5% 18.5% 100.0%
Note: 6 of the 1787 cases did not have Sentence for 1st Probation Violation designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
12.293a 7 .09111.578 7 .115
2.694 1 .101
372
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
7 cells (43.8%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .74.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 92 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 1st Probation Violation
81.5 83.391.4
75
9083.3
50
79.387.5
8.6
25
10
20.712.518.5 16.7
50
16.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected
Continue Probation
Extended Probation
ISP Probation
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act
Delayed Sentencing
Superseding Offense
Jail Time
Community Service
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 93 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
Crosstab
Yes No Total Continue Probation Actual Count 3 0 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Sentence for 2nd Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 33 3 36 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0% Actual Count 7 0 7
Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 11 5 16
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 68.8% 31.2% 100.0%
Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Superseding Offense Actual Count 1 3 4 Actual Recidivism Rate 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 45 7 52 Actual Recidivism Rate 86.5% 13.5% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 16 1 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0%Total Actual Count 117 19 136 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 86.0% 14.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
20.045a 7 .00516.286 7 .023
.405 1 .524
136
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
9 cells (56.3%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .14.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 94 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 2nd Probation Violation
8691.7
100
68.8
25
86.594.1
31.2
75
14 13.5 5.98.3
0102030405060708090
100
Expected
Extend Probation
Intensively Supervised Probation
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act
Superseding Offense
Jail Time
Community Service
Perc
ent
YesNo
Note: Two of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “Continue Probation” and “Delayed Sentencing”.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 95 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Extend Probation Actual Count 5 1 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Sentence for 3rd Probation Violation Actual Count 0 1 1
Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 1 0 1
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Jail Time Actual Count 16 1 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 6 0 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 28 3 31 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
10.699a 4 .0306.699 4 .153
2.249 1 .134
31
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .10.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 96 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSentence for 3rd Probation Violation
9083
9410010 17
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected ExtendProbation
Jail Time CommunityService
Perc
ent
YesNo
Note: Two of the potential outcomes for this variable were omitted from this chart because of very low values. They are: “Intensively Supervised Probation” and “Loss of Spouse Abuse Act”.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 97 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 577 44 621Probation Outcome
Satisfactory Discharge Expected Count 562.7 58.3 621.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Satisfactory Discharge 92.9% 7.1% 100.0%
440 Actual Count 12 452 Expected Count 426.8 44.2 471.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement Actual Recidivism Rate for Sat.
Discharge w/ SAA Expung. 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 84 35 119
Unsatisfactory Discharge Expected Count 107.8 11.2 119.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Unsatisfactory Discharge 70.6% 29.4% 100.0%
Probation Revoked Actual Count 146 39 185 Expected Count 167.6 17.4 185.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Probation Revoked 78.9% 21.1% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1249 128 1377 Expected Count 1249.0 128.0 1377.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.6% 9.4% 100.0%
Note: 410 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Outcome designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
114.062a 3 .00097.769 3 .000
53.042 1 .000
1396
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 11.17.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 98 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andProbation Outcome
90.6 92.997.8
70.678.929.421.1
9.4 7.1 2.2
0102030405060708090
100
Expected
Satisfactory Discharge
Sat. Discharge w/SAA Expungement
Unsatisfactory Discharge
Probation Revoked
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 99 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND TYPE
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Personal Recog. Actual Count 374 35 409 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.4% 8.6% 100.0%
Bond Type
10% Cash Actual Count 713 66 779 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.5% 8.5% 100.0% Actual Count 232 29 261
Cash Actual Recidivism Rate 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 187 33 220
Cash Surety Actual Recidivism Rate 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Denied Actual Count 34 5 39 Actual Recidivism Rate 87.2% 12.8% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1540 168 1708 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.2% 9.8% 100.0%
Note: 79 of the 1787 Cases did not have Bond Type designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
10.049a 5 .0749.339 5 .096
6.647 1 .010
1786
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 3.87.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 100 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Violation Actual Count 1552 162 1714 Actual Recidivism Rate 90.5% 9.5% 100.0%
Bond Violation
Alcohol Actual Count 8 3 11 Actual Recidivism Rate 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Actual Count 12 4 16
No Contact Clause Actual Recidivism Rate 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 28 8 36
None Recorded Actual Recidivism Rate 77.8% 22.2% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1600 177 1777 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Note: 10 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Violation designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
14.241a 3 .00310.747 3 .013
9.573 1 .002
1777
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 1.10.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 101 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 752 101 853Spouse Abuse Act Expected Count 768.5 84.5 853.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Spouse Abuse Act 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 526 30 556 Expected Count 500.9 55.1 556.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Spouse Abuse Act Recipients 94.6% 5.4% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1278 131 1409 Expected Count 1278.0 131.0 1409.0 100.0%0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9%
Note: 378 of the 1787 cases did not have Spouse Abuse Act Designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
18.422a 2 .00020.363 2 .000
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 37.44.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 102 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSpouse Abuse Act
90.1 88.294.6
9.9 11.85.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected No SpouseAbuse Act
Spouse AbuseAct Recipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 103 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 0-2 YEARS
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 1489 295.52 171.774 3.947 282.43 297.13 15 1715Yes 149 290.89 129.311 10.492 257.28 361.57 30 783
Total 1638 295.10 168.327 3.708 282.97 297.52 15 1715
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2899.189 1 2899.189 .102 .749Within Groups 46380088 1636 28349.687 -- --
Total 46382987 1637 -- -- --
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Fi
nes
And
Cos
ts
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 104 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 105 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 791 78 869Fines and Costs
0-250 Dollars Expected Count 790.0 79.0 869.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-250 Dollars 91.0% 9.0% 100.0%
251-500 Dollars Actual Count 580 59 639 Expected Count 580.9 58.1 639.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 251-500 Dollars 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%
Actual Count 99 11 110 Expected Count 100.0 10.0 110.0
501-750 Dollars
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 501-750 Dollars 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 10 1 11
751-1000 Dollars Expected Count 10.0 1.0 11.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 751-1000 Dollars 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 9 0 9 1000+ Dollars Expected Count 8.2 .8 9.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 1000+ Dollars 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1489 149 1638 Expected Count 1489.0 149.0 1638.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 106 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 653 56.78 68.222 2.682 49.69 60.22 1 540Yes 98 56.19 51.386 5.191 45.89 66.50 1 365
Total 751 56.70 66.239 2.421 50.37 59.87 1 540
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 28.917 1 28.917 .007 .935Within Groups 3290723 749 4393.488 -- --
Total 3290752 750 -- -- --
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Ja
il Ti
me
Sent
ence
d, in
day
s
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 107 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 323 42 365Jail Time Sentenced
1-30 Days Expected Count 317.4 47.6 365.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-250 Dollars 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%
31-60 Days Actual Count 136 24 160 Expected Count 139.1 20.9 160.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 251-500 Dollars 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 92 11 103 Expected Count 89.6 13.4 103.0
