Washington State Institute for Public Policy Reports on Domestic Violence Recidivism Trends

The 2012 Washington State Legislature passed a bill directing the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to conduct research on the recidivism trends of people convicted of domestic violence, and write a report on its findings. The scope of this report covered the fiscal years of 2001-2012.

Washington defines “domestic violence” in RCW 26.50.010 as “ (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.” The WSIPP also took into account cases that were essentially domestic violence, but not charged under that statute (e.g. first degree rape of a spouse).

First, the WSIPP looked at the sheer number of criminal cases filed in that time-frame. Between 2001-2012, nearly 2,373,733 felony and misdemeanor cases were filed in Washington. Roughly 25% of those cases were felonies while approximately 75% were misdemeanors.

There are two ways to identify crime which constitutes DV: 1)by using the definition of “domestic violence” currently provided by Washington State law; and 2) by using indicators employed by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) which indicate a crime that is not statutorily domestic violence but constitutes violence or threats of violence against a family member (e.g. first degree rape does not inherently constitute domestic violence, except for when the alleged victim is spouse of the defendant). Using these definitions, the WSIPP determined how many of Washington’s crimes were acts of DV.

Between 2001-2012,  20% of misdemeanors and 12% of felonies involved domestic violence charges.

Next, the WSIPP looked at a single-year’s cohort of offenders for the purpose of comparing DV offenders with non-DV offenders. The WSIPP used fiscal year (FY) 2008, since it was the most recent year of offenders that would allow for a 36-month recidivism follow-up period for offenders who are at-risk in the community. The report found that, using this FY 2008 group as its basis, DV offenders are more likely to: have more criminal history than other offenders, have more violent and assault charges than other offenders, and are more likely to be classified as a high-risk to re-offend.

Furthermore, 36% of DV offenders re-offended (committing any crime) in that 36-month period compared to 30% of non-DV offenders, a noticeable but small difference. But when contrasting re-offending for specifically DV-related offenses, the difference is more significant.  Only 4% of FY 2008’s non-DV offenders committed a DV-related offense within that 36-month period, while 18% of DV-offenders committed a new DV-offense in that time.

Public policy makers in Washington will point to the WSIPP report as justification for recent legislation increasing penalties for repeat DV offenders, See 9.94A.525(21).  More than ever practitioners need to be aware of the impact of domestic violence convictions on the prosecution and court’s perception of a client’s future risk of re-offense.