Research for Pra

The Evaluation of the Judicial 

Oversight Demonstration 

UN. 08 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Findings and Lessons on Implementation 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Michael B. Mukasey 

Attorney General 

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

David W. Hagy 

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 
JUN. 08 

The Evaluation of the Judicial Overs

Demonstration: Findings and Lesso

Implementation 

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

Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Under a separate aw

National Institute of Justice, the Urban Institute conducted an e

Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) Initiative, which include

impact evaluations. 

The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are s

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

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

This research was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice 

Cooperative Agreement 99–WT–VX–K005. 

NCJ 219077 
ABOUT THIS REPORT 

The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) Initiative set 

out to improve the provision 

of comprehensive services to 

victims of domestic violence 

(DV), increase victim safety, 

and hold offenders more 

accountable. JOD activities 

were jointly funded and managed by the Office on Violence Against Women and 

the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The Urban Institute 

conducted an independent, 

multisite evaluation under a 

cooperative agreement with 

NIJ. This report (part of a 

series of reports on JOD) 

discusses some of the evaluation’s findings and lessons 

learned about implementing 

court-involved DV prevention 

programs. 

What did the 

researchers find? 

Challenges encountered by 

the JOD programs included: 

partner agencies’ gaps in 

knowledge about the operations of other partners, unanticipated changes in the 

workloads of partner agencies, state and county hiring 

limitations that restricted 

recruiting for new positions, 

lack of adequate systems for 

sharing data across justice 

agencies and with community 

service providers, 

coming obstacles 

tion between justi

and community se

providers (such as 

about confidentiali

Successful strateg

ed: a formal strate

ning process, an i

of partners (incorp

wide array of agen

ing community-ba

zations and servic

and, most importa

defense attorneys

management of th

ration with regular

uled meetings and 

project director, tr

technical assistan

non-JOD partners 

acknowledged exp

specialized staff d

DV cases. 

Impacts of JOD in

included: fundame

changes in the co

between the judic

other justice and c

agencies (with the 

involvement of jud

developing a coor

response), increas

tency in the justic

response to DV ca

changes in the res

DV that outlasted 

stration time fram

ii 
The Evaluation of the Judicia

Oversight Demonstration

Findings and Lessons on

In this report, the terms 

intimate partner violence 

(IPV) and domestic 

violence (DV) are used 

interchangeably to mean 

violence that occurs 

between intimate 

partners. 

About the Authors 

Christy A. Visher is with 

the Urban Institute. 

Lisa C. Newmark and 

Adele V. Harrell 

were with the Urban Institute when the evaluation 

was conducted. 

Implementation 

The Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration (JOD) Initiative tested an innovative idea 

for improving the justice system’s response to domestic 

violence (DV) cases: that a 

coordinated, focused and 

systematic response by the 

judicial system, law enforcement and probation agencies, 

and community service 

organizations could improve 

victim safety and hold offenders more accountable while 

encouraging them to change 

their abusive behavior. 

In 1999, following an extensive search for sites with the 

resources, infrastructure and 

commitment needed to 

implement the envisioned 

demonstration, three sites — 

Dorchester, Mass., Milwaukee County, Wi., and 

Washtenaw County, Mich. — 

were selected to implement 

the JOD project. The demonstration activities were jointly 

funded and managed by the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Office on Violence Against 

Women (OVW) and the U.S. 

Department of Ju

of Justice Program

Institute of Justice 

Technical assistan

sites, provided by 

Institute of Justice 

York City through 

tive agreement w

included onsite co

training, and educ

opportunities with

across sites. The U

Institute (UI) cond

independent, mult

ation under a coop

agreement with N

demonstration sit

a local evaluator w

ed UI in gathering 

the evaluation and 

to local evaluation 

“Study Methods”

This Research for 

report is the seco

series of reports a

experiences of the 

in implementing t

stration. It begins 

general descriptio

operations at the t

sites. (Specific de

the JOD operation
STUDY METHODS 

The implementation study and process evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstrat

used a variety of methods and data collection strategies. The primary methods were: 

■ Site visits that involved semistructured interviews with JOD partners; observations of 

ceedings, project team meetings, and other activities (such as batterer intervention s

and meetings with groups of line staff (e.g., probation officers and law enforcement p

domestic violence [DV] units). Site visits were held quarterly during the initial phases 

demonstration and twice annually in the last year of the demonstration period. 

■ Collection of quantitative data, including: 1) aggregate descriptive data relating to the 

before the court, court and treatment interventions, and system and client outcomes; 

mance indicators to use in monitoring program operation and reporting accomplishm

documentation of services provided and court processing from the local evaluation st

entailed working with court and JOD staff to identify data elements, descriptive statis

retrieval and analysis strategies, and variables and categories needed to describe sp

services or sanctions. Data from the different agencies involved in JOD at each site w

ered by the local evaluator and submitted to the Urban Institute (UI) monthly. 

