The Minneapolis Experiment, for example, set the d.v. response, with an agenda of: 'systematic arrest, separation, and some form of mediation' (p.
Such gaps inevitably hold the key to understanding the symbolic status d.v. has for the police; for deeply ingrained systems for handling d.v.
My own experience saw a Detective Inspector describing an early d.v. unit as 'something of a political gimmick', but agreeing their arrests made a 'nice little earner when monthly detection figures were down'.
Sheptycki also considers the variable status the Met gives to the classification of crimes, and we learn something (perhaps not enough) of their separation of beat crimes from major crimes--and how only 68 per cent of d.v. incidents which seemed to be classifiable crimes made it into either category!
Moreover, there is no real discussion (and it is surely relevant) of the timing of the social science lobby for action on d.v. This was more or less contiguous with a major police move to respond to HOC 114/83 calling for 'Effectiveness and Efficiency' in a number of ways; and created many value-for-monty initiatives that stimulated similar expansions.
The ethnographic examples from the Met Occurrence Books clearly demonstrate the ambivalence the institutional mind still retains to d.v., and Sheptycki concludes, 'we must question the efficacy of using the criminal justice system to address the social phenomenon of wife battery'.
This continued structural marginality of the d.v. incident is perhaps why the first North London unit was disbanded within a year; for it was original in style, and the two women running it were 'high profile, innovative, working to their own wide brief, and were given the space to be creative'.