New York City's approaches for combating domestic violence over the last decade have included the institution of mandatory and presumptive arrest policies, the establishment of specialized prosecution bureaus and victim advocacy programs, and the creation of specialized domestic violence courts within the court system. To examine the impact of these strategies, the current study analyzed data from the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) database on offenders arrested during the third quarter of 1998. The study focused on how case outcomes for DV cases differed from those of comparable non-DV cases, the effects of prosecutorial policies on DV case outcomes, and the effects of case outcomes and criminal sanctions on the recidivism of DV offenders. The study found that approximately one-third of DV cases resulted in a conviction, compared with over half of the non-DV cases. Also, DV cases were twice as likely as non-DV cases to be dismissed. Defendants were sentenced to jail in less than one-fifth of DV cases, compared to nearly half of non-DV cases. These findings indicate that weak evidence has continued to be a major problem in DV cases, due largely to lack of victim cooperation. The jurisdiction (the Bronx) in which prosecutorial case screening policy required DV victims to sign complaints yielded a higher conviction rate for DV cases, compared with jurisdictions (Brooklyn and Manhattan) in which DV cases were routinely prosecuted without victim cooperation. The study found that the nature of case outcomes and the severity of sanctions upon conviction did not affect the rearrest rate for DV offenders, but neither was there an "escalation" effect due to criminal justice processing and sanctions. The use of judicial monitoring and supervision programs rather than jail did not apparently increase the risk of rearrest. Weak community ties were found to increase the risk of rearrest for DV offenses. Suggestions for increasing the conviction rate for DV cases is to reduce prosecutorial caseloads to allow for spending more time in working with victims to gain their cooperation, as well as to expand victim counseling and advocacy services for victims to encourage their cooperation in case processing. Also, the conviction rate might be increased by using evidence-based prosecution that relies on hearsay exceptions, photographs, and other physical and medical evidence to build the case against a DV offender. Suggestions for reducing DV offender recidivism include tailoring sanctions to offender characteristics and patterns of violence; relying on arrest as a means of instituting the monitoring of DV defendants and deterring them from future violence; and expanding services and resources for victims to increase their ability to prevent future victimization. 6 figures and 23 references