The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Specialization of Domestic Violence Case

Management in the Courts: A National Survey

Author(s): Susan Keilitz

Document No.: 186192

Date Received: February 5, 2001

Award Number: 98-WT-VX-0002

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Specialization of Domestic Violence 

Case Management in the Courts: 

B A National Survey 

D 

B 

B 

Susan Keilitz with Rosalie Guerrero 

Ann M. Jones 

Dawn Marie Rubio 

Project Staff 

Susan Keilib Project Director 

Hillery Efkeman 

Venessa Garcia 

Rosalie Guerrero 

Valerie Hansford 

Ann M. Jones 

Dawn Marie Rubio 

Sharon Denaro, Cz-5- -TU.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Copyright 2000 

National Center for State Courts 

ISBN 0-89656-207-7 

This document was supported by Grant 98-WT-VX-0002 from the National Institute of 

Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the Department of Justice. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Acknowledgments 

B 

The members of the project staff thank the many individuals whose time and thoughts 

contributed to the completion of this study and the production of this report. We are 

grateful to the numerous judges and court staffwho provided the extensive information 

we sought in the mail and telephone surveys. This support from the court community 

was critical to the learning process and to the future development of effective court 

practice in domestic violence and related cases. 

B 

We also appreciate very much the thoughtful and comprehensive responses from 

the participants in the Delphi study. It was evident that these individuals committed 

considerable time to sharing their knowledge and experience for the advancement of fair, 

safe, and effective policy and practice in domestic violence cases. 

To the individuals who provided helpful insights in their development and review 

of drafi surveys, participation in the Delphi study, and review of the drafi report we 

convey great appreciation and thanks: Alana Bowman, Sharon Denaro, Barbara Hart, 

Maureen Kiehm, Lauren Lazarus, Lisa Newmark, Paul Roddy, and Emily Sack. 

B 

Special thanks go to National Center for State Courts staff who did not serve on the 

project st& but who contributed time, ideas, and assistance to improve the quality of 

this report: Lynn Levey, Pam Petrakis, and Martha Steketee. We also are grateful to 

Judith Ann Sullivan and her efforts to design this report and bring it to publication. 

I 

Finally, we thank the National Institute of Justice for its support of this study and 

Bernie Auchter for his understanding, patience, and assistance in seeing this project 

through trying periods and to a successful conclusion. 

B 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
D 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1 

Concerns Related to Specializing Domestic Violence Case Management 3 

Potential Benefits of Specializing Domestic Violence Case Management ........... 5 

Survey of Specialized Court Processes for Domestic Violence Cases .................. 8 

D .......... 

Chapter 2 Goals. Processes. and Components ................................................... 11 

Goals of Courts Implementing Specialized Processes ....................................... 12 

Specialized Processes and Structural Components ........................................... 13 

D 

Chapter 3 Practitioners’ Views .......................................................................... 15 

Chapter 4 Practitioners’ Views vs . Court Practice .............................................. 19 

Extent of Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 20 

Specialized Calendars ...................................................................................... 20 

Intake Management and Services for Domestic Violence Cases ....................... 21 

Case Screening and Coordination ................................................................... 23 

Judicial Assignment and Training .................................................................... 23 

Batterer Compliance Monitoring .................................................................... 25 

Services Provision and Referral ........................................................................ 27 

B 

B 

Chapter 5 Implications of the Research ............................................................. 29 

References ............................................................................................................. 33 

Appendices 

Case Management Features of 103 Courts ...................................................... 39 

Survey: Domestic Violence Courts: Jurisdiction. Organization. 

Performance Goals. and Measures ................................................................ 77 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
The modern movement to stop domestic violence in the United States has evolved 

over the past thirty years from the pioneering efforts of a committed group of 

survivors of domestic abuse and their advocates who organized to find safe spaces 

and opportunities for women and their children (Schechter, 1982). In the same 

time period, the role of government has changed from being an indifferent bystander to active partnership with those who seek to eliminate this destroyer of 

homes, health, and hopes for the next generation (Epstein, 1999; Tsai, 2000). 

Since the early 1970s, statutory changes and reforms in law enforcement and 

prosecution policy and practice have brought about a systemic shift in many 

communities. In these jurisdictions, domestic violence is a key target of institutional attention and resources (Epstein, 1999; Little, Malefyt, Walker, Tucker, & 

Buel, 1998). Community-based advocates and service providers now have powerful alliances with their former foes. 

The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)’ in 1994 heightened public awareness of domestic violence and its detrimental effects on families, business, and sociery. VAWA also led to the infusion of large sums of money 

into the nation’s justice systems and communities to improve access to justice 

and services for domestic violence victims and to increase batterer and ?stern accountabiliry. Along with the funding has come affirmative advocacy for coordinated 

Violence \\omen Act of 1994. Pub. L. So. 103-322, 108 Srar. 1902. 

Introduction 1 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
community initiatives founded on and implemented through public-private partnerships (Hart, 1995; Ptacek, 1999; Steinman, 1991; Syers & Edleson, 1992). 

As a consequence of legal challenges to arrest policies and practices, legislative action, and public pressure, law enforcement became the first justice system 

component to institute major reforms in its response to domestic violenke (Buzawa 

& Buzawa, 1996; Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Epstein, 1999a; Ptacek, 1999). 

Prosecution and probation followed law enforcement into the movement (Cahn, 

1992; Rebovich, 1996; Sewell, 1989). Courts are the newcomers in most jurisdictions to institutional partnerships formed to improve the system's impact on 

domestic violence (Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; Epstein, 1999a). 

Several factors are possible contributors to the delay in court system responses 

to the domestic violence movement. Specialization for other cases demanding 

court attention and resources is one probable factor. For the past several years, 

courts have been seeking and implementing innovations to address the impact 

on courts of drug crime caused by strong legislative and criminal justice system 

efforts to arrest, prosecute and punish offenders. Specialized courts for adjudicating drug-related offenses and monitoring defendants have proliferated over 

the past decade and now are a widely used case management tool (Hora, Schma, 

& Rosenthal, 1999; National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997). 

A more traditional area of specialization for courts has been in juvenile and 

family cases. Juvenile courts have existed in various forms for a century. During 

the past three decades, many jurisdictions have instituted a unified family court 

or adopted a one-&ily/one-judge approach to more effectively manage the increasingly complex and overlapping juvenile and family caseloads (Babb, 1998; DunfordJackson, Frederick, Hart, & Hofford, 1998; Flango, Flango, & Rubin, 1999). 

Another factor impeding COUK participation in the domestic violence movement has been the court's tradition of responding to issues brought to it as a 

neutral arbiter of others' disputes. The position of neutrality is fundamental to 

the character and purpose of courts. The traditional judicial view has been that 

this position could be compromised by joint endeavors with one part of the community or one side of an issue (Rotunan, Efkeman, & Casey, 1998). 

Reluctance to become involved in the direct provision of services or to supervise service provision also has kept judges and courts wary of the partnerships 

called for to effectively address domestic violence. In recent years, the therapeu1:; :stice movement (Fritzler & Simon, 2000; Simon, 1995; Wexler & Winick. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
1 996). the development of drug courts, and the promotion of community-focussd courts (Rottman & Casey, 1999) have made significant strides to overcome these barriers. In increasing numbers of jurisdictions, judges are involved 

in the supervision of offenders’ compliance with court-ordered services, and an 

array of services is more commonly available now in the courthouse (Casey, 1998; 

Loeliger, 2000). A strong indication of this shift in sentiment is the creation of the 

Task Force on Therapeutic Justice of the Conference of Chief Justices and the adoption by this body of a resolution broadly supporting the integration of the principles and practices of “problem-solving courts into the administration of justice.* 

With a few exceptions, courts began focusing attention on domestic violence cases in the early 1990s (for early recommendations made regarding improving court practices in family violence cases see Herrell& Hofford, 1990). In 

courthouses across the country judges, court managers and court staff have been 

taking on the challenges of holding the system accountable for ensuring victim 

safety, bringing appropriate sanctions to bear on perpetrators for their abusive 

behavior, and administering justice fairly in complex and interrelated domestic 

violence cases. 

Domestic violence caseloads also have been growing. Ten year trend data indicate that &om 1989 to 1998, domestic violence filings in state courts increased 

178 percent (Ostrom & Kauder, 1999).3 One factor contributing to the rise in 

domestic violence caseloads is the availability since 1994 of civil protection orders in all of the states and the District of Columbia. Another reason for the 

higher numbers is the increased ability of court data systems to identify domestic 

violence cases in their domestic relations and criminal caseloads. For example, 

40 states were able to report domestic violence data for the years 1996-1998. 

Concerns Related to Specializing Domestic Violence Case Management 

We can estimate that over 300 courts now have some specialized structures, processes, and practices to address the distinct nature of domestic violence cases and 

the need for special attention to them. These specialized approaches have collec- 

’ Resolution in Support of Problem Soh in: Courts. adopted b! the Task Foris on Therapeutic Justice ofrhe 

Conferen;: ofChieflurricei. in Rapd CIT. South Dkotd on ..iugust 3. 2000. 

The 10 year rrci i\ bdied on complcte data from 10 itarss and partial data from 18 states. 

Introduction 3 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
tively come to be called domestic violence courts. The great variation in what 

these processes and practices are and what they seek to achieve indicates, however, that domestic violence courts are not a commonly understood court classification, such as we use for family courts, juvenile courts, and drug courts. 

We also still lack systematic empirical evidence of the benefits of using this 

constellation of processes, practices, and services (Buzawa, Hotaling & Klein, 1998). 

While specialization of domestic violence case management holds great potential to address domestic violence effectively, practitioners and advocates have 

expressed fears that it may sacrificevictim sdety, access to justice, fairness, or batterer 

accountability for the sake of innovation (Epstein, 1999a). Specialized judges can 

lose their neutrality, or the appearance of neutrality, by becoming more educated to 

the effects of domestic violence and collaborating with the advocacy community. 

They also can experience judicial burnout from the constant flow of difficult and 

emotionally charged cases. To many judges, assignment to a specialized domestic 

violence docket is viewed as high-risk, low-benefit, and consequently, undesirable. 

Specialized calendars and judges commonly are complemented by specialized 

prosecution units. The pursuit of efficiency can lead to assembly line justice in which 

one size is made to fit all. Batterers can escape appropriate sanctions through plea 

bargains or diversion to ineffective and unproven batterer intervention programs 

(Hanna, 1998). The survivor can be coerced to participate in the defendant's 

prosecution through threats ofsanctions against her (Hanna, 1996). Prosecutors can 

ignore or act in opposition to the survivor's concerns about sahy or mtus in her 

community (Crenshaw, 1991; Epstein, 1333b; Richie, 1996). 

Perhaps the most significant potential detriment to victims posed by specialized or integrated domestic violence case management is the information sharing function designed to promote more consistent and complete relief for victims. Domestic violence cases can be entangled with child abuse and neglect 

issues, often because the batterer also is abusing children in the home. In systems 

that screen cases and share information, mothers who seek relief from the court 

run the risk of becoming the target of dependency proceedings and losing custody of their children (Epstein, 1999a; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Levey, Steketee, & 

Keilitz. 2000; Miccio, 1999; Schechter & Edleson, 1999; Spears, 1999; Steketee, 

:.ne?. (r: Keilitz. 2000). Fear of losing her children can be a major deterrent to a 

..-.... a..,ssins the system to obtain relief from the violence perpetrated by the 

.--:-:-:-< G:!!z. 

. .. --.- . - __-. 

L 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
rn Potential Benefits of Specializing Domestlc Violence Case Management 

Despite these concerns, courts continue to institute specialized processes or structures for domestic violence cases because they have significant potential benefits for 

victims, their families, batterers, the community, and the justice system. The major 

benefits of domestic violence courts cited by judges, other justice system practitioners and advocates, and researchers include (Fritzler & Simon, 2000; Karan, 

Keilia, & Denaro, 1999; Tsai, 2000): 

B 

enhanced coordination of cases and consistent orders in different cases 

more comprehensive relief for survivors at an earlier stage of the judiadvocacy services that encourage survivors to establish abuse free lives 

greater understanding by judges of the dynamics and effects of domesmore consistent procedures, treatment of litigants, rulings and orders 

increased batterer accountability 

improved batterer compliance with orders 

greater confidence in the community that the justice system is respondgreater system accountability 

B involving the same parties 

cial process 

tic violence on victims and their children D 

D 

ing effectively to domestic violence 

The components and resources that typically are associated with achieving 

these benefits are described briefly below. Not all so-called domestic violence 

courts have all or even most of these components, and there is great variation in 

the extent to which courts are implementing these processes, structures, and 

practices. Moreover, we have not systematically tested whether these benefits for 

survivors, their families, and the community are being achieved. 

Case coordination mechanisms are necessary to identifj: link, and track 

cases that involve the same parties or other members of their families. Domestic 

violence can be an issue in a variety of cases that span different jurisdictions 

within the court system, including civil protection orders. misdemeanor and 

felony prosecutions, divorce, child custody and support. and dependenq- and 

juvenile delinquency. Data relating to case histories and disposition could reidc 

in severd different court data systems and numerous other data systems maintained by law enforcement, prosecution, child protective senices. and other qnD 

D 

b 

B Introduction 5 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
cies involved in the case. Information sharing among the various agencies, courts, 

judges, victim advocates, and prosecutors handling these cases can prevent judges 

from issuing conflicting orders that can put the victim and her children in danger or confuse the parties about their obligations or restrictions on their actions. 

Some of the mechanisms used to coordinate and track cases are specialized intake units, integrated case information systems, or staff assigned to search court 

files for related cases and to coordinate the scheduling of court hearings for related cases.4 

Specialized intake units orient victims to court procedures and assist them 

in understanding their potential role in the civil and criminal process, promote 

survivors’ access to services and remedies they might otherwise not know about 

or pursue, and refer them to court-related or community-based assistance programs. Courts that integrate intake for civil, family, and criminal cases can offer 

one-stop shopping for these services to victims involved in more than one type 

of case. Intervention early in the case can help level the field for survivors, many 

of whom are economically disadvantaged and held hostage by their abusers’ 

purse strings (Epstein, 1999; Kantor & Jasinski, 1998; Mahoney, 1994). For 

survivors with children, the establishment and enforcement of child support 

orders, preferably through the federal Title IV-D agency, can be crucial to the 

survivor’s ability to successfully leave an abusive partner (Klein & Orlo& 1995). 

Survivors who have these support mechanisms are more likely to trust the system and to risk the dangers that often ensue from participating in the prosecution process or following through to obtain a final civil protection order (Sullivan, 

1992). Specialized intake units also can facilitate the coordination of case management by linking the present cases to any related case currently pending or 

subsequently filed. 

Despite resent improvemenu in data reporting the majority of state courts still lack a consistent method for 

identifying and flagging cases where domestic violence is present in criiinal and civil cascloads. With funds from 

the State Justice Institute (SJE96-18E-B-224), the National Center for State Cow developed a Family Violence 

Data Reporting Prototype for state courts to use in identifying, dassifyng, counting, and reporting famiiy violence cases. The protocypc propoxs a minimum set of four categories of famiiy violence cases: felony domestic 

violence, misdemeanor domestic violence, civil proteaion orders, and civil claims; subcategories for each of the 

four main categories; several disposition types; and three sentencing categories (probation, probation with incaricmtion. and incarceration). Cow also lack data systems that can track the various case types that may be dated 

:a L? indhidd domestic violence case. For example, a 1997 examination of the prevalence ofdomestic violence 

-t +.d *Ad .trstody and visitation cases in three courts rded that over 20% ofrhese cases showed substan- 

=a r.-er~- x-i-d- dens dm was not nnemarically taken into account by the court (Keilia, et d., 1337). 

L 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Specialized calendars for various domestic violence matters, including ex 

parte protection order petitions, hearings on final protection orders, and proceedings in criminal cases, have several benefits. As a basic matter, a central location for hearing domestic violence cases eases access to the judicial process and 

reduces confusion about where proceedings take place. Specialized calendars promote the use of uniform procedures by judges and court st&, which is an important element of procedural justice. Specialized calendars also facilitate case management for prosecutors and defense counsel. Counsel can handle higher caseloads 

and accommodate to the COUK’S scheduling more easily if all the cases are heard 

in one or more specialized courtrooms. Proceedings are more efficient, so litigants and counsel can spend less time in court. 

The designation of specialized judges to hear domestic violence cases exclusively or as their primary assignment is perhaps the most significant characteristic of a domestic violence court. Specialized judges have an opportunity to develop expertise in domestic violence issues, including a well-developed understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence, knowledge of legal remedies for 

victims, and familiarity with services available through government sources and 

in the community (Levey, Steketee, & Keilitz, 2000). They also can improve 

their skills in adjudicating cases where one or both parties do not have counsel. 

This set of competencies promotes better decision-making and more consistent 

and fair processes for victims and batterers (Steketee, key, & Keilitz, 2000). 

Victims who have full access to the judicial process are more likely to avail themselves of the protections of the process. Batterers who are accorded all the protections of due process and given adequate information about their options, including services, are more likely to perceive the process to be fair and therefore more 

likely to comply with court orders (Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 

1997; Tyler, 1989). Specialized judges also are better able to monitor the behavior of abusers and their compliance with court orders, including the terms of 

protection orders and orders to batterer invention programs. Greater judicial 

oversight of perpetrator behavior and imposition of significant sanctions for violations of court orders should be the hallmark of a domestic violence court 

(Stekeree, Levey, & Keilitz, 2000). 

Consistent and replar mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing batterer 

compliance with court orders are fundamental to effective justice system intervention in domestic violence cases (Healey, Smith, & O’Sullivan, 1998). These 

Introduction 7 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
mechanisms ideally should include judicial review calendars held on specified 

days. Calendars set in this manner facilitate the ability of batterer intervention 

providers to file or present reports on a routine basis and for prosecutors to be 

present to file charges for violations of orders. Regularly scheduled calendars 

combined with specialized assignment of judges promote the highest level of 

consistency in monitoring and enforcement and thus are most conducive to effective judicial oversight of batterer behavi0r.j 

Survey of Specialized Court Processes for Domestic Violence Cases 

This report is designed to provide basic information about the scope and variety 

of specialized processes in place in courts across the country and to relate current 

practice to the views of court practitioners and domestic violence professionals 

about the structural components and resources needed to effectively manage and 

adjudicate domestic violence cases. The report is descriptive only and thus does 

not attempt to evaluate the quality or effectiveness of the operation, organization, or services reported by courts as their current practice. 

The information in the report derives from three sources: (1) responses of 

103 courts to a written questionnaire;b (2) telephone interviews with representatives of 82 of these courts; and a modified Delphi study with a panel of 27 

professionals, including judges and court managers in courts using specialized 

processes for managing and adjudicating domestic violence cases as well as other 

noted domestic violence experts and practitioners. The appendix presents the 

names and addresses of the 103 courts that provided information for the report 

and identifies key features of these courts. 

The 103 courts represented in the survey were identified by state court administrators and trial court managers, directors of state coalitions against domestic violence, reports from knowledgeable individuals in the domestic violence 

Another key element needed for effective domestic violence case management is coordination of the COUK’S 

operations with the initiatives and resources of other agencies and the community. The scope of domestic 

violence cases extends beyond the courtroom as the court interacts with other components of the justice 

?stem. social service system, and communiry service providers that offer an array of programs and services 

addressing the complex problems encountered by domestic violence victims, perpetrators, and their families. L 

. ... -*A -. ... ten sun? was sent to 160 courts. After eliminating duplicate responses, the response rate was 64 .-. .x-.:-r .I. : : :.3 . The questionnaire is reproduced in the appendices. 

i 3 :--e:-= L’Dlence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
field, and reviews of the literature. Although these courts are not necessarily 

representative of all courts with specialized domestic violence case management 

processes or structures, they cover the range of type of courts in which civil and 

criminal domestic violence cases are adjudicated (72 general jurisdiction courts, 

28 limited jurisdiction courts, and 3 family courts). The findings from the survey are 

not intended to be generalized to all state courts; rather, they provide a snap shot 

of what structures, processes and services many courts had in place in 1999. 

This snap shot indicates that court specialization for domestic violence 

caseloads is in its initial stages of development. There are many variations in 

structure and practice, and fa7v patterns emerged in our analysis. Furthermore, 

although the concept of specializing court structures and operations for domestic violence courts is gaining momentum, the court community has yet to develop and test models based on a shared vision about the goals of domestic violence courts. For example, the most common reasons courts cite for implementing specialized processes for domestic violence cases are improved assistance to 

victims, enhanced victim safety, and increased batterer accountability. In the 

majority of courts, however, these goals are not supported by the key services and 

practices needed for survivor safety and batterer accountability. Nevertheless, 

knowledge of the variation and prevalence of different structures and practices 

can inform judgments about future program implementation and provides a 

foundation for future comparative evaluation. 

B 

B 

b 

Introduction 9 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
D 

In January 1999, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) sought to obtain 

a picture of the development of specialized court processes and services for domestic violence cases across the United States. Through a written survey distributed to 160 courts identified as having some type of specialized process, structure, or service,' the NCSC obtained a snapshot view of 103 of these courts. The 

snapshot shows a widely varying terrain of jurisdiction, organization, and resources applied to domestic violence cases. The 103 courts represented in the 

snapshot are located in 22 states: 

B 

B 0 

0 

0 

b- o 

0 

Arizona (2 courts) 

California (12 courts) 

Colorado (1 court) 

Connecticut (1 court) 

Delaware (1 court) 

Florida (9 courts) 

Iowa (5 courts) 

Illinois (9 courts) 

Kansas (3 courts) Pennsylvania (3 courts) 

Michigan (2 courts) Rhode Island (1 court) 

Minnesota (1 court) Texas (1 court) 

North Carolina (10 courts) Utah (1 court) 

New Mexico (1 2 courts) Washington (20 courts) 

Nevada (6 courts) Wisconsin (1 court) 

New York (1 court) 

Oklahoma (I court) 

'These 160 COUN were identified in an earlier sun.? of state direcrors of coalitions against violence. state court 

administrators, and court managers on a NCSC listserv (CoudCourt). The survey was developed \vi& the 

assistance of a project adviso? committee and rested wirh several courts before a rmised version was distributed. 

B Goals. Processes, and Components 11 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
rn Goals of Courts Implementing Specialized Processes 

One of the many unsettled issues related to specialization of court processes and 

structures or domestic violence cases is the goals courts should be seeking to 

achieve through their reforms. As Figure 1 illustrates, courts do not have a commonly held set of goals for their domestic violence initiatives. Large majorities 

of COUKS (75 percent or higher) instituted specialized processes and procedures 

for domestic violence to better assist victims, to enhance victim safety, to increase defendant accountability, and to improve case management. Smaller majorities sought to bring more attention to the issue of domestic violence and to 

use resources more efficiently, while only a third of the courts intended to improve court security. 

Figure 1 

Purposes for establishing speciaured procedures for domettic vidence cases 

Better assist victims !-I 83% 

Increase victim safety ~-! 83% 

Improve case management 1- 78% 

Increase defendant accountability - 75% 

More efficient use of resources -; 68% 

Increase visibility of DV as a problem I- 58% 

Better coult security - 33% 

These findings raise some concerns for those who believe that the hndamental purposes of justice system responses to domestic violence are improving 

victim safety and increasing batterer accountability. Although this vision is predominant among the 103 courts, nearly 20 percent of these courts did not identify increased victim safety as a goal of their specialized procedures or structures, 

and for one-quarter of the courts increased batterer accountability was not an 

identified goal. As the practice of court specialization for domestic violence cases 

grow. ir will be important that victim safety and batterer accountability beLO-: shared sods of the court community 

L ---__-- : __ =: - .'='e-ceCoseMonogement 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
B 

B 

D 

D 

B 

b 

B 

b 

Specialized Processes and Structuml Components 

The 103 courts reported using or having a variety of specialized processes and 

structural components for managing domestic violence cases, including case 

screening, specialized calendars, intake units, specialized judicial assignment, and 

court ordered and monitored batterer intervention programs. These processes 

have been identified in the literature and by court practitioners and domestic 

violence professionals as necessary or desirable elements of an effective court 

system response to domestic violence (Epstein, 1999a; Karan, Keilitz & Denaro, 

1999; Tsai, 2000). Most courts have some of these processes and components 

but few courts have all of them. Moreover, the combinations and configurations 

of these processes and structures vary substantially across the courts, and no clear 

patterns are evident. Section IV of the report provides more.information about 

the various configurations of these and other features of the 103 courts. 

Sixty-eight of the courts reported that they screen domestic violence cases 

for other related cases to coordinate case processing. Automated systems are used 

in 59 of the courts to identify related cases, and 59 courts use an automated 

system to facilitate case tracking (these two groups are largely overlapping but 

not identical). Other features of courts that the survey identified in the 103 

courts are enumerated in Figures 2-4. 

Figure 2 

Specialized calendar for domestic violence cases 

Types d cores 

More than one type of case .................................. M 

All protection orders ................................................. 61 

All domestic violence misdemeanors .................... 31 

All domestic violence felonies .................................. 9 

Number of Ccutts 

Figure 3 

Intake units 

Type¶ of caror 

At least one type of case . Protection orders . Domestic violence misdemeanors ......................... 35 

Domestic violence felonies 

Child custody ....................... 

Number of Coutts 

Goals, Processes, and Components 13 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Figure 4 

Judiclal assignment for domestlc violence cases 

Types of JUBclal Assignment 

Exclusive assignment .,.....,.,.....,. ~,, , . . . . , . . . . .. , , . . . . . , , . . . . ,. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Not exclusive but includes domestic violence calendar ........... 50 

Number d Courts 

Although many of these 103 courts have instituted some change in organization, procedures, or judicial assignment to managing domestic violence cases, 

relatively few appear to have implemented a more comprehensive system for 

their domestic violence caseloads. For example, only 27 of the courts reported 

having intake, case screening, a specialized calendar, and a judicial review calendar to monitor compliance with court ordered batterer intervention programs. 

