Does judicial monitoring deter domestic violence recidivism? Results of a quasi-experimental comparison in the Bronx

Violence Against Women

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 185-207

  Rempel, Michael ^a   Labriola, Melissa ^a   Davis, Robert C ^b  

^a Center for Court Innovation ^*

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Domestic violence; Judicial monitoring

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGGRESSION; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COUNSELING; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MANDATORY REPORTING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PARTNER VIOLENCE; RECURRENT DISEASE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; TIME; UNITED STATES; VICTIM;

ADULT; AGGRESSION; COUNSELING; CRIME VICTIMS; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; MANDATORY REPORTING; MIDDLE AGED; NEW YORK CITY; RECURRENCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS; SPOUSE ABUSE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 38349088679     PISSN: 10778012     EISSN: 15528448     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077801207312535     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Davis, R.C., Taylor, B.G., & Maxwell, C.M. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduce violence: A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Final report to the National Institute of Justice. New York: Victim Services (now Safe Horizon).
2. Farole, D.J., Jr., & Cissner, A. (2005). Seeing eye to eye? Participant and staff perspectives on drug treatment courts. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
3. Farole, D.J., Jr., Puffett, N., Rempel, M., & Byrne, F. (2005). Applying problem-solving principles in mainstream courts: Lessons for state courts. Justice System Journal, 26, 57-76.
4. Feder, L., & Wilson, D.B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers' behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262.
5. Gavin, C., & Puffett, N.K. (2005). Criminal domestic violence case processing: A case study of the five boroughs of New York City. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
6. Goldkamp, J.S., White, M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2002). An honest chance perspective on drug courts: Findings from drug court participant focus groups in Brooklyn, Las Vegas, Miami, Portland, San Bernadino, and Seattle. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
7. Gondolf, E. (1998). The impact of mandatory court review on batterer program compliance: An evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Violence Abuse Counseling Center (DACC). Indiana, PA: Mid-Atlantic Training Institute.
8. Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1998). Findings from the evaluation of the DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
9. Klein, A., Wilson, D., Crowe, A., & DeMichele, M. (2005). Evaluation of the Rhode Island Probation Specialized Domestic Violence Supervision Unit. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. American Probation and Parole Association and BOTEC Analysis Corporation.
10. Labriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R.C. (2005). Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: Results from a randomized trial. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
11. Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., Lee, P.A., Schepise, M.M., Hazzard, J.E.R., Merrill, J.C., et al. (2003). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 141-162.
12. Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003). What makes a domestic violence court work? Lessons from New York. Judges Journal, 2 (42). 5.
13. Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K., & Kane, K.M. (2001). Specialized felony domestic violence courts: Lessons on implementation and impact from the Kings County experience. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
14. Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Perspectives, 23, 39-44.
15. Peterson, R., & Dixon, J. (2005, November). Examining prosecutorial discretion in domestic violence cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
16. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
17. Sack, E. (2002). Creating a domestic violence court: Guidelines and best practices. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
18. San Diego Superior Court. (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence Courts. Report submitted to the State Justice Institute.
19. Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., et al. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
20. Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66, 14-27.
21. Young, D., & Belenko, S. (2002). Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 297-328.