Motivations for Police Support of Domestic Violence Response Team Implementation With Advocates

Coordinated Community Responses (CCRs) to Domestic Violence

CCR is a term used to describe a type of intervention that utilizes communication and coordination strategies to improve systematic responses to significant public health and safety issues. CCRs have been used to address a range of issues including child abuse and neglect (Clapton et al., 1999; Goldman et al., 2003), sexual assault (Greeson & Campbell, 2015; Olomi et al., 2019), the opioid epidemic (Albert et al., 2011; Mirigian et al., 2018), and domestic violence (Garner & Maxwell, 2008; Shorey et al., 2014). CCR implementation is motivated by the philosophy that properly addressing complex issues, like domestic violence, requires a response that takes into account the multifaceted underlying causes and dynamics of a social issue.

CCRs for domestic violence emerged in the 1970s to address the myriad limitations of police intervention as a primary response to domestic violence as well as concerns about the short-term impact of mandatory arrest (Stover, 2012) and the fragmentation in service delivery for victims of abuse (Post et al., 2010). Victims and domestic violence offenders are often involved in a multitude of community service systems including the civil and criminal justice systems, child services, hospital care, drug and alcohol treatment, and counseling. In the absence of a coordinated response, victims may become frustrated with the process of navigating multiple complex systems, which requires considerable patience and a knowledge of community resources that not all victims may possess (Greeson & Campbell, 2013). CCRs were thus established to make accessing services easier for victims by either colocating agencies or ensuring that community partners are familiar with the resources available to victims and know how to make referrals. The CCR model gained further traction in 1995 when the U.S. Congress allocated funding to nonprofit organizations to support domestic violence interventions that included interagency collaborations as part of the Violence Against Women Act (Post et al., 2010; Uekert, 2003).

CCR models vary widely, but may include: (a) advocacy, (b) criminal justice system, (c) child services, (d) health care, (e) counseling, (f) vocational services, and (g) the use of education and media as part of prevention programming (Shorey et al., 2014). They are often implemented at the municipality level in an attempt to bring together relevant localized organizations with the goal of closing gaps in services (Uchida et al., 2001), but they may also function at the county level or in other geographic regions depending on community needs and available resources. Although the diverse CCR models that exist generally share similar goals, the level of coordination and communication utilized exist on a spectrum (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). The most traditional CCR models involve high levels of both coordination and communication across a range of organizations and may even colocate services to create a “one-stop shop” for victims (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). However, other communities opt to use interagency partnerships to provide services to victims of domestic violence. Often, these partnerships involve collaboration between a police department and a domestic violence victim-serving organization.

Partnership Between Law Enforcement and Domestic Violence Advocates

Research has found that interagency collaborations can be challenging to implement, particularly when the agencies involved have differing organizational structures, divergent philosophies and values, and when the population being served has unpredictable needs (Johnson et al., 2003). Historically, police have had a challenging time responding to domestic violence cases, both because of the potential danger officers face on scene and the unique needs of domestic violence victims. According to Buzawa and Buzawa (2003), there was a time when police felt that intervening in domestic violence incidents was more akin to social work than investigative work and, therefore, they preferred not to get involved. Since that time, many communities have begun to recognize that domestic violence victims have wide-ranging and complex needs and, as such, their cases require more collaborative and coordinated responses. However, this requires agencies with differing professional goals, policies, and practices to work together for the sake of the victims they serve.

When police departments and domestic violence organizations partner together to provide services to victims, their responses are most often guided by crisis theory (Corcoran et al., 2001). Crisis theory suggests that “there is a ‘window of opportunity’ during the first few hours or days after a crime during which victims feel highly vulnerable and are therefore willing to consider serious behavioral and lifestyle changes and interventions” (Davis et al., 2008, p. 6). This model, which is sometimes called a “crisis team,” “response team,” or “second responder program,” most often involves follow-up by either the domestic violence advocate or both the police officer and advocate together (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). Most often, the domestic violence advocate is an employee or a volunteer of the local domestic violence organization. Follow-up can occur either in-person or by phone; when occurring in-person, the intervention can be implemented at the scene, immediately following the incident at the police department, or within the first few days following the incident (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). The partnership adds a social service component to the traditional law enforcement response to domestic violence, which has been criticized for being reactive rather than proactive (Whetstone, 2001).