61-90 Days
Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 501-750 Dollars 89.3% 10.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 66 16 82
91-120 Days Expected Count 71.3 10.7 82.0
13.0% Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 100.0%
100.0%Actual Recidivism Rate for 751-1000 Dollars 80.5% 19.5%
Actual Count 36 5 41 120+ Days Expected Count 35.6 5.4 41.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 1000+ Dollars 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 653 98 751 Expected Count 653.0 98.0 751.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1319 131 1450Electronic Monitoring Expected Count 1306.4 143.6 1450.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 91.0% 9.0% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 4 0 4 Expected Count 3.6 0.4 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1323 131 1454 Expected Count 1323.0 131.0 1454.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Electronic Monitoring designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
7.373a 2 .0257.242 2 .0271787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .40.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 108 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1297 127 1424Community Service Expected Count 1283.0 141.0 1424.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% Yes 31Actual Count 26 5 Expected Count 27.9 3.1 31.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 83.9% 16.1% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1323 132 1455 Expected Count 1323.0 132.0 1455.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 8.9% 100.0%
Note: 332 of the 1787 Cases did not have Community Service designated in the database.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCommunity Service
90.1 91.1
83.9
9.9 8.9
16.1
70
80
90
100
Expected NoCommunity
Service
CommunityService
Recipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 109 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1071 113 1184Substance Abuse Treatment Expected Count 1066.7 117.3 1184.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.5% 9.5% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 212 18 230 Expected Count 207.2 22.8 230.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 92.2% 7.8% Total Actual Count 1283 131 1414 Expected Count 1283.0 131.0 1414.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 373 of the 1787 cases did not have Substance Abuse Treatment designated in the database.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andSubstance Abuse Treatment
90.1 90.5 92.29.9 9.5 7.8
0102030405060708090
100
Expected No SubstanceAbuse
Treatment
SubstanceAbuse
TreatmentRecipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 110 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING
Recidivism within 0-2 Years
Crosstab
No Yes Total No 905Actual Count 817 88 Individual
Counseling Expected Count 815.4 89.6 905.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.3% 9.7% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 483 43 526 Expected Count 473.9 52.1 526.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 91.8% 8.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1300 131 1431 Expected Count 1300.0 131.0 1431.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 356 of the 1787 cases did not have Individual Counseling designated in the database.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andIndividual Counseling
90.1 90.3 91.89.9 9.7 8.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected No IndividualCounseling
IndividualCounselingRecipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 111 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1262 130 1392Couples Counseling Expected Count 1254.1 137.9 1392.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 90.7% 9.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 6 1 7 Expected Count 6.3 0.7 7.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1268 131 1399 1399.0Expected Count 1268.0 131.0 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 90.1% 9.9% 100.0%
Note: 388 of the 1787 cases did not have Couples Counseling designated in the database.
Recidivism within 0-2 Years andCouples Counseling
90.1 90.785.7
9.9 9.3 14.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected No CouplesCounseling
CouplesCounselingRecipients
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 112 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 113 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (0-2 YEARS) SUBSECTION: THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
0-2 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 1 0 13rd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 8 1 9
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 1 0 1
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 3 0 3
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 1 2 3
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 33.3% 66.7% 3
Total Actual Count 15 3 18 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Note: 13 of the 1787 cases did not have Third Probation Violation designated in the database.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 3-5 YEARS
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER
Crosstab
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
No Yes Total Gender Female Actual Count 305 4 309 Expected Count 301.4 7.6 309.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Females 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% Male Actual Count 1436 40 1476 Expected Count 1439.6 36.4 1476.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Males 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%Total Count 1741 44 1785 Expected Count 1741.0 44.0 1738.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 2 of the 1787 cases did not have Gender designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
2.129b 1 .1441.581 1 .2092.482 1 .115
.163 .098
2.128 1 .145
1785
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is7.62.
b.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 114 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: GENDER
Recidivism within 3-5 Years and Gender
97.5 98.7 97.3
2.5 1.3 2.7
0102030405060708090
100
Expected Female Male
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 115 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Domestic Violence Actual Count 1614 38 16521st Offense Expected Count 1611.3 40.7 1652.0
Type of Charges Filed Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
97.7% Actual Recidivism Rate for those Charged with Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Count 112 3 115
Domestic Violence 2nd Offense Expected Count 112.2 2.8 115.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%
Actual Count 17 3 20
Domestic Violence 3rd Offense Expected Count 19.5 0.5 19.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Those Charged with Domestic Violence 3rd Offense 85.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1743 44 1787 Expected Count 1743.0 44.0 1787.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
13.282a 2 .0016.358 2 .042
6.159 1 .013
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .49.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 116 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: TYPE OF CHARGES FILED
Recidivism within 3-5 Yearsand Type of Charges Filed
97.5 97.7 97.4
85
15
2.5 2.3 2.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected DomesticViolence 1st
Offense
DomesticViolence 2nd
Offense
DomesticViolence 3rd
Offense
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 117 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 827 9 836Criminal History
No Prior Criminal Record Expected Count 815.4 20.6 836.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Prior Criminal Record 98.9% 1.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 177 7 184
Prior Domestic Violence Convct. Expected Count 179.5 4.5 184.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Domestic Violence Charge 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%
Prior Misdemeanor Actual Count 611 21 632 Expected Count 616.4 15.6 632.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Misdemeanor 96.7% 3.3% 100.0%
Prior Felony Actual Count 128 7 135 Expected Count 131.7 3.3 135.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Prior Felony 94.8% 5.2% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1743 44 1787 Expected Count 1743.0 44.0 1787.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
14.181a 3 .00314.565 3 .002
12.328 1 .000
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 3.32.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 118 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)
SUBSECTION: PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
Recidivism within 3-5 Yearsand Prior Criminal Record
97.5 98.9 96.2 96.7 94.8
2.5 3.8 3.3 5.21.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected
No Prior Criminal Record
Prior Domestic Violence Conviction
Prior Misdemeanor
Prior Felony
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 119 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 120 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total Case Disposition Actual Count 928 30 958
Conviction by Guilty
Expected Count 934.4 23.6 958.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Guilty Plea 96.9% 3.1% 100.0%
Conviction by Trial Actual Count 81 2 83 Expected Count 81.0 2.0 83.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Conviction by Trial 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 47 2 49 Expected Count 47.8 1.2 49.0
Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence Charge Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Plea to a Lesser Dom Vio Charge 95.9% 4.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 239 6 245
No Contest (Nolle Contendre) Expected Count 239.0 6.0 245.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Contest 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 448 4 452
Expungement (Spouse Abuse Act) Expected Count 440.9 11.1 452.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Expungement 99.1% 0.9% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1743 44 1787 Expected Count 1743.0 44.0 1787.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: These numbers are adjusted to incorporate the Spouse Abuse Act Outcome numbers (page 22).
