Domestic violence courts (DVCs) have become an increasingly popular model in the problem-solving court system. To date, there have been no efforts to summarize the extant literature regarding the impact of DVCs on recidivism. The present study is a meta-analysis of 20 DVC outcome studies reporting on 26 unique DVC samples. The results indicated that DVCs are having a positive impact (i.e., lower odds) on general recidivism (odds ratio [OR] = .81, 95% CI [0.68, 0.98], k = 18) as well as domestic violence recidivism (OR = .81, 95% CI [0.67, 0.97], k = 21), compared to domestic violence offenders processed through the traditional court system. These results, however, became nonsignificant when considering studies of sound methodological quality (as assessed by the Collaborative Outcome Data Committee guidelines). The study also conducted a preliminary investigation of treatment quality (adherence to risk, need, and responsivity [RNR] principles) in the DVC literature. The results indicated that adherence to the RNR principles was low but significantly related to greater treatment effects. Future research should aim to increase the quality of evaluation designs and the courts should look to existing offender rehabilitation literature to inform best practices with domestic violence offenders.
AndrewsD. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk-need-responsivity: Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 595–602. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00394.x
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55. doi:10.1037/a0018362
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004
5.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88–100. doi:10.1177/0306624X05282556
6.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49, 439–464. doi:10.1177/0093854811406356
7.
*AngeneL. (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County domestic violence courts. San Diego, CA: San Diego Superior Court.
8.
BabcockJ.GreenC.RobieC. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001
9.
BermanG.FeinblattJ. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23, 125–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00107
10.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11.
BourgonG.ArmstrongB. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “Real World” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 32, 3–25. doi:10.1177/0093854804270618
CullenF. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43, 1–42.
17.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313–338. doi:10.1177/0032885501081003002
18.
*DavisR.SmithB. E.RabbittC. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence cases: A field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22, 62–72. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27977050
19.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438–452. doi:10.1177/0011128799045004002
20.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21–24.
EpsteinD. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the roles of prosecutors, judges and the court system. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 11, 3–50.
23.
FederL.WilsonD. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior?Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239–262. doi:10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0
24.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. A. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment literature tells us about “what works.”Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173–184.
*GoverA. R.MacDonaldJ. M.AlpertG. P. (2004). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 109–132. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00028.x
28.
GutierrezL.BourgonG. (2012). Drug treatment courts: A quantitative review of study and treatment quality. Justice Research & Policy, 14, 47–77.
HansonR. K.BroomI.StephensonM. (2005). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 87–96. doi:10.1037/h0087220
31.
*HarrellA.SchafferM.DeStefanoC.CastroJ. (2006). Evaluation of Milwaukee’s judicial oversight demonstration(NCJ 215349). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/215349.pdf
32.
*HartleyC.FrohmannL. (2003). The cook county Target Abuser Call (TAC): An evaluation of a specialized domestic violence court(Final report for the National Institute of Justice). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/202945.pdf
33.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
34.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
35.
*HenningK.KlesgesL. M. (1999). Evaluation of the Shelby County domestic violence court: Final report. Shelby County, TN.
36.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
HorowitzE. (2003). Institutionalized feminism? The case of a domestic violence court. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
40.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaF.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206.
41.
JüniP.WitschiA.BlochR.EggerM. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1054–1060. doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054
42.
LabriolaM.BradleyS.O’SullivanC. S.RempelM.MooreS. (2009). A national portrait of domestic violence courts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229659.pdf
43.
LabriolaM.RempelM.DavisR. C. (2008). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25, 252–282. doi:10.1080/07418820802024945
*NewmarkL.RempelM.DiffilyK.KaneK. M. (2001). Specialized felony domestic violence courts: Lessons on implementation and impact from the Kings County experience. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/191861.pdf
OstromJ.KauderN. B. (1999). Examining the work of state courts, 1998: A national perspective from the court statistics project. Williamsburg, WA: National Centre for State Courts.
51.
*PetersonR. R. (2004). The impact of Manhattan’s specialized domestic violence court. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.
52.
*PittsW. J.GivensE.McNeeleyS. (2009). The need for a holistic approach to specialized domestic violence court programming: Evaluating offender rehabilitation needs and recidivism. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 60, 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2009.01029.x
RebovichD. J. (1996). Prosecution response to domestic violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (Eds.), Do arrest and restraining orders work? (pp. 176–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
*RempelM.LabriolaM.DavisC. (2008). Does judicial monitoring deter domestic violence recidivism? Results of a quasi-experimental comparison in the Bronx. Violence Against Women, 14, 185–207. doi:10.1177/1077801207312535
56.
RosenthalR. (1979). The “file drawer” problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
57.
SarteschiC. M.VaughnM. G.KimK. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 12–20. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.11.003
58.
SchulzeR. (2007). Current methods for meta-analysis: Approaches, issues, and developments. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 90–103.
59.
SheltonD. E. (2007). The current state of domestic violence courts in the United States, 2007(National Center for State Courts White Paper Series). Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan University. Retrieved fromhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1163228
60.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
61.
SimpsonK. (2008, 6). What we know and where we need to go for effective community supervision. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, NS.
62.
SmithP.GendreauP.SwartzK. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 148–169. doi:10.1080/15564880802612581
Statistics Canada. (2005). Domestic violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2005. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Industry.
65.
Statutes of Alberta. Province of Alberta Office Consolidation. (1999). Protection Against Family Violence Act. Edmonton: Alberta Queen’s Printer.
66.
Statutes of Saskatchewan. (1995). The Victims of Domestic Violence Act. Regina: The Queen’s Printer.
67.
ThomasB. H.CiliskaD.DobbinsM.MicucciS. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evidence Based Nursing, 1, 176–184. doi:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04006.x
UrselJ.TuttyL.LeMaistreJ. (Eds.). (2008). What’s law got to do with it? The law, specialized courts and domestic violence in Canada. Toronto, Canada: Cormorant Press.
71.
Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18701 (1994).
WexlerD. B.WinickB. J. (Eds.). (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
74.
*WinnickB.WienerR.CastroA.EmmertA.GeorgesL. (2010). Dealing with mentally ill domestic violence perpetrators: A therapeutic jurisprudence judicial model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 5–6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.013
75.
WolffN. (2013). Domestic violence courts: The case of Lady Justice meets the serpents of Caduceus. In WienerR. L.BrankE. M. (Eds.), Problem solving courts (pp. 83–112). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_6
76.
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 Behaviour, 34, 879–892. doi:10.1177/0093854807301552
