Do Domestic Violence Courts Work? A Meta-Analytic Review Examining Treatment and Study Quality

• DOI: 10.1177/1525107117725012
• Date: 01 December 2016
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

Research Article

Do Domestic Violence

Courts Work? A

Meta-Analytic Review

Examining Treatment

and Study Quality

Leticia Gutierrez

1

, Julie Blais

2

, and Guy Bourgon

1

Abstract

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]¼.81, 95% CI [0.68, 0.98], k¼18) as well as domestic

violence recidivism (OR ¼.81, 95% CI [0.67, 0.97], k¼21), 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 lit-

erature to inform best practices with domestic violence offenders.

Keywords

domestic violence, problem-solving courts, meta-analysis, recidivism

1

Public Safety Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

2

Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Leticia Gutierrez, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P8.

Email: leticia.gutierrez@canada.ca

Justice Research and Policy

2016, Vol. 17(2) 75-99

ªPublic Safety Canada 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1525107117725012

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrx

Domestic violence is a serious and prevalent problem in both the United States and

Canada (Statistics Canada, 2005; Wolff, 2013). Whereas historically, police agencies

treated crimes committed within intimate relationships as private, policy changes over

the last several decades have resulted in moving domestic violence offenses from

being handled in the home to the justice system (Tsai, 2000; Ursel, Tutty, & LeMais-

tre, 2008; Wolff, 2013). Domestic violence courts (DVCs) emerged in the 1990s in

response to pressures from both social and legal systems for a new approach to

handling the substantial increase in domestic violence cases being brought forth for

prosecution (Epstein, 1999; Moore, 2009; Wolff, 2013). This model offers an alter-

native and unique system for domestic violence offenders focused on increasing

offender accountability, victim advocacy, and expediency of the trial process

(Labriola, Bradley, O’Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2009; Wolff, 2013). There are

now more than 200 DVCs in operation in the United States, approximately 50 in

Canada, and 100 in the United Kingdom (Labriola et al., 2009; Wolff, 2013).

Although there is no unifying model for DVCs, as with other problem-solving courts

(e.g., drug courts), in addition to focusing on accountability and victim services, the

ultimate goal is the reduction in future offenses.

Despite the increasing popularity of this specialized diversionary model over the

past 20 years, little empirical research has been conducted to assess the impact of

DVCs (e.g., reducing recidivism). Furthermore, there have been no efforts to sum-

marize or meta-analytically estimate the effectiveness of DVCs, as has been done with

other specialty courts (e.g., drug courts and mental health courts; Gutierrez & Bour-

gon, 2012; Sarteschi, Vaughn, & Kim, 2011, respectively). Based on knowledge

gained from previous meta-analytic reviews evaluating criminal justice treatments

and strategies, there are two factors that have been shown to explain the findings

obtained from quantitative reviews. These factors consist of (1) the methodological

quality of the individual outcome evaluations included in the meta-analysis and (2) the

quality of the treatment/programming that is being assessed. In this study, we examine

the impact of DVCs on offender outcomes and simultaneously examine the influence

of study and treatment quality in order to best answer the question: do DVCs work?

Origins of DVCs

The mid-1990s saw numerous changes to the manner in which domestic violence was

viewed and handled in the justice system, prompted by grassroots movements that

sought to highlight the social consequences of domestic violence and redefine what

had been thought of as a private issue. Since the late 1970s, feminist, victim, and

battered women’s advocates have petitioned for reshaping domestic violence legisla-

tion to more consistently deal with domestic violence as a criminal matter (Epstein,

1999; Moore, 2009; Rebovich, 1996; Turgeon, 2008). This, coupled with pressures

from within the judicial and criminal justice system itself, led to the passing of

numerous domestic violence acts which paved the way for major changes to manda-

tory arrest policies, specialized prosecution units, and greater funding for victim

services (e.g., Protection Against Family Violence Act, 1999; Violence Against

76 Justice Research and Policy 17(2)