d publicize convictions so as to maximize the general deterrent effect.
† See Problem-Specific Guide No. 42, Witness Intimidation, for further information on measures to protect victim-witnesses.
†† Some of these courts are termed “problem-solving” courts, but the term in this context should not be confused with its meaning in problem-oriented policing. Problem-solving in the court context refers to solving the individual defendant’s personal problems that contribute to his offending rather than to addressing an aggregation of incidents. See National Center for State Courts (n.d.).
Typically in specialty courts a single judge works with a community team to develop a case plan for the defendant and uses pending criminal sanctions to compel a defendant’s compliance with treatment. The judge monitors compliance and imposes criminal sanctions if the defendant fails to keep to the case plan.
Early evaluations of domestic violence courts generally report on how these courts handle their workload, victim satisfaction, and issues of implementation. It remains unclear if these courts impact recidivism. Researchers who examined these courts in New York describe some of the more important unresolved issues:
Many domestic violence advocates are hesitant to embrace the idea that domestic violence courts are “problem-solving courts.” There are substantial differences between domestic violence courts and other problem-solving courts. Many of these differences stem from how success is measured and to whom services are offered. Drug courts can easily look to see whether defendants are successfully completing their court-mandated drug-treatment programs. But domestic violence courts are not targeted at “rehabilitating” defendants. Indeed, services are offered primarily to help victims achieve independence. The primary “service” offered to defendants is batterers programs. But in New York, batterers programs are used by domestic violence courts primarily as a monitoring tool rather than as a therapeutic device. This approach is based on the research about batterers programs, which is extremely mixed. It is unclear whether these programs have any impact at all in deterring further violence.
Batterer treatment programs may take a variety of forms. Many offer group treatment with a focus on anger management. Others include individual assessments and individual counseling, and substance abuse and/or mental health treatment.
Unfortunately, few batterer treatment programs have undergone thorough evaluation, and those that have show a mix of positive and negative results. Court-mandated treatment is more likely to result in batterers completing programs, “but there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of one batterer program over another in reducing recidivism.”
The quality of the evaluations of batterer treatment programs have improved over time but continue to encounter both methodological and programmatic challenges as illustrated by two recent studies of batterer treatment programs, one in Broward County, Florida and the other in Brooklyn, New York. In both, offender treatment was based on the Duluth treatment model, which is the most commonly used.† The Broward evaluation found that treatment attendance did not reduce battering, but that offenders who were married, employed, or homeowners were less likely to batter again (that is, these offenders had a “stake in conformity”). Also, younger men, particularly those with no stable residence, were more likely to rebatter. In Brooklyn, the evaluation showed minor improvement for some of the batterers
† The Duluth model suggests that batterers seek to control their partners (or ex-partners) and this must change for batterers’ behavior to change (Pence and Paymar, 1993). The model “helps offenders to understand how their socialized beliefs about male dominance impede intimacy; that violence is intentional and a choice designed to control their intimate partner; that the effects of abusive behavior damage the family; and that everyone has the ability to change” (Minnesota Program Developm