Young Male DV Cases 10

42 assessed the effect of this variable without any other predictors in the model, and then assessed its effect after including all the predictors of failure to appear.

Before predictors were added to the model, the odds ratio for young male DV offenders was 1.41, and was statistically significant. Adding the predictors to the model decreased the odds ratio only slightly, and it remained statistically significant. These findings indicate that the model accounted for very little of the difference in FTA rates between young male DV offenders and young male Non-DV offenders. The only variable that appeared to have an influence (data not shown) was whether the defendant had any prior bench warrants. Young male DV offenders were more likely than young male Non-DV offenders to have a prior bench warrant, and those with a prior bench warrant were more likely to fail to appear.

C. Re-arrest for a New DV Offense Young male DV offenders were much more likely than young male Non-DV offenders to be re-arrested for a new DV offense during the pretrial period. Their pretrial re-arrest rate was 13% higher (see Table 4-1). This finding is generally consistent with our previous research comparing all DV and Non-DV offenders (including males and females of all ages; Peterson 2006). However, the difference was not quite as large in our previous research (about 8%; see Peterson 2006, Fig. 10B, p.

28), so the larger difference among young male offenders may indicate that the risk of re-arrest for a new DV offense is affected by both age and gender.

Based on previous research (Peterson 2006), we developed a logistic regression model to predict the likelihood of pretrial re-arrest for a new DV offense for young male offenders, both DV and Non-DV. The model used the defendant-based Third Quarter 2005 dataset, including only young male offenders whose cases were docketed, and who were released at some time between arraignment and disposition.

We began by including two control variables in both models (i.e., both the “before” and “after” models). One was a control variable that measured time at risk, because the risk of failing to appear increases as the length of pretrial release increases. The other was a control variable to measure selection bias related to the likelihood of release. We then included a variable indicating whether the offender was a young male DV offender or a young male Non-DV offender. We first assessed the effect of this variable without any other predictors in the model, and then assessed its effect after including all the predictors of pretrial re-arrest for a new DV offense.

Before predictors were added to the model, the odds ratio for young male DV offenders was 17.8 and was statistically significant (see Table 4-5). Adding the predictors to the model decreased the odds ratio only slightly, to 14.0, and it remained statistically significant. The only variable that appeared to have any influence in reducing the odds ratio was whether the defendant had any history of DV arrests in the two years prior to the arrest in the third quarter of 2005 (data not shown). Young male DV offenders were much more likely to have a prior DV arrest, and those with a prior