There has been a growth of domestic violence courts aimed at increasing offender accountability and victim safety. Although research has examined the effectiveness of these courts compared to typical court processing on recidivism, little is known about the mechanism of judicial accountability. Specifically, judicial review hearings, in which judges have discretion on whether and how to sanction for noncompliance, are common in these courts. This study examines whether incarceration sanctions for noncompliance affect recidivism among a sample of 347 probation review hearings in a Midwestern domestic violence court. Using logistic regression and survival analysis, we find that jail sanctions do not impact likelihood of recidivating but do result in significantly shorter periods of time until recidivating. The findings also signify the importance of addressing substance abuse issues in the prevention of recidivism. Further implications of the findings are discussed.
BennettL. W.StoopsC.CallC.FlettH. (2007). Program completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(1), 42–54.
2.
BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Sage.
3.
CafferkyB. M.MendezM.AndersonJ. R.StithS. M. (2018). Substance use and I intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110.
4.
CissnerA. B.LabriolaM.RempelM. (2015). Domestic violence courts: A multisite test of whether and how they change offender outcomes. Violence Against Women, 21(9), 1102–1122.
5.
CissnerA. B.HauserR. T. (2021). Seeking safety and accountability through domestic violence courts. In AhlinE. M.DoudsA. S. (Eds.), Taking problem-solving courts to scale: Diverse applications of the specialty court model, pp. 215–238. Lantham, NY: Lexington Books.
6.
CohenJ. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
7.
CollinsA. M.BouffardL. A.WilkesN. (2021). Predicting recidivism among defendants in an expedited domestic violence court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP6890–NP6903.
8.
DeckerM. R.HollidayC. N.HameeduddinZ.ShahR.MillerJ.DantzlerJ.GoodmarkL. (2022). Defining justice: Restorative and retributive justice goals among intimate partner violence survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), NP2844–NP2867.
9.
FowlerD. R.CantosA. L.MillerS. A. (2016). Exposure to violence, typology, and recidivism in a probation sample of domestic violence perpetrators. Child Abuse & Neglect, 59, 66–77.
10.
FreiburgerT. L.RomainD. (2018). An examination of the impacts of gender, race, and ethnicity on the judicial processing of offenders in family violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 64(13), 1663–1697.
11.
GolestaniA.OwensE.RaissianK. (2021). Specialization in criminal courts: Decision making, recidivism, and re-victimization in domestic violence courts in Tennessee. Recidivism, and Re-victimization in Domestic Violence Courts in Tennessee (September14, 2021).
12.
GoverA. R.MacDonaldJ. M.AlpertG. P. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), 109–132.
13.
GrossM.CramerE. P.ForteJ.GordonJ. A.KunkelT.MoriartyL. J. (2000). The impact of sentencing options on recidivism among domestic violence offenders: A case study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(2), 301–312.
14.
HarrellA.SchafferM.DeStefanoC.CastroJ. (2006). Evaluation of Milwaukee’s judicial oversight demonstration. Urban Institute.
15.
HealeyK.SmithC.O'SullivanC. S. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approaches and criminal justice strategies. National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices.
16.
HiltonN. Z.HamE.GreenM. M. (2019). Adverse childhood experiences and criminal propensity among intimate partner violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(19), 4137–4161.
17.
HirschelD.HutchisonI. W.ShawM. (2010). The interrelationship between substance abuse and the likelihood of arrest, conviction, and re-offending in cases of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 81.
18.
HumphreysC.ReganL.RiverD.ThiaraR. K. (2005). Domestic violence and substance use: Tackling complexity. British Journal of Social Work, 35(8), 1303–1320.
19.
HutchisonI. W. (2003). Substance use and abused women’s utilization of the police. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 93–106.
20.
JeffriesS.BondC. E. (2013). Does a therapeutic court context matter?: The likelihood of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders sentenced in problem-solving courts. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41(1), 100–114.
21.
KindnessA.KimH.AlderS.EdwardsA.ParekhA.OlsonL. M. (2009). Court compliance as a predictor of postadjudication recidivism for domestic violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(7), 1222–1238.
22.
KingsnorthR. F.MacIntoshR. C. (2007). Intimate partner violence: The role of suspect gender in prosecutorial decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 24(3), 460–495.
23.
KingsnorthR. F.MacIntoshR. C.BerdahlT.BladesC.RossiS. (2001). Domestic violence: The role of interracial/ethnic dyads in criminal court processing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17(2), 123–141.
24.
LabriolaM.RempelM.DavisR. C. (2005). Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: Results from a randomized trial at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court. Center for Court Innovation.
25.
LabriolaM.RempelM.DavisR. C. (2008). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 252–282.
26.
LauchK. M.HartK. J.BreslerS. (2017). Predictors of treatment completion and recidivism among intimate partner violence offenders. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(5), 543–557.
27.
LurigioA. J. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness: Studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(4), 495–528.
28.
MillerS. L.IovanniL. (2013). Using restorative justice for gendered violence: Success with a postconviction model. Feminist Criminology, 8(4), 247–268.
29.
NormanE. M.WilsonL.StarkeyN. J.PolaschekD. L. (2021). How probation officers understand and work with people on community supervision sentences to enhance compliance. Probation Journal, 69(4), 472–492.
30.
PetersonR. R. (2004). The impact of Manhattan’s specialized domestic violence court. New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
31.
PetrucciC. J. (2010). A descriptive study of a California domestic violence court: Program completion and recidivism. Victims and Offenders, 5(2), 130–160.
32.
PlantM.PlantM.ThorntonC. (2002). People and places: some factors in the alcohol-violence link. Journal of Substance Use, 7(4), 207–213.
33.
PrendergastM. L.PodusD.ChangE.UradaD. (2002). The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: A meta-analysis of comparison group studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 67(1), 53–72.
34.
PriesterM. A.KulkarniS.MennickeA.BellB. A. (2019). Factors associated with batterer intervention program attrition. Violence and Victims, 34(2), 296–311.
35.
RappingJ. A. (2013). Implicitly unjust: How defenders can affect systemic racist assumptions. New York University Law Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, 16, 999–1048.
36.
RempelM.LabriolaM.DavisR. C. (2008). Does judicial monitoring deter domestic violence recidivism? Results of a quasi-experimental comparison in the Bronx. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 185–207.
37.
Romain DagenhardtD. M. (2021). “You Know Baseball? 3 Strikes”: Understanding racial disparity with mixed methods for probation review hearings. Social Sciences, 10(6), 235.
38.
ShannonL. M.Jackson JonesA.NewellJ.NealC. (2018). Examining the impact of prior criminal justice history on 2-year recidivism rates: A comparison of drug court participants and program referrals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 291–312.
39.
ShannonL. M.JonesA. J.NashS.NewellJ.PayneC. M. (2016). Examining racial disparities in program completion and post-program recidivism rates: Comparing Caucasian and non-Caucasian treatment court participants. Journal for Advancing Justice, 1, 63–88.
40.
SheeranA. M.HeidemanA. J. (2021). The effects of race and ethnicity on admission, graduation, and recidivism in the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court. Social Sciences, 10(7), 261.
41.
ShermanL. W.BerkR. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
42.
StrongS. M.RantalaR. R.KyckelhahnT. (2016). Census of problem-solving courts, 2012. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
43.
TaxmanF. S. (2002). Supervision-exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Fed. Probation, 66, 14–27.
VenturaL. A.DavisG. (2005). Domestic violence: Court case conviction and recidivism. Violence Against Women, 11(2), 255–277.
46.
VisherC. A.HarrellA.NewmarkL.YahnerJ. (2008). Reducing intimate partner violence: an evaluation of a comprehensive justice system-community collaboration. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4), 495–523.
47.
WilsonA. B.DraineJ.HadleyT.MetrauxS.EvansA. (2011). Examining the impact of mental illness and substance use on recidivism in a county jail. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(4), 264–268.
48.
WodahlE. J.GarlandB.CulhaneS. E.McCartyW. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(4), 386–405.
49.
WorrallJ. L. (2008). Prosecutors in problem solving courts. In WorrallJ.Nugent-BorakoveM. E. (Eds.), The changing role of the American prosecutor (pp. 231–244). State University of New York Press.
50.
WormithJ. S.AlthouseR.SimpsonM.ReitzelL. R.FaganT. J.MorganR. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879–892.
51.
YamaguchiK. (1991). Event history analysis. Sage.
52.
ZgobaK. M.ReevesR.TamburelloA.DebilioL. (2020). Criminal recidivism in inmates with mental illness and substance use disorders. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 48(2), 209–215.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