Chi-Square Tests
7.005a 4 .1368.284 4 .082
5.657 1 .017
1787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 1.21.
a.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: CASE DISPOSITION
Recidivism within 3-5 Years andCase Disposition
97.5 96.9 95.9 97.6 97.6 99.12.4 0.93.12.5 4.1 2.4
0102030405060708090
100
Expected
Conviction by Guilty Plea
Plea to Lesser DV Charge
Conviction by Trial
No Contest
Expungement
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 121 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 1419 10.36 4.139 .107 9.99 10.41 1 30Yes 32 13.31 10.717.231 1.278 15.92 2 36
Total 1451 10.0510.27 4.093 .109 10.48 1 36
Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 273.301 1 273.301 15.281 .000Within Groups 25914.727 1449 17.885 -- --
Total 26188.028 1450 -- -- --
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Pr
obat
ion
Leng
th, i
n m
onth
s
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 122 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 123 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION LENGTH
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years Yes Total No
Actual Count 408 7 415Probation Length,
0-6 Months Expected Count 405.8 9.2 415.0
Months Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
98.3% 1.7% Actual Recidivism Rate 0-6 Months 100.0%
7-12 Months Actual Count 926 18 944 Expected Count 923.2 20.8 944.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 7-12 Months 98.1% 1.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 25 1 26 Expected Count 25.4 .6 26.0
13-18 Months
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 13-18 Months 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%
Actual Count 57 5 62
19-24 Months Expected Count 60.6 1.4 62.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 19-24 Months 91.9% 8.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 3 1 4 25+ Months Expected Count 3.9 .1 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 25+ Months 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1419 32 1451 Expected Count 1419.0 32.0 1451.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Note: 3 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Length designated in the database.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 603 18 621Probation Outcome
Satisfactory Discharge Expected Count 606.8 14.2 621.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Satisfactory Discharge 97.1% 2.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 448 4 452 Expected Count 460.2 10.8 471.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse Abuse Act Expungement Actual Recidivism Rate for Sat.
Discharge w/ SAA Expung. 99.2% 0.8% 100.0%
Actual Count 114 5 119
Unsatisfactory Discharge Expected Count 116.3 2.7 119.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Unsatisfactory Discharge 95.8% 4.2% 100.0%
Probation Revoked Actual Count 180 5 185 Expected Count 180.8 4.2 185.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Probation Revoked 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1345 32 1377 Expected Count 1345.0 32.0 1377.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Note: 410 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Outcome designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
7.474a 3 .0588.382 3 .039
.000 1 .996
1396
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 2.73.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 124 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION OUTCOME
Recidivism within 3-5 Years andProbation Outcome
97.7 97.1 99.2 95.8 97.34.2 2.72.3 2.9 0.8
0102030405060708090
100
Expected
Satisfactory Discharge
Satis. Discharge w/SAA Expungement
Unsatisfactory Discharge
Probation Revoked
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 125 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Violation Actual Count 1674 40 1714 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Bond Violation
Alcohol Actual Count 9 2 11 Actual Recidivism Rate 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Actual Count 15 1 16
No Contact Clause Actual Recidivism Rate 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%
Actual Count 35 1 36
None Recorded Actual Recidivism Rate 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1733 44 1777 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 10 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Violation designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
12.338a 3 .0065.642 3 .130
.410 1 .522
1777
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .27.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 126 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years Yes No Total
No Actual Count 826 27 853Spouse Abuse Act Expected Count 832.0 21.0 853.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Spouse Abuse Act 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 551 5 556 Expected Count 542.3 13.7 556.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Spouse Abuse Act Recipients 99.1% 0.9% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1377 32 1409 Expected Count 1377.0 32.0 1409.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 378 of the 1787 cases did not have Spouse Abuse Act designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
8.210a 2 .0169.792 2 .0071787
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 9.31.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 127 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SPOUSE ABUSE ACT
Recidivism within 3-5 Years andSpouse Abuse Act
97.5 96.8 99.12.5 3.2 0.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expected No Spouse AbuseAct
Spouse Abuse ActRecipient
Perc
ent
YesNo
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 128 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM 3-5 YEARS
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 129 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: RACE ETHNICITY
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total Race/Ethnicity White Actual Count 1269 30 1299 Expected Count 1266.3 32.7 1299.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Whites 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Black Actual Count 150 4 154 Expected Count 150.1 3.9 154.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Blacks 97.4% 2.6% 100.0% Hispanic Actual Count 251 9 260 Expected Count 253.5 6.5 260.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Hispanics 96.5% 3.5% 100.0% Asian Actual Count 31 1 32 Expected Count 31.2 0.8 32.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Asians 96.9% 3.1% 100.0% Other Actual Count 3 0 3 Expected Count 2.9 0.1 3.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Other 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Count 1704 44 1748 Expected Count 1704.0 44.0 1748.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 39 0f the 1787 cases did not have Race/Ethnicity designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 130 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)
Recidivism within
SUBSECTION: INCIDENT LOCATION
Crosstab 3-5 Years
No Yes Total Actual Count 52 0 52 Incident
Location Allendale Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Allendale Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 11 0 11 Blendon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Blendon Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 11 0 11 Chester Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Chester Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 40 0 40 Coopersville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Coopersville City 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 37 0 37 Crockery Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Crockery Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 14 0 14 Ferrysburg City Actual Recidivism Rate for Ferrysburg City 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 75 3 78 Georgetown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Georgetown Township 96.2% 3.8% 100.0% Actual Count 75 4 79 Grand Haven City Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven City 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Actual Count 80 2 82 Grand Haven Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Grand Haven Town. 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Actual Count 480 8 488 Holland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland City 98.4% 1.6% 100.0% Actual Count 440 16 456 Holland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Holland Township 96.5% 3.5% 100.0% Actual Count 19 1 20 Hudsonville City Actual Recidivism Rate for Hudsonville City 95.0% 5.0% 100.0% Actual Count 6 6 0 Jamestown Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Jamestown Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 2 38 Olive Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Olive Township 94.7% 5.3% 100.0% Actual Count 70 1 71 1.4% Park Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Park Township 98.6% 100.0% Actual Count 11 0 11 Polkton Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Polkton Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 18 0 18 Port Sheldon Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Port Sheldon Town. 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 22 1 23 Robinson Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Robinson Township 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% Actual Count 85 1 86 Spring Lake Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Township 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% Actual Count 13 1 14 Spring Lake Village Actual Recidivism Rate for Spring Lake Village 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Actual Count 28 0 28 Tallmadge Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Tallmadge Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 23 0 23 Wright Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Wright Township 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 43 3 46 Zeeland City Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland City 93.5% 6.5% 100.0% Actual Count 50 1 51 Zeeland Township Actual Recidivism Rate for Zeeland Township 98.0% 2.0% 100.0% Total Actual Count 1743 44 1787 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 1600 294.76 168.583 3.747 282.43 297.13 15 1715Yes 38 309.42 158.644 25.735 257.28 361.57 90 760
Total 1638 295.10 168.327 3.708 282.97 297.52 15 1715
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 7980.518 1 7980.518 .282 .596Within Groups 46375007 1636 28346.581 -- --
Total 46382987 1637 -- -- --
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Fi
nes
And
Cos
ts
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 131 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 132 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS)
SUBSECTION: FINES AND COSTS
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 850 19 869Fines and Costs
0-250 Dollars Expected Count 848.8 20.2 869.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-250 Dollars 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
251-500 Dollars Actual Count 625 14 639 Expected Count 624.2 14.8 639.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 251-500 Dollars 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
110Actual Count 106 4 Expected Count 107.4 2.6 110.0
501-750 Dollars
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 501-750 Dollars 96.4% 3.6% 100.0%
Actual Count 10 1 11
751-1000 Dollars Expected Count 10.7 .3 11.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 751-1000 Dollars 90.9% 9.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 9 0 9 .2 1000+ Dollars Expected Count 8.8 9.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 1000+ Dollars 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1600 38 1638 Expected Count 1600.0 38.0 1638.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 727 56.16 65.136 2.415 49.76 59.25 1 540Yes 24 72.96 94.171 19.223 33.19 112.72 2 365
Total 751 56.70 66.239 2.421 50.37 59.87 1 540
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 6553.110 1 6553.110 1.495 .222Within Groups 3284198 749 4384.778 -- --
Total 3290752 750 -- -- --
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Ja
il Ti
me
Sent
ence
d, in
day
s
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 133 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 134 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SENTENCED
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 354 11 365Jail Time Sentenced
1-30 Days Expected Count 353.3 11.7 365.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-250 Dollars 97.0% 3.0% 100.0%
31-60 Days Actual Count 154 6 160 Expected Count 154.9 5.1 160.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 251-500 Dollars 96.3% 3.8% 100.0%
Actual Count 100 3 103 Expected Count 99.7 3.3 103.0
61-90 Days
Expected Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 501-750 Dollars 97.1% 2.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 80 2 82
91-120 Days Expected Count 79.4 2.6 82.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 751-1000 Dollars 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%
Actual Count 39 2 41 120+ Days Expected Count 39.7 1.3 41.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 1000+ Dollars 95.1% 4.9% 100.0%
Total 751Actual Count 727 24 Expected Count 727.0 24.0 751.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Summary 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Standard
Deviation Standard
Error Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
No 513 30.99 44.681 1.973 29.03 32.95 1 540Yes 14 45.43 44.906 12.002 43.47 47.39 1 159
Total 527 31.37 44.704 1.947 29.41 33.33 1 540
ANOVA Test Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2841.746 1 2841.746 1.423 .233
Within Groups 1048351.4 525 1996.860 -- --Total 1051193.1 526 -- -- --
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
YesNo
Mea
n Ja
il Ti
me
Serv
ed, i
n da
ys
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 135 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 136 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 182 4 186Jail Time Served
1-7 Days Expected Count 181.1 4.9 186.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate 0-7 Days 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
8-15 Days Actual Count 85 0 85 Expected Count 82.7 2.3 85.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 8-15 Days 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 35 1 36 Expected Count 35.0 1.0 36.0
16-23 Days
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 16-23 Days 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%
Actual Count 52 3 55
24-31 Days Expected Count 53.5 1.5 55.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 24-31 Days 94.5% 5.5% 100.0%
Actual Count 159 6 165 32+ Days Expected Count 160.6 4.4 165.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for 32+ Days 96.4% 3.6% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 513 14 527 Expected Count 513.0 14.0 527.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 137 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1418 32 1450Electronic Monitoring Expected Count 1414.3 35.7 1450.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 4 0 4 Expected Count 3.9 0.1 4.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1422 32 1454 Expected Count 1422.0 32.0 1454.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Electronic Monitoring designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1394 30 1424Community Service Expected Count 1388.9 35.1 1424.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.9% 2.1% Yes Actual Count 29 2 31 Expected Count 30.2 0.8 31.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 93.5% 6.5% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1423 32 1455 Expected Count 1423.0 32.0 1455.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 332 of the 1787 cases did not have Community Service designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 138 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: PROBATION TYPE
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Actual Count 1002 20 1022Probation Type
Traditional Probation Expected Count 996.8 25.2 1022.0
Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Traditional 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 420 12 432 Expected Count 421.4 10.6 432.0
Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Intensively Supervised 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1422 32 1454 Expected Count 1422.0 32.0 1454.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 333 of the 1787 cases did not have Probation Type designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1129 28 1157Non-Reporting Probation Expected Count 1128.5 28.5 1157.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 239 4 243 Expected Count 237.0 6.0 243.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 98.4% 1.6% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1368 32 1400 Expected Count 1368.0 32.0 1400.0 2.5% 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 100.0%
Note: 387 of the 1787 cases did not have Non-Reporting Probation designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 139 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM (FAMILY VIOLENCE PROGRAM)
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 639 16 655Duluth Program (FVP) Expected Count 638.9 16.1 655.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Duluth Program 97.6% 2.4% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 732 16 748 Expected Count 729.6 18.4 748.0 2.5% 100.0%Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Duluth Program Recipients 97.9% 2.1% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1371 32 1403 Expected Count 1371.0 32.0 1403.0 97.5% 2.5% 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 100.0%
Note: 384 of the 1787 cases did not have Duluth Program designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 1157 27 1184Substance Abuse Treatment Expected Count 1154.8 29.2 1184.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 225 5 230 Expected Count 224.3 5.7 230.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1382 32 1414 Expected Count 1382.0 32.0 1414.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 373 of the 1787 cases did not have Substance Abuse Treatment designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 140 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
No Actual Count 885 20 905Individual Counseling Expected Count 882.7 22.3 905.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 514 12 526 Expected Count 513.0 13.0 526.0 97.5% Expected Recidivism Rate 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1399 32 1431 Expected Count 1399.0 32.0 1431.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 356 of the 1787 cases did not have Individual Counseling designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING
Crosstab
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
No Yes Total No Actual Count 1360 32 1392Couples