Only seven of these courts also assign judges exclusively to hear domestic violence cases and have an automated system to identify related cases. 

These reports from the 103 courts suggest that the concept of a domestic 

violence court is not yet well developed or defined among the court community. 

Although many practitioners working in and with courts have adopted the term 

“domestic violence court,” only a small number of courts have taken the more 

holistic approach to domestic violence case management that signifies an intention to function as a domestic violence court. The findings from the follow-up 

telephone interviews, presented in Part IV of this report, reinforce the conclusion that the implementation of specialized processes for domestic violence cases 

is proceeding without common understandings of what components and resources are needed for a coherent and effective case management system. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Chapter 3 

Practitioners’ Views t 

1 

Through a modified Delphi study,’ the NCSC tapped the opinions of 27 professionals who have experience managing or adjudicating domestic violence cases 

in the criminal and civil justice systems or advocating for victims in these systems. The study participants include 9 judges, 13 managers of courts (7 associated with a domestic violence court or specialized unit, 6 from more traditional 

courts using some type of specialized process for domestic violence cases), 2 domestic violence advocates, and 3 criminal justice professionals (1 law enforcement officer, 1 prosecutor, and 1 probation expert). These professionals provide 

extensive experiential information about the purposes and benefits of specialization in court organization and practice related to domestic violence cases. They 

@ 

D 

* The Delphi srud!- consisted of two rounds of survey questionnaires distributed to 75 individuals, including 

judges and ioun managers in coum using specialized processes for managing and adjudicating domestic violence cilxs and orhcr noted domatic violence experrs and practitioners. These individuals were selected for the 

Delphi study &IT th: rnpondenrs to the mail questionnaire who reported more extensive structures or specialized pnx- 5: tonatic violence cases and from identified experts in the field. The first questionnaire 

sought inpu: 07. i wc: ra3gc of issues related to managing and adjudicating domestic violence cases through 

opened-ectd +:S:IOX T.v:nn--four individuals completed and returned this questionnaire. The questionnaire respxse .A:: s-::ks:~d and analyxd for content. This analysis provided the content for a follow-up 

2: ;ncsk-orirresponaa requiring the respondents to agree or disagree with the items 

IO xik :h: irems according to their priorin of importance or necessity. The followup sun-? xa cx:.5:::i :J i: ofrh: original -5 individuals in hopes that some ofthose who did not complete 

1 

.. 

.. 

b .. the tiri: ~. __...__...&~t .~- .A~LC rs~ond to the check-off style questionnaire, which rquired much less time to 

camp.'::.--- ._-. .-...- ---.- .:. :_ _.... --. Y:: rcyonse rare for the second questionnaire increased slightly over the first, .. 

horn :+ :: :- -2:. CL-.L% ais?.:. cr-s reported in the second questionnaire provides a context for the information E?:=?: :-. I:.: . ..- x-zi I i: >articipated in the mail and telephone surveys for this study. .-. 

B 7vsc?tioners’ Views 15 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
also offer their opinion on the functions, resources, and services necessary for 

specialization to achieve its goals. 

The Delphi study indicates considerable consensus on a number of issues 

related to court management of domestic violence cases. The areas of accord 

demonstrate an understanding among those who have experience with domestic 

violence cases that victim safety, batterer accountability, and system integrity are 

essential to an effective system response to domestic violence. The areas where 

the study participants’ views diverge reflect an uncertainty about the appropriate 

role of courts in providing services to domestic violence victims, limitations imposed by court jurisdiction and organization, and the growing pains associated 

with adapting established systems to address new and different issues. 

The key areas of consensus that follow (at least 70% of the study participants either “agree very strongly or agree” to the items related to the issues) 

indicate that the specialization of processing and services for domestic violence 

cases is essential to effectively managing them, 

Effective management of domestic violence cases requires coordination of cases involving the parties to the domestic violence case, integration of information in court data systems, and availability of information from all related cases to judges adjudicating the domestic 

violence case. 

Effective management of domestic violence cases requires specialization - including intake for domestic violence cases, court staff, judges, 

prosecutors, and probation. 

Victims’ access to justice is a primary goal of effective domestic violence 

case processing (expedited proceedings, user friendly directions and 

forms, assistance to victims by court staff or other personnel, accompaniment of victims by advocates in court proceedings). 

Court processes should ensure victim safety, both through court orders 

and service referrals and in the courthouse (i.e., separate waiting areas 

for victims and defendandrespondents). 

Court and judicial resources should be brought to bear on monitoring 

battered compliance with court orders and enforcing those orders to 

the fullest extent (i.e., batterer accountably is paramount). 

‘5 Domestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Courts must address the interests of children involved in domestic 

violence cases, either as witnesses to or victims of the violence, or 

through custody and visitation disputes between the victim and the 

offender (guardians ad litem and custody evaluators must have training in domestic violence issues). 

D 

Domestic violence training for judges should be mandatory and ongoing. 

Judges should be sensitive to the needs of domestic violence victims 

and understand the dynamics of domestic violence. B 

Practitioners' V B.VS 1: 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Chapter 4 

Practitioners' Views 

vs. Court Practice 

The views of justice system practitioners and domestic violence advocates 

regarding specialization of court organization and processes for domestic violence cases provide the analytical context for examining court practice in this 

case management area. The analysis that follows compares the Delphi study results to key features reported in the mail survey of 103 courts and the telephone 

survey of 82 of these court^.^ This analysis reveals great diversity among the 

courts in organization and practice related to specialization. It also demonstrates 

substantial divergence between court practice and the views of experienced practitioners. The court features and practices addressed are: 

Extent of jurisdiction 

Specialized calendars 

Intake management and services for domestic violence cases 

Case screening and coordination 

Judicial assignment and training 

Batterer compliance monitoring 

Services provision and referral 

Not all of &e courts interviewed by telephone answered all the questions; therefore the number of courts 

included in che analysis of some items is less than 82. 

Practitioners' Views vs. Court Practice 19 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Extent of Jurisdiction 

Because jurisdiction proved to be difficult to identify accurately in the written 

questionnaire, the telephone survey sought to clarify responses to the mail survey. Of the 82 courts contacted in the telephone survey, 74 have jurisdiction for 

protection orders, 6 1 have jurisdiction for domestic violence misdemeanors, and 

29 adjudicate domestic violence felony cases. (See Figure 5.) 

There is considerable overlap in jurisdiction for protection orders and both 

felonies and misdemeanors. All of the courts with jurisdiction for domestic violence felonies also handle civil protection orders, while 27 of the COUKS that 

adjudicate domestic violence misdemeanors also hear civil protection orders. All 

of the courts that hear domestic violence felonies and misdemeanors also issue 

protection orders (26). 

Figure 5 

Extent of jurisdiction in 82 courts 

Misdemeanor 

26 

Felony 

N-29 

rn Specialized Calendars 

Of the 82 courts contacted in the telephone survey, 67 reported having a specialized calendar for at least one type of case within its jurisdiction (see Figure 6). 

Figure 7 shows another view of the variation in the use of specialized calendars 

for domestic violence cases. Twenty-seven of 67 courts with specialized calendars 

5.s~ them for both protection orders and domestic violence misdemeanors, which 

.--- - ~XIS also have specialized calendars for domestic violence felonies. All 

-. i --a -1.. -os[ prevalent pattern of overlap among the three types of cases. Nine of 

.- -- 

L .- - --ai- _I_ - - -2- c Uolence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
ten of the courts that specialize their calendars for domestic violence felonies also 

handled protection orders on a specialized calendar. 

D Figure6 

Percent of courts wlth dedicated calendars 

84% 

B 

Protection Orders DV Misdemeanors DV Felony 

n=74 nS1 n=29 

D 

Figure 7 

Specialized calendars In 67 courts 

B 

rnbndor 

for felony 

N=10 

w Intake Management and Services for Domestic Violence Cases 

The practitioners in the Delphi study agree that an intake unit or process is an 

important tool for managing domestic violence cases effectively. There is strong 

support for comprehensive victim advocacy and senices I 100 percent and intake procedures for emergency hearings and orders (9-4 percent . Consnu is 

strong, but somewhat lower (82 percent), that domestic violence unirs skodt 

assist with service of process for protection orders and child SUPFOIT cases int 

that units should have intake counselors. 

Among the 103 courts participating in the mail survey. 65 ha\-e an intake 

D 

b 

B Practitioners' Views vs. Court Practice 21 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
unit or process for domestic violence cases, and among these courts practice 

varies greatly. Data presented in Figure 8 indicate that courts most often provide 

intake for protection orders, followed by misdemeanors, felonies, custody, child 

support, and divorce. 

Figure 0 

Cases handled by intake (n&) 

Protectionorders - 74% 

Misdemeanors ,- 54% 

Felonies - 34% 

Custody - 18% 

Child support = 14% 

Divorce = 14% 

The types of case processing services provided by intake units also varies (see 

Figure 9). The most prevalent qpe of service is assistance with protection order 

petitions, followed by screening for other pending cases. Very few courts assist 

litigants with other legal or economic matters, such as petitions for divorce/dissolution, non-IV-D child support or paternity, or IV-D child support or paternity 

Figure 9 

Senricer provided by Intake 

Protection order petitions - 78% 

Screen cases for other pending matters -1 51 % 

Divorce/dissoiution petitions 12% 

Non-iV-D patemitykhild support petitions 11% 

IV-D paternitylchild support petitions 5% 

Management schemes also vary across the courts with specialized intake for 

domestic violence cases (see Figure 10). The most common system is court management by court employees (66 percent). In the remaining third of the courts, manis the responsibility of a multi-agency team on which the court is a partner, 

1 ---L---ig?-? [earn that does not include the court, or an outside agency. - - . -_ 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Figure 10 

Intake managsment (n&) 

Court with court employees ~- 66% 

Multi-agency team with court = 18% 

Multi-agency team without court 12% 

Outside agency with agency employees I 1% 

D 

Case Screening and Coordination 

The Delphi panel members were unanimous in their agreement that effective 

management and adjudication of domestic violence cases requires screening to 

identifj. all cases related to the parties and children and integrated case processing. These practitioners also strongly agreed that lethality assessments and safety 

planning are essential functions in domestic violence case processing. 

Operations in the 103 courts participating in the mail survey lag behind the 

preferred practice voiced by the Delphi panel. Among these courts, 66 screen 

domestic violence cases for related cases. Forty-seven of these courts report that 

at least one purpose of screening is to link and/or coordinate cases for case processing. Fewer courts regularly apply the information gained from case screening 

to guide judicial decision making in key areas of victim safety. Thirty-nine of the 

courts use case screening information to inform bail and/or sentencing decisions, while 36 draw on screening information for developing civil protection 

orders and/or safety plans. Nineteen courts use their screening capability for all 

three of these important purposes. 

’ 

D 

b 

’ rn Judicial Assignment and Training 

The participants in the Delphi study voiced fairly strong support for specialization of the bench for domestic violence cases. Among these practitioners, 82 

percent agreed that domestic violence cases should be heard by judges assigned 

exclusively to these cases. These practitioners showed lower but still substantial 

support for assigning a single judge to all family cases involving the victim and/ 

or the defendant (e.g., divorce, custody, dependency) (74 percent) and for asb 

h Procr-,oners’ Mews vs. Court Proctice 23 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
signing all related cases (including criminal) to the same judge (73 percent). 

In practice, 29 percent of the 103 courts participating in the mail survey assign 

judges exclusively to domestic violence cases (see Figure 11). In a much larger proportion of these courts (49 percent), judges have a mixed caseload that includes 

assignment to cases heard on a dedicated domestic violence calendar. In approximately one-fifth of the courts, judges are not specialized in their assignments at all. 

Figure 11 

Judges exclusively asdgned to hear domestic violence (n=103) 

No -22% 

No, but specialized calendar - 49% 

Yes - 29% 

Judicial training is an area in which court practice diverges substantially from 

the recommendations of the practitioners participating in the Delphi study. Seventy percent of the Delphi panel members agreed that domestic violence cases 

are difficult to prosecute because judges lack training in domestic violence. Nearly 

all of the panel members (96 percent) agreed that ongoing, mandatory domestic 

violence training for judges and court personnel is necessary for a COUK to manage and adjudicate domestic violence cases effectively. 

In contrast to the practitioners' views, judicial training in domestic violence 

issues apparently is given little attention in courts with specialized processes for 

domestic violence cases. Most of the COUKS surveyed by telephone reported some 

type of judicial training on domestic violence, but in half of these COUKS the 

training is voluntary (see Figure 12). Only 22 courts require specific domestic 

violence training for judges. A more disconcerting finding is that only six of the 

courts in which judges have exclusive assignments to domestic violence cases 

require these judges to participate in any training on domestic violence. 

Figure 12 

Types of domestic violence training (n=70) 

Voluntary training - 51% 

Mandatory training - 26% 

Mandatory training - 23% 

(DV smll portion) 

L -. -^--_-^ -- -'- =: - Volence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Batterer Compliance Monitoring 

Batterer accountability for abusive behavior is a primary goal of most courts 

with specialized processes for domestic violence cases. According to the Delphi 

study panel, mechanisms for courts to monitor batterers’ Compliance with batterer 

intervention program participation and other court orders are necessary for 

effective domestic violence case management. The consensus of the Delphi 

panel was that the court’s role in providing, delivering and/or monitoring 

services in domestic violence cases includes referring domestic violence defendants to batterer intervention programs. Furthermore, the panel unanimously 

agreed that the court’s role in providing, delivering, and/or monitoring services 

in domestic violence cases should include monitoring compliance with servicerelated orders. 

The telephone survey of 82 courts with specialized processes for domestic 

violence cases sought clarifying information about the approaches courts use to 

monitor batterer compliance. Seventy-one of these courts reported that they 

regularly order batterers to participate in batterer intervention programs, 

and all but one of these courts has some type of monitoring mechanism in 

place (see Figure 13). 

Of the 70 courts that monitor batterer compliance, 43 percent reported 

having some we of hearings to review batterer compliance. The frequency of 

hearings varies from court to court (e.g., every 30,60, or 90 days after the initial 

hearing up to a year after the hearing). Thirty-seven percent of the 70 courts do 

not regularly hold hearings, but monitoring reports are submitted to the court 

on a regular basis. In another 20 percent of the courts, batterer compliance is 

monitored more passively; other agencies are responsible for notifying the 

court only when the batterer does not participate in the ordered batterer 

intervention program. 

Among the courts that hold hearings as a primary method to monitor batterer 

compliance, more courts set compliance hearings on an individual basis on calendars for other domestic relations hearings. In fewer courts, barterer hearings 

and status checks are held periodically (e.g.. once a week or monthly) on a calendar dedicated ro barterer compliance revie\v. For example. on the third Friday 

of each month the Tucson Ciry Court has a domestic violence case revk- docket. 

The prosecutor and the batterers are present durine the hearings set on this 

docket. During this time the barterer inremention provider advises the court 

B 

’ 

b 

D 

B 

Practitioners’ Views vs. Court Practice 25 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
regarding individual batterers' compliance with the court's order for batterer 

intervention and charges for violations of orders are filed then. 

Figure 13 

Types of cornpilance monitoring (~70) 

Compliance monitors' reports - 37% 

Individual hearings - 29% 

Notice of violation only - 20% 

Review calendars = 14% 

There appear to be multiple and overlapping methods for monitoring 

batterers. Sixty-six of the courts in the telephone survey report that various agencies are involved in monitoring batterer compliance (see Figure 14). In 30 percent of these courts, several different agencies share responsibility for monitoring 

barterers (for example, advocates monitor compliance with protection orders 

while probation officers monitor criminal defendants). In 29 percent of the courts, 

court staff have sole responsibility for monitoring court ordered batterer intervention programs. Batterer intervention providers or community-based advocates perform this function in 24 percent of the courts, while judges reportedly 

are the only monitors in 17 percent of the courts. 

Figure 14 

Agencies that monltor compliance (nr66) 

Multiple agencies - 30% 

Courtstaff -29% 

Treatment program provider - 24% 

Judge only - 17% 

The reasons courts put forth for lacking a proactive judicial approach to 

monitoring batterer compliance center on caseload and resource issues. Some 

Lourts report chat they could not support a judicial review calendar because of 

--TI .rt:-.' --A? jeer re\-iew hearings for batterer compliance in the past, but dis- 

--- .:-.high volume of protection order cases and/or misdemeanor cases. One court 

.. . 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
D 

continued them for lack of effectiveness. Batterers continuously fded to report for 

the hearings, which led to an ever-expanding volume ofwarrants and higher caseloads. 

The court abandoned the judicial review process because it could not harness the 

resources necessary to both pursue non-compliant batterers and handle new cases. 

Services Provision and Referral 

The Delphi panel members were in unanimous agreement that a specific goal of 

specialized domestic violence case processes in the courts is to offer a coordinated response to the parties that is effective, safe and consistent. The panel 

members strongly agreed (93 percent) that courts should provide domestic violence victims easy access to the judicial system as well as to support services and 

resources. The vast majority of panel members also agreed that effective management and adjudication of domestic violence cases requires liaison to victims to 

assist them in escaping abuse (96 percent), community-based advocates to provide victim support in court proceedings (93 percent), and the provision of accurate and comprehensive agency referral lists to victims (93 percent). A smaller, 

but still large, majority of the panel members (82 percent) also agreed that the court 

should assist victims in various service areas, such as shelter and counseling. 

Reports from the 103 courts participating in the mail survey indicate that 

service provision by or through courts has not reached the level that the Delphi 

panel recommends. Seventy-five courts reported that they regularly provide some 

type of service to domestic violence victims or link victims to services. (See Figures 15 - 17 for specific types of services and proportions of courts based on the 

103 courts in the survey.) Legal or victim advocacy services are the most common type of service provided through courts. Social and economic services are 

the next most prevalent, with medical, psychological, and mental health services 

following closely. 

Figure 15 

Legal victim advocacy (n=103) 

Advocates assigned to victim 1- 51% 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid - 26% 

Immigrant services = 23% 

P Practitioners’ Views vs. Court Practice 27 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Figure 16 

Social and economic services (nr 103) 

Emergency housing 0 36% 

Vocational services - 18% 

Public assistance = 12% 

Elder assistance = 14% 

General community support services - 33% 

Children's services 26% 

Figure 17 

Medical, psychological, mental health Services (n-103) 

Medical services - 17% 

Survivor support groups 0 33% 

Substanceabuse - 26% 

Mental health - 24% 

Figure 18 demonstrates the various combinations of service types that 75 

courts provide. Fifty of the 66 courts that provide or link victims to legal or 

advocacy services also help victims access one of the other two categories of services. The most common configuration of services includes all three types of 

services (4 1 courts), 

Figure 18 

Wpes of services in courts that provide senrice referral and delivery (nn75) 

L 29 Domestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Chapter 5 

Implications of 

the Research 

Our examination of specialized processes, structures, and services for domestic 

violence cases in 103 courts across the country indicates a field undergoing rapid 

and differentiated change. Although the concept of specializing court structures 

and operations for domestic violence cases is gaining momentum, the court community has yet to develop and test models based on a shared vision about the 

goals of domestic violence courts or specialized processes. The most common 

reasons courts cite for implementing specialized processes for domestic violence 

cases are improved assistance to victims, enhanced victim safety, and increased 

batterer accountability. Yet, in the majority of courts, these goals are not supported by the key services and practices needed for survivor safety and batterer 

accountability. 

In many courts, screening and case coordination are not standard 

operations 

Many courts do not use available information systems for case screening and tracking 

Many courts do not use available information to inform decisions crirical to victim safety, such as protection order provisions, safety plannins. 

and bail arrangements 

Most courts do not have systematic mechanisms for moniroriq barterer 

I compliance 

exclusive assignments ro domestic violence calendars 

Judicial training is severely lacking, even in courrs \\-here iudges have 

Implications of the Research 29 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
a 

Few courts provide the full array of services needed to assist survivors 

Few courts provide access to legal assistance for civil matters and economic support 

An essential first step in aligning court practice with safe, effective, and fair 

responses to domestic violence should be to provide mechanisms for judges and 

court managers to consider carefully and systematically what these responses 

should be. This consideration process should be fostered to promote at least a 

basic consensus on the goals of specializing domestic violence case management. 

The discourse should be informed by the experiences of those who have designed and implemented systems to increase victim safety, batterer accountability, and public trust and confidence that the judicial process will benefit domestic violence survivors who seek the remedies it offers. 

As courts move more closely toward a shared set of goals for domestic violence courts and specialized processes, they should be receiving evaluative information about processes and systems currently in place (for evaluative guidelines 

see Burt et al., 1997 and Fagan, 1996). This need is strongly indicated by the 

diversity of court practice and the extent to which court practice diverges from 

the recommendations of experienced practitioners and experts. 

Evaluation should proceed systematically and should be grounded in common understandings of (1) what processes and structures are being examined, 

and (2) what the context for the processes or structures is. Current practice is so 

diverse that standardized definition of terminology is difficult (e+, dedicated dockets, exclusive assignment of judges, intake, and judicial review). Without a common understanding of what these features are, they cannot be effectively evaluated. 

Furthermore, the context in which the court program operates has substantial implications for evaluation. For example, a dedicated docket for protection 

orders with judges who rotate in and out of this assignment may function differently than one to which the same judge or set of judges sits for an extended 

period of time. Similarly, a protection order docket in isolation from a misdemeanor docket might have less impact of victim safety and batterer accountabilin- than a more integrated system with both civil and criminal caseloads or a 

reliable and accurate system for exchanging information about related civil and 

::-!:A aes. These nvo examples are more obvious than many of the other 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
variations that the courts we examined demonstrated. Therefore, research and 

waluation may be needed at many different levels and in many different contexts. 

The good news from our examination of specialized court processes is that 

many courts are paying serious attention to the complex problems of domestic 

violence victims and the cases they pursue in the judicial process. They also are 

making positive changes to their systems and working more collaboratively with 

other components of the justice system and the community. Our challenge 

now is to channel these good intentions and the increased commitment of 

courts to address domestic violence into a more coherent, consistent, and effective system response. 

ImDlications of the Research 31 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
References 

B 

Babb, B. A. (1998). “Fashioning an interdisciplinary framework for the court 

reform in family law: A blueprint to construct a unified family court.” Southern 

California Law Review, 71, 469-545. 

Burt, M.R., Harrell, A.V., Newmark, L.C., Aron, L.Y., Jacobs, L.K., et al. (1 997). 

Evaluation guidebook: For projects finded by S. TO.? formula grants under the 

violence against women act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

D 

Buzawa, E., & Buzawa, C. (1996). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G. & Klein, A. (1998). “The response to domestic violence in a model court: Some initial findings and implications.” Behavioral Science and the Law, 16 185-206. 

B 

Cahn, N. R. (1992). “Innovative approaches to the prosecution of domestic 

violence crimes: An overview.” In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.). Domestic violence: The chnnging criminaljustire response (pp. 16 1 - 180). Westport. Connecticut: Auburn House. 

D 

Casey, l? (1998). “Court populations in need of services: Detinincg the court’s 

role.” Behaviornl Scienrej niid the LLZIL: 16. 15-- 16-. b 

Crenshaw, K. (1 99 1). “hlappin_g the margins: lntersectionali~. identi? politics, and violence against women of color.” Smnford L‘7ir Rerieu: 43, 124 1. 

B References 33 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. l? (1 992). Women, violence andsocial cbange. New 

York, NY: Routledge. 

Dunford-Jackson, B., Frederick, L., Hart, B., & Hofford (1998). “Unified hily 

courts: How will they serve victims of domestic violence?” Family Law Quarten!! 32 

(I), 131-146. 

Edleson, J. L. (1999). “The overlap between child maltreatment and woman 

battering.” Eolence Against Women, 5, 134-154. 

Epstein, D. (1 999a). “Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the roles of prosecutors, judges, and the court system.” Yale Journal of Law 

and Feminism, I I, 3-50. 

Epstein, D. (1999b). “Redefining the state’s response to domestic violence: Past 

victories and future challenges.” The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 

I, 127-43. 

Fagan, J. ( 1996). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and limits. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Fischer, K. & Rose, M. (1995). “When enough is enough: Battered women’s 

decision-making around COUK orders of protection.” Crime &Delinquency 4 1 (4), 

4 14-429. 

Flango, C. R., Flango, V. E., & Rubin, H. T. (1999). How are courts coordinating 

firnib cases? Williamsburg, V. National Center for State Courts. 

Fritzler, R B., & Simon, L. M. J. (2000). “Creating a domestic violence court: 

Combat in the trenches.” Court Review, 37, 28-39. 

Hanna, C. (1996). No right to choose: Mandated victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Harvard Law Review, 109, 1850-1910. 

Hanna, C. (1998). The paradox of hope: The crime and punishment of domestic violence. William and Mary Law Review, 39, 1505-1 584. 

Ham B. (March, 31, 1995). Coordinated community approaches to domestic 

X:.s.z.z- U;-&-ir.gton. D.C. 

.. _- . .~-cx:. kper presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Healey, K., Smith, C., & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program 

approaches and criminal justice strategies. In Issues and Practices in Criminal 

justice. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Herrell, S. B., & Hofford, M. (1990). Family violence: Improving courtpractice. 

Reno, NV: Family Violence Project, National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges. 

Hora, I? E, Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal 

justice system’s response to drug abuse crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74,439-537. 

Kantor, G. K. & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Dynamics and risk factors in partner 

violence. In J. L. Jasinski & L. M. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 yeatv of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

ban, A., Keilitz, S., & Denaro, S. (1999). Domestic violence courts: What are 

they and how should we manage them? Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50, 

75-86 

Keilitz, S., et al. (1997). Domestic violence and child custody disputes: A resource 

handbookfir judges and court managers. Williamsbug, VA: National Center for 

State Courts. 