■ Participation of site staff and national partners in conference calls, meetings and tech

assistance workshops. The conference calls created opportunities for discussion of a

tion on how JOD was operating, including identification of problems, brainstorming of 

solutions, and revisions or modifications in the JOD project. The meetings and worksh

ed formal strategic planning sessions focused on individual sites as well as technical 

workshops on specific topics such as victim advocacy, probation supervision and jud

sight. OVW, NIJ, UI and the Vera Institute of Justice participated in the formal strateg

sessions in order to enhance their ability to work as partners with the sites. 

■ Focus groups of offenders and victims in each site to gain a more in-depth, personal p

about how men and women involved in intimate partner violence (IPV) cases were aff

the actions of the JOD partner agencies, to ascertain their views about how they wer

by those agencies, and to help interpret the interview data. If victims or offenders ind

they felt they were not treated fairly or given an opportunity to voice their opinions, th

tion might be useful in replicating the JOD model in other communities. 

■ Site visits to comparison sites (Ingham County, Mich., and Lowell, Mass.) at the begin

end of the JOD demonstration period to document the criminal justice and community 

to IPV cases in the communities that UI selected as part of the impact evaluation des

the site visits to the demonstration sites, the comparison site visits entailed interviews 

variety of agencies involved in IPV cases, including the court, prosecutors, law enforc

probation, victim service agencies and batterer intervention program providers. Thes

were important for interpreting the results of the impact evaluation and for document

changes that might have occurred in the comparison sites during the JOD demonstra

In combination, these methods for documenting the implementation of JOD complemen

another and provided UI with a thorough understanding of the overall operations in eac

2 
(and the comparison sites) and the specific procedures implemented by 

each JOD partner agency. 

An important component of the process evaluation was to document the 

context in which JOD was implemented. UI interviewed key stakeholders 

in the demonstration project, including project planners, judges, court 

administrators and other court staff, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, pretrial services staff, probation and parole staff, members of the 

defense bar, victim advocates, victim service providers, and community 

providers of other important services such as substance abuse and mental 

health treatment. The interviews with these participants collected data on: 

1) their perceptions of and goals for JOD, 2) how the justice system in their 

communities handled DV cases prior to project implementation, and 3) 

what databases relating to DV cases existed and how they might be used 

for the evaluation and collection of existing reports, statistics, policy or 

procedure documents, and forms to supplement the interviews. Interim 

reports describe the implementation process in all sites.* 

*DeStefano, Christine, Adele Harrell, Lisa Newmark, and Christy Visher, “Evaluation of the 

Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative: Baseline and Implementation Report,” interim report 

for the National Institute of Justice, grant number 99–WT–VX–K005, Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice, 2001, NCJ 220871, available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 

220871.pdf; Harrell, Adele, Lisa Newmark, Christy Visher, and Christine DeStefano, “Evaluation 

of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative: Implementation Strategies and Lessons,” 

interim report for the National Institute of Justice, grant number 99–WT–VX–K005, Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice, 2002, NCJ 220872, available at 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220872.pdf. 

site can be found in the first 

report, Pretrial Innovations for 

Domestic Violence Offenders 

and Victims: Lessons From 

the Judicial Oversight 

Demonstration Initiative, 

August 2007, available online 

at http://www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/nij/216041.pdf.) This 

report then presents findings 

from a process evaluation of 

the three JOD sites (that is, 

an evaluation of the processes used at the sites), and 

concludes with lessons 

learned about implementing 

JOD and similar initiatives. 

A new approach to 

combating intimate 

partner violence 

The JOD model included the 

following critical elements: 

■	 Uniform and consistent initial responses to DV offenses, including: a) proarrest 

policies, b) the arrest of the 
primary aggressor, and c) 

a coordinated community 

response by law enforcement and victim advocates. 

■	 Coordinated victim advocacy and services, including: 

a) contact by victim advocates as soon as possible 

after the DV incident, b) an 

individualized “safety plan” 

for the victim and the victim’s children (if appropriate), and c) provision of 

needed services such as 

shelter, legal advocacy, 

medical assistance, economic support, etc. 

■	 Strong offender accountability and oversight, including: a) intensive court-based 

supervision of offenders, 

b) referral to appropriate batterer intervention programs 

(BIPs), and c) administrative and judicial sanctions 

and incentives to influence 

offender behavior. 

