skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 187772   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Evaluation of Efforts to Implement No-Drop Policies: Two Central Values in Conflict, Final Report
  Document URL: PDF 
  Dataset URL: DATASET 1
Author(s): Barbara E. Smith ; Robert Davis ; Laura B. Nickles ; Heather J. Davies
Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc
Criminal Justice Section
United States of America
Date Published: 03/2001
Page Count: 91
  Annotation: Research conducted in Omaha, NE, Everett, WA, Klamath Falls, OR, and San Diego, CA, sought to determine if prosecution of perpetrators of domestic assault without the victim’s consent was feasible with appropriate increases in resources.
Abstract: The study chose the three sites due to their receipt of funds from the Office of Justice Program for no-drop prosecution under the Violence against Women Office grant program to encourage arrest policies. These sites’ grant proposals seemed the clearest about implementing a strong no-drop policy. The research added San Diego to the sites because it was the first place to try no-drop and is regarded as successful. Study information came from interviews with criminal justice officials, onsite observations, a review of written policies, analysis of case samples, and victim interviews. Results revealed that no-drop is more a philosophy than a strict policy of prosecuting domestic violence cases. None of the prosecutors pursued every case they filed. Results also revealed that establishing a no-drop policy can increase convictions significantly. Findings also indicated that implementing no-drop requires significant case screening up front and that a successful no-drop policy requires judges who accept the idea of admitting hearsay or excited utterances from victims and statements from defendants, or documentation of prior bad acts. Findings also revealed that no-drop is expensive. Finally, the interview data suggested that victims may regard prosecution as beneficial, even if they did not want any action beyond arrest. Figures, tables, and 15 references
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Prosecutorial discretion ; Prosecution ; Domestic assault ; Prosecutor-victim interaction ; Criminal Justice System Response to Victims ; Victim reactions to the Criminal Justice System ; Domestic assault arrest policies ; Nebraska ; Oregon ; Washington ; California
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 98-WT-VX-0029
Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America

American Bar Assoc
Criminal Justice Section
740 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20005-1009
United States of America
Type: Program/Project Evaluation
Country: United States of America
Language: English
Note: Dataset may be archived by the NIJ Data Resources Program at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.