Dallas Domestic
Violence Taskforce
Annual Summary Report: 2014-2015
The Institute for Urban Policy Research
At The University of Texas at Dallas
Denise Paquette Boots, PhD
Timothy Bray, PhD

 Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce
Annual Summary Report: 2014-2015

Introduction
For almost 30 years the City of Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce has served the community to
combat domestic violence and raise awareness about this important public health and safety issue.
Comprised of elected officials and representatives from law enforcement, courts, and corrections, as
well as members from advocacy, religious, media, and volunteer organizations, the Taskforce has
established itself as the clear voice for community concerns and activism on this critical issue. This
Annual Summary Report will be the first official synthesis of the activities and membership of partners
in the Taskforce, all in an effort to show Dallas’ systemic response to the threat of domestic violence.
Dallas has a long history of using public-private partnerships to accomplish quality of life and health in
our community. The City of Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce was created in 1987 as a result of a
class action lawsuit against the City of Dallas in 1985. The suit, filed by two women with the help of the
Northwest Texas Legal Aid, alleged that police denied women equal protection under the law because
of an unofficial policy for officers not to intervene or make arrests in family violence cases. The out-ofcourt settlement agreement directed that the Public Safety Committee create a Domestic Violence
Taskforce within 90 days of the consent decree to investigate and monitor the City’s response to
domestic violence for two years. The decree mandated that the Taskforce be made up of
representatives from family violence advocacy organizations, including The Family Place, Genesis
Women’s Shelter, and New Beginnings, and the Dallas Police Department (DPD). The Taskforce was to
meet quarterly to review and evaluate training materials and programs as it related to the enforcement
of family violence law and prevention.
Although the Taskforce was instructed to meet for only two years, the group quickly realized the
salience of coordinating their efforts to help victims of domestic violence. Strong and trustful working
relationships were formed in the group, and as a result, the Domestic Violence Taskforce has been
meeting since 1986.
The Domestic Violence Taskforce has had several leaders including former Councilmembers Lori
Palmer, Sandy Greyson, Pauline Medrano, Dr. Elba Garcia, Delia Jasso, and current Councilmember
Jennifer Gates. The objectives and initiatives of the Taskforce have changed over the years depending
on leadership and the needs of the community. The Domestic Violence Taskforce led the charge to tape
all 9-1-1 calls, to help determine what domestic violence resource information to include on the blue
cards police officers hand out to citizens, and to recommend to City Council that October be designated
as Domestic Violence Awareness month. Currently, the Taskforce holds general meetings, open to the
public, on a quarterly basis. In addition, a small number of partners comprise the executive committee,
which meets monthly to provide detailed metrics and guidance for city policy.
On January 8th, 2013, Karen Cox Smith was brutally murdered by her estranged husband in the UT
Southwestern Medical Center parking lot. Her husband was to be arrested the next day by DPD for a
domestic violence-related issue. This crime led Mayor Mike Rawlings to launch his Men Against Abuse
Campaign in March 2013. Shortly thereafter, he appointed Councilmember Jennifer Gates to chair the

Page   3

 Domestic Violence Taskforce. Since 2013, Mayor Rawlings has led more than a dozen public events,
including breakfasts and rallies. These events serve to raise awareness. They also call for male
advocates throughout the community to hold offenders accountable for their abuse and better support
domestic violence victims in their recovery and healing.
As chair of the Domestic Violence Taskforce, Councilmember Gates was charged with gathering
metrics to highlight the efforts of community and governmental partners. Toward this end, in 2014 she
invited Dr. Denise Paquette Boots (Associate Professor of Criminology and Senior Research Fellow at
the Institute for Urban Policy Research at the University of Texas at Dallas) to join the executive
committee and general taskforce and help spearhead this data collection. Accordingly, Dr. Boots met
with these partners over an 18-month period to ensure reliability and rigor in these measures since
these agencies and organizations have voluntarily expended significant efforts and manpower to
inform this inaugural report. The following report will highlight a general survey (administered in
August of 2015) of the entire Taskforce membership, as well as a more detailed summary of the
executive committee partner metrics that have been collected between June, 2014, and May, 2015.
Together, these data present a cumulative picture of the systemic response to domestic violence in our
community and offer a preliminary glimpse into relevant policy and criminal justice issues.

A General Overview of the Systemic Response to Domestic Violence
In 2015, all attendees of the general Domestic Violence Taskforce meetings were invited to participate
in a brief electronic survey about their organization and their involvement. In all, 87 invitations to
participate in the survey were distributed to unique email addresses. Of those, 41 partially completed
the survey, and 33 completed the survey in its entirety, yielding response rates of 47% and 38%,
respectively. These response rates are outstanding considering that all attendees of general taskforce
meetings were invited to return the survey, regardless of whether they had attended once or were
regular participants.

About the Survey
The survey asked respondents for information about themselves, their organization (if applicable), and
their involvement in the Domestic Violence Taskforce. For respondents who indicated they represented
the interests of an organization, such as a non-profit or government agency, the survey asked about the
employment and characteristics, as well as mission and purpose of the organization. For those
organizations that provided shelter services, respondents were asked about the shelter capacity. It is
important to note that, as with any survey instrument, respondents were free to answer all, some, or
none of the questions. In cases where respondents did not answer, total sample sizes will vary across
tables and figures. To maintain integrity, missing data were not imputed and no entries were changed
from original respondent answers.

Survey Findings
As shown in Figure 1, representatives of governmental agencies and non-profit organizations combined
to represent more than half of respondents, accounting for 33% and 35% of respondents, respectively.