A goal of the partnership is to create positive interagency relationships between the criminal justice agencies and social services organizations to facilitate a better understanding of domestic violence in the context of the community and police intervention (Uchida et al., 2001). Desired outcomes include increasing victim safety and offender accountability (Bledsoe et al., 2006). As part of their meetings with victims, these partners often share information on the criminal justice system, discuss the process for filing a protective order, engage in safety planning, provide psychoeducation on the nature of domestic violence, make referrals for services, and/or directly connect victims with resources such as domestic violence shelters (Casey et al., 2007; Corcoran & Allen, 2005; Corcoran et al., 2001).

Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these partnership models. One challenge to comparing findings across studies is that the study outcomes vary widely. Even in instances where the outcomes are similar, the constructs are often operationalized differently (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020). The data sources for these studies also vary, with some relying on administrative data from the criminal justice system for measuring outcomes and others collecting data directly from victims or offenders. When evaluating the effectiveness of these partnerships, outcomes of interest often center around the impact of the intervention on the criminal justice system (e.g., investigation, prosecution, and sentencing) and recidivism. However, some also examine victim-focused outcomes such as safety, satisfaction, and well-being (Johnson & Stylianou, 2020).

Overall, results looking at the impact of police–advocate partnerships on domestic violence investigations have been mixed. Although some studies have found the intervention to be associated with increased arrests (Corcoran & Allen, 2005; Whetstone, 2001), findings differed on whether the partnerships are effective at impacting prosecution and conviction-related outcomes (Casey et al., 2007; DePrince et al., 2012; Whetstone, 2001). Recidivism is perhaps the most frequently explored outcome in evaluations of CCRs. As noted previously, this construct is also measured differently across studies, which may contribute to differing findings. Although some studies found that the intervention reduced recidivism (Casey et al., 2007; Exum et al., 2014), others suggested that victims in the treatment group were more likely to experience repeat incidents of domestic violence (Davis et al., 2006; Hovell et al., 2006) as well as a shorter time to the next abusive incident (Davis et al., 2006; Hovell et al., 2006). One challenge scholars encounter when examining recidivism as an outcome is disentangling whether increased reports of abuse are indicative of the intervention helping or harming victims. For example, increased reports of violence may be attributed to victims’ greater awareness of domestic violence, an increased level of comfort in contacting the police, or an actual increase in abusive incidents.

Studies found that partnership interventions may be effective at improving victims’ overall perceptions of police. Victims expressed increased confidence in police when reporting abuse (Davis et al., 2008) and felt that their interaction with police was more positive (Stover et al., 2010). Stover (2012) interviewed 55 women who were involved with a partnership program to gain a better understanding of victims’ experiences with a partnership home-visit intervention. Overall, 64% of victims indicated that they felt safe as a result of the visit, 91% of women said that they would call the police again if needed, and 84% said that they would call an advocate. Stover et al. (2009) also noted that victims in the treatment group were more likely to call the police following a repeat incident over a 12-month follow-up period and were also more likely to call the police for less severe, nonphysical incidents.

Officer Perceptions of Police–Advocate Partnerships

Fewer studies have looked at police perceptions of these partnership programs. Uchida et al. (2001) conducted an evaluation of a partnership program and interviewed advocates and police who were involved in its implementation. Participants shared that while the intervention increased officers’ knowledge and awareness of domestic violence, improved victim services, and reduced violence, officers and advocates sometimes had difficulty collaborating due to lack of clarity around role differentiation and conflict that emerged from differing opinions and some mistrust. Corcoran et al. (2001) looked at police officers’ perceptions of a domestic violence response team (DVRT) and found that 79% of respondents felt as though the intervention was useful. Reasons cited as to why the team was not useful included: (a) the officer left before the advocate ever responded, (b) the advocate did not say anything new, and (c) the officer never utilized them. Finally, although focused on sexual assault advocates as opposed to domestic violence advocates, Gaines and Wells (2017) found that investigators generally had favorable perceptions of the role advocates can play in the criminal justice process, noting that advocates can provide support to victims and assist during court proceedings. However, some also expressed reservations about advocate involvement due to concerns of over-involvement and conflicting objectives.

Police–advocate partnerships can positively affect police responses to domestic violence, which may in turn influence other aspects of the criminal justice system as well, such as victim engagement in prosecution. A small body of literature also discusses officers’ perceptions of such interventions. However, limited studies exist that look at police officers’ motivations for engaging in these partnerships. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine factors that contribute to police officer support for a police–advocate partnership intervention.

Participants

Contact information for most DVRT coordinators was provided by the state’s domestic violence coalition. In cases where the contact information was not up to date, the researchers reached out to domestic violence organization staff by phone or email to collect this information. Ultimately, contact information for 18 of the state’s 21 coordinators was accessed and these coordinators were invited to participate in the study. Four coordinators did not respond to contact attempts or were otherwise not available to participate. One coordinator interviewed was employed by the municipality in which they worked, as opposed to a county.

Contact information for DVLOs and other law enforcement personnel was gathered through multiple avenues. In some cases, law enforcement officers were recruited via snowball sampling based on recommendations of the DVRT coordinators. In addition, the research team created a comprehensive list of all municipalities in the state and conducted a website search to find contact information for DVLOs or other personnel who would be able to provide the DVLO’s contact information. In some cases, the research team reached out to police departments through phone calls or through website contact forms to find this information. Ultimately, 50 rural, urban, and suburban police departments from different counties were invited to participate in the project, 41 of which did not respond or were otherwise unable to participate in the research due to departmental regulations.

In total, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants and included 14 DVRT coordinators, nine DVLOs, and one civilian police personnel. The law enforcement officers interviewed identified themselves as the DVLO for their departments and their ranks were lieutenant (n = 6), detective (n = 2), and patrol officer (n = 1). Overall, the majority of participants were White (79%), female (75%), and over the age of 41 (71%). More than half of participants (62%) had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Demographic information for participants is provided in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Sample.

Characteristic	f (%)
Age
20–30	5 (20.8)
31–40	2 (8.3)
41–50	9 (37.5)
51–60	6 (25.0)
60 or older	2 (8.3)
Gender
Female	19 (75.0)
Male	6 (25.0)
Ethnicity
White	19 (79.2)
Black or African American	3 (12.5)
Other	2 (8.3)
Education
High school graduate	1 (4.2)
Associate’s degree or some college	8 (33.0)
Bachelor’s degree	8 (33.0)
Master’s degree	7 (29.2)
Role in DVRT implementation
Coordinator	15 (62.5)
DVLO	9 (37.5)

Note. DVRT = domestic violence response team. DVLO = domestic violence liaison police officer.

Data Collection

DVRT coordinators and DVLOs were invited to participate in an in-person interview via an email sent from the research team. Interviews were conducted between February 2018 and August 2018 and were between 18 and 85 min, with an average length of 32 min. The majority of interviews were conducted on-site at domestic violence organizations or police departments, although five participants opted to conduct the interview at an off-site location of their choosing, such as a coffee shop. Interviews were facilitated by a member of the research team trained in qualitative interview techniques. The study was approved by the Rutgers University Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Overall, a total of 21 of the 24 interviews were audio recorded; in cases where the participant did not consent to be audio recorded, comprehensive notes were taken by the interviewer. Participants were asked questions about the organizational structure of their DVRTs, recruitment and training requirements for volunteers, the nature of the relationships between the domestic violence organizations and police departments involved in the implementation of the DVRTs, and what outcomes could be used to evaluate the intervention. All audio recordings were transcribed to ensure accuracy. To protect the confidentiality of participants, each participant was assigned a numerical identifier in place of their name. Participants were offered a $10 gift card to compensate them for their time; however, some participants were unable to accept the incentive due to professional regulations regarding the acceptance of cash or gifts.

Data Analysis

A content analysis of the data was conducted by the research team using ATLAS.ti. Prior to analysis, transcripts of the interviews were reviewed by a research assistant to check for transcription errors. During the interview and transcription process, members of the research team maintained notes on emergent themes and moments within the interviews that struck them as useful or interesting.

During the preliminary open coding, a subsample of two interviews were coded separately by two members of the research team. This coding effort was intended to be exhaustive in identification of possible themes, subthemes, and individual codes. Coders then cross-checked their codes on the same interviews to check for consistency and identify subsample themes. From this meeting, an exhaustive list of codes were then grouped according to categories reflecting topics addressed in the interview guide, as well as other concepts that emerged inductively throughout the interviews. Coders then reviewed the list, collapsed or combined redundant or duplicate codes, and agreed on the most suitable vocabulary for coding moving forward.

Next, an initial codebook was created based on Decuir-Gunby and colleagues’ (2011) recommended three-component structure: code name/label, full definition (with inclusion and exclusion criteria), and examples. This codebook was used to code the remaining interviews. The team allowed for additions and revisions to the codebook as codes were developed or became clearer throughout the data analysis process. Any changes or revisions made to the initial codebook were marked, discussed, and then agreed upon for consistency. After analysis was completed, the research team met to discuss underlying subthemes and then themes. These potential themes were then checked in relation to the data to ensure they were cohesive and represented the distinct organizing concepts (Clarke & Braun, 2014).

Perceived Benefits to Police Response and Investigation

According to participants, officers were more likely to support the utilization of the DVRT intervention if they perceived it as being beneficial to their overall police response and criminal investigation. Participants acknowledged that there is a lot of paperwork that must be completed when criminal domestic violence charges are being filed. As a result, victims may be required to wait at the station for extended periods of time while officers complete the necessary documentation. During DVRT activation, a domestic violence advocate responds to the police department and provides the victim with psychoeducation and resources. On a practical level, the intervention keeps victims occupied while they wait for officers to complete their paperwork. As one officer shared,

. . . A lot of times, it’s actually a good thing [that an advocate comes] because we have so much paperwork to do on our end that a lot of times the victims . . . they’re sitting there not doing anything while . . . while we’re filling out all this paperwork and getting ready to call the judge for a restraining order or do whatever and they’re kind of looking at their watch like how long is this gonna take? (22)

Another officer echoed this belief, suggesting “it’s actually good for us too, because otherwise [the victim is] sitting in the room by themselves while I type out paperwork . . .” (21). Several DVRT coordinators perceived this as a motivating factor for officer implementation. One coordinator shared, “But the DVRT has been around for a long time now, and I guess [police officers] figured out that we’re more of a help than a hindrance to them . . .” (6).

Another explained,

Paperwork for domestic violence takes a while, especially when you’re dealing with the whole restraining order process because [it] requires that the officer get the okay from the victim. He has to call the judge. . . . He has to wait for the judge to call back. . . . And then when the judge calls back, then the judge speaks to the victim. . . . Why not offer help? (17)

In addition to keeping victims occupied while at the police department, participants also felt that the collaborative relationship between the police department and domestic violence organization was useful for strengthening the overall police response to domestic violence. As part of the collaboration, the DVLO is typically invited to participate in the comprehensive, 40-hr domestic violence training that the organizations hold for their volunteers. Although not all officers attend these trainings, DVLOs who had attended reported positive feedback. With regard to this training, one officer shared,

I thought it was great. It opened my eyes. To tell you the truth, I came back, and I said to [the domestic violence organization] that I learned more about the abuse cycle than I did in any other courses that I did. (18)

Another officer shared similar sentiments:

But I went through the training . . . and I told the [domestic violence organization staff] this, it kind of puts you, as a police officer, puts you in a different perspective because we go to the same houses a lot of times. . . . We deal with the same people that go through the same situations. So the logic sometimes is “leave,” it’s easy for us to say, “Leave that person. Get a restraining order. Leave him or her, and go on, you know, with your life.” But going through that training kind of made me, you kind of sit back and you look at stuff differently, and I get it now. (12)

A third officer described the training experience as “profound,” stating, “As a police officer, you see the physical side of it. But you really don’t take into account the psychological side or the emotional side” (5).

Participants also felt the DVRT intervention is useful because it has the potential to strengthen victims’ statements. Participants pointed to factors that may impede a victim’s ability to describe their experiences clearly, including the impact of trauma, and believed that the presence of a volunteer with expertise in domestic violence is helpful for focusing the victim’s thoughts, calming victims, and eliciting details to enhance the victim’s statements to police and judges. A DVRT coordinator shared the following:

If [the victim is] going to talk to the judge, then a [volunteer] is going to explain that process. Which again, an officer’s not, doesn’t have the time to do that and doesn’t have the time to really understand this person across from them is in trauma. Right? Many times restraining orders will be denied because victims can’t get to the point, victims cannot, they don’t present well. And if a judge does not hear their level of need, they’re not going to get what they need, all right. So we say okay, they’ve already heard the story. So [we’re] gonna be able to say to them okay, are you afraid, I heard you say you’re afraid, make sure the judge hears that you’re afraid . . . (4)

An officer acknowledged that victims sometimes feel uncomfortable sharing information with law enforcement and that the presence of a volunteer may increase the victim’s level of comfort in reporting:

If you have a bad experience with a dentist or an accountant, you really don’t [remember it]. But a police officer, you always remember it. So, whatever the case, [a victim] was nervous around me. . . . But when she was with the DVRT member, she was a lot calmer . . . and the DVRT member did such a wonderful job at . . . at almost making a connection with her that this woman became a much better . . . witness for me. . . . She gave me an amazing statement and I was able to put this guy in jail. (5)

As such, while advocates cannot coach or take statements from victims, they can help the victim to calm down and process their thoughts, so that they are better able to communicate their needs to other members of the criminal justice system.

Finally, some interviewees suggested that a benefit of the intervention for police officers is that it has the potential to break the cycle of repeat calls. These repeat calls can be a source of frustration for officers because officers often respond to the same location due to reports of domestic violence, but the victims continue to stay with the abuser. Officers, particularly those who have not received extensive training on the issue of domestic violence, may not understand why the victim remains in the abusive relationship. Furthermore, participants noted that investigating domestic violence calls can be very time consuming and labor intensive, thereby preventing officers from investigating other crimes within the community. However, coordinators, in particular, believed that positive experiences with the DVRT can decrease the number of calls made by “frequent flyers” by connecting victims with the resources they may need to leave their abuser. As one coordinator explained,

Because I truly believe that once a victim knows that there’s a place that she can go to or the police department and they’re helpful there and then we follow through, there is a higher chance of her following through with all the services and not returning to the abuser. (16)

Similarly, another coordinator agreed that the DVRT offers an opportunity to provide a “concrete intervention” that could potentially get the offender into “batterer’s intervention and get the victim the proper safety services” (23). By providing a comprehensive and supportive response to victims and holding offenders accountable, officers may be able to decrease the frequency of abusive incidents, and thereby calls, over time.

Perceived Benefits to Victims

In addition to the perceived benefits of the DVRT intervention for police officers, participants pointed to the fact that the intervention provides valuable benefits for victims. First, it helps victims to clarify the criminal justice process, which participants acknowledged can be confusing and overwhelming. As one officer described,

I’ve seen that we’ve had so many victims in the past that just don’t know where to go. They’ve been with the offender for so long. Usually, they feel like they’re captive. They’re held in this house. They don’t have anybody to reach out to or anything like that. So I think it is nice having that outlet, somebody that they could talk to and find out what they can do, what they can’t do, how the process goes, because I think a lot of them don’t really know how the court process is. So I think it’s like, I don’t want to say crutch, but I think it’s very helpful that the DVRT members can kind of guide them through that . . . (15)

A few participants pointed to the restraining order process as being particularly unclear and felt victims benefited from the opportunity to have the restraining order information repeated, even if it had already been described by an officer.

Participants also described the DVRT intervention as being beneficial to victims because of the range of resources that the advocates provide during their meetings. Topics advocates commonly discuss during the intervention include the criminal justice system process, the nature of power and control in abusive relationships, safety planning, and information on potential services and resources that victims may be eligible for. A few participants also emphasized that the intention of the intervention is not for the advocate to offer advice or opinions about how the victim should proceed, but rather it is an opportunity for the victim to receive support and have their experiences validated. As DVRT coordinators described,

But I keep in mind, and I have the volunteers keep in mind . . . [the victims] have lost so much, so much power, so much control that we’re not there to be a force to be reckoned with as well. We’re not telling them what to do. And the other part of it is that we do not give our advice or opinion and if they ask for it you just say, you know, I’m here for you and, you know, it’s not about me or my opinion. I’m here to support you and just let you know that these are your options. (3)

. . . Police officers, I mean, they’re not the warm and fuzzy. We’re the warm and fuzzy . . . and that’s what I tell the volunteers. You’re the warm and fuzzy. The police, they have their job to do. We have our job to do. And our job is to make sure that [victims] have options, that they’re not alone, that they can come back any time they want, they can come to our program. (6)

One officer interviewed felt very strongly about the value of the resources and information provided as part of the intervention, explaining,

There have been times, and I can’t speak for other officers, I can only speak for myself, there have been a couple of incidents where I didn’t really care if they wanted the DVRT or not. I felt they needed somebody. So I figured once I got the volunteer here, I could talk the victim into speaking with them. (19)

As such, participants felt that the intervention can be effective at helping victims navigate the criminal justice system in the time immediately following the arrest of their abuser, as well as provide victims with support, validation, and additional resources that they may have access to.

The Need to Comply With Mandates for Program Implementation

In some instances, police support for the DVRT intervention stemmed from the departments’ need to comply with real or perceived mandates for program implementation. Such mandates came from a range of sources, including national accreditation bodies, or state, county, or municipal-level law enforcement policies. Although most participants suggested that officers are motivated to implement the intervention as a result of local mandates, one officer noted that the motivation stemmed from the police department being nationally accredited, explaining “. . . we have standards that we have to abide by . . . and on top of that, we’re very by the book here. So we always do all that stuff” (21). However, most other participants cited the need to comply with particular policies. One officer acknowledged that there is a state mandate to establish a DVRT, although went on to point out, “But there’s no date of when you need to do it by and there’s no repercussions for not doing it” (1).

Several participants noted that their county prosecutors’ offices mandated the implementation of the DVRT by each police department within the county. One participant shared, “I was under the impression it came, I thought I read it somewhere, from the county prosecutor’s office” (22). Others acknowledged the benefits of such mandates by prosecutors’ offices, suggesting it has helped to increase the number of calls the DVRT volunteers received. One coordinator also suggested that support for the intervention by their county prosecutor’s office would be helpful because “they definitely have more pull over law enforcement than anyone else” (2). Finally, about one third of participants noted that they were required to implement the DVRT due to a department mandate. As one officer described,

And when it comes to domestics, everybody does it because they care, and everybody does it because they know, and does it appropriately, because they know there’s no easier way to get fired than not handle it appropriately. I mean, because it’s a serious issue. (14)

The frequency with which participants referenced mandates as a motivation for policy implementation suggests that the creation of a policy, coupled with support of the policy by influential leaders such as police chiefs or prosecutors, can be effective for garnering police buy-in for the intervention.

Recognition of Domestic Violence as a Serious Crime

The fourth theme to emerge as a motivating factor for building police buy-in for the implementation of the DVRT was the recognition of domestic violence as a serious and potentially lethal crime for both victims of abuse and the police officers responding to domestic violence incidents. Four participants acknowledged that a domestic violence homicide within their community reinforced the need for the DVRT. As one coordinator explained,

Well, what happened was . . . they had nine domestic violence murders in six months. Yeah, it was bad. So, you know, the outcry of the community was huge and in the paper and the press, and everybody else . . . the director that they had at the time, you know, he was outraged too. We had DV stat meetings, and he really made those police officers, you know, he really put them to task and made sure that they crossed their T’s and dotted their I’s and really worked with victims. (6)

Another coordinator shared that police officers are motivated to activate the DVRT because they recognize that domestic violence is a serious crime that has the potential to result in fatalities:

I think they do they realize that domestic violence is a crime, it’s just as serious as a person that was murdered in the street that you’re investigating or that bank, that bank that was robbed and you’re putting all these resources and trying to figure out. Domestic violence is a crime and it should be, you know, all the resources and efforts should be put into that as much as other crimes. (16)

Finally, two participants also acknowledged that responding to domestic violence calls can be dangerous for police officers as well. In one municipality, domestic violence calls are considered priority calls that require two officers to respond. Another officer noted:

You know, we receive a lot of training in domestic violence too because it’s such a relevant thing, you know. It’s got the potential to be, you know, so many, there’s so many violent homicides, I mean, the potential to be injured in a domestic violence call is higher than any, probably statistically like more cops are hurt at responding to domestics than any calls. So, you know, we take it seriously . . . (14)

Perhaps when officers view domestic violence on a continuum that includes the risk of more serious criminal acts, such as homicide, they are more apt to respond to it with sensitivity.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that also highlight opportunities for future research. The research team had a difficult time recruiting DVLOs to participate in the research study. The state has approximately 550 police departments of which approximately 10% were contacted. Of those contacted, only nine officers participated in the study. Therefore, it is possible that the officers who were willing to be interviewed were also more invested in the DVRT program. Future research could utilize a survey to reach a broader sample of DVLOs. This study also did not specifically ask law enforcement about how to foster buy-in; the themes identified emerged inductively during data analysis. As such, future research should specifically ask law enforcement about their motivations for implementing police–advocate partnership interventions to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that foster police buy-in for such programs and barriers to implementation. This study also only included the voices of DVLOs and DVRT coordinators. Interviews with victims must be used to understand how the intervention impacted them and how they perceived the collaborative relationship between police and domestic violence advocates. Finally, while this study is not generalizable to other states or programs, the findings may be useful for other communities seeking to establish collaborative interventions but need to foster police buy-in.

Conclusion

This study expands on what is currently known about police–advocate partnerships designed to respond to domestic violence by illuminating the factors that motivate officers to implement the program. Interventions such as police–advocate partnerships are often driven by domestic violence organizations seeking to improve law enforcement responses to domestic violence. However, in order for it to be effective, officers must actually buy into the program and utilize it. This can be especially challenging when officers view themselves as having differing objectives than advocates. Across CCRs to domestic violence, the overarching goal is often to increase victim safety and offender accountability, yet the language that partnering organizations use to describe these objectives may differ given professional roles and responsibilities. Law enforcement administrators can use the findings from this study to foster support for police–advocate partnerships within their police departments. Similarly, advocates can use this information to frame the implementation of collaborative interventions in a way that speaks to the priorities and factors that resonate with officers.