Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism?: Results of a Quasi-Experimental Comparison in the Bronx
Abstract
A growing number of courts mandate convicted domestic violence offenders to ongoing judicial monitoring. However, the effectiveness of monitoring has barely been examined with this population. Accordingly, matched samples were created between 387 offenders sentenced to judicial monitoring in the Bronx and 219 otherwise similar offenders whose sentences did not include monitoring. Propensity score matching techniques were used to balance the samples on arrest charges, criminal history, relationship to victim, and other case characteristics. The study found that judicial monitoring failed to reduce the re-arrest rate for any offense, for domestic violence, or for domestic violence with the same victim.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
1.
1. The final monitoring sample declined from 420 to 387 cases because 33 cases were excluded that had missing data on the years of schooling or living situation measures, both of which were needed for matching purposes. Also, the final samples had fewer CD-only (219) than monitoring (387) cases, because a one-to-one matching rule was not used. Instead, each monitoring case was matched to that CD-only case with the nearest possible propensity score. In some cases, this led the same CD-only case to be matched with multiple monitoring cases. (This happened if the same CD-only case had the nearest available score to more than one monitoring case.)
References
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1998). Findings from the evaluation of the DC Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
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.
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.
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.
Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003). What makes a domestic violence court work? Lessons from New York. Judges Journal, 2(42), 5.
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.
Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Perspectives, 23, 39-44.
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.
Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
Sack, E. (2002). Creating a domestic violence court: Guidelines and best practices. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
San Diego Superior Court. (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County Domestic Violence Courts. Report submitted to the State Justice Institute.
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.
Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness . Federal Probation, 66, 14-27.
Young, D., & Belenko, S. (2002). Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 297-328.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: February 1, 2008
Issue published: February 2008
Keywords
PubMed: 18212340
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 573
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 24 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 24
- Violent Partners or a Specific Class of Offenders? A Criminal Career Approach to Understanding Men Involved in Intimate Partner Sexual Violence
- Violence in Families
- Examining the Impact of Jail Sanctions on Recidivism for Domestic Violence Probationers
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of judicial supervision on recidivism and well-being factors of criminal offenders
- Domestic violence and social norms in Norway and Brazil: A preliminary, qualitative study of attitudes and practices of health workers and criminal justice professionals
- Restorative Justice Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Interventions
- L’abandon thérapeutique, une réalité chez des auteurs de violence conjugale
- Supervision of the domestic violence offender: an exploratory study
- A cross-national data collaboration of domestic violence specialist courts: a research note
- The influence of batterer intervention programs on male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Reports of change in beliefs and behaviors
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