To achieve these objectives, 

a partnership among criminal 

justice agencies and 

community-based agencies 

that provide services to victims and hold offenders 

accountable was formed or 

identified in each JOD community to work in collaboration to respond to incidents of 

intimate partner violence (IPV) 

that enter the criminal court. 

This initiative differed from 

earlier coordinated 

responses to intim

violence because 

special focus on t

the court in the pa

as illustrated in ex

Support for JOD i

was grounded in r

of the challenges 

pose to criminal ju

cies and the need 

steps to better pro

tims from repeat v

The likelihood of s

violence, potentia

often present but 

to gauge. Prior res

shows that abuse 

court hearings for 

orders is predicted

the type and seve

current charge, bu

history of recent a

relationship and o

tors, which points 

need for thorough 

checks of defenda

comprehensive vi

views at court inta

tims and their chil

need emotional su

medical, legal and 

assistance to cope 

is often a long-sta

tern of abuse. Vict

often reluctant to t

ing retaliation or ho

reconciliation, and 

be socially isolated 

out economic or e

support. 

4 
Exhibit 1. JOD Network of Partners 

Civil Protection 

Order Court 

Law Enforcement 

Agencies 

Offender 

Supervision Agencies 

Prosecutor’s 

Office 

Offender Intervention 

Agencies 

Defense 

Attorneys 

Court

Victim 

Commun

Victim A

Assistance 

Community Residen

Victim Families 

Other Agencies/ 

Institutions 

Fami

Criminal Court 

Judge 

JOD was also developed to 

test the feasibility and effectiveness of closely monitoring 

offenders to hold them more 

accountable. By adopting 

a more intensive approach 

to managing DV cases, JOD 

would hold offenders 

accountable for their criminal 

behavior and require their 

participation in treatment and 

community service when 

appropriate. JOD was 

designed to implement the 

fundamental purposes of the 

1994 Violence Against Women 

Act. It also incorporates key 

recommendations of the 

1984 report of the Attorney 

General’s Task Force on Family 

Violence: 

■	 Family violence should be 

recognized and responded 

to as a criminal activity. 

■	 Law enforcement officials, 

prosecutors and judges 

should develop a coordinated response to family 

violence. 
■	 A wide range of dispositional alternatives should 

be considered in cases 

of family violence. In all 

cases, prior to sentencing, 

judges should carefully 

review and consider the 

consequences of the crime 

for the victim. 

■	 In granting bail or releasing 

the assailant on his or her 

own recognizance, the court 

should impose conditions 

that restrict the defendant’s 

access to the victim and 

strictly enforce the order. 

Over the past decade, the 

criminal courts have begun 

to assume a leadership role 

in coordinated responses to 

domestic violence through 

innovations such as specialized DV courts. These courts 

have introduced increased 

judicial supervision supported 

by case management, victim 

advocacy, enhanced supervision by probation, and 

mandatory batterer intervention programs for eligible 

offenders. A dual focus on 

increased offender accountability and coordinated services 

for victims in DV cases was 

the essential feature of JOD. 

The three demonstration 

sites, assisted by technical 

assistance teams, reviewed 

model policies, findings from 

the experiences o

jurisdictions, rece

and other best pra

viously identified f

cases. They then d

programs geared 

needs of their ind

dictions. All demo

sites included the 

criminal justice an

nity elements: ■	 Proactive law en

In law enforcem

cies around the 

written policies a

dures for respon

cases are now in 

officers are far m

have specialized 

responding to do

lence than was t

years ago. The la

ment componen

JOD initiative inc

vations in trainin

arrest policies an

cols, enforceme

tection orders, a

agency commun

■	 Specialized pros

JOD prosecutor

their use of inde

evidence such a

photographs of v

hospital records

utterances (an e

the hearsay rule

testimony, 911 a

and other eviden

support or replac

6 
testimony. The JOD projects 

included best practices such 

as special units, no-drop 

policies, vertical prosecution 

(processing of cases by a 

single prosecutor), and evidence-based prosecution. 

One site placed special 

focus on prosecuting bail 

violations such as bail jumping and witness tampering. 

■	 Specialized pretrial procedures. Two of the three 

JOD sites focused on 

improvements to pretrial 

processes, including: standardization of bond conditions; group meetings in the 

week after arraignment to 

review bond conditions with 

defendants; creation of a 

new position, the domestic 

violence commissioner, to 

manage a special court that 

would process pretrial matters only; and intensive pretrial monitoring for offenders 

accused of a repeat DV 

offense. 

■	 Specialized DV dockets. 

Some of the features of 

the JOD courts included: 

1) intake units for particular 

kinds of cases involving 

domestic violence, 2) 

screening to coordinate 

case processing, 3) automated case tracking, 4) 

automated systems for 

identifