Research for Practice 

Pretrial Innovations for Domestic Violence 

Offenders and Victims 

Lessons From the Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration Initiative 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

AUG. 07 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Alberto R. Gonzales 

Attorney General 

Regina B. Schofield 

Assistant Attorney General 

David W. Hagy 

Acting Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
AUG. 07 

Pretrial Innovations for Domestic Violence 

Offenders and Victims: Lessons From the 

Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative 

Funding for the demonstration sites came from the U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Under 

a separate award from the National Institute of Justice, the Urban 

Institute is conducting an evaluation of the Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration (JOD) initiative, which includes process and impact 

evaluations. Additional reports are forthcoming. 

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are solely those 

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. 

Department of Justice or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. 

This research was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice under 

Cooperative Agreement 99–WT–VX–K005. 

NCJ 216041 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

ABOUT THIS REPORT
 

Domestic violence cases 

involving intimate partners 

pose challenges for the criminal justice system as the 

cases move from arrest to 

adjudication to sentencing. 

The lengthy time period after 

arrest but before case disposition (either by plea, trial verdict, or dismissal) puts 

domestic violence victims at 

high risk. Offenders often violate no-contact orders and 

seek out their victims during 

this pretrial period, raising the 

potential for more violence. 

State courts in three demonstration sites are rethinking 

how they handle domestic 

violence cases through the 

Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) project. The 

three sites are all seeking to 

increase victim safety while 

holding offenders accountable, 

but each site implemented 

the project in a slightly different way. 

This report discusses how 

pretrial innovations were 

implemented in the three 

demonstration sites— 

Dorchester, MA, Milwaukee, 

WI, and Washtenaw County, 

MI. It also describes the pretrial strategies, key aspects 

of their implementation, and 

lessons learned for other 

jurisdictions wishing to implement innovations in pretrial 

procedures for domestic 

violence cases. 

Major changes in the operations of the courts at the pretrial stage entailed— 

■	 Developing consistent and 

timely procedures for 

judges to use in handling 

pretrial matters in domestic 

violence cases. 

■	 Restructuring court 

processes to focus on the 

unique characteristics of 

domestic violence cases. 

■	 Monitoring defendants 

prior to trial and responding to violations of bond 

conditions. 

■	 Connecting victims to 

support services early 

in the process. 

ii 
 

PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

Christy A. Visher, Adele V. Harrell, and Lisa C. Newmark 

Pretrial Innovations for Domestic 

Violence Offenders and Victims: 

Lessons From the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration Initiative 

In this report, the term 

domestic violence is used 

to refer to violence that 

occurs among intimate 

partners, as this term is 

most commonly used 

among practitioners and 

policymakers. The term 

intimate partner violence 

is used as well. 

About the Authors 

Christy A. Visher is with 

the Urban Institute. Adele 

V. Harrell and Lisa C. 

Newmark were with the 

Urban Institute when the 

evaluation was conducted. 

The Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration (JOD) initiative tests the idea that quick, 

coordinated responses by the 

community and the justice 

system can keep victims safer 

and hold offenders accountable in intimate partner violence cases.1 

In 1999, Dorchester, MA, 

Milwaukee, WI, and Washtenaw County, MI, began 

integrating better judicial 

oversight into existing coordinated responses to intimate 

partner violence. The demonstrations strengthen previous 

partnerships and build new 

partnerships between the 

court and other agencies, 

including the prosecutor’s 

office, victim service providers, batterer intervention 

programs, law enforcement, 

and probation. The goals 

include greater safety and 

offender accountability. 

Researchers are in the 

process of evaluating the 

outcome of the project— 

whether domestic violence 

victims are truly safer 

because of this new 

approach. The answers will 

be available in 2009. In the 

meantime, many jurisdictions 

are considering putting in 

place a domestic violence 

court or enhancing their 

pretrial responses to this 

crime. This report describes 

some of the challenges these 

jurisdictions may face. 