4   Page

 Respondents by Type of Organization / Entity
Governmental Agency

32.5

Non-Profit Organization

35.0

Church / Faith-based

5.0

Elected Official / Staff

12.5

For-Profit Organization

7.5

Individual Citizen

7.5

0

10

20
30
Percent of Respondents

40

N=40

Figure 1. Percent of Respondents by Organization or Entity

Table 1 presents the distribution of survey respondents by type of organization and length of
membership on the Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce. Of the 35 who responded to the question,
more than half have been on the taskforce for two or fewer years. This pattern held largely across the
variety of organizations represented, with elected officials and for-profit representatives expressing
slightly longer tenures.
Table 1. Distribution of Survey Respondents by Type of Organization and Length of Membership

Less Than
One Year
1-2 Years
3-4 Years
5-9 Years
10 or More
Years
Total

Govt.
Agency

NonProfit

3
25%
5
42%
2
17%
1
8%
1
8%
12

3
30%
5
50%
1
10%
1
10%
0
0%
10

Church /
Faith
Based
0
0%
2
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2

Elected
Official

ForProfit

Individual

Total

1
20%
2
40%
2
40%
0
0%
0
0%
5

1
33%
1
33%
0
0%
1
33%
0
0%
3

2
67%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
33%
3

10
29%
15
43%
5
14%
3
9%
2
6%
35

Table 2 presents, for respondents representing organizations, the distribution of organizational
membership in the Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce by type of organization. While the modal
category for individuals was two or fewer years, here we see that almost half of the organizations
represented on the taskforce have participated for five or more years. Combined, the results from these

Page   5

 tables suggest that the continued participation of corporate and non-profit entities in Dallas contribute
to the Taskforce’s strength of mission.
Table 2. Distribution of Organizations by Type of Organization and Length of Membership

Less Than One
Year
1-2Years
3-4 Years
5-9 Years
10 or More
Years
Not Applicable
Total

Government
Agency
1
9%
1
9%
0
0%
2
18%
4
36%
3
27%
11

Non-Profit Church / Faith
Based
2
0
20%
0%
3
2
30%
100%
1
0
10%
0%
2
0
20%
0%
2
0
20%
0%
0
0
0%
0%
10
2

For-Profit

Total

0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
50%
1
50%
2

3
12%
6
24%
1
4%
4
16%
7
28%
4
16%
25

Services Provided by Agencies
Agencies were asked about the services they provided to victims of domestic violence. As can be seen
in Figure 2 through Figure 9, a majority of responding agencies provide victim services, including
counseling and therapy. More than one quarter of responding agencies provide shelter and education
services. The most frequently co-occurring services were shelter and counseling / therapy services. All
of the organizations offering shelter also offering therapy or counseling services. Notably, two servers
were not represented by any of the organizational respondents: medical services and media services.
Responding Agencies By Service Provided

Responding Agencies By Service Provided

Provide Media Services

Provide Law Enforcement

12.5%

87.5%

100.0%

no
N=32

Figure 2. Agencies Providing Media Services

6   Page

no

yes

N=32

Figure 3. Agencies Providing Law Enforcement Services

 Responding Agencies By Service Provided

Responding Agencies By Service Provided

Provide Victim Service / Therapy / Counseling

Provide Medical Services

37.5%

62.5%

100.0%

no

yes

N=32

no
N=32

Figure 4. Agencies Providing Victim Services, Therapy, or
Counseling

Figure 7. Agencies Providing Medical Services
Responding Agencies By Service Provided
Provide Legal Representation / Prosecution

Responding Agencies By Service Provided
Provide Emergency / Transitional Shelter

21.9%
28.1%

78.1%
71.9%

no
no

yes

yes

N=32

N=32

Figure 5. Agencies Providing Emergency or Transitional
Shelter

Figure 8. Agencies Providing Legal Representation or
Prosecution
Responding Agencies By Service Provided
Provide Courts / Community Supervision / Corrections

Responding Agencies By Service Provided
Provide Education

12.5%

31.3%

68.8%

87.5%

no
no

yes

yes

N=32

N=32

Figure 6. Agencies Providing Education

Figure 9Agencies Providing Courts, Community Supervision,
or Corrections

Agency Employment
Survey respondents representing organizational entities were asked about the number of employees
working at their organization, as well as the number who focus directly on issues of domestic violence.
Figure 10 presents the distribution of total organizational employment. Large employers represent the
modal response, with 26% of respondents employing 1,000 or more. Mid-sized employers dominate
the distribution, however, with one-third of respondents employing between 20 and 100 persons.

Page   7

 Figure 11 presents the distribution of total employment by type of organization. Here, one sees that the
large employers are limited to the for-profit and government segments of respondents. Among the
non-profit sector, the small- and mid-size categories are roughly evenly represented.
Organizational Employment
Total Employees
1-4

14.8

5-9

7.4

20-49

18.5

50-99

14.8

100-249

11.1

250-499

7.4

1,000 or more

25.9

0

5

10
15
Percent of Respondents

20

25

N=27

Figure 10. Total Organizational Employment

Organizational Employment
Total Employees
Governmental Agency
1-4
5-9
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
1,000 or more

Non-Profit Organization
1-4
5-9
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
1,000 or more

16.7
16.7
8.3
16.7
41.7

18.2
18.2
27.3
18.2
18.2

Church / Faith-based
1-4
5-9
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
1,000 or more

For-Profit Organization
100.0

0

20

40

60

80

1-4
5-9
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
1,000 or more

100

33.3

66.7

0

20

40

60

80

Percent of Respondents
Graphs by Personal Role

Figure 11. Total Organization Employment by Organization Type

Figure 12 presents the distribution of domestic violence-focused employment among survey
respondents. Here, one can see that the modal category is 1 to 4 employees. Yet, 1 in 4 survey
respondents employs between 20 and 49 employees who focus on domestic violence issues.

8   Page

100

 Organizational Employment
Employees Focused on Domestic Violence
1-4

37.5

5-9

4.2

10-19

12.5

20-49

25.0

50-99

12.5

100-249

8.3

0

10

20
Percent of Respondents

30

40

N=24

Figure 12. Total Domestic Violence Employment

Organizational Employment
Employees Focused on Domestic Violence
Governmental Agency
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249

Non-Profit Organization
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249

40.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
10.0

27.3
9.1
9.1
36.4
9.1
9.1

Church / Faith-based
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249

For-Profit Organization
100.0

0

20

40

60

80

1-4
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99
100-249

100

50.0
50.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of Respondents
Graphs by Personal Role

Figure 13. Total Domestic Violence Employment by Organization Type

Figure 13 represents the distribution of domestic violence-focused employment by organization type.
Here, for both governmental agencies and faith-based organizations, the modal response was 1 to 4
employees focusing on domestic violence. For non-profit organizations, however, the modal response
was 20 to 49 employees, with more than half of the organizations having 20 or more employees. Table
3 presents a cross tabulation of domestic violence and total agency employment. The table suggests
that the smaller organizations in the sample were largely domestic violence organizations.

Page   9

 Table 3. Cross Tabulation of Domestic Violence and Total Employment

Total
Employees
1-4
5-9
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
1,000 or More
Total

1-4
3
1
1
1

Domestic Violence Employees
5-9
10-19
20-49
50-99

Total
100-249
3
2
5
4
3
1
6
24

1
4
1

2

1

2
1

3
9

1

2
3

1
6

3

2

Transportation Services Provided
Organizational respondents were asked what types of transportation they provided to victims of
domestic violence. Figure 14 presents the distribution of responses. The transportation most commonly
provided was public transit, typically facilitated through vouchers and passes, with roughly 41% of
respondents providing this service. Taxi service is less widely used, with 27% of respondents reporting
that they use taxis to transport victims. Private car and rail or bus (e.g., Amtrak and Greyhound) are still
less prevalent, with roughly 20% of agencies reporting making each of these modes of transportation
available. The least-used transportation option was air travel, with only one organization providing this
service. This statistic is not surprising considering the expense that is incurred for these services.
Transportation Provided by Organizational Respondents

30

40

40.9

27.3

20

21.7

10

18.2

0

4.5

Private Car
Public Transit
Air

Taxi
Rail / Bus

N=23

Figure 14. Types of Transportation Provided by Organizational Respondents

Reported Shelter Capacities
Organizational respondents who reported providing shelter as one of their top three services were
asked to report on their shelter capacity. Here, shelter was broken into two contexts. Emergency
shelter refers to the capacity to provide immediate shelter relief to victims of domestic violence in the
immediate aftermath of an incident. Transitional shelter, on the other hand, refers to the longer-term
housing assistance provided to clients as they seek to re-establish their lives after leaving a batterer.
Capacity was further distinguished by location of facility. On-site capacity refers to that which is located
within a facility owned and managed by the organization, while off-site capacity refers to any other

10   Page

 type of arrangement. For many responding organizations, off-site capacity took the form of hotel or
motel rooms reserved on an as-needed basis. Table 4 presents the summary of capacity information
reported by the six sheltering organizations (including Brighter Tomorrows, Genesis Women’s Shelter
and Support, Mosaic Services, New Beginnings, Salvation Army, and The Family Place) all of whom
responded to the general survey distributed across the entire taskforce.
Table 4. Reported Emergency and Transitional Shelter Capacity in Rooms and Beds for Men, Women, and Children (N=6)

Onsite

Women
Children
Men
Total

Emergency
Rooms
Beds
62
183
33
189
2
2
97
374

Offsite
Transitional
Rooms
Beds
60
100
63
170
2
2
125
272

Emergency
Rooms
Beds
4
4
10
16
10
16
24
36

Transitional
Rooms
Beds
9
9
9
18
2
2
13
29

*Note: These data were aggregated from six organizations providing shelter services that responded to the
general survey, including Brighter Tomorrows, Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support, Mosaic Services, New
Beginnings, Salvation Army, and The Family Place.

A Detailed Analysis of Agency Metrics
The Domestic Violence Taskforce was able to compile metrics from members across the City of Dallas
and Dallas County. Dr. Denise Paquette Boots of the Institute for Urban Policy Research has met with
agencies and individuals involved in the Executive Committee for the Taskforce to coordinate and
oversee the gathering of metrics related to police, the courts, and victim services. Detailed metrics and
activity summaries were submitted by domestic violence shelters and victim advocates such as Mosaic
House, The Family Place, Salvation Army, and Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support, as well as data
from DPD, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, the Dallas City Attorney’s Office, Judges Roberto
Cañas (Misdemeanor Division) and Rick Magnis (Felony Division), The Dallas County Adult Intimate
Partner Violence Fatality Review Team, and the Dallas Mayor’s Office. The detailed metrics section
that follows synthesizes these data and offers more detailed information on the systemic response to
domestic violence across these community partners.

Shelters
The shelter metrics reported in this section originate from four reporting non-profit organizations in the
Dallas area, including Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support, Mosaic Services, Salvation Army, and The
Family Place. (It should be noted that while six organizations reported information in the general
survey results discussed previously, there are only four agencies that provided the monthly detailed
metrics displayed in this portion of the report, so these areas of the summary report are not
comparable). These four emergency and transitional shelters are mostly used by women and children,
who make up the largest part of each metric category; including number of total un-served victims due
to lack of space, the facility capacity percentage, average nightly census in shelter, average nightly
census in transitional housing, and the number housed in hotels/outside facilities.
One serious problem Dallas faces is the lack of shelter space; from June 2014 through May 2015, there
was a cumulative number of 7,567 men, women and children turned away by a shelter due to lack of
space. Figure 15 presents the monthly trend of victims who sought shelter but were unable to be
accommodated. The month of May had the highest turn away rate of 976 victims; over the year, an

Page   11

 average of 631 men, women, and children were turned away each month by these four shelter
providers. The inability for a shelter to serve a person or family is largely based on the capacity of each
shelter. It should also be noted that because individual shelters reported their own numbers of how
many victims they turned away per month, without any identifying information for the victims, it is
impossible to know if some of these numbers are duplicated with the same victim turned away at
multiple locations. It is also possible that a victim denied housing at one shelter (and counted as
unserved) was able to find emergency housing at another shelter partner’s location (and became an
active occupant there), although our partners reported that duplicates are likely very small in number.