Counseling Expected Count 1357.7 34.3 1392.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for No 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Yes Actual Count 7 0 7 Expected Count 6.8 0.2 7.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Actual Recidivism Rate for Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1367 32 1399 Expected Count 1367.0 32.0 1399.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 388 of the 1787 cases did not have Couples Counseling designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 141 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: OTHER TREATMENT/SPECIALIZED PROBATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total Other Treatment No Actual Count 1353 32 1385 Expected Count 1350.9 34.1 1385.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for No Other Treatment 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Yes Actual Count 12 0 12 Expected Count 11.7 0.3 12.0 Expected Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Actual Recidivism Rate for Other Treatment Recipients 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 1365 32 1397 Expected Count 1365.0 32.0 1397.0 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 390 of the 1787 cases did not have Other Treatment designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 46 2 481st Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 16 1 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Actual Count 174 7 181
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 96.1% 3.9% 100.0%
Actual Count 27 2 29
No Contact Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 93.1% 6.9% 100.0%
Failure to Work Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 74 1 75
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 98.7% 1.3% 100.0%
Actual Count 7 0 7
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Leaving the State Actual Count 3 0 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 16 1 17
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 364 14 378 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 96.3% 3.7% 100.0%
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 142 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 16 1 172nd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% Curfew Violation Actual Count 7 0 7 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 36 1 37
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0%
Actual Count 1 0 1
No Contact Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Failure to Work Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 22 1 23
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 95.5% 4.5% 100.0%
Actual Count 7 1 8
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 87.5% 14.3% 100.0%
Leaving the State Actual Count 2 0 2 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 5 1 6
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 97 5 102 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 95.1% 4.9% 100.0%
Note: 34 of the 1787 cases did not have 2nd Probation Violation designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: THIRD PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
New Offense Actual Count 1 0 13rd Probation Violation (other than DV) Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Curfew Violation 1 Actual Count 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Count 9 0 9
Alcohol or Drug Violation Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 1 0 1
Failure to Attend Counseling Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 3 0 3
Change of Address Without Permission Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 3 0 3
Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Actual Count 18 0 18 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Note: 13 of the 1787 cases did not have 3rd Probation Violation designated in the database.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 143 of 163
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR FIRST PROBATION VIOLATION
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Continue Probation Actual Count 11 1 12 Actual Recidivism Rate 91.7% 8.3% 100.0%
Sentence for 1st Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 34 1 35 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.1% 2.9% 100.0% Actual Count 3 1 4
Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 39 1 40
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 6 0 6 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 10Superseding Offense Actual Count 9 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 90.0% 10.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 233 8 241 Actual Recidivism Rate 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 23 1 24 Actual Recidivism Rate 95.8% 4.2% 100.0%Total Actual Count 358 14 372 100.0%3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 96.2% 3.8%
Crosstab
Note: 6 of the 378 cases did not have Sentence for 1st Probation Violation designated in the database.
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: SENTENCE FOR SECOND PROBATION VIOLATION
Recidivism within 3-5 Years
No Yes Total Continue Probation Actual Count 2 1 3 Actual Recidivism Rate 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Sentence for 2nd Probation Violation Extend Probation Actual Count 34 2 36 Actual Recidivism Rate 94.4% 5.6% 100.0% Actual Count 7 0 7
Intensively Supervised Probation Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Actual Count 16 0 16
Loss of Spouse Abuse Act Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Delayed Sentencing Actual Count 1 0 1 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Superseding Offense Actual Count 4 0 4 Actual Recidivism Rate 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Jail Time Actual Count 51 1 52 Actual Recidivism Rate 98.1% 1.9% 100.0% Community Service Actual Count 15 2 17 Actual Recidivism Rate 88.2% 11.8% 100.0%Total Actual Count 130 6 136 3-5 Year Recidivism Rate 95.6% 4.4% 100.0%
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: VARIABLES EXHIBITING A NON-SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO RECIDIVISM (3-5 YEARS) SUBSECTION: BOND TYPE
Crosstab Recidivism within
3-5 Years No Yes Total
Person Recog. Actual Count 401 8 409 Actual Recidivism Rate 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Bond Type
10% Cash Actual Count 758 21 779 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.3% 2.7% 100.0% Actual Count 253 8 261
Cash Actual Recidivism Rate 96.9% 3.1% 100.0%
Actual Count 215 5 220
Cash Surety Actual Recidivism Rate 97.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Denied Actual Count 38 1 39 Actual Recidivism Rate 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%Total Actual Count 1665 43 1708 0-2 Year Recidivism Rate 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Note: 79 of the 1787 cases did not have Bond Type designated in the database.
Chi-Square Tests
1.495a 5 .9141.590 5 .902
.001 1 .980
1786
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .96.
a.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 144 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 145 of 163
Financial Analysis Overview
This section utilizes financial data to analyze the costs associated with the administration and implementation of various sentencing/treatment options that are used in domestic violence cases. This financial data was collected from the following County Departments: Finance, Accounting, Community Corrections, Sheriff, and District Court Probation. A comparison and analysis of the cost of each sentencing/treatment option and the corresponding recidivism rates for each option are included in this section.
Jail Time – The average cost of housing inmates in the jail has been $37 per day. This cost is also the amount that inmates have been billed for each day of incarceration in the jail. The collection rate for these charges is only 9%. The cost of administering this program increases on average 20.5% per year.
Traditional Probation – District Court Probation is responsible for administering Traditional
Probation. Traditional Probation requires offenders to report to a probation officer for regularly scheduled appointments. The probation officer ensures that the offender complies with the requirements of the probation order. The cost of administering this program averages $210.89 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Individuals sentenced to traditional probation are not required to pay any fees.
ISP Probation – ISP Probation is administered by Community Corrections. ISP Probation
consists of a higher than normal level of supervision due to the severity of the domestic violence offense, an inmate’s history of violent behavior, or the offender’s serious substance abuse problems. The cost to administer this program averages $933.70 annually per individual. These costs were calculated by dividing the general ledger expenses associated with the ISP Program (provided by Finance) by the number of ISP enrollees (provided by Community Corrections). This number was then multiplied by the number of domestic violence offenders in ISP. ISP probationers are required to pay $80 per month. The collection rate for these charges is 76%.
Non-reporting Probation – District Court Probation administers Non-reporting Probation. This
probation is used in cases where the offender is not considered to be a threat to society and/or the offender has moved out of the area. The cost to administer this program averages $16.68 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Non-reporting probationers are not required to pay any fees.
Duluth Program (Family Violence Program) – District Court Probation also administers the
Duluth Program. This therapy program consists of twenty-six weeks of group therapy and is designed to help offenders recognize their abusive and violent behavior while teaching them that the use of power and control tactics can lead to domestic violence. The cost to administer this program averages $12.48 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees charged for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 146 of 163
Substance Abuse Treatment – District Court administers the Substance Abuse Treatment program. Treatment for substance abuse may include any of the following: outpatient counseling, intensive inpatient counseling, residential treatment, education, and enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Various agencies provide the actual treatment. The cost to administer this program averages $12.49 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.
Couples Counseling – District Court Probation administers Couples Counseling. The cost to
administer this program averages $12.32 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The fees for this treatment are the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.
Individual Counseling –District Court Probation administers Individual Counseling. The cost
to administer this program averages $12.51 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). The cost of this treatment is the responsibility of the offender. The treatment is arranged through various agencies and providers.
Youthful Intervention Program – The Youthful Intervention Program is administered by
Community Corrections. The cost to administer this program averages $1,219.70 annually per individual. These costs were calculated by dividing the general ledger expenses associated with the Youthful Intervention Program (provided by Finance) by the number of enrollees (provided by Community Corrections). This number was then multiplied by the number or domestic violence offenders in the program. The offenders in this program are required to pay one (1) day’s wages per week. The average collection rate on these charges is 61%.
Electronic Monitoring – District Court Probation administers Electronic Monitoring. The cost
to administer this program averages $50.24 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by District Court Probation) and salaries (provided by Finance). Probationers are required to pay $9 per day to have their device monitored by a private sector business.
Community Service – Community Service is administered by Community Corrections. The
cost to administer this program averages $178.69 annually per individual. These costs consist of office expenditures (provided by Community Corrections) and salaries (provided by Finance). The offenders in this program are required to pay a one-time $35 Intake Fee. The average collection rate on these charges is 85%.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: JAIL TIME SERVED
Annual Total Cost of Jail Time Served*
$58,035.00 $62,214.15
$103,587.12$119,184.52
$153,031.79
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Average Cost of Jail Time Served per Individual (Annually)*
$624.03
$797.62$924.89
$1,093.44 $1,133.57
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 147 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Annual Total Cost of Electronic Monitoring
$0.00 $0.00
$100.80 $100.16
$0.000
20
40
60
80
100
120
1995* 1996* 1997 1998 1999*Year
Dol
lars
*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during these years.
Average Cost of Electronic Monitoring per Individual (Annually)
$0.00 $0.00
$50.40 $50.08
$0.000
10
20
30
40
50
60
1995* 1996* 1997 1998 1999*Year
Dol
lars
*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during these years.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 148 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Annual Total Cost of Community Service*
$1,244.30
$811.86
$536.16
$1,515.50$1,431.50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Average Cost of Community Service per Individual (Annually)*
$124.43 $135.31
$178.72
$216.50
$286.30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 149 of 163
*Less fees collected.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: TRADITIONAL PROBATION
Annual Total Cost of Traditional Probation
$39,259.29 $41,023.72$44,081.38 $46,227.32 $44,936.34
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Average Cost of Traditional Probation per Individual (Annually)
$267.07$238.51
$203.14
$172.49
$206.13
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 150 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: ISP PROBATION
Annual Total Cost of ISP Probation*
$54,984.39$66,577.62
$87,100.74
$110,778.30$120,726.06
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Average Cost of ISP Probation per Individual (Annually)*
$591.23
$802.14
$978.66
$1,244.70
$1,547.77
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 151 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: NON-REPORTING PROBATION
Annual Total Cost of Non-reporting Probation
$368.38
$799.76 $806.40
$1,252.00
$825.60
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Average Cost of Non-reporting Probation per Individual (Annually)
$16.02 $16.32 $16.80 $16.69 $17.20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 152 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: DULUTH PROGRAM
Annual Total Cost of Duluth Program
$1,273.59
$1,750.32
$2,280.60$2,441.40
$1,586.70
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Average Cost of Duluth Program per Individual (Annually)
$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 153 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Annual Total Cost of Substance Abuse Treatment
$480.60 $501.84 $478.80
$638.52
$774.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Average Cost of Substance Abuse Treatment per Individual (Annually)
$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 154 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 155 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING
Annual Total Cost of Individual Counseling
$1,021.28$918.00
$1,121.40
$1,815.40$1,702.80
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
Average Cost of Individual Counseling per Individual (Annually)
$12.02 $12.24 $12.60 $12.52 $12.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Year
Dol
lars
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: COUPLES COUNSELING
Annual Total Cost of Couples Counseling
$24.03
$36.72
$12.60
$0.00
$12.90
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1995 1996 1997 1998* 1999Year
Dol
lars
*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.
Average Cost of Couples Counseling per Individual (Annually)
$12.02 $12.24 $12.60
$0.00
$12.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 1996 1997 1998* 1999Year
Dol
lars
*None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 156 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: YOUTHFUL INTERVENTION PROGRAM
Annual Total Cost of Youthful Intervention Program*
$3,434.16
$2,735.04 $2,601.44
$0.00
$2,994.67
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1995 1996 1997 1998** 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected. **None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year
Average Cost of Youthful Intervention Program per Individual (Annually)*
$1,144.72
$1,367.52 $1,300.72
$0.00
$1,497.34
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1995 1996 1997 1998** 1999Year
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected. **None of the individuals were sentenced to this program during this year.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 157 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Average Annual Cost per Sentencing/Treatment Option*
$99,210.52
$100.48 $1,107.86
$61,200.28
$80,672.09
$810.43 $1,866.52 $574.75 $1,315.78 $21.56$2,744.32
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Jail
Elec
troni
c M
onito
ring
Com
mun
ity S
ervi
ce
Trad
ition
al P
roba
tion
ISP
Prob
atio
n
Non
-repo
rting
Prob
atio
n
Dul
uth
Prog
ram
Subs
tanc
e Ab
use
Trea
tmen
t
Indi
vidu
al C
ouns
elin
g
Cou
ples
Cou
nsel
ing
Yout
hful
Inte
rven
tion
Prog
ram
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 158 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Average Cost per Sentencing/Treatment Option per Individual*
$941.28
$50.24
$178.69$210.89
$933.70
$16.68 $12.48 $12.49 $12.51 $12.32
$1,219.70
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Jail
Elec
troni
c M
onito
ring
Com
mun
ity S
ervi
ce
Trad
ition
al P
roba
tion
ISP
Prob
atio
n
Non
-repo
rting
Prob
atio
n
Dul
uth
Prog
ram
Subs
tanc
e Ab
use
Trea
tmen
t
Indi
vidu
al C
ouns
elin
g
Cou
ples
Cou
nsel
ing
Yout
hful
Inte
rven
tion
Prog
ram
Dol
lars
*Less fees collected.
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 159 of 163
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 160 of 163
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
SECTION: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
*The individual costs of these treatment options vary based on from where the individual chooses to receive treatment. **This column is presented to compare most recent year (1999) average costs against the 5-year average cost.