Klein, C. & Orloff, L. (1995). “Representing a victim of domestic violence,” 

Family Advocate, I7(3), 25. 

Levey, L., Steketee, M., & Keilitz, S. (2000) Lessons learned in impkmentingan 

integrated domestic violence court: The District of Columbia experience. Wdiamsburg, 

VA: National Center for State Courts. 

Little, K., Malefyt, M. B., Walker, A., Tucker, D. D., & Buel, S. M. (1998). 

Assessingjustice system response to violence against women: A toolfir law enfircement, 

prosecution and the courts to use in developing gective responses. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Loelinger, A. (2000) “Therapeutic justice in domestic violence cases: One court’s 

approach.” Coirrt Communique, 2, 1. 

References 35 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Mahoney, M. R. (1994). “Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives, violence, 

and agency.” In M. A. Fineman, & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Thepublic nature of 

private violence: The discovery of domestic abuse. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Miccio, G. IS. (1 999). “A reasonable battered mother? Redefining, reconstructing, 

and recreating the battered mother in child protective proceedings.” Harvard 

Women? Law Journal, 22, 89- 122. 

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1 997). Dejning drug courts: 

The key components. Washington, D.C.: Drug Courts Program Office, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Ostrom, B. J. & Kauder, N. B. (1 999) (Eds.). Examining the work ofstate courts, 

1998: A national perspective ?om the court statistics project. N’illiamsburg, VA 

National Center for State Courts. 

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). “DO fair 

procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault.” Law 6 

Society Review, 31, 163-204. 

Ptacek, J. (1 999). Battered women in the courtroom: Thepower ofjudicialwsponses. 

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. 

Rebovich, D. J. (1996). “Prosecution response to domestic violence: Results of 

a survey of large jurisdictions.” In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do 

arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 176-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Richie, B. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered black 

women. New York, W. Routledge. 

Rottman, D., & Casey, I! (1999). “Therapeutic jurisprudence and the 

emergence of the problem-solving courts.” National Institute of Justice Journal, 240, 12-19. 

Rottman, D., Efkeman, H. S., & Casey, I? (1998).Aguideto courtandcommunity 

collaboration. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 

Sihechter, S. (1982). “The roots of the battered women’s movement: Personal 

i-:C political." In S. Schechter (Ed.) Women andMale Iriolence. 

L :.r 3 z-estic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Schechter, S. & Edleson, J. L. (1998). Efective intervention in domestic violence 

and child maltreatment cases: Guidelinesfor policy and practice. Reno, NV: The 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

Sewell, B. D. (1989). “History of abuse: Societal, judicial and legislative responses 

to the problem of wife beating.” Sufilk Law Review, 23, 983-1017. 

Simon, L. M. J. (1995). ‘!A therapeutic jurisprudence approach to the legal 

processing of domestic violence cases.” PSybobB Public Polig andlaw 1,43-79. 

Spears, L. (1 999). Building bridges between domestic violence organizations and 

childprotective services. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. 

Steinman, M. (1 99 1). “The public policy process and woman battering: Problems 

and potentials.” In M. Steinmam (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 

221-236). Highland Heights, KY and Cincinnati OH: Academy of Criminal 

Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing. 

Steketee, M., Levey, L., & Keilitz, S. (2000). Imphentingan integrateddomestic 

violence court: systemic change in the District of Columbia. Williamsburg, VA 

National Center for State Courts. 

Sullivan, C. M., Tan, C., Basta, J., Rumptz, M., & Davidson, W. S. (1992). ‘‘An 

advocacy intervention program for women with abusive partners: Initial 

evaluation.” American journal of Community PsycboloD, 20(3), 309-32. 

Syers, M. & Edleson, J. L. (1992). “The combined effects of coordinated 

criminal justice intervention in women abuse.” Journal of Interpersonal KOlence, 7, 490-502. 

Tsai, B. (2000 ). “The trend toward specialized domestic violence courts: 

Improvements on an eflkcrive innovation.“ Fordhm Lnr RpIieic, 68. 1285-1 32‘. 

Tyler,T. R. (1989). “The qualin- ofdispute resolution procedures and outcomes: 

Measurement problems and possibilities.- D~iiiv L-nii,e~ic L.1; R.r.1cri’. 66. 

419-562. 

References 37 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
D 

D 

~ 

Appendix 1 

Case Management 

Features of 103 Courts 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
2nd Judicial District Court 

1700 Ramsey County Courthouse 

St. Paul, MN 55102 

La8 Vegas Municipal Court 

400 E. Stewart Ave. 

Las Vegas, NV 891 01 

Jefferson County Superior Court 

PO. Box 1220 

Port Townsend. WA 98368 

Cialiam County Superior Court 

223 East 4th Street 

Port Angeles, WA 98362 

Alamda County Superior Court 

Berkeley Courthouse 

2120 Martin Luther King Jr. Way 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

16th Judicial CitrAt - Upper Keys 

53 High Point Road 

Tavernier. FL 33070 

: 3omestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court Id.ntlfiallon Number - 1 23456 

D 

B 

B 

B 

D 

B 

Court has junsdiction for civil protection orders -x xx X 

Court has specialized univcalendar for civil protection orders . . x. x X 

Court has specialized univcalendar for DV misdemeanors 

Court has specialized unitkalendar for DV felony 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

X 

Compliance monitoring reports X xx 

Individual hearings X 

Notice of violation only -x 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies __. x 

Court staff X X 

Treatment program provider - -. . x- _x 

Judge only 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV: 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear DV cases 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X .X xx 

x 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

DV cases are screened for other related cases - X 

Court has intake unit/process - _x 

Protection orders X 

Criminal misdemeanors . __ -- Cnminal felony 

custody 

Child support 

Cases handled by intake: 

DNorce 

Services provided by intake: 

Protechon order petiions x 

Screen cases for other pending matters X 

Divorcddissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Intake managed by: 

X 

x x x.xx 

X xx 

.x x 

X _x_. x 

xx 

X 

X xx 

xx 

xx 

Court has conducted an evaluabon of DV practices procedures 

Judicial DV training X 

Services provided by the cour! 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to ran 

Pro bono attorneys through e+ 1.3 

Immigrant se~ces 

Emergency housing 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General comrnunrty support sepices 

Children s support sems 

VOlXtlOnal SeMCeS 

X 

xx 

xx 

xx 

z 

X X 

X 

x 

X 

Case Manacemen: Features 4i 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1st District Court 

316 E. 5th Street 

Waterloo, IA 50703 

3rd Judicial District Court 

201 W. Picacho, Suite A. 

Las Cruces, NM 88005 

4th, 9th, loth Judiclai District Court 

700 N. Main St., Suite 15 

Clovis, NM 88101 

Klng Country Superior Court 

1400 W. Lacey Blvd. 

Hanford, CA 93230 

Las Vegas Township Justlce Court 

P.O. Box 55251 1 

200 South Third Street 

Las Vegas, NV 891 55 

Spokane Munlclpai District Court 

N. 901 Monroe #200 

Spokane, WA 99201 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
D Court ~ntlficatlon Number - 

78 9 10 11 12 

Court has junsdicbon for civil protection orders X - x- -x . X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for avil protection orders X x X x 

Court has specialized unit/calendar for DV misdemeanors X X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV felony 

D htterer compliance is monitwed by: 

Compliance monitoring reports x. xx 

lndlvidual hearings 

Nohce of violation only 

Rewew calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance 

Multiple agencies __ x 

court staff X 

Treatment program provider X 

Judge only 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV 

Yes, jw are assigned exclusively to hear Dv cases X X X X 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar __ _.L ._ __ . . ._ -X 

) DV cases are screened for other related cases X - x __ X __ . X 

Court has intake unit/Process -. -. - ___ ._ __ -X_ - .x ._ - X x __ ~ x 

Protection orders xx X 

Criminal misdemeanors X X 

Criminal felony X X 

custody X 

Cases handled by intake: 

Child support B Divorce 

Services provided by intake: 

Protectionorderpetitions - . __ x--_x ..x 

Screen cases for other pending matters X X 

Divorcddissdution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternitykhikl support petitions 

IV-D patemitykhild support petitions 

Court with court employees xx 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Intake managed by: 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

D 

X 

X 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprccedures 

Judicial DV training X X 

D Services provided by me court 

Medical setwces 

Sumor support groups 

substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates awgned to vlch 

Pro bono anomeys mrough iga ad 

lmmqtant services 

Ernerpency h-% 

voca~servwzs 

Public assistance 

Elder asstance 

General comrnmq uzpz se-.yes 

Children s supcot sewX 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Flfe Munlcipal Court 

3737 Pacific Hwy E. 

Fife, WA 98001 

13th District Court 

EO. Box 1089 

Los Lunas, NM 87031 

Rhode Island Family Court 

One Dorrance Plaza 

Providence, RI 2903 

Garfield County Court 

1 14 West Broadway 

Enid, OK 73701 

17th Judicial Circuit Court 

Broward County 

201 SE 6th St., Room 565 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Domestic Violence Court 

201 E. Main Street 

Durham, NC 27701 

I: 3.z-sstic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court IdentHlcatIon Number - 13 14 15 16 17 

Court has junsdiction for civil protection orders xx xxx 

Court has specialized unit/calendar for civil protection orders X X X 

Court has specialized uniVcalendar for DV misdemeanors 

Court has specialized uniVcalendar for DV felony 

X 

X 

Banerer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring repork xx 

IndMdUal hearings X 

Notice of violatlon only 

Review calendars - - . - - - - 3 

Multiple agencies X 

court staff X 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV: 

Yes, judges are assigned exdus'mly to hear DV cases No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar - .x 

DV cases are screened for other related cases __. - _x 

Court has intake unit/pmss -x X 

Protection orders X X 

Criminal misdemeanors 

Cnminal felony 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Services provided by intake 

X 

Cases handled by intake: 

Protection order petition x x 

Screen cases for other pending matters- X 

Divorce/dissolutlon petitions 

Non-IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

IV-D paternity/child support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees X X 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures X X 

Judicial DV training X X xx 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor suppoti groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal ad 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support sems 

Children's support services 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

_. x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 

X 

X 

X 

-x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Case Management Features 45 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

San Francisco Superior Court 

Unified Family Court 

400 McAllister St., Dept 405 

San Francisco. CA 94102 

16th Judicial Circult-Lower Keys 

500 Whitehead Street 

Key West, FL 32040 

16th Judicial Clrcult - Middle Keys 

53 Highpoint Road 

Tavernier. FL 33070 

San Francisco Superior Court 

851 Bryant Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Denver County Court 

1437 Bannock Street, Room 108 

Denver, CO 80202-5301 

Famlly Court of the State of Delaware 

704 King Street, Second Floor 

Wilrnington, DE 19801 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Coufl kJentlfiwtion Number - 19 20 22 2524 

Court has junsdiction for civil protection orders xxx. xx 

hurt has specialized unitlcalendar for civil protection orders X X . X - x. x 

Court has speualized unitkalendar for DV misdemeanors x- - _. - _ - . - .x 

Court has specialized unucalendar for DV felony 

D btterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitonng reports 

lndivldual heanngs .- 

___ 

X 

x 

Notice of violation only - ._ X 

Revew calendars x _x 

Multiple agencies __ ._ . _-_ - . --__... _x_ _x 

Courtstaff __ . .x 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only xx 

Yes, iudges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases x- __ . x 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Judges are assigned exclusively to W: 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X X X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

DV cases are screened for other related cases 

Court has intake uniVprocess X . __ -.x 

Protection orders - x. . .. - .- .. __ _. .x 

Criminal misdemeanors 

Criminal felony .___I___._. x 

custody -. X 

Child support __ _. - ..- . _ . - - _.__ - - 2 

Divorce ___. I .. .- x 

Protection order petiion _- X 

Screen cases for other pending matters _______I ___- _X 

Divorce/dissolution petitions _x 

Non-IV-D paternity/child support petitions __ p-__.p-_X 

IV-D patemity/child support petitions 

X 

Cases handkl by intake: 

1 

Services provided by intake: 

Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees X 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Mum-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team wlthout the court 

B 

X 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures X X 

Judicial DV training - - -__ __x x __-L x x 

X 

Services provided by the court: 

Medtcal sewces 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocalmnal sems 

Public assistance 

Elder assstance 

General communw support sews 

Children’s support sems 

b 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
caat ID Number MrmlAddmw d Court 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

San Diego Superior Court 

Central Division 

220 West Broadway, 

Departments M-12 and M-17 

San Diego, CA 92101 

San Diego Superior Court 

East County Division 

250 East Main Street 

El Cajon, CA 92020 

1st Judicial District Court 

P.O. Box 2268 

Santa Fe, NM 87504 

4th Judicial District Court 

665 W. Silver Street 

Elko, NV 89801 

Scott County District Court 

Iowa Judicial Branch 

416 West 4th Street 

Davenport, IA 52801 

10th Judicial District Court 

PO. Box 1067 

Tucumcari, NM 88401 

L ~i ?-sr- c 'i=lerce Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Cowl Id.ntlfkation Number - 252827282930 

Court has junsdiction for civil protection orders .XXXX X X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for civil protection orders X X . X X X X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV misdemeanors X X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV felony 

b Batterer compliance IS monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports .x -x 

lndlvidual heanngs . .__ . ._. _x _x 

Nobce of violation only 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies X 

Courtstaff X 

Treatment program provider X 

Judge only X 

Yes, judges ere assigned exclusively to hear DV cases ____ . . - -_-X - - _. __ x 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars __ x _x. x 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

Judges are assigned exclusively to Dv: 

X 

b DV cases are screened for other related cases X X X X 

Court has intake unitlprocess X xxxx 

Protectionorders X.X x _x 

Criminal misdemeanors . X 

Criminal felony 

custody ._ .. _. __ ___ - - x .x 

Child support xx 

Divorce ._ - - __ x x 

Cases handled by intake: 

b 

Sewtces provided by intake: 

Protection order petition ___. - x .x .x x 

Divorddissolution petitions X X 

Non-IV-D patemitykhild support petibons X X 

IV-D paternity/child support petitions X 

Court with court employees X X X X X 

Screen cases for other pending matters . X X X 

Intake managed by: 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

b 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practtcedprocedures 

Judicial DV training X X X 

p Services provided by the court: 

Medii1 sewices 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attomeys through legal aid 

Immigrant sewices 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public asststance 

Elder assistance 

General community support sems 

D 

Children's Support SeMceS 

X 

X 

X 

X x 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

X 

X X X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

X x 

X 

x 

x 

r 

x 

X 

X 

X 

>, 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

32nd Judicial Distrlct Court 

201 W. Front Sl. 

Medea, PA 19063 

Mason CWnty District Court 

P.O. Box 1490 

Sheiton, WA 98584 

Plst Circuit Court 

450 East Court Street, Third Floor 

Kankakee, IL 60901 

18th Judicial Circuit Court 

505 N. County Farm Rd., Suite 2015 

Wheaton, IL 601 87 

20th Judicial Circuit Court 

EO. Box 831 

Belleviile, IL 62222-0831 

Sonoma County Superior Court 

600 Administration Drive 

Room 209-J 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
E Court Id.nrmmtlon Number - 913233343538 

Court has jurisdiin for civil prot-n orders . X x x _x. x x 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV misdemeanors - 2. .x x x 

Court has specialized unitblender for DV felony 

Court has specialired unit/calendar for civil protection orders 2- -X X X X - -_X 

__-_- 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports 

Indiwdual hearings . x-. 1( 

Notice of violation only . __ - . x. .x 

Review calendars - ___ X 

Multiple agencies ---I_ - .. - __ I__- x 

court staff __ - - _. . _ - _._x . . __.x 

Judge only 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases X-_ ---- 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar ______-_. X 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Treatment program provider- u 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV 

No, mixed caseload with speclal DV calendan __ __ __ X. 

DV cases are screened for other related cases __ - . X x _.x 

Court has intake univprocess _._ . x x X -x 

Protection orders __ . - I __ __ .. X X 

Cases 

Criminal 

custody 

Criminal felony 

handled by 

misdemeanors 

intake: 

- __ . . - _._x._ 

X 

X 

._x 

X 

_.A 

Childsupport . __ _x 

Services provided 

Protection 

DiVOrCe 

order 

by 

petition 

intake: 

____ 

x 

L - x 

Screen cases for other pending matters X 

Divorcddssdution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternityhhild support petitions 

IV-D paternityhhild support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees - -. x xx 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures X__-- X. X 

Judicial DV training X X 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Eider assistance 

General community support se~ces 

Children's support services 

X 

X X X 

X 

X X 

X 

X X 

X 

.. -x 

x 

X X 

x 

X 

X 

xxx 

X 

xx 

xx 

X 

Cxe Nz-3seient Features 51 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

Santa Barbara County Superior Court 

118 East Figueroa Street 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Riverside County Superior Court 

4100 Main Street 

Riverside, CA 92501 

1 lth Judicial District Court 

P.O. Box 849 

Sanford, NC 27330 

15th District Court 

101 East Huron, PO. Box 8650 

Ann Arbor, MI 481 07 

Henderson Municipal Court 

243 Water Street 

Henderson, NV 89105 

Westport Municipal 

RO. Box 1208 

Westport, WA 98595 

-- 

:- >z--estic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Cowl ldantlflutlon Number - 37 30 39 40 41 42 

Court has jurisdiction for civil protection orders h .x X 

Court has specialired unitlcalendar for civil protection orders _X 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV misdemeanors X X X 

Court has specialized unWcalendar for DV felony - X 

b btterer comp\iance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitonng reports X 

Individualhearings . ._ X- - -x 

Notice of violation only 

Rewew calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multrpie agencies X X 

courtstaff 

Treatment program provider 

Judgeonly X 

Judges are assigned exclusively to W: 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear DV cases No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars x X X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar - _x x _. x 

b DV cases are screened for other related cases X X 

Court has intake unit/process xx X 

Protection orders 

Criminal misdemeanors - ~ - -. ___ __ ._ X . X . __ X 

Criminal felony 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Cases handled by intake: 

b 

Sewices provided by intake: 

Protection order petition -. _x 

Screen cases for other pending matters X _x 

Divorddissolution petihons 

Non-IV-D paternily/child support petitions 

IV-D patemity/child support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees X X X 

MultGagency team with cwrt 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency wtth agency employees 

1 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practices/procedures 

Judicial DV training 

Sewces prowded by the court 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to nctim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant sewces 

Emergency housing 

Vocational se~ces 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General communily support SeMCeS 

Children's support se~ces 

p 

I 

X 

X X 

X 

X X X 

X X X 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X X X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

B Case Management Features 53 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court IO Number NamdAddmu of Court 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

13th Judicial District Court 

Brunswick County 

P.O. Box 127 

Bolivia, NC 28422 

Grundy County Court 

11 1 E. Washington Street 

Morris, IL 60450 

6th Judiclal Circuit Court 

West Pasco Judicial Center 

7530 Little Road 

New Port Richey, FL 34654 

1 st Judicial District Court 

901 N. 9th Street, Room 609 

Milwaukee, WI 53233 

Iowa District Court 

Linn County 

P.O. Box 1468 

Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-1468 

4th Judicial District Court 

632 Court Street 

Jacksonville, NC 28540 

52 ::-estic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

13th Judicial District Court 

Brunswick County 

P.O. Box 127 

Bolivia, NC 28422 

Grundy County Court 

11 1 E. Washington Street 

Morris, IL 60450 

6th Judicial Circuit Court 

West Pasco Judicial Center 

7530 Little Road 

New Port Richey, FL 34654 

1st Judicial District Court 

901 N. 9th Street, Room 609 

Milwaukee, WI 53233 

iowa District Court 

Linn County 

PO. Box 1468 

Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-1468 

4th Judicial District Cwrt 

632 Court Street 

Jacksonville, NC 28540 

3 9oTestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court lckntlfiution Number - 43444.5464748 

Court has jurisdiction for civil protection orders ._x.._x. x. x.. x x 

Court has speaalized univcalendar for DV felony 

Court has specialized unucalendar for civil protecton orders xxxx 

X 

Court has specialized unWcalendar for DV misdemeanors X . . X __ X 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports X- X X 

lndlvldual hearings X 

Nohce of violation only .- X 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies -x x 

court Stan -. - - - - . . -_ X 

Treatment program provider X X 

Judse only 

Yes, judges are assigned exdusively to hear W cases 

No, mixed caseload with Special DV calendars X X X.. xx 

Judps are assigned excluswly to MI: 

X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

DV cases are screened for other related CBSBS 

Court has intake uniVprocess X X X 

Protection orders - - - . __ x X 

Criminal misdemeanors x- x 

xxx 

Cases handled by intake: 

Criminal felony __ ___ __ - - ____ - - .x 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Services provided by intake: 

Protection order petition X 

Screen cases for other pending matters X 

Divoddissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D patemity/chikl support petitions 

IV-D paternityhhild support petitions 

Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Intake managed by: 

Multi-agency team without the court X 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practices/procedures X 

Judicial DV training X 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support seMces 

Children's support services 

. Mental health 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

xx 

X 

X X 

X 

Case Management Features 55 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

10th Judicial District Court 

Johnson County 

1255 E. 119th Street 

Olathe, KS 66061 

Tucson City Court 

P.O. Box 27210 

Tucson, Az 85926-7210 

12th Judicial District Court 

1000 NewYork Ave., Room 209 

Alamogordo, NM 88310 

2nd Judicial District Court 

DV Division 

P.O. Box 488 

Albuquerque, NM 87108 

Douglas County District Court 

P.O. Box 730 

Bridgeport, WA 9881 3-0730 

Clark County District Court 

P.O. Box 9806 

Vancouver, WA 98666-9806 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court Identlflutlon Number - 4950 515253sI 

Court has junsdichon for CMI protection orders xx xxxx 

Court has speaahzed uniVcalendar for DV misdemeanors X x X 

Court has speaalired untt/calendar for ciwl protection orders . X X xx X 

Court has speaalized unitlcalendar for DV felony ._ _-X ._ - X 

Banerer cumpllance is monitored by: 

Compliance monltonng reports X 

lndnndual heanngs - . __ - - - - ._ - __ - __ __ - .X 

Nom of wolation only X .X 

Rewew calendars X X 

Mulbple agemes X X 

court staff X 

Judge only X 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Treatment program provider _x X 

Judges are assigned exclusively to W: 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear DV cases ___ X - . h_ -x 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar __ - . ._ __._ 2 

xx xx 

X xx 

Protectionorders . X xx 

Criminal misdemeanors X 

Criminal felony X X 

custody .. ._ - . - _. - . - - __ - - .x 

Child support 

Divorce ______ ~ - . .. - .. - _- _x 

DV cases are screened for other related cases 

Court has intake uniVpracess 

Cases handled by intake: 

Services provided by intake: 

Protectionorderpetition--- __ I__ I . X.-. __ .- X 

Screen cases for other pending matters 

Divorce/dissdution petitions 

. _. 

Non-IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

IV-D patemitykhild support petitions 

Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court X 

Multi-agency team without the cwrl 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Intake manam by: 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV pracbces/procedures _X _. 

Judicial DV training xx 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Sumor support groups X 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim X 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid X 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support services 

Children’s support services 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

XX 

xx 

xx 

x 

xx 

XX 

xx 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

Case Management Features 57 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

21st Prosecutoriai District Court 

PO. Box 20083 

Winston Salem, NC 27102 

McLean County Circuit Court 

41 1 Justice Center 

104 W. Front Street 

Bloomington, IL 61701 

Yolo County Superior Court 

725 Court Street, Room 308 

Woodland, CA 95695 

Brooklyn Domestic Violence Court 

Kings County Supreme Court 

360 Adams Street 

Brooklyn, New York 11201 

12th Judicial Circuit Court 

14 West Jefferson Street 

Joiiet, II 60432 

Pottawattamie County District Court 

PO. Box 476 

Council Bluffs, IA 51501-0476 

--=:-.-,A -. - -. ... - - - - - . olence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Courl ldentmcatlon Number - 

5556nssssso 

Court has jurisdiction for civil protection orders X x x- xx 

Court has specialized unwcalendar for civil protection orders X X- X __ X 

Courl has specialized unUcalendar for DV misdemeanors X x X 

Court has specialized uniVcalendar for DV felony ___. x 

D Batterer Com~iancs is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring repotts 

Individual hearings xx X 

Notice of violation only X 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies X 

Judgeonly X X 

Yes. judges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases . __. x.. x X 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

D Courtstaff x 

Treatment program provider 

Judges are assigned exclusively to W: 

X 

b DV cases are screened for other related cases .x xx x X 

Court has intake miffprocess X xx xx 

Protection orders X xx xx 

Criminal misdemeanors x.. X 

Criminal felony X 

custody X 

Divorce . X 

Protection order petition X xx 

Screen cases for other pending matters 

Divorce/dissdution petitions X 

Non-IV-D palernitykhild support petitions X 

Court with court employees X X 

Cases handled by intake: 

Child support X b 

Services provided by intake: 

X 

IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team wrthout the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

B 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practices'procedures 

Judicial DV training X 

Services provided by the court 

Survwor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned lo ncbm 

Pro bono attorneys through 1- &c 

Immigrant sews 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Publc assistance 

Elder assistance 

General comrnunrty support se-.-~5 

Children's support servos 

Medical SeMCeS 

B 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

k 

X 

\, 

B 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

X 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

s 

I 

I 

1 

x 

x 

x 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

L 

Kitsap Superior Court 

614 Division Street 

Port Orchard, WA 98366 

Pierce County Superior Court 

930 Tacoma Avenue South #IO8 

Tacoma, WA 98402 

18th Judicial District Court 

525 N. Main Street 

Wichita. KS 67203 

Berrien County Rial Court 

Berrien County Courthouse 

St. Joseph, Mi 49085 

Carbon County Court of Common Pieas 

P.O. Box 166 

Jim Thorp, PA 18229-01 66 

Phoenix Municipal Court 

400 North 7th Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85006 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court Identification Number - 6162 63 64 6568 

Cc-I has junsdiction for civil protectton orders L_-_ ._ .X x 

CC,? has specialized unitlcalendar for civil protection orders X X 

Co,n has specialized unitkalendar for DV misdemeanors 

Ccd has specialized unitlcalendar for DV felony 

Baxerer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monltoring reports X 

Individual hearings X 

Notice of violation only 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies 

Court staff -- _x 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only _______.________- h 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear DV cases 

No, mixed caseload with spedal DV calendars XX X 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV: 

X 

xx 

DV cases are screened for other related cases x x -x X X 

Court has intake unit/process x x.x- x 

Protection orders x_--x. ._x . --x 

Criminal misdemeanors X X 

Criminal felony .__ x x 

custody X 

Cases handled by intake: 

Child support 

Divorce 

Services provided by intake: 

Protection order petition xx 

Screen cases for other pending matters x 

Divorce/dissolution petitions X 

Non-IV-D paternity/child support petitions X 

IV-D paternity/child support petitions x 

Court with court employees X -x 

Multi-agency team with court X 

Intake managed by. 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures 

Judicial DV training x 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical sewices 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support services 

Children's support services 

X 

X 

X 

X 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Case Management Features 61 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

Wake County Criminal Domestic Violence Court 

P.O. Box 31 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

26th Judicial District Courl 

700 E. Trade Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Balnbridge Island Municipal Court 

P.O. Box 151 

Rolling Bay, WA 98061 

DistrlctlSuperior Court 

P.O. Box 1925 

Rockingham, NC 28380 

Snohomish District Court 

Cascade Division 

41 5 E. Burke Avenue 

Arlington, WA 98223 

5th Judicial District Court 

P. 0. Box 1776 

Rosweil, NM 88202-1776 

L,; Domestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Cwrl ldsntMcrtlon Number - 

7172 

Court has lunsdiction for civil protection orders x- x-. x .x_ x x 

Court has specialized unitldendar for civil protection &%k x x x x x 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV misdemeanors x_ x _- _x 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV felony x. 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports x . - .--x 

Individual hearings X 

Nobce of wolation only X 

Review calendars X 

Multiple agencies - .x 

Court staff -~ -x 

Treatment program provider - __ _. __ - - - - __ ___._ ____ 2 

Judgeonly . X X 

Agencles that monitor compliance: 

Judges are assigned exdusively to IIV: 

Yes. judges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X -x. . x. x 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

DV cases are screened for other related cases x x .x 

X 

B 

D 

D 

b 

i 

D 

Court has intake unitlprocess X 

Protection orders 

Criminal misdemeanors - . __ - x 

Criminal felony . . __ X 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Cases handled by intake: 

Services prowded by intake: 

Protection order petition X 

Screen cases for other pending matters 

Dworddissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D patemity/child support petitions 

IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court X 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Intake managed by: 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV prar3cedpmedures x 

Judicial DV training X 

Medical services X 

Suwvor support groups X 

Substance abuse X 

Mental health X 

Advocates assigned to victim X 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid X 

lmmlgrant services 

Emergency housing X 

VocatMnal services 

Public asststance 

Elder assistance 

General community support se~ces 

Children's support services 

Services prowded by the court: 

-.. - x 

X 

X xx 

X xx 

xx 

X 

X 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

X 

xx 

X 

X 

xx 

X 

X 

Cose Monogernent Features 63 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

5th Judlcial Dlstrlct Court / Eddy County 

P. 0. Box 1776 

Roswell, NM 88202-1776 

5th Judicial District CourWLea County 

f? 0. Box 1776 

Roswell, NM 88202-1776 

Sacramento County Superior Court 

120 9th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

7th Judlcial Clrcuit Court 

125 E. Orange Ave., Suite 300 

Daytona Beach, FL 321 14 

North La8 Vegas Munklpal Court 

2240 Civic Center Drive 

North Las Vegas, NV 89031) 

Gulltord County Distrlct Court 

P.O. Box 3008 

Greensboro, NC 27402-3008 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
court WmMaUon Numkr - 73 

Court has jurisdiction for civil protection orders - _X . . X _. X--X_ _ _ _. - ..X 

Court has specialized uniffcalendar for civil protection orders X X X X X 

Court has speaalied unit/calendar for DV misdemeanors . . __ _x_ .. x 

Court has specialized uniffcalendar for DV felony 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

x 

Compliance monitoring reports - _x. - -_. __ __ ._ __ ..x 

Review calendars - __ - - -. .-. x-...x 

MuLple agencies -. . - __ - .- _. __ .. x _. _x 

Court 

Treatmentprogramprovider 

staff - . _. . __ 

._ 

I 

- _ .. - -_.---A ._ _._ - _x 

Judge only ___-_____x 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases 

No, mixed caseload wlth no special DV calendar -. . . . .-_ . X 

DV cases are screened for other related cases x _.____._ x.x x 

Court has intake uniffprocess X X x 

Protection orders .x - __ -x 

Criminal misdemeanors X 

Criminal felony 

lndivtdual hearings 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Judges are assigned exdusively to DV: 

- ._ . _. x 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars -.-L X X x 

Cases handled by intake: 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Services provided by intake: 

Protectionorderpetition. _ x. 

Screen cases for other pending matters --x 

Dwoddissdution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternily/child support petitions 

IV-D paternity/child support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees X 

Multi-agency team with court .. 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practices/procedures 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health X 

Advocates assigned to vtdm X 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing X 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support SEMC~S 

Children's support SBMCES 

Judicial DV training X 

X 

-x 

X 

.x .x 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

.x 

X 

Case Management Features 65 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

Seatac Municipal Court 

17900 International Blvd., Ste. 401 

Seatac, WA 98058 

Everson Municipal Court 

P.O. Box 315 

Everson, WA 98247 

Domestic Relations Court 

425 North Orange Ave., Rrn. 320 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Fmno County Superior Court 

61 9 N Street 

Sanger, CA 93657 

5th Judicial District Court 

500 Mulberry Street 

Des Moines. IA 50309 

Snohomish County District Court 

Evergreen Division 

PO. Box 625 

Monroe. WA 98272 

X Domestic Violence Case Management 

. U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

Socorro County District Court 

P.O. Drawer 11 29 

Socorro, NM 87801 

3rd Judicial District Court 

450 South State 

Salt Lake City, UT 841 11 

7th Judicial Circuit Court 

200 S. 9th Street, RM 405 

Springfield, IL 62701 

29th Judicial Dlstrict Court 

Wyandotte County 

710 North 7th Street 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Blaine Municipal Court 

344 H Street 

Blaine, WA 98230 

3rd Judicial District Court 

669 Washington Street 

Easton, PA 18042 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court Idontnlatlon Number - 85a387mmw 

Court has lunsdction for civil protection orders _x_. x X 

Court has specialized uniUcalendar for DV misdemeanors . - .X 

Court has specialized Mcalendar for civil protection orders - X X X 

Court has specialized uniVdendar for DV felony 

Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports - - - - - . __ . __ -x- x 

IndiMdUal hearings 

Notm of violation only 

Review calendars -x 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies 

court staff __ . __ . - . . - . .x x 

Treatment program provider ~___ -.x 

Judse only - .x 

Judges are assigned exclusively to W: 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear W case _. - __ _- X -.X 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars . x- __ .x 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar - .x -X 

x x XX 

Court has intake uniVprocess xx x __ x x 

Protection orders _. __ . __ . X xx x 

Criminal misdemeanors . __ .____I . ___ x - - X 3-X 

Criminal felony _. x -. .._ X 

custody ______I_ - -- -x 

Child support 

Divorce 

DV cases are screened for other related cases 

Cases handled by intake: 

Services provided by intake: 

Protectiin order petition . .. x x x. ._. x x 

Screen cases for other pending matters x- .- X 

Divorcddissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternity/child support petitions 

IV-D patemily/child support petitions 

Court with court employees X X X 

Multi-agency team with court - .. - - - . x 

Intake managed by: 

Multi-agency team without the court-- .x 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practices/proceduras X X 

Judicial DV training X X xx 

b 

b 

b 

B 

b 

b 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical SeMCeS 

Survivor support groups X xx 

Substance abuse X 

Mental health X 

Advocates assigned to wchm X xx 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid X X 

Immigrant S~MC~S 

Emergency housing X 

Vocational SBMC~S X 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance X 

General comrnunlty support sems X X 

Children's support S~MC~S X 

xx 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Case Management Features 69 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

Everett Municipal Court 

3028 Wetmore Avenue 

Everett, WA 98201-4018 

PacHic County Superior Court 

PO. Box 67 

South Bend, WA 98586 

8th Judicial District Court 

Family Division 

601 N. Pews Road, Rm. 54 

Las Vegas, NV 89101-2408 

13th Judicial Circuit Court 

100 W. Lafayette Street 

Ottawa, IL 61 350 

Second Judicial Circuit Court 

PO. Box 726 

Tallahassee, FL 32302 

10th Judicial Distrlct Court 

P.O. Box 31 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

-- - Domestic Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Court Id.ntfflcstlon Number - 91 92 93 94 9596 

Court has junsdlction for civil protection orders 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for civil protection orders 

Court has specialized unitlcalendar for DV misdemeanors 

xxx 

X 

X 

Court has specialized unitkalendar for DV felony ' Batterer compliance is monitored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports 

Individual hearings X -_x 

Notrce of violation only - _. - _. x 

Review calendars 

Agencies that monitor compliance: 

Multiple agencies xx 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only 

) courtstatt X 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV: 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear W cases 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars. - __ - ._-x. x x 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

X 

xx 

DV cases are screened for other related cases X xxx 

Court has intake unit/process X X x .. x 

Prot&on orders X X 

Criminal misdemeanors X X 

Criminal felony X 

custody 

Cases handled by intake: 

Child supporl 

Divorce b 

Services provided by intake: 

Protection order petition X xx 

Screen cases for other pending matters X X X 

Divorce/dissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D patemiiykhild support petitions 

IV-D paternity/child support petitions 

Intake managed by: 1 Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees X 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practrcedpmcedures 

Judicial DV training X 

p Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocational services 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General community support services 

Children's support services 

D 

X 

D Case Management Features 71 

X X 

X 

xx 

X X 

X 

xxxx 

X 

X 

xxx 

X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

xx 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
97 

98 

99 

100 

0th Judiclai District Court 

PO. Box 608 

Lordsburg, NM 88045 

Lake Forest Park Municipal Court 

1771 1 Ballinger Way NE 

Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 

Dallas County Criminal Court 

133 N. Industrial Blvd. 

2nd Floor, LB 3 

Dallas, TX 75207 

8th Judicial Circuit Court 

Alachua County Courthouse 

201 E. University Ave., Suite 400 

Gainesville, FL 32601 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
- Court Identlfiutlon Number - 

97 OB 99 loo 101 

ZZC- -a ..~nsdlcbon for civil protection orders xx 

2:~- -as speaalued unit/calendar for civil protection orders x _x h- *as speaalized univcalendar for DV misdemeanors 

2~- pa speaalized unit/calendar for DV felony 

3arerer compliance is monitored by: 

CMpl~ana, monitoring reports X 

Nobce of wdation only .x 

idrvldual heanngs 

Rewew calendars 

Agemes that monttor compliance: 

Mulbple agencies .x 

court staff 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only 

Judges are assigned exclusively to N. 