Figure 15. Total Number of Victims Unserved Due to Lack of Space, June 2014 through May 2015

Over the same one-year time period, Figure 16 indicates that the four reporting shelters reached an
average capacity utilization of 95%, with one shelter reaching a maximum monthly utilization of 106%.
These numbers can be complex to interpret with respect to capacity. For example, while some shelters
opt to house multiple single female victims in a room with multiple beds, other shelters do not house
multiple victims together due to privacy concerns. In the latter case, a single woman may seek shelter
and occupy one room and bed while a woman and her three children would take up one room but four
beds. This impacts the perception of how full these shelters become and why victims may not be able
to be accommodated. This ratio of rooms to beds may create the impression that the shelter has a
lower capacity in sheer numbers than they could handle, but it is actually more complex since the
composition of victims and their families directly impacts need versus supply ratios. An additional
caveat is that space and types of housing vary from shelter to shelter.

12   Page

 Figure 16. Average Nightly Capacity Utilization, June 2014 - May 2015

Figure 17 presents the monthly average shelter occupancy for the four reporting shelters in Dallas. The
total cumulative number of victims in these shelters from June 2014 through May 2015 was 1,828.
Combined, the four shelters had a total of 85 rooms and 352 beds for women and children and 8 rooms
and 8 beds for men. Shelters are not open to the public in order to provide the victims with a safe
environment. The need to facilitate therapeutic healing and provide safety are balanced. As stated
previously, different shelters house victims differently. If a victim arrives at a shelter without any
children, in one shelter he or she will occupy a full room, thereby creating the appearance of low
capacity utilization. In other shelters, multiple single victims may be housed together in one room with
multiple beds. The personal dynamics of victims and their dependents vary across circumstances as
well and impact the metrics reported here. In addition, male victims both with and without children
have few options to be housed in emergency or transitional shelter in Dallas County due to the fact that
the majority of shelter providers designate adult females and their children as their primary populations
(adult females are most often targets of domestic violence and the vast majority of victims who seek
safety). While providing shelter for all populations of victims is critical, mixing adult females and their
children with male victims (with or without children) is impossible due to safety concerns and privacy
issues. Additional services are needed that can accommodate transgender victims as well if they
cannot be accommodated in on-site facilities for emergency and transitional housing and support. The
Family Place has recently received state funding to purchase a designated shelter for male victims that
will serve to address some of these issues in the coming year. In the interim, victim safety and the
delivery of victim services become much more difficult, as these victims are housed off-site in hotels or
rented apartments.

Page   13

 Figure 17. Average Nightly Emergency Shelter Population, June 2014 - May 2015

Several shelters also provide transitional, long-term housing to serve victims and help them avoid
homelessness. Clients receiving transitional housing services are often long-term clients, with services
lasting from several months to two years, depending on the capacity of the shelter. During the
reporting period, an average of 147 clients each month received shelter in transitional housing. Figure
18 presents the monthly trend in transitional housing utilization for the four reporting shelters.

Figure 18. Average Nightly Transitional Housing Population, June 2014 - May 2015

Overall, we are very fortunate to have active, progressive, and growing shelters for victims across Dallas
County with our shelter partners and advocates. These partners continue to perform invaluable
services to our community in the form of daily outreach, awareness events, and education to break
down the myths surrounding family violence and the stigmas that prevent victims from seeking the

14   Page

 help they need. The Family Place, Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support, and Mosaic Services shelters
have also been very active in training religious leaders in how to handle domestic violence cases.
Advocacy partners such as The Family Place and Genesis also are actively involved in DISD, dealing with
teen dating violence and bullying education from elementary school to high school. These non-profit
partners play a salient role in combatting domestic violence and providing long-term healing for adult
and child victims, thereby making a long-term contribution to the health of our greater community.

Police Response
DPD has provided detailed metrics to the Domestic Violence Taskforce for the year between June 2014
and May 2015. They have provided detailed data on the following variables: number of reported
offenses assigned as domestic violence; number of domestic violence arrests (broken down by
misdemeanor and felony); number of family violence cases filed; number of protective order violation
offenses; and number of family violence and intimate partner murders. In addition, DPD provided
metrics for the number of home visits/high-risk victim contacts that were made monthly; the number of
actual contacts; and the number of intimate partner murders.
From June 2014 through May 2015, 11,047 calls to 9-1-1 were investigated by DPD responding officers
and found to be domestic violence-related. It is important to note here that 9-1-1 calls are not
immediately classified as domestic violence-related, as there are many offense codes that can have a
domestic violence origin. For instance, a 9-1-1 report of people fighting might later be determined to be
domestic in origin. Likewise, a 9-1-1 report of a loud noise disturbance may also, upon investigation, be
found to be related to a domestic violence complaint. Figure 19 presents the monthly trend in reported
offenses to the DPD, which, upon investigation, were found to be related to domestic violence.

Figure 19. Reported Offenses Determined to be Domestic Violence-related

The total number of family violence cases filed by the DPD from June 2014 through May 2015 was
3,833. The month with the highest number of cases filed was December, with 389. Figure 20 presents
the monthly trend from June 2014 through May 2015.

Page   15

 Figure 20. Number of Family Violence Cases Filed by DPD, June 2014 - May 2015

The total yearly number of protective order violations was 123. This happens whenever a victim holds a
court granted protective order and the perpetrator violates the requirements on the order; these orders
could include limitations to communication, distance between victim and perpetrator, or others
determined by the court. Figure 21 presents the monthly trend, with the highest number of violations
occurring in May 2015 at 26 violations.

Figure 21. Number of Protective Order Violations Reported, June 2014 through May 2015

Figure 22 presents the trend, by month, from June 2014 through May 2015 for all homicides between
family members investigated by DPD. The months of June and January held the highest numbers of
family violence-related murders (for all family-related murders, not just those committed by former or

16   Page

 current intimate partners), with three each. From June 2014 through May 2015, DPD reported 16 family
violence-related murders.

Figure 22. Number of Family Violence Murders, June 2014 through May 2015

When delving into the data from the victim-offender relationships within these family violence
homicides, there are a smaller number of murders involving intimate partners. Figure 23 presents the
monthly trend in intimate partner homicides for the duration of the study year. The highest months of
intimate partner-related homicides were June, October, and December of 2014, with 2 domestic
homicides for each of these months. For the 10 murders reported by DPD between June of 2014 and
May 2015, 40 percent (n= 4) of the victims were black females killed by their former or current husbands
or boyfriends. Another 40 percent (n= 4) of the victims were Hispanic females; three of these victims
were killed by their current or former husband or boyfriend and one was killed by their current
girlfriend. The remaining two victims included a black male killed by his ex-wife and a white male killed
by his current girlfriend. The descriptive statistics presented here regarding these various victim and
offender relationships over this one-year period highlight the complexity and diversity of domestic
violence. Domestic violence occurs across every strata of society regardless of sexual orientation,
gender, economic class, occupation, race, religion, or culture. Dallas County gained the dubious
distinction in a recent Texas Council on Family Violence report of matching Harris County as having the
highest rates of domestic homicide per population. Statistics such as these drive home the need for
lethality assessments, high-risk victim visitation programs, and lethality review teams to better
understand trends, assess failures in the system, and develop interventions to improve systemic
response to domestic violence.

Page   17

 Figure 23. Number of Intimate Partner Homicides, June 2014 through May 2015

From June 2014 through May 2015, DPD made a sizeable number of domestic violence arrests. Of
these arrests, 1,098 were at a felony level, and the remaining 3,504 were for misdemeanor charges.
Figure 24 presents the monthly trend, showing an annual trend of increasing misdemeanor arrests.

Figure 24. Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests for Domestic Violence, June 2014 through May 2015

The DPD has worked hard to reduce future domestic violence and homicides. In recent years,
Lieutenant Miguel Sarmiento and Deputy Chief Robert Sherwin have worked closely with taskforce
partners in advocacy, prosecution, and the courts across the Dallas area to increase the size of this unit,
infusing the Family Violence unit with new leadership and personnel to provide additional support and
better serve victims of domestic violence. Recent advances in technology have included the launch of

18   Page

 an electronic shared drive database system that allows for the digital exchange of evidence in domestic
violence cases between DPD and the District Attorney’s Office.
From June 2014 to May 2015, DPD made 354 home visits and/or contacts to high-risk victims, as
determined from a combination of eight factors taken from the NYPD model, one of which is the
lethality assessment conducted onsite by DPD personnel. These lethality assessments are now
considered a best practice in the prevention of intimate partner homicides and represent a critical
policy change for DPD in reducing the likelihood of domestic homicides and identifying high-risk cases
in our community. DPD also reported 116 direct contacts with high-risk victims by officers within the
Family Violence Unit to ensure victim safety and encourage successful prosecutions of pending cases
within the legal system.

Prosecution
Prosecution of domestic violence cases in the City of Dallas is handled by two different prosecutorial
entities. The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes defendants charged with any offense
that is a Class B misdemeanor or higher. When police are unable to secure sufficient evidence to file at
least a Class B misdemeanor, Dallas Police have the option of filing Class C misdemeanor charges with
the City Attorney’s office, which handles those prosecutions.

Dallas County District Attorney
The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office under District Attorney Susan Hawk has also provided
metrics to the taskforce. Metrics were offered across eight categories, including misdemeanor family
violence cases received; misdemeanor family violence rejections; felony family violence cases received;
felony family violence rejections; felony no-bills; felony family violence cases indicted; family violence
enhanced offenses; and protective orders. All metrics reported here are from the time period between
June 2014 and May 2015.
The total number of misdemeanor family violence cases received by the District Attorney’s Office
during the study year was 2,901. This number includes all cases filed in County Courts 10 and 11. It
represents the enforcement activity of all Dallas County law enforcement agencies. Due to data
limitations in the way cases are handled and coded within the management system, this metric
represents all family violence-related cases from all agencies across the county (including non-intimate
cases such as brothers, sisters, parents, etc.); some cases that were not intimate partner violence may
have been subsequently transferred to another court. The research team is working diligently to secure
funding that would allow for non-intimate cases to be disaggregated from this larger total. In the
meantime, these metrics provide a glimpse into the volume of cases received in the Misdemeanor
Family Violence Division. During this same period, 229 misdemeanor cases were rejected by the District
Attorney’s Office for a variety of procedural and administrative reasons. Figure 25 presents the
monthly trend in cases received and rejected. The notable increase in rejections in December 2014 was
created by the increase in cases processed during that month. Cases processed in December were
rejected at roughly the same rate as those occurring in other months of the year.

Page   19

 Figure 25. Misdemeanor Family Violence Cases Received and Rejected, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through May
2015

During the study year, the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office received 2,728 felony family violence
cases. Again, these data represent the collective enforcement action of all law enforcement agencies in
the County that are assigned for prosecution to the Felony Family Violence Division. The metric only
represents intimate partner violence cases and excludes other forms of family violence committed by
siblings, parents, or other relatives. During the same period, 105 felony cases were rejected for a variety
of administrative and procedural reasons. Figure 26 presents the monthly trend for these metrics.

Figure 26. Felony Family Violence Cases Received and Rejected, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through May 2015

During the study year, the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office took 2,552 felony domestic violence
cases before the Grand Jury – an average of 212 per month. Of those, 1,971 (or 77%) were indicted,

20   Page

 while the Grand Jury returned no bill of indictment on 581 cases (23%). These 2,552 cases do not include
those that were received as felony but reduced to misdemeanors, those felony cases that were rejected
by the District Attorney’s Office, or those that were returned to the originating law enforcement
agency for further investigation. Figure 27 presents the monthly trends in both no-billed and indicted
cases.

Figure 27. Felony Family Violence Cases No-Billed and Indicted by Grand Jury, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through
May 2015

Without additional funding, the Domestic Violence Taskforce cannot provide an exact number of
“repeat offenders,” but exploring the application of enhancements to family violence cases helps
illuminate this metric. The total number of enhanced family violence cases was 1,147. Enhancements
included the following categories:
1. Continuous family violence (2 or more arrests for assault against a family member during a 12
month period), enhancing the offense to a third degree felony;
2. Assault Enhanced (a misdemeanor family violence assault enhanced by a prior family violence
conviction), enhancing the offense to a third degree felony;
3. Impeding Enhanced (any strangulation with a previous family violence conviction), enhancing
the offense to a second degree felony;
4. Stalking (multiple acts of stalking over time), enhancing the offense to a third degree felony;
5. Misdemeanor Violation of a Protective Order (any non-violent violation of a protective order), a
Class A Misdemeanor; and,
6. Felony Violation of a Protective Order (any violent violation of a protective order), a third
degree felony.
Figure 28 presents the monthly trend in the application of these enhancements to cases handled by the
Dallas County District Attorney’s office. Table 5 presents the annual data totals across each
enhancement category.

Page   21

 Figure 28. Family Violence Enhancements, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through May 2015

As can be seen in Table 5, the Assault enhancement category, which represents current family violence
cases where the offender has a previous conviction for family violence, is the most frequently applied
enhancement. There were a total of 668 enhancements for previous assault, which outnumbered all
other Assault, Stalking, and Protective Order enhancements combined. The District Attorney’s Office
reported 156 continuous family violence offenses within the past 12 months (Third degree felony), 168
Impeding enhanced cases involving strangulations, 29 stalking cases, 61 misdemeanor Class A cases of
violations of protective orders, and 65 cases of felony violations of protective orders with and without
stalking.
Table 5. Annual Family Violence Enhancements Totals, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through May 2015

Type of Enhancement
Number of Enhancements
Assault With Continuous Family Violence
156
Assault With Previous Conviction
668
Impeding
168
Stalking
29
Misdemeanor Protection Order
61
Felony Protection Order
65

During the study year, there were a total of 535 protective orders sought. Of those, 387 (72%) were
granted, 11 (2%) were denied after a hearing, 101 (19%) were dismissed (usually because the applicant
failed to appear), and 36 (7%) were dropped by the applicant. Figure 29 presents the monthly trend in
orders of protection dispositions.

22   Page

 Figure 29. Disposition of Orders of Protection, Dallas County District Attorney, June 2014 through May 2015

City of Dallas Attorney’ s Office
The city attorney has the task of handling domestic violence cases and does not handle stalking cases,
protective orders, or any other case that is higher than a Class C offense. The prosecution division of the
City Attorney’s Office handles Class C misdemeanors, including domestic violence cases. These cases
involve crimes that include contact with the victim as well as threats. Class C misdemeanors are
punishable only by a fine up to $500, and the offense is usually more minor and does not pose a major
risk to the victim. However, the initial offense can be enhanced to a higher-level offense, or the
punishment can be raised with proof of conviction(s). Domestic violence is not always just between
intimate partners, as it can also occur between housemates and other family. Many of the domestic
violence cases are handled at the municipal level. Within this court is a great opportunity to reduce
recidivism, especially where first time offenders are concerned. These minor attacks, such as a slap or a
push, can escalate quickly and turn into larger, more serious violations resulting in injuries or death to
victims.
There were 3,656 misdemeanor cases of family violence received in the Municipal Court from June 2014
through May 2015. These cases originate through the following process: when a victim calls the police
in the city of Dallas, an officer will be dispatched to the scene to assess the situation. From there, the
officer will issue a citation, arrest someone, or have one of the parties leave the premises. The majority
of times in the case where a citation is issued, it is done so “at large,” meaning that the defendant was
not on the premises during issuance. From June 2014 through May 2015 there were 1,075 cases where
the defendant did not respond to the citation. After a defendant is cited or taken to jail on an assault
offense, the defendant has 21 days to appear at Municipal Court to plead either not guilty, or pay the
citation with an automatic plea of guilty. If the defendant does choose to plead “not guilty,” they are
given the right to a trial where they have the opportunity to obtain a plea agreement. If a defendant
does not enter a plea, the case goes into an “alias” status, whereby a warrant is applied around the 35th
day by a judge. Figure 30 presents the monthly trend in family violence cases received in City of Dallas
Municipal Courts.

Page   23

 Figure 30. Family Violence Cases Received, City of Dallas Municipal Court, June 2014 through May 2015

From June 2014 - May 2015, there were 1,761 cases where the defendant was taken into custody. This is
normally determined by the DPD officer who arrives on the scene. Taking the defendant into custody is
necessary at times to prevent further acts of domestic violence. The defendant is taken to Lew Sterrett
Jail where he or she can then choose to sit out the time, post a bond, or set a court date at the Municipal
Court. If the defendant does choose to just sit out the time, then it is considered a conviction on their
record. These defendants represented 42.2% of all cases that the Municipal Court received.
During the one-year study period, 530 domestic violence cases were dismissed by the Municipal Court.
The majority of these cases were dismissed or rejected due to the lack of outside witness, a fact
witness, or insufficient evidence. Out of all of the cases dismissed or rejected, five were dismissed by
the magistrate without explanation, and one was dismissed by a judge due to completion of
community service.

24   Page

 Figure 31. Dismissal of Family Violence Cases by Cause, City of Dallas City Attorney's Office, June 2014 through May 2015

Dallas Courts
Dallas has established various programs to aid in the fight against domestic violence and homicide. The
High-Risk Offender Program was developed by Judge Rick Magnis and is assisted by community
partners in the courts, police department, sheriff’s office, and advocacy organizations. This new postadjudication program applies to convicted felony domestic violence offenders and adds GPS
monitoring, mandatory placement in The Family Place’s 30-week intensive batterers’ intervention
program, as well as weekly check-ins to the adult probation department. Participants are selected to
participate based on high scores on a lethality assessment administered by the probation department.
This program had its first few “graduates” in 2015 and is collecting data for a future evaluation project
between Dr. Denise Paquette Boots (UT Dallas) and Dr. Jill Johannson-Love (Dallas County Adult
Probation) to determine the long-term efficacy of the program in reducing recidivism and fatalities.
Judge Roberto Cañas from County Court 10 has spearheaded the Dallas County Gun Removal Program,
which is designed to ensure perpetrators are in compliance with the laws relating to gun possession.
Through the program, if a person commits an act of domestic violence, then he or she is no longer
legally allowed to own a gun and is required, by law, to surrender it to a designated location. Since the
beginning of the program in May 2015 there have been fifteen firearms surrendered to the Sheriff's
Office and five more surrendered to pre-approved third parties. There are groups pushing to make the
law mandatory for all perpetrators of domestic violence, not only the ones considered most violent.

Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team Lethality Interim Report
The Dallas County Intimate Partner Violence Fatality Review Team (IPVFRT) recently published an
interim report in August of 2015 that reviewed 34 adjudicated intimate partner violence fatality cases
that took place in the larger Dallas area over a three-year period between 2009 and 2011. The highlights
of this preliminary report, which focused on victim characteristics and data, are briefly summarized
here to spotlight the critical insights that such lethality review teams provide. A more detailed report
regarding secondary victims and offender characteristics is expected some time in the future.

Page   25

 The IPVFRT reported that there were a total of 34 primary victims in the city of Dallas and neighboring
cities who were killed during this time period (6 males and 28 females). Primary victims were defined as
the intimate partner who was killed by the perpetrator. The perpetrator was defined as the attacker
who committed the homicide, and then committed suicide. In the same time period, there were 10
perpetrators of murder/suicides (where the victim was killed before the offender took his or her own
life). The report also defined secondary victims as those persons who were killed as a result of the initial
homicide incident (whether intentionally or as a bystander); these secondary deaths occurred in 5 of the
34 cases (4 males, 1 female).
Over the majority of age groups, African Americans had the highest number of victims with
approximately 4.25 victims per 100,000 population aged 20-24. The total number of victims who were
African American dropped off at age of 70-79, when whites had the highest rate at approximately 1.25
deaths per 100,000 population. Hispanics had lower rates of victimization across the majority of the age
groups. Overall, the racial/ethnic group most likely to become a victim was African American females,
who had almost a 2.5 times higher chance of being killed by their intimate partner than White or
Hispanic females.
Disturbingly, when looking across the 34 cases, 44.1% directly impacted a child. Thirty 0f the 34
homicides occurred at a house or apartment. The majority of victims were killed with a firearm (n= 16
or 47%), followed by sharp instruments, strangulation, and blunt force trauma (n= 8 or 23%,
respectively for all three methods), with 3 additional victims suffocated (9%) by their attacker. Sadly,
14 children were in the home when the domestic homicide took place, and out of those youngsters,
there were at least two children that witnessed the homicide of their parent directly. This fact shows
the distal impact of losing a parent and highlights the long-term trauma and loss that these children
suffer as a result of this tragedy. Across the 34 cases, 64.7% of the couples were cohabiting and 15 of
the relationships were pending separations. Five of these victims were killed immediately after
threatening to break up with the perpetrator just before the homicide, 4 victims has just ended their
relationship with the offender immediately prior to the homicide, and 6 of the relationships ended
some time prior to the homicide event. Research has consistently shown that the separation (before,
during and immediately after) is the most dangerous time for the victim because the likelihood for a
homicide to take place rises significantly. Even more, in the majority (52.9%) of homicide cases, the
perpetrator had a previous history of violent arrests.
Out of the 34 murder cases, approximately 53% ended with a conviction of the perpetrator; 3% of the
perpetrators had unknown conviction statuses; 6% of perpetrators were apprehended; 6% of cases
were considered no-bill or dismissed; and roughly 30% of perpetrators were deceased (by either murder
or their own suicide). Three of the victims did seek help and had applied for protective orders. However,
two of the orders were not valid during the time of death and one was not yet granted. Perhaps the
most surprising and sobering statistic that ran common across these domestic homicides was that none
of the victims had previously sought shelter in their community to escape their abuser. This startling
fact highlights the critical need for continuing outreach, education, and awareness in our community to
combat domestic violence and prevent future domestic homicides. These homicide events take lives
and leave permanent fractures in the family members and friends who mourn these victims.

Dallas Mayor’s Office: Dallas Men Against Abuse Awareness Campaign
The Dallas Men Against Abuse was initiated by Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings after the tragic death of
Karen Cox Smith at UT Southwestern on January 8, 2013. This campaign seeks to elevate the level of

26   Page

 public discussion and accountability of offenders in their abuse of women by calling on men across the
Metroplex to speak out against domestic battering and abuse. As male on female violence is the most
common form of domestic violence, Mayor Rawlings has reached out to the men of his community and
asked them to join him in ending this form of domestic violence by holding their friends, coworkers,
family members, and acquaintances accountable for abusive behaviors against women. In February
2013, Mayor Rawlings held the Men Against Abuse Press Conference to launch this campaign, joined by
Bishop Kevin Farrell, Brandon Carr, Jorge Calderon, and Casey Cox. The mayor announced a rally and
campaign to end domestic violence at this event.
Since then, Mayor Rawlings has spoken at the Ring the Bell campaign at the United Nations
Commission of the Status of Women and launched an the Dallas Men Against Abuse Rally, which had a
successful turnout of thousands of supporters. On September 20, 2013, the Mayor called a meeting for
the Dallas County District Attorney’s office, Dallas police, and advocates to work together to tackle
domestic violence in Dallas. He provided greater emphasis to the Domestic Violence Taskforce by
creating the executive committee and appointing Councilmember Jennifer Gates as chair. He charged
the taskforce with creating metrics and reporting on the progress of our community partners in
combating this social problem.
During the Domestic Violence Press Conference at UT Southwestern, the Mayor announced the “Be a
Man” slogan that called on men and boys to take a pledge to never hit their partner. That pledge turned
into a competition -- the DISD school with the highest number of pledges got the privilege to play
football in the Dallas Cowboys AT&T Stadium. This competition brought tens of thousands of antiabuse student pledges.
Since its inception, the mayor's awareness campaign has complemented the work of the taskforce and
its efforts to raise awareness about this critical issue. Working in partnership with the Embrey
Foundation and many support and advocacy organizations across Dallas, the mayor and Dallas
Domestic Violence Taskforce sponsored a public screening of the HBO documentary Private
Violence during Domestic Violence Awareness month in 2014, at the AT&T Performing Arts Center. The
documentary highlighted the realities, challenges, and complexities of escaping from domestic
violence and fighting these crimes in the social and legal systems of the United States. This event was
put on in addition to other activities, such as Mayor Rawlings’ Father and Son Pancake Breakfast on
October 4, 2014 and the “Paint the Town Purple” campaign encouraging local businesses and citizens
to color signs, storefronts, front porch lights, decorations, or employee attire purple to show their
commitment to end domestic violence.
Councilmember Gates and other taskforce members reached out across the city to ask for cooperation
from high-profile companies, resulting in the Dallas skyline being painted in purple at such landmarks
as the Omni Hotel, Reunion Tower, Bank of America Plaza, and the Hunt Oil Building for nights in 2014
during the Conference on Crimes Against Women (CCAW). CCAW is an annual conference with over
1,500 attendees, and represents a decade-long successful partnership between Genesis, the city of
Dallas, and DPD. The conference is internationally recognized with information, training, and
strategies on best practices for first responders, investigators, therapists, law enforcement, and
advocates regarding all forms of violence against women. In 2014, Mayor Rawlings hosted a luncheon
during CCAW for all North Texas mayors. Along with Councilmember Jennifer Gates and Dallas Police
Chief Brown, they spoke about Dallas’ integrated response to domestic violence and discussed how
other cities may be able to implement similar plans.

Page   27

 Summary and Future Considerations
The priority of reducing domestic homicides and increasing the efficacy of community responses to
domestic violence requires a concerted, open, and progressive spirit of communication and cooperation
across the social, criminal justice, and government sectors of the community. Here in Dallas, there is a
long history of accomplishments and dedication to issues such as domestic violence, as seen through
the impressive history of the Dallas Domestic Violence Taskforce and its diverse membership. This
report represents the first annual summary of key performance indicators from both the general
taskforce membership and detailed metrics and accomplishments from Executive Committee
members. Taken together, they offer a preliminary portrait of how domestic violence cases are
addressed, the volume and pathways these cases may take as they wind through the criminal justice
system, and how advocates and shelters meet the daily and annual needs of adult and child victims who
seek safe harbor from their abusers. While a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of arrest to
disposition and the subsequent care and treatment of victims is certainly called for in the long-term,
this preliminary report offers a glimpse into the successful partnerships and cooperation that has been
forged across the city and county, serving as a template for other cities. Future research will require
funding that can provide significantly more rigorous assessments of various processes and outcomes
across the various offices and organizations regarding domestic violence case handling and
dispositions. Funding and research is also needed to create programs that seek to reduce lethality and
improve victim safety, and offer safe haven and long-term treatment and resources for adult and child
victims. Such a report would provide meaningful insights into viable changes and reforms that might
successfully bridge the gap between needs and current resources, while leveraging partner resources
across the system more effectively. In closing, the overall aim of this report was to create a firm
baseline and written record of the efforts, work, and accomplishments of the partners represented
across the taskforce and an overview of the systemic response to domestic violence in the County of
Dallas.

28   Page

 Acknowledgments
The researchers wish to acknowledge the considerable time and effort of Councilmember Jennifer
Gates and her assistant, Beth Pazar, in helping gather information and facilitate the taskforce in this
first written summary report. We are grateful to all the community partners, private corporations,
government, agency, and criminal justice-related offices and organizations that have contributed data
and information to make this report and its contents substantive. Finally, we wish to thank the research
team at the Institute for Urban Policy Research at the University of Texas at Dallas for their significant
efforts and time to complete this report and support this project.

Page   29

 800 West Campbell Road, WT20
Richardson, Texas 75080-3021
(972)883-5430 voice (972)883-5431 facsimile

Visit us on the Web! http://iupr.utdallas.edu

20151007