Sentence/ Treatment
Recidivism Rate (0-2
Years)
Variance from Overall
Average Recidivism
Rate of 9.8%
Total Number of Individuals
Participating (5 Years)
Cost to Participating
Individual
Five Year Total Cost of Sentencing/ Treatment
Option
Five Year Total Cost Less Fees Collected
Average (5-Year)
Total Cost per
Individual Less Fees Collected
Average (1999) Cost
per Individual Less Fees
Collected**
Jail Time Served 15.2% +5.4% 527 $40 per day $545,112.99 $496,052.58 $941.28 $1,245.68
Traditional Probation 7.9% -1.9% 1021 $0 $215,318.69 $215,318.69 $210.89 $206.13
ISP Probation 11.6% +1.8% 432 $80 per month $730,995.62 $403,360.47 $933.70 $1,547.77
Non-reporting Probation
5.3% -4.5% 243 $0 $4,052.14 $4,052.14 $16.68 $17.20
Duluth Program 10.7% +0.9 748 $570 $9,332.61 $9,332.61 $12.48 $12.90
Substance Abuse Treatment
7.8% -2.0% 230 N/A* $2,873.76 $2,873.76 $12.49 $12.90
Couples Counseling 14.3% +4.5% 7 N/A* $86.25 $86.25 $12.32 $12.90
Individual Counseling 8.2% -1.6% 526 N/A* $12.90 $6,578.88 $6,578.88 $12.51
Youthful Intervention Program
33.3% +23.5% 9 1 day’s wages per week $11,765.31 $10,977.27 $1,219.70 $1,103.31
Electronic Monitoring 0.0% -9.8% 4 $9 per day $200.96 $200.96 $50.24 $51.60
Community Service 16.1% +6.3% 31 $35 $6,622.29 $5,539.31 $178.69 $286.30
Total $1,532,939.50 $1,110,746.12
CONCLUSION
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 161 of 163
Conclusion This evaluation is the culmination of many months of strategic planning, staff training, workflow analysis, research, database development, data collection, statistical analysis, and collaboration between several agencies and departments. The data and conclusions that result from this study will likely be used to verify information about domestic violence in Ottawa County that was previously assumed - but not documented - and provide new information about domestic violence that was not previously known. The data will allow County agencies and departments to analyze their services and activities in greater detail than ever before. The data will also provide a “point-in-time” or “benchmark” measurement that can be used in forthcoming analyses to determine the impact that future program, policy, or procedural modifications have on recidivism rates.
Other ancillary benefits that have resulted from this study include a greater knowledge of data collection, input, maintenance, and storage for criminal justice related programs. This knowledge will assist in the development of databases as future programs are initiated. Additionally, this knowledge will assist in developing a model for future program evaluations. This model will incorporate criteria for organizational flow-chart development, guidelines for goal setting, standards for quantitative measurements, and principles for statistical analysis.
Overall, this report verifies that the legal system has done an exceptional job of managing domestic violence cases. As a rule, the legal system appropriately selects programs and sentences for individual offenders and their varying levels of offense. Ottawa County is also to be commended for the multitude of sentencing and treatment options that are provided. Several specific recommendations regarding the domestic violence programs reviewed in this study have been developed. These recommendations are as follows:
Data Recommendations
1) The following “fields” should be added to law enforcement reporting forms: a) A field to denote whether a charge or arrest is related to a domestic violence
situation…even if the arrest does not result in a formal “Domestic Violence” charge. b) A field to denote the address of the incident. This would permit the locations to be
plotted in the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS). 2)
a)
The following recommendations are related to the County’s Criminal Justice Users System (CJUS) database:
Several “fields” should be added to the database. The “fields” are as follows: Bond Type, Bond Category, Age Category, Fines and Costs Category, Jail Time Sentenced Category, Jail Time Served Category, Probation Length Category, Spouse Abuse Act Outcome, Charges Filed (1st, 2nd, 3rd offense), Outcome of Case, Counseling Received, and Monetary Restitution. These fields will allow for greater scrutiny of the data.
b) Data entry procedures should be developed to ensure that all relevant data for domestic violence offenses is entered into the CJUS for every domestic violence case. The following database fields had incompletion rates that ranged from 2.4% to 56.9%: Dismissal Reason (56.9% - A policy change was instituted in 2000 to correct
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 162 of 163
this problem); Third Probation Violation (41.9%); Second Probation Violation (25%); Probation Outcome (3.8%); Race/Ethnicity (2.4%).
c) Data entry procedures should also be standardized for offenders who successfully complete probation for Spouse Abuse Act (SAA). For instance, the Holland Court enters these cases as “dismissal”, the Grand Haven Court enters them as “convictions”, and the Hudsonville Court lists them as “guilty”. All entries should be listed as “expungement”.
d) Data-entry procedures should also require that a “Yes” or “No” entry be recorded for each data “field” related to treatment and sentencing. These “fields” are used to indicate which programs/sentencing options are “ordered” for each offender. Under the current procedures, data processing clerks only enter “Yes” to indicate that an offender was ordered to receive a particular treatment. It is necessary to also enter a “No” for every offender that does not receive a particular treatment option. Otherwise, it is not possible to determine whether a blank field indicates a “No” or if it indicates that no entry was recorded.
e) A drop-down menu with “entry choices” should be created for the CJUS to ensure that data entry is uniform, reliable, and complete among all courts and data processing clerks.
f) Changes or enhancements to the Criminal Justice Users System or other County databases should be reviewed by the Planning and Grants Department to ensure, whenever possible, that new database designs optimize the ability to conduct evaluations.
3) A reporting system should be created to ensure that all changes to programs, policies, and/or procedures related to domestic violence are reported to the Planning and Grants Department. This information will be reflected and reported in future domestic violence studies.
