Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Nov 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Public Econ. 2009 Apr;93(3-4):10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.011. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.011

Table 7.

Impact of No-Drop Policies on Intimate Partner Homicide of Males Controlling for other Domestic Violence Policies, 49 Cities

All Old Young
No-Drop policy −0.245 [0.133] −0.455 [0.197] −0.173 [0.109]
Adult non-intimate homicides per 10000 0.103 [0.119] 0.12 [0.131] 0.112 [0.150]
Share population black −0.006 [0.049] −0.015 [0.065] −0.022 [0.072]
Average wage 0.013 [0.062] 0.057 [0.081] −0.013 [0.074]
Employment to population ratio 0.289 [0.669] 1.256 [1.030] −0.359 [1.024]
AFDCbenefits 0.001 [0.001] 0.001 [0.001] 0.001 [0.001]
DV hotlines per 100,000 women −0.65 [0.230] −0.542 [0.356] −0.75 [0.312]
DV shelter beds per 100,000 women 0.001 [0.007] −0.004 [0.009] 0 [0.009]
Police pro-arrest policy for PO violation −0.355 [0.153] −0.473 [0.156] −0.384 [0.248]
Mandatory arrest for domestic violence 0.126 [0.159] 0.168 [0.162] 0.122 [0.241]
Police domestic violence unit −0.14 [0.145] −0.493 [0.214] 0.101 [0.176]
Observations 1027 1027 1027
Robust standard errors in brackets
All regressions include city and year fixed effects and city-specific linear time trends
Mean of dependent variable 6.71 3.46 3.25

Size of effect −22% −37% −16%