Innovative pretrial 

strategies 

The pretrial period can be a 

high-risk time for domestic 

violence victims.2 Their 

abusers, usually charged with 

misdemeanor domestic violence, are rarely held in custody before trial in most 

jurisdictions, though they 

may be held briefly after 

arrest (overnight or over 

a weekend) while awaiting 

an arraignment hearing. In 

most jurisdictions, released 

defendants are not supervised prior to trial. This raises 

concerns about the safety of 

1 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

their victims. Defendants 

may retaliate or intimidate 

their victims into changing 

their story or not testifying. 

Although many jurisdictions 

prohibit defendants from having any contact with victims 

while the case is pending, 

victims still face significant 

safety risks because nocontact bond conditions are 

often violated by the defendants. Further, no-contact 

order violations, even those 

reported to the police, often 

go unpunished because of 

lengthy intervals between 

court appearances. 

The JOD sites addressed 

both victim safety and offender accountability by increasing the involvement of judges 

in managing domestic violence cases before trial, 

restructuring court procedures, and expanding victim 

services. Dorchester and 

Washtenaw County dedicated domestic violence dockets 

within their existing court 

structures, and Milwaukee 

added a domestic violence 

intake court. Washtenaw 

County and Milwaukee also 

developed standard policies 

and protocols for predisposition case processing, and all 

three sites expanded victim 

services to improve victim 

security and participation in 

the court process. 

Judicial involvement 

and consistency 

With multiple judges hearing 

domestic violence cases at 

each of the sites, an important goal of the project was 

to ensure that the new JOD 

policies and protocols promoted consistent court procedures. This objective was 

accomplished in a variety of 

ways. 

At each site, at least one 

judge started using innovative court responses to intimate partner violence before 

the demonstration began. 

These judges were instrumental in educating other 

judges on new approaches 

and involving the court in a 

coordinated, systemwide 

response. Also, all judges 

(and Milwaukee’s court commissioners) involved in JOD 

participated in a judicial training institute sponsored by the 

Office on Violence Against 

Women (OVW). The 5-day 

curriculum covered a variety 

of topics including judicial 

decisionmaking in intimate 

partner violence cases, 

review hearings, graduated 

sanctions, the role of judges 

beyond the courtroom, immigration law, cultural awareness, risk and lethality 

assessment, and the effects 

of domestic violence on 

2 
PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

children. The judges reported 

that the training gave them 

a more detailed understanding of intimate partner violence and the role of the 

court in adjudicating these 

offenses. 

In Dorchester, judges used 

peer-to-peer learning to 

improve consistency in decisionmaking. The judges on 

the Dorchester JOD bench at 

the start of implementation 

had been very active in developing the Massachusetts Trial 

Courts’ Guidelines for Judicial 

Practice in Abuse Prevention 

Proceedings. As other judges 

came to that court, the original 

judges shared their knowledge and expertise in domestic violence case processing 

through informal, on-the-job 

training opportunities. 

In Washtenaw County, all 

seven of the county’s district 

court judges signed and 

adopted a new domestic 

violence protocol, agreeing 

on six principles for domestic 

violence cases: 

■	 Dedicated dockets 1 day 

per week. 

■	 Priority processing of 

cases. 

■	 Compulsory bond 

conditions. 

■	 Use of a designated 

probation unit. 

■	 Automatic appointment 

of defense counsel. 

■	 Early subpoenaing of 

witnesses. 

The designated domestic violence judges also developed 

formal, standardized, written 

protocols for conducting 

arraignments, which included 

obtaining defendants’ criminal 

histories and other background information to use in 

making bond decisions and 

using a common conditional 

bond-release form. This 

process built consensus and 

commitment to consistent 

judicial practices across the 

county’s four district courts. 

In Milwaukee, the chief judge 

carefully selected the new 

domestic violence court commissioner and the judges to 

be assigned to the domestic 

violence court. Judges were 

assigned to the domestic violence court for a 2-year term 

and attended special domestic violence training. The 

judges were rotated periodically to reduce burnout and 

give more judges the opportunity to receive training and 

experience in handling 

domestic violence cases— 

training and experience that 

can be applied to other cases, 

3 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

such as homicide and sexual 

assault. The use of rotation 

suggests that the specialized 

judicial training in domestic 

violence provided by the 

OVW for the JOD sites 

should be continued as standard practice. 

Restructuring court 

processes for domestic 

violence cases 

Two JOD sites, Dorchester 

and Washtenaw County, dedicated courts or docket days 

to domestic violence cases 

(including civil protection 

orders, misdemeanor criminal cases, and some or all 

felony cases in Dorchester), 

and Milwaukee added an 

intake court. Restructuring 

depended on each site’s existing court structures, characteristics of the community, the 

size of the intimate partner 

violence caseload, and judicial 

practices in these cases. 

Other jurisdictions interested 

in replicating this approach 

could benefit from an examination of their own court 

organization and contextual 

factors before deciding how 

to structure their specialized 

courts (see “Structure, 

Schedules, and Staff Issues” 

on page 5). 

In Dorchester, domestic violence cases had been spread 

across six general sessions 

or courtrooms. The JOD initiative consolidated domestic 

violence into a single session 

for the first time, using 

a “vertical adjudication” 

model—the processing of 

cases by a single prosecutor 

through a specialized prosecution unit—for cases disposed without trial. Now, one 

of the general sessions operates as a full-time domestic 

violence court. This dedicated 

domestic violence court handles all intimate partner violence civil restraining orders 

and all criminal court procedures for domestic violence 

misdemeanors and lowerlevel felonies, including 

arraignments, pretrial and 

other hearings, plea hearings 

and sentencing, preliminary 

and final probation violation 

hearings, and probation 

reviews. The court also handles preindictment hearings 

for more serious felonies. 

Trials are adjourned to another session to help manage 

caseloads. 

In Milwaukee, three specialized courts for domestic violence misdemeanor cases 

operated prior to JOD. With 

plans under JOD to expand 

services to these cases and 

begin hearing felony cases 

as well, Milwaukee needed 

an additional specialized court 

4 
PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

to respond to the anticipated 

workload. Under the direction 

of a domestic violence court 

commissioner, an intake 

court was established to 

handle initial appearances for 

out-of-custody defendants 

and misdemeanor arraignments, freeing the other three 

courts for case disposition 

including pleas, trials, sentencing hearings, postdisposition 

hearings, and adjudication of 

felony cases. Milwaukee’s 

domestic violence courts use 

vertical adjudication with 

felony cases only. 

In Washtenaw County, one of 

the four district courts (District Court 15, located in Ann 

Arbor) already had a domestic 

violence docket day prior to 

the JOD project. Because 

Washtenaw County is a larger 

and less densely populated 

area compared to urban 

Dorchester and Milwaukee, 

it was necessary to maintain 

domestic violence courts at 

each of the four district 

courts located in different 

areas of the county. The caseload did not require full-time 

court resources for domestic 

violence cases in any of the 

courts, so each court established one domestic violence 

docket day per week. Washtenaw County District Courts 

also use a vertical adjudication model. 

STRUCTURE, SCHEDULES, AND STAFF ISSUES 

The structure of the domestic violence court in each of the 

JOD sites proved to be very efficient for coordinating the 

necessary activities in prosecuting domestic violence 

cases. Prior to JOD, domestic violence case hearings in 

two of the three sites (Dorchester and Washtenaw County, 

except for District 15) were spread across different courtrooms. This meant that the relevant persons—prosecutors, 

defense attorneys, probation officers, and victim 

advocates—had different schedules. 

During JOD, the dedicated dockets for domestic violence 

cases ensured that the dedicated staff could be present in 

the courtroom for all phases of the court process—from 

arraignment to sentencing. This led to the formation of 

courtroom teams of staff from different agencies, all 

dedicated to domestic violence cases. Anecdotal reports 

from the JOD sites suggest a positive response from staff 

and successful working relationships resulted from this 

change. 

Monitoring and 

educating defendants 

Court monitoring of defendants is a delicate legal 

matter, touching on the 

“innocent until proven guilty” 

concept at the heart of the 

U.S. judicial system. Yet, it is 

clear that domestic violence 

victims are at high risk, and 

defendants can imperil both 

the victim’s safety and the 

outcome of the criminal case 

if steps are not taken to deter 

defendants from further 

intimidation or violence. At the 

outset of the demonstration, 

Dorchester did not plan a pretrial monitoring component 

5 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

because of strong defendants’ rights laws and a 

probation system limited 

by fiscal constraints. Instead, 

emphasis was placed on 

postdisposition supervision. 

Washtenaw County and 

Milwaukee struggled with 

balancing defendants’ rights 

and victim safety in the pretrial period and ultimately 

addressed this dilemma in 

different ways. 

The Washtenaw County demonstration initially included 

active monitoring of defendants during the predisposition phase. After objections 

were received from the 

defense bar, monitoring activities were redesigned to an 

in-person review of bond conditions with groups of recently 

charged defendants and an 

initial drug test if ordered by 

the court (with regular testing 

possible, contingent on the 

results of the first test). 

Under this new practice, the 

courts ordered defendants to 

contact the Domestic Violence Probation Unit—a 

newly formed unit under the 

authority of County Probation—within 24 hours to 

make an appointment. Several times a week, the probation supervisor reviewed 

bond conditions with a group 

of defendants to ensure they 

understood the conditions 

and to answer any questions. 

The group review of bond 

conditions within a week of 

arraignment was designed 

to overcome the pre-JOD 

problem of defendants and 

defense attorneys claiming 

that they were unaware of 

the bond conditions. 

Also in Washtenaw County, 

responses to violations of 

bond conditions were 

improved in several ways. 

Court officers entered bond 

conditions into a statewide 

law enforcement database, 

so that if a law enforcement 

officer stopped a defendant 

anywhere in the State, any 

violations of release could 

easily be detected. The 

courts also put new systems 

in place to handle pretrial 

bond violations. If the defendant failed to call or appear 

for the appointment to review 

bond conditions with the 

Domestic Violence Probation 

Unit, a request for a bench 

warrant was sent to the 

judge for review. Washtenaw 

County streamlined procedures for bringing violations 

of bond conditions to the 

attention of prosecutors and 

the court, so that the courts 

could issue sanctions for 

these violations in advance 

of the trial date. Judges used 

a variety of sanctions to 

enforce bond conditions, 

6 
 

PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

including fines and weekends 

in jail. Although it was not 

possible to enhance activities 

to detect noncompliance 

through active, individualized 

monitoring, strengthened 

responses to reported 

violations were intended 

to increase defendant 

accountability. 

Only Milwaukee was able to 

implement active, individualized monitoring of released 

defendants, but defense bar 

concerns, as well as operational issues, also shaped its 

new monitoring program. The 

pretrial monitoring program 

evolved into an intensive 

schedule of monitoring activities, but was limited to 30 to 

40 high-risk defendants at a 

time. On average, defendants 

reported to either the commissioner or the bail monitor 

every 2 weeks prior to case 

disposition. The bail monitor 

also made home visits to 

defendants to verify their 

addresses and monitor bail 

conditions such as absolute 

sobriety. Violations could be 

immediately reported to the 

court commissioner for possible sanctions. In addition, 

the bail monitor contacted 

victims regularly to check 

on their safety, reminding 

them to report any violations 

of the no-contact orders to 

the court. As part of the 

demonstration, Milwaukee’s 

Office of the District Attorney 

made enhancements to the 

prosecution of violations of 

bond conditions by charging 

many of those who violated a 

no-contact order with bail 

jumping, a criminal offense 

under Wisconsin law. 

Information and 

service referrals 

for victims 

Another way to guard against 

the risks posed to victim 

safety is by improving direct 

services to victims. While 

all three JOD sites funded 

enhanced services by nongovernmental victim service 

agencies, the Dorchester and 

Washtenaw County sites also 

provided additional courtbased services. Milwaukee 

had a longstanding presence 

in the courthouse with a 

range of services provided by 

two nongovernmental agencies, including an onsite 

restraining order clinic. JOD 

funds were used to enhance 

programs for these functions 

as well as for services in the 

community provided by four 

well-established nongovernmental organizations. 

The Dorchester site used 

JOD funds to employ a victim 

specialist known as the 

7 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

triager, who was based 

onsite in the restraining order 

clerk’s office to provide early 

needs assessment, information and referrals, and assistance with restraining orders 

for victims in criminal and 

civil cases. The triage function, designed to serve all 

domestic violence victims 

who entered the courthouse, 

increased coordination and 

cross-referrals among the 

prosecution-based victim/ 

witness specialists and the 

nongovernmental service 

providers, and encouraged 

victim participation in the justice system. Dorchester also 

used JOD funds to staff a 

Civil Legal Services Office at 

the courthouse with community-based advocates from 

four organizations. This office 

provided restraining order 

assistance to victims in multiple languages and referrals to 

culturally appropriate victim 

services. 

Washtenaw County devoted 

some of its JOD funds to hire 

two specialists for the prosecutor’s victim/witness unit 

who handled domestic violence cases exclusively. Prior 

to JOD, victim/witness specialists’ major responsibility 

in intimate partner violence 

cases was to send letters to 

all victims informing them of 

their rights. With the initiation 

of JOD, the new specialists 

took a more active role in 

working with victims. Specialists attempted to reach all 

victims by phone the day 

after the defendant’s arrest to 

explain the court process and 

assess the victims’ needs 

(see “Timing of Intervention” 

on page 9). They also encouraged victims to participate in 

the prosecution process, 

accompanied them in court, 

and referred them to the local 

nongovernmental victim support organization for further 

services. 

In planning for JOD in Milwaukee, victim advocates 

expressed concern that the 

large urban courthouse posed 

the risk that domestic 

violence victims would be 

confronted with defendants 

appearing for hearings or trial. 

The Milwaukee project provided a secured space in the 

courthouse for victims and 

their children, staffed by 

victim/witness specialists 

who provided information 

about the court process and 

service referrals. All subpoenas to victims from the 

District Attorney’s office 

instructed victims to report to 

this victim waiting room prior 

to the court proceeding. This 

innovation encouraged victim 

participation by providing 

information, privacy, and 

8 
PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

security on site. Anecdotal 

reports from JOD staff indicate that victims were less 

likely to leave the courthouse 

prematurely because the likelihood of an unwanted 

encounter with the defendant 

had been sharply reduced. 

To encourage victims to testify 

in court, the new domestic 

violence court commissioner 

in Milwaukee implemented 

new procedures in his courtroom, routinely asking if the 

victim was present and 

whether she wished to communicate with the court. Prior 

to JOD, victim input was not 

requested. In most jurisdictions, victim testimony is usually only requested at 

sentencing. 

Lessons learned 

Four major lessons emerged 

from the Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration site’s experiences in developing innovative, pretrial approaches to 

ensure defendant accountability and victim safety for 

intimate partner violence 

cases. These were the importance of— 

■	 Judicial involvement and 

willingness to coordinate 

case procedures to 

enhance consistency. 

TIMING OF INTERVENTION 

The JOD sites found that the most feasible first response 

to domestic violence victims by a victim advocate or law 

enforcement liaison may occur the day after the incident. 

Immediate, onscene crisis response to victims of intimate 

partner violence was attempted in two of the three sites 

(Dorchester and Milwaukee). Both sites experienced 

concerns for the safety of the advocate or responder, 

and law enforcement agencies were not always able to 

provide sufficient staffing to ensure their protection. In 

addition, victims may be more receptive to intervention 

after the initial crisis has passed—the domestic violence 

liaison in the Milwaukee Police Department made contact 

with 82 percent of the victims referred. 

■	 Restructuring court 

processes in domestic 

violence cases to permit 

better coordination among 

agencies. 

■	 Procedures to monitor or 

educate defendants and 

provide a quick court 

response to violations 

of no-contact orders and 

other bond conditions. 

■	 Connecting victims to 

support services early 

in the process. 

Challenges to implementing 

innovative pretrial practices 

include— 

■	 Resource limitations for 

expanding staff and 

providing training. 

9 
RESEARCH FOR PRACTICE / JULY 07 

■	 Developing consistent practices among the judiciary. 

■	 Balancing pretrial policies 

and procedures with due 

process concerns. 

■	 Defining the roles and 

mandates of different 

service providers. 