Program Recommendations 1)
2)
3)
A basic “psychological profile” should be developed for each offender. This information will assist in determining which treatment/sentencing practices have the most impact on recidivism rates for specific psychological profiles. One of two “evaluation processes” should be implemented to assist in pinpointing cause-and-effect relationships between sentencing/treatment options and future recidivism rates. The first option would be to utilize a “Trial and Error” process over several years to associate changes in recidivism rates with sentencing/treatment options that change during a specified time period. The second option would be to utilize a “design of experiment” process. This process would assign varying combinations of sentencing/treatment options to each psychological profile category until an optimal (least) recidivism rate is achieved. This process would be conducted in the least amount of time and would provide the highest degree of reliability. Sentencing/treatment programs that exhibit recidivism rates higher than the average recidivism rate (9.9%) should be analyzed to determine if they should be modified, replaced, or eliminated. For instance, it would be beneficial to analyze if some offenders who are sentenced to jail could be sentenced to other options (or combination of options) to reduce recidivism rates and lower costs. Also, it may be advantageous to investigate whether it is possible to have certain offenders who are typically sentenced to ISP Probation report to Traditional Probation Officers multiple times per week. This process of analysis will simply promote strategic thinking that will help determine whether current sentencing practices provide optimal (least) recidivism rates. In any case, it would be preferable to use one of the above mentioned “evaluation processes” (See Program Recommendation 2) to determine if variations in reatment/sentencing could improve the recidivism rate and/or lower costs
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/03) Page 163 of 163
4) Programs that exhibit recidivism rates lower than the average recidivism rate (9.9%) should be analyzed to determine if there is any merit in expanding the utilization of these sentencing/treatment options. For instance, it may be worthwhile to investigate whether there is merit in expanding the use of Electronic Monitoring since it had no recidivism (but only four participants) and is proven to be cost-effective. Although the conclusions of such an analysis may prove that “expansion” is unwarranted, the process in and of itself encourages further discussion and innovative ideas that may have not otherwise been considered. Again, it would be preferable to use one of the above mentioned “evaluation processes” (See Program Recommendation 2) to determine if variations in treatment/sentencing could improve the recidivism rate and/or lower costs
5) Education, prevention, and outreach agencies should review the data trends associated with “Age”, “Gender”, “Ethnicity”, “Seasonal Occurrences”, and “Geographic Locations” to ensure that future funding for education, prevention, and outreach activities are utilized most efficiently and effectively.
6) Law enforcement and Prosecuting Attorney agencies should utilize the “Charge”, “Case Disposition”, and “Conviction” data to review the effectiveness and validity of their arrest procedures and prosecutorial strategies.
7) Courts and Community Corrections should utilize the data regarding “Sentencing”, Recidivism”, “Bond”, and “Probation Outcomes” to review the effectiveness of their sentencing and program practices.
APPENDIX A
Appendix A
Domestic Violence Database Key
Variables Included in Domestic Evaluation Database
Age Gender M = Male F = Female Race/Ethnicity 0 = White 1 = Black 2 = Hispanic 3 = Asian 4 = Other Incident Date Incident Location 1 = City of Coopersville 2 = City of Ferrysburg 3 = City of Grand Haven 4 = City of Holland 5 = City of Hudsonville 6 = City of Zeeland 7 = Village of Spring Lake 8 = Allendale Township 9 = Blendon Township 10 = Chester Township 11 = Crockery Township 12 = Georgetown Township 13 = Grand Haven Township 14 = Holland Township 15 = Jamestown Township 16 = Olive Township 17 = Park Township 18 = Polkton Township 19 = Port Sheldon Township 20 = Robinson Township 21 = Spring Lake Township 22 = Tallmadge Township 23 = Wright Township 24 = Zeeland Township Charges Filed 1 = Domestic Violence 1st Offense 2 = Domestic Violence 2nd Offense 3 = Domestic Violence 3rd Offense Prior Criminal Record 1 = No Prior Criminal Record 2 = Prior Domestic Violence Conviction 3 = Prior Misdemeanor 4 = Prior Felony Bond Level Dollar amount
Bond Violation1 = No Violation 2 = Alcohol 3 = Drugs 4 = No Contact Clause 5 = Assaultive Behavior 6 = Possession of Weapon 7 = Change of Address 8 = None Recorded Bond Type 1 = Personal Recognizance 2 = 10% Cash 3 = Cash 4 = Cash Surety 5 = None 6 = Denied Bond Range 1 = 0-500 2 = 501-1500 3 = 1501-5000 4 = 5001-10000 5 = 10001-25000 Case Disposition1 = Conviction by Guilty Plea 2 = Conviction by Trial 3 = Plea to Another Charge 4 = Plea to a Lesser Domestic Violence
Charge 5 = No Contest 6 = Acquittal 7 = Dismissal Dismissal Reason 1 = Dismissal if no criminal violations for
set period 2 = Victim Request 3 = Victim failed to appear for court 4 = Victim Recantation 5 = Prosecutor Motion after Victim Testimony 6 = Subpoena/Witness Problems 7 = Best Interest of Justice 8 = Insufficient Evidence 9 = No Reason Given/Unknown Fines and CostsDollar amount
Fines and Costs, Range 1 = 0-250 2 = 251-500 3 = 501-750 4 = 751-1000 5 = 1000+ Jail Time (Sentenced)Length in days Jail Time Sentenced, Range 1 = 0-30 2 = 31-60 3 = 61-90 4 = 91-120 5 = 121+ Jail Time (Served)Number of days Jail Time Served, Range 1 = 0-7 2 = 8-15 3 = 16-23 4 = 24-31 5 = 32+ Probation Length Number of months Probation Length, Range 1 = 0-6 2 = 7-12 3 = 13-18 4 = 19-24 5 = 25+ Electronic Monitoring Y = Yes N = No Community Service Y = Yes N = No Traditional Probation Y = Yes N = No Intensively Supervised Probation (DAIP) Y = Yes N = No
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
Appendix A
Domestic Violence Database Key
Variables Included in Domestic Evaluation Database
Spouse Abuse Act Y = Yes N = No Fines and Costs Only Y = Yes N = No Non-Reporting Y = Yes N = No Duluth Program (FVP) Y = Yes N = No Substance Abuse Treatment Y = Yes N = No Individual Counseling Y = Yes N = No Couples Counseling Y = Yes N = No Other Treatment Y = Yes N = No Probation Violation (PV) #1 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Probation Violation (PV) #2 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs
Probation Violation (PV) #3 1 = New Offense 2 = Curfew Violation 3 = Alcohol or Drug Violation 4 = No Contact Violation 5 = Failure to Work 6 = Failure to Attend Counseling 7 = Weapon in Home 8 = Change of Address without Permission 9 = Leaving the State 10 = Failure to Pay Fines and Costs Secondary Sentencing for PV #11 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Secondary Sentencing for PV #21 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Secondary Sentencing for PV #31 = Continue Probation 2 = Extend Probation 3 = Probation Revoked 4 = Intensively Supervised Probation 5 = Loss of Spouse Abuse Act 6 = Delayed Sentencing 7 = Superseding Offense 8 = Jail Time 9 = Community Service Probation Outcome1 = Satisfactory Discharge 2 = Satisfactory Discharge with Spouse
Abuse Act Expungement 3 = Unsatisfactory Discharge 4 = Probation Revoked
0-2 Year Recidivism 0 = Yes 1 = No 3-5 Year Recidivism 0 = Yes 1 = No
Ottawa County Planning Department – Domestic Violence Evaluation (7/21/2003)
APPENDIX B