National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts (ICPSR 27282)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to map the current landscape of criminal domestic violence courts including the state of; court efficiency, coordinated response, dedicated staff and informed decision making, victim services, offender accountability, and recidivism.

Study Design View help for Study Design

The study focused on criminal domestic violence courts, defined as courts that handle domestic violence cases on a separate calendar or assign domestic violence cases to one or more dedicated judges or judicial officers. A mixed methods design was implemented to achieve both scope and depth of understanding. The study had four steps:

Court Compendium: a comprehensive list of criminal domestic violence courts nationwide was developed. The compendium is a separate document (Center for Court Innovation 2009) that includes court names and addresses organized by state.

Site Visits: three domestic violence courts were visited in each of five states (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Washington) to develop in-depth information on 15 courts using semi-structured interviews and structured courtroom observations. Interviews were conducted primarily with judges, court administrators, prosecutors, and victim advocates, but also defense attorneys, probation officers, batterer program administrators and law enforcement officers.

Domestic violence court judges and staff were asked questions on court background information, goals and objectives, predisposition policies, programs for offenders, defendant compliance monitoring, victim safety, stakeholders and partnerships, training, and problems and successes. Interviews with prosecutors were the same with the following additional topics; prosecutorial strategies, case assessment, victim involvement in prosecution, and disposition and sentencing.

National Surveys: a survey to all potentially qualifying courts in the national compendium was administered and a survey of prosecutors linked to each court.

Phone Interviews: phone interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of court survey respondents to explore the meaning of their responses to particular questions and to obtain additional qualitative data on court goals, operations, and challenges.

Sample View help for Sample

The survey was sent to 338 potential domestic violence courts, survey responses indicated that not all of these courts met the study's minimum criteria. Accordingly, the final compendium includes information on 208 confirmed domestic violence courts (dataset 3) - courts that affirmed their status in their survey responses or that were later independently determined to have a specialized domestic violence calendar or dedicated judge. Of the 208 courts sent the survey 129 responded. The majority were in New York (63) and California (34). Other states with a higher-than-average number of domestic violence courts were Florida (14), Michigan (13) and North Carolina (11). The remaining 74 courts were distributed across 27 other states and Guam. Eighteen states had no domestic violence courts.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

All 338 potential domestic violence courts listed in the national compendium of criminal domestic violence courts nationwide that handle domestic violence cases on a separate calendar or assign domestic violence cases to one or more dedicated judges or judicial officers.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Court Sample (dataset 1): Surveys distributed to courts listed in the compendium included 242 variables including: caseload characteristics; court personnel and staffing; victim services; orders of protection; use of programs and/or services for offenders; judicial and/or probation monitoring practices; and common sanctions or responses to noncompliance.

Prosecutor Sample (dataset 2): Surveys distributed to prosecutor's offices that worked with the courts listed in the compendium included 194 variables on a variety of operational and practice issues, including: domestic violence court goals and objectives; case screening processes; victim services; dispositions and sentences; use of programs and/or services for offenders; and judicial and/or probation monitoring practices.

Full Sample (dataset 3): information for all the criminal domestic violence courts across the country including 37 variables on county level data for each jurisdiction including; region, state, city, population and income variables.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

For the court survey, 188 out of 338 responded yielding a response rate of 55.6 percent. Of the 188 completed surveys, 129 (68.6 percent) met the research team's definition of a DV court and were included in the final sample. For the prosecutor survey, 122 out of 275 responded yielding a response rate of 44.3 percent. Of the 122 completed surveys, 74 (60.6 percent) met the research team's definition of a DV court and were included in the final sample.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

none

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2014-04-16

Version History View help for Version History

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

none

Hide