Other states are also experimenting with unique procedures for handling intimate 

partner violence cases in the 

period before trial to ensure 

the safety of the victim. The 

Pretrial Services Resource 

Center reports3 that Illinois 

has established a rule requiring persons arrested for 

domestic violence offenses 

to see a judge before being 

released so that appropriate 

release conditions can be 

set. Mississippi and Washington also have such laws. In 

Oregon, the pretrial release 

statute was recently amended to state that when setting 

terms of release for a person 

arrested for domestic violence, the judicial officer is to 

set whatever conditions are 

necessary “to assure that 

there is no repeat of the 

offense.” A typical condition 

is that the defendant provide 

a verified alternate address to 

live at until the case is 

resolved.4 

As jurisdictions around the 

country move forward in 

strengthening pretrial 

responses to domestic violence, the experiences of the 

JOD demonstration sites 

may help guide their efforts 

and suggest strategies and 

responses to the challenges 

they face. 

Notes 

1. Although JOD was funded with 

the goal of improving victim safety 

and offender accountability in intimate partner violence cases, some 

of the JOD sites also chose to use 

JOD enhancements to address other 

domestic or family violence, including child and elder abuse cases and 

cases involving nonintimate cohabitating adults. 

2. Erez, Edna, and Joanne Belknap, 

“In Their Own Words: Battered 

Women’s Assessment of the Criminal Processing System’s Responses,” Violence and Victims 13 (3) 

(1998): 251–268; Goolkasian, Gail, 

Confronting Domestic Violence: The 

Role of Criminal Court Judges, 

Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, May 1986, NCJ 

102833. 

3. Pretrial Services Resource Center, 

2004, www.pretrial.org/faq.html. 

4. After JOD was underway, a similar 

law was passed in Michigan. As part 

of the arraignment guidelines developed in Washtenaw County, the 

judge or magistrate asks whether 

there are weapons in the home and 

whether the defendant is moving to 

a location that complies with the 

bond conditions. 

10 
PRETRIAL INNOVATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

Additional reading 

Web resources 

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative, NIJ information page, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

nij/vawprog/demo_jud.html 

(describes NIJ’s role in the 

demonstration). 

Judicial Oversight Demonstration 

Initiative, OVW information page, 

www.usdoj.gov/ovw/jodi.htm 

(describes the role of the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office 

on Violence Against Women). 

Enhancing Judicial Oversight 

in Domestic Violence Cases, 

Overview, www.vera.org/ 

project/project1_1.asp? 

section_id=8&project_id=28 

(describes the technical 

assistance component of the 

demonstration). 

Other reports on domestic 

violence 

DeStefano, Christine, Adele Harrell, Lisa Newmark, and Christy 

Visher, Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration Initiative: Baseline and Implementation Report, Research Report, 

December 2001, available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/vawprog/ 

baselinerpt.pdf. 

Harrell, Adele, Lisa Newmark, 

Christy Visher, and Christine 

DeStefano, Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative: Implementation Strategies 

and Lessons, Research Report, 

September 2002, available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/vawprog/ 

lessons.pdf. 

Harrell, Adele, Megan Schaffer, 

Christine DeStefano, and Jennifer Castro, “The Evaluation of 

Milwaukee’s Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration,” Final Report, 

April 2006, NCJ 215349, 

available at www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/nij/grants/215349.pdf. 

Jackson, Shelly, Lynette Feder, 

David R. Forde, Robert C. Davis, 

Christopher D. Maxwell, and 

Bruce G. Taylor, Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We 

Go From Here?, Special Report, 

June 2003, NCJ 195079, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ 

pubs-sum/195079.htm. 

Healey, Kerry Murphy, and Christine Smith, Batterer Programs: 

What Criminal Justice Agencies 

Need to Know, Research in 

Action, July 1998, NCJ 171683, 

available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

nij/pubs-sum/171683.htm. 

NIJ Journal 250, www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/jr000250.pdf (special 

issue containing six articles 

about homicide committed by 

the victim’s spouse or other 

intimate partner). 

11 
The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ's mission is to advance scientific research, 

development, and evaluation to enhance the 

administration of justice and public safety. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of 

the Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community 

Capacity Development Office; the Office for 

Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART).