Restorative Justice Treatment for Domestic Violence Crimes: A Qualitative Study

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231202815
• Author: Briana Barocas,Hila Avieli,Linda G. Mills
• Date: 01 December 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 12, December 2023, 1805 –1826.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231202815

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1805

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TREATMENT FOR

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CRIMES

A Qualitative Study

BRIANA BAROCAS

New York University

HILA AVIELI

Ariel University

New York University

LINDA G. MILLS

New York University

Domestic Violence Intervention Programs have become a key component in addressing domestic violence (DV) crimes.

Recent research suggests that combining standard intervention programs with other approaches can improve overall effec-

tiveness. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of individuals court-mandated to treatment who completed

either a standard intervention program or a restorative justice (RJ)-based hybrid intervention program combining a standard

treatment program with RJ elements and Circles of Peace. Multiple interviews were conducted with participants (N = 14)

who completed one of the two programs. Qualitative data analysis was performed. Four major themes emerged:

Communication and understanding, Changes in the nature of the violence, Changes in self-perception, and Program content

and atmosphere experiences. The findings suggest that the hybrid intervention program may have a positive influence on the

way participants perceive treatment effectiveness. Participants’ experiences may serve as a framework for improving

approaches to DV treatment.

Keywords: domestic violence; intimate partner violence; offender treatment; qualitative methods; restorative justice

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to those who participated in this study

allowing us to gain greater insight into domestic violence intervention programs. This study would not have been

possible without several invaluable key partnerships including with the judiciary, a community-based agency,

and universities. More specifically, we would like to thank the two justice courts (and all the judges) as well as

the local treatment provider (and all the clinicians) that partnered with us for this study. We are grateful to all

the members of the research team who worked on this project from New York University (Anne Bauer, Jessamin

Cipollina, Michaela Cotner, Danielle Emery, Milica Gajic, Charlotte Gundry, Alaina Long, Nancy Murakami,

Kelly Murphy, Nela Noll, Yangjin Park, Rei Shimizu, Sejung Yang, and Yi Yi Yeap), the University of Utah (Rob

Butters, Shea Chandler, April O’Neill, Kimberly Padilla, Kort Prince, Lani Taholo, and Erin Becker Worwood),

and also the University of Cambridge (Barak Ariel). This project was supported by Award No. 2011-WG-BX-

0002, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. Correspondence concern-

ing this article should be addressed to Briana Barocas, Center on Violence and Recovery, New York University,

20 Cooper Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003; e-mail: briana.barocas@nyu.edu.

1202815CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231202815Criminal Justice and BehaviorBarocas et al. / A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF RJ TREATMENT FOR DV CRIMES

research-article2023

1806 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common, costly, and associated with increased morbid-

ity and mortality (Miller & McCaw, 2019). Currently, in the United States, the majority

of individuals convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence (DV) crime (defined broadly

in the legal context to include family violence, and in some states, roommates), including

IPV (the focus of this study), are mandated to one of the 2,500 Domestic Violence

Intervention Programs (DVIPs). These programs, traditionally known as Batterer

Intervention Programs (BIPs), are offered across the country either as an alternative to

incarceration or as a component of probation (Boal & Mankowski, 2014). The goal of stan-

dard intervention programs is to transform IPV aggressor behaviors with a view to reducing

future IPV perpetration (Cheng et al., 2021). However, the effectiveness of these traditional

programs over the years has been questionable, with recurring inconclusive results (Cheng

et al., 2021; Eckhardt et al., 2013; Feder & Wilson, 2005), hence the emergence of alterna-

tive responses to IPV, including restorative justice (RJ) as a DVIP (Cissner, 2019).

The RJ process is a dialogue-based practice that seeks to address the social harms caused

by crime. RJ aims to “restore” those affected by crime (Braithwaite, 2006). RJ approaches

include a broad range of practices designed to meet the needs of the person harmed (victim/

survivor in non-RJ literature), the responsible person (perpetrator/offender in non-RJ litera-

ture), and communities in the wake of a crime (Ptacek & Frederick, 2008). In these pro-

cesses, repairing harm is the central goal, by offering opportunities to humanize, learn, and

put the emotions of the individuals involved (both the responsible person and the person

harmed) at the center of conflict-solving, and to also address the ways in which the crime

has affected them (Suzuki & Yuan, 2021). Emphasizing collaborative dialogue, the empow-

erment of the person harmed, and the responsible person’s accountability, RJ seeks to

decrease the role of the state and increase the involvement of families and communities in

response to a crime (Ptacek, 2009).

The current study focused on an RJ peacemaking circles model, Circles of Peace, to

address DV crimes (Mills et al., 2013). Peacemaking circles is a process that brings together

the responsible person, the person harmed, support people, a trained facilitator (circle

keeper), and members of the community to repair harm and promote healing (Pranis, 2005).

We present the findings of a qualitative analysis comparing the experiences drawn from

those mandated to treatment for a misdemeanor DV crime (in cases of IPV) who completed

either a standard DVIP program (standard intervention) or a hybrid program consisting of a

standard DVIP component with RJ elements and Circles of Peace (hybrid intervention). The

lack of comparative data in this area (Cheng et al., 2021) and the dearth of qualitative

reports of responsible persons’ experiences of the intervention program (McGinn et al.,

2020) make the analysis of these reflections essential for understanding the implementation

of RJ practices in IPV cases.

USING INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR IPV

DVIPs have become a key component in the adjudication process for perpetrators, and

a mandated program for the majority of men arrested for an IPV-related offense in the

United States (Morrison et al., 2018). Standard DVIPs generally use a psycho-educational

approach that aims to hold those mandated to treatment accountable for their crimes, draw-

ing on the Duluth model (Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2017). The Duluth model is a gender-

based intervention program developed specifically for heterosexual men who have