Yes, judges are assigned exclusively to hear DV cases X X X 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars . -. X X 

No, mixed caseload with no spedal DV calendar 

DV cases are screened for other related wes - - X X 

Court has intake UniVprocess -_ - ._._ __ ._. X X 

Protection orders xx 

criminal misdemeanori . xx 

Criminal felony X X 

custody 

Child support 

Divorce 

Cases handled by intake: 

Services provided by intake: 

Protection order petition I_ __ - - ._ ___-.L -_ X 

Screen cases for other pending matters X X 

Divoddissdution petitions 

Non-IV-D patemiiykhild support petitions 

IV-D patemily/child support petitions 

Intake managed by: 

court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court X 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures 

Judiiial DV training 

Services provided by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant services 

Emergency housing 

Vocabonal se~ces 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General communw support sem Children's support se~ces 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X X X 

X 

X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X 

X X 

X X 

Csse Management Features 73 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
102 Connecticut Superior Court 

Judicial District Courthouse 

1061 Main Street 

Bridgeport, CT 06604 

103 Yakima County Superior Court 

128 N. 2nd Street, #323 

Yakima, WA 98901 

. --_-_-_ , 

.- - . -: - . z e-CP Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
b - Court IdenMcation Number - 

102 103 

Court has junsdiction forr civil protection orders -_ -x 

Court has specialized uniVcalendar for civil protection orders 

Court has specialized uniVcalendar for DV misdemeanors 

Court has specialized unit/calendar for DV felony 

X 

X 

X ’ Barterer compliance IS monttored by: 

Compliance monitoring reports 

lndiwdual hearings 

Nom of violation only 

Reviewcalendars X 

Agencies that monitor compliance 

Mulhple agencies X 

court staff 

Treatment program provider 

Judge only 

B 

Judges are assigned exclusively to DV 

Yes, j- are assigned exclusively to hear W cases 

No, mixed caseload with no special DV calendar 

No, mixed caseload with special DV calendars X X 

DV cases are screened for other related cases 

Court has intake uniVprccess X 

Criminal misdemeanors X 

Criminal felony X 

custody 

x .. x 

Cases handled by intake: 

Protection orders 

Child support 

Divorce B 

Sewices prowded by intake: 

Protection order petition 

Screen cases for other pending matters 

Dworce/dissolution petitions 

Non-IV-D paternitykhild support petitions 

IV-D paternityhhild support petitions 

B Intake managed by: 

Court with court employees 

Multi-agency team with court 

Multi-agency team without the court 

Outside agency with agency employees 

Court has conducted an evaluation of DV practicedprocedures 

Judicial DV training 

Services prowded by the court: 

Medical services 

Survivor support groups 

Substance abuse 

Mental health 

Advocates assigned to victim 

Pro bono attorneys through legal aid 

Immigrant se~ces 

Emergency housing 

Vocational se~ces 

Public assistance 

Elder assistance 

General communrty support setvces 

’ 

1 

Children‘s Support SeMteS 

t Czse !.‘s-o-,e-e-- Feotures 75 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X s 

X x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
Appendix 2 

Survey 

DomesticViolence Courts: 

Jurisdiction, Organimtion, 

Performance Goals, 

and Measures 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS: JURISDICTION, ORGANIZATION, 

PERFORMANCE GOALS, AND MEASURES 

Contact Name: 

Title: 

court: 

Mdllng Address: 

city: State: zip: 

Phone: Far: 

Chlef/Preslding Judge: 

Please try to complete all applicable questions in this survey. 

If you are not the person most able to complete the survey, please pass it on to the person who is. 

If you feel that the response options for a particular question do not adequately or fully characterize 

your court organization, processes, or services, feel ftee to include explanatory notes or comments. 

If you have difficulty understanding a question, skip it and we will call to clarify the item with you after 

you return the survey. 

e If you have any questions about the survey or would like more information about the project, please 

call Hillery Efkeman (703) 841-0200. 

Please complete the enclosed survey and fax or mail it to the NCSC by April 30,1999. 

Susan Keilitz 

National Center for State Courts 

300 Newport Avenue 

Willlamsburg, VA 23185 

FAX: (757) 220-0449 

_. . -,-.-&s<-- - - __ - Violence Case Management 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS: JURISDICTION, ORGANIZATION, 

PERFORMANCE GOALS, AND MEASURES 

’ hSlCSAn0N OF DOmeSnC VIOLENCE CASE TWES 

I. In the table below, please check the boxes in Column A for all case types designated as a domestic violence case by your court. Then, for each case type checked in Column A, please check in Columns B - D whether: 

B. All of the cases for the designated case type typically are assigned cxclusively to a specialized 

divisiodcalendar 

C. Some of the cases for the designated case type typically are assigned to a specialized divisiodcalendar 

D. None of the case for the designated case typc typically are assigned to a specialized division/calmdar b 

b I Civil Protection Order CW I tuetitioner hur children1 

Civil Protection Ordcr Cmes 

[p*itiona has no children] 

Domestic Violence 

Misdemeanors 

Domestic Violence Felonies 

Delinquency 

[nhcre D.V. offender is I minor] 

Child Abvv & Seglat Crw 

[with rclncd CPO or DV crimii 

U C. D. 

None of hc 

asc5 fm the 

idclltifi cuc 

divirimlaladm 

2 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
2. What dces your jurisdiction seek to achieve in establishing specialized pmcedum for proceaping and/or 

adjudicating domestic violence cases? mkw&cl~rlkrtupr~)) 

1. Imprwrdcuemrmgemcnt 5. lncmaed acco~~tability of defndmtrlnspondcatt 

2. Mae ef6cht we of lcunxcu 6. BcctaeourtKcurity 

3. lncrrrrcdvictimaafuy 7. lnaated visibility of domestic violmce as a significant social pmblm! 

4. B*tcrusirtmcetovictims 8. olhg(apsify): 

3. Do the judges or other judicial officers (hearing offidcommissiondmagistrates) assigned to hear 

domestic violence cases hear them exclusively? pkse drrlr h number of the -due mapme) 

1. Yea, jUaeg am us- cxduaivcly to hem domestic violenw CIU*I 

2. No, judgu hw a mixcd wclod but also arc rrsigned to a special domestic violmce calendar 

3. No, judgu have a mixed caselod awl there is no vial domcsticvidcnce dcndsr 

N.mkroIj.dsa:- 

4. Does any depllrtment of the court or clerk’s office screcn for related cases (current or past) upon filing 

of a case involving domestic violence (e.&, screen for criminal offenses when a protection order petition 

is filed)? @%me ckfe h number of h qp- mponw) 

0. No~gol0prWrrion1) 1. Ycs 

5. If yes, pleasc check the csse(ypcs screened in the table below. 

3 

L 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
6. \hat is the purpose of case screening? 

I. L~condiartingcuaforuue~iag 

2. Infonningb.ildccisions 

5. lnformingscntenciagdsiciorw 

4 

5. Infonniq developmmi of saf'cty proteeton plans 

6. --WN%) 

b 

Informing devclopmcnt of civil pMi0n ordas 

hTAKEANDcOORDINATlON ' 7. Does your wwtlxavt aunit or process that assists with the in& or co~rdition of all or part ofthe 

domestic violence caseload? (Note, this does nor include an outside agency thatpet$orms infake for its 

own agency and is not connected to rhe court's cate processing). 

-) 

drr* tbe number of tbe 

0. No~~eploQvsrmOn13) 1. Yes 

8. Which cases does the intake unit or process handle? (Pk dr~lrddku @) 

b 1. pmtcaim(xdas 5. Child Support 

2. CrimiaalMiSdemaDor . 6. Divorcc 

3. Crimii Felony 7. ~familymnttas~~~) 

4. custody 

9. Who manages your intake unit or process? dldr the number of the mri.lr mponu) 

1. Malaged~bythccourtwith~cmploy~ 

2. Malagedbyanoutridcaeencywithrgencyorrployen 

m-=P=ib,Ww) 

3. Managcdby amulti-agmcy tam that includa the court 

4. Mmuged by amulti-agmcy team that ckws not include the court 

b 

10. Is intake staff assigned exclusively to the intake function? meue cfmb tbe number of tbe Qprgriur 

-) 

0. No I. Yes 

D 

1 1. If yes, how many staff arc assigned to intake? 

12. What services arc provided/functions performed by the intake unit or as part of the intake process? 

(Pleaw circle dl thm qp&) 

I. Assii petiti-%icrimr uith protcnion order petitions 

2. Assisting petitioner uitb puemity'child ruppon petitions for Title IV-D petitions 

3. Assistiq @timer with puemir child support petitions for aon-Title IV-D petitions 

4. Assisting petitioner with disoludon diva petitions 

6. Mkingrrfmdstooc&rsomrdiwsiam 

7. MJjllerrfmdsu,olraidcvnisqernes 

8. Coodbnng vnioc po\isica o petmans\:?- 

b 

5. ~CrvrfaMhapaldHlgmmcn 

9. omer@&4xlprcib): 

1 SERVICE REFERRU A.D -Wl 

b 

4 

Sdvey 81 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
13. Does the court assist with or link the victim/protection order petitioner to service refas or service 

provision? (pr.w cide the number of Ihe .ppropri.lr ~~ORW) 

0. No@IrWgo~Qnat&nIJ) 1. Ycs 

14. If yes, which services are included in this activity? (Cid eUtha ,I&u) 

1. advocate^ auigned to victim 9. Eldn~rture 

2. Robonoanomcystlm~~lgdaid 10. Subsmneerbw 

3. Emqmcyhouaing 11. Mnnalbealth 

5. L~withscrvicCaforimmipts 13. Childrcn’sxlvica 

7. Voutional Jervicg and counseling 

8. Publiiassisrpncc 

4. Mcdialscrvicts 12. ~communi~~rervice 

6. Survivor (victim) support groups 14. -W-P=W 

Mhdua.on 

Court probation 

Local non-coun probstion agency 

Sate non-courl probation cgcncy 

CommuniIy-b.lcd domestic violence 

PmoNn 

Brttcrer intervention pmllnm 

BA~~I”I~ONPROG~ANDCO~WLIANCE 

15. Does the court regularly order battems to pmticipate in a battem intervention program? pk cide the 

nu* of * w+ -4 

0. No~goPQ~onI9) 1. Yep 

16. If yea, by what authority and in which types of domestic violence cases an banerers’ intervention 

programs Ordered? (ciN!& dtha.1 apply) 

I. By StaMC in crimil misdnneawm 

2. BypncticcincrhairulmwlaneanaJ 6. By praetiCe in criminal felonies 

5. By ahMC in crimiinal felonin 

3. Bystatuteinprotcaionordcn 7. --4=iw 

4. Bypructiceinprotcctionordm 

Fdonla Ptrtlon o#dm 

17. In cases where batterer intervention is required, what agency or court staff monitors compliance with 

orders? (Check d dku q&) 

court dminisauive otliw mff I court clerk SmfF I I 

Judge 

Other 

NIA 

5 

-- 

:L 3c.nestic Violence Case Management 

. 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
16. For cases what treatment is ordered, does the murt have a regularly scheduled judicial review calendar 

10 monitor treatment prognss? (plrur &le the number of the appwiyc rrsporru) 

0. so I. Yes 

B 

L\Tonw*nors symm 

19. kes the court have an automated information system in place to: (prcpcc ch& the ndr of h 

wmhe Mponrc) 

(a) faciliWidatifiortiOaofrclotedacts? 0. No 1. Yes 

(b) fpeili~~spctrdting 0. No@IcurgotoQvrrlion 21) 1. Yes B 

20. Which outside agencies, if any, also have access to the system(s)? (cirdedtherqp&) 

I. No other agencies hve ascus 5. comctions 

2. Police 6. Victim Advocacy o%anizptions 

3. Rosenrtion 7. SocialSeniAgemir 

4. Robetion 8. Other@lcusespeci~) 

2 1. Which outside agency systems, if any, can the court access? (~lrdr d that up&) 

1. NoagcncysyatemsucPbythccmt 5. Cdom 

2. Police 6. VictimAdvocPcyorgmizAom 

3. prwecution 7. SocirlsesViceAgcncies 

4. Robetion 8. e@*ucWW 

B FIJNDING 

22. What federal funding, if any, is your jurisdiction receiving to assist with the operation and/or evaluation 

of your specialized procedures for processing and/or adjudicating domestic violence cases? (Cirdedtha 

&) 

I. Nofedadfunding 4. VOCAfun& 

2. Grants to enmuage arrcn policies 5. Other@krruspccjly) 

3. VAWA STOP grant funds 

~SPEcuLlzEDPROcESSES 

D 

23. Please briefly describe any unique features or procedures of your court for processing domestic violence 

cases that are not covered by this survey. 

b 

b Survey 83 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report
U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report

16. For cases what treatment is ordered, does the murt have a regularly scheduled judicial review calendar 

10 monitor treatment prognss? (plrur &le the number of the appwiyc rrsporru) 

0. so I. Yes 

B 

L\Tonw*nors symm 

19. kes the court have an automated information system in place to: (prcpcc ch& the ndr of h 

wmhe Mponrc) 

(a) faciliWidatifiortiOaofrclotedacts? 0. No 1. Yes 

(b) fpeili~~spctrdting 0. No@IcurgotoQvrrlion 21) 1. Yes B 

20. Which outside agencies, if any, also have access to the system(s)? (cirdedtherqp&) 

I. No other agencies hve ascus 5. comctions 

2. Police 6. Victim Advocacy o%anizptions 

3. Rosenrtion 7. SocialSeniAgemir 

4. Robetion 8. Other@lcusespeci~) 

2 1. Which outside agency systems, if any, can the court access? (~lrdr d that up&) 

1. NoagcncysyatemsucPbythccmt 5. Cdom 

2. Police 6. VictimAdvocPcyorgmizAom 

3. prwecution 7. SocirlsesViceAgcncies 

4. Robetion 8. e@*ucWW 

B FIJNDING 

22. What federal funding, if any, is your jurisdiction receiving to assist with the operation and/or evaluation 

of your specialized procedures for processing and/or adjudicating domestic violence cases? (Cirdedtha 

&) 

I. Nofedadfunding 4. VOCAfun& 

2. Grants to enmuage arrcn policies 5. Other@krruspccjly) 

3. VAWA STOP grant funds 

~SPEcuLlzEDPROcESSES 

D 

23. Please briefly describe any unique features or procedures of your court for processing domestic violence 

cases that are not covered by this survey. 

b 

b Survey 83 

U.S. Department of Justice.

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report