offenders||Incapacitates offender during high-risk periods and deters potential and actual offenders||…a graded response to battering is adopted depending on the likelihood of rebattering; used with situational crime prevention opportunity blocking framework||Under some conditions arrest may increase risk of revictimization; some offenders undeterred by arrest|
|10||Issuing and enforcing restraining orders||Removes excuses for offender and victim to come into contact with one another||…police recognize that defiance of a restraining order may be an indicator of future risk to the victim||Police see violation of a restraining order as the need for a victim safety plan, and the adoption of a graded response to both victim and offender depending on the circumstances|
|11||Aggressively pursuing criminal prosecution ofsevere domestic violence cases and publicizing convictions||Incapacitates offender and deters potential and actual offenders||…police and prosecutors can agree beforehand what constitutes chronic and severe offenders; used as part of pulling levers/focused deterrence approach or other graded responses to batterers||Requires proper evidence collection; should also include coordination and prosecutor participation around victim safety|
|12||Establishing special domestic violence courts||Enhances judges’ knowledge ofparticular victims and offenders and ability to monitor compliance with court orders||…courts participate in an evaluation to improve knowledge about recidivism reduction; courts can discern between batterers who can be deterred and those who can’t||May require extra court resources|
|13||Providing treatment for batterers||Reduces batterers’ propensity for violence||…treatment is court-ordered; treatment has proven effectiveness and is tailored to a specific type ofbatterer||Requires up-todate knowledge ofeffectiveness of different treatment approaches|
|Responses With Limited Effectiveness|
|#||Response||How It Works||Works Best If…||Considerations|
|14||Arresting both parties in a domestic violence incident||Incapacitates both parties during high-risk period||Consumes scarce jail and court resources and not generally recommended for reasons discussed earlier in this guide|
 For an excellent discussion of the challenges these different definitions cause in making findings across research studies and surveys, see Mears (2003) and Buzawa and Buzawa (2003).
 See Straus (2005) and Buzawa and Buzawa (2003) for a review.
 Straus (2005).
 Carrington and Phillips (2003).
 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (2002).
 For a summary, see Brewster (2002).
 Hotaling et al. (1989).
 For a thorough review of the research in support of this theory, see Kennedy (2002). Also see Hotaling et al. (1989) for the results of several studies and Buzawa and Buzawa (2003) for a general description of study findings about this topic.
 Dekeseredy et al. (1997).
 Straus (2005).
 For a summary, see Brewster (2002).
 Dekeseredy et al. (1997).
 Hickman et al. (2004). For a detailed discussion of the challenges of measuring teen dating violence and the results of different studies that have attempted to, see Hickman et al. (2004).
 Lloyd (1998).
 Jasinski (2001b).
 Ascione (2004).
 Buzawa and Buzawa (2003).
 Buzawa and Buzawa (1996).
 Hanmer et al (1999)[Full Text]; Anderson et al (1995)[Full Text]; Bridgeman and Hobbs (1997)[Full Text]; Chenery et al (1997)[Full Text]; Lloyd et al (1994)[Full Text]; Pease (1998)[Full Text]. For the application of a graded approach to reducing repeat domestic violence victimization in the United States, see the description of the Fremont Police Department approach in Sampson and Scott (2000) [Full Text].
 Kennedy (2002).
 Buzawa and Buzawa (1996).
 Hickman et al. (2004).
 Felson, Ackerman, and Gallagher (2005).
 See adopted recommendations in American Medical Association Data on Violence Between Intimates (2000).
 Roberts (2002a).
 Brookoff et al. (1997).
 See Bruno v. Codd 47 N.Y. 2d 582, 393 N.E. 2d 976, 419 N.Y.S. 2d 901 ; and Thurman v. City of Torrington 595 F. Supp 1521 .
 Sherman and Berk (