New York s Integrated Domestic Violence Court Model Results from Four Recent Studies Amanda Cissner Presented at Battered Women s Justice Project Webinar April 18, 2016 The Call for Integrated Courts One Family-One Judge Model Anticipated Benefits Litigant Comprehension Informed Judicial Decision-Making Consistency Efficiency Victim Safety/Satisfaction Unified Family Courts (No DV requirement) Integrated Domestic Violence Courts 2 The New York IDV Model New York History of Problem-Solving Courts Complicated Trial Court Structure Eligible Cases Criminal DV Cases Family Court Cases (family offense, custody, visitation, abuse, neglect) Divorce Actions (Supreme Court) Subsequent Cases 3
Key IDV Components One Courtroom for all Related Cases Comprehensive Resources for Families Compliance Monitoring Advocacy for Victims Judicial Training Community Partner Involvement Honoring the Integrity of Each Case Type Outcomes 4 The Four Studies 12 Courts Across New York State Three studies look at quantitative outcomes (11 sites): Dispositions Sentences Case Processing Future Cases One study looks at qualitative litigant experiences (1 site) 5 Research Questions Do IDV Courts: Improve the Litigant Experience? (Trips to court; Family court dispositions; subsequent family court filings; litigant feedback) Promote Victim Safety? (Post-disposition monitoring; New criminal contempt charges) Increase Offender Accountability? (Post-disposition monitoring; Criminal case outcomes) Promote Court Efficiency? (Case processing time) 6
Findings: Litigant Experience Litigant Experience Outcomes Litigant Trips to Court Mutually Favorable Family Court Dispositions + + Family Cases Dismissed Outright Future Family Court Filings NS e: NS signifies a non significant finding. 7 Findings: Litigant Experience, Continued Victims felt single judge helped achieve positive outcomes (70%) Fewer criminal defendants felt single judge was a benefit (47%) Victims felt judge listened carefully and took their opinions into account Half felt their case was handled fairly in the IDV Victims more likely than defendants to feel they were treated fairly 8 Findings: Victim Safety Victim Safety Outcomes New Criminal Contempt Charges + + + Any Re Arrest NS e: NS signifies a non significant finding. Victims feel safe in the courthouse Most had an OP in effect Most believed the court would learn of an OP violation 9
Findings: Offender Accountability Offender Accountability Outcomes New Criminal Contempt Charges + + + # Post Disposition Appearances NS + not Criminal Dispositions Guilty Plea NS + NS ACD + + NS Dismissed NS NS Criminal Sentences Jail not NS Probation + not + Conditional Discharge + not NS 10 Findings: Case Processing Case Processing Outcomes Criminal Court Processing Time NS NS + Family Court Processing Time + NS + # of Pre Disposition Court Appearances + + #of Post Disposition Court Appearances e: NS signifies a non significant finding. NS + 11 Other Research on IDV Courts NYC Criminal Justice Agency (2014) Brooklyn IDV Court Higher conviction rate in IDV court (v. criminal DV court) Conviction on more severe charges in IDV court Witness participation accounts for much (but not all) of this difference Vermont IDV Dockets Impact evaluation showed decreases in case processing time and re-conviction Stakeholder feedback 12
Contact: acissner@nycourts.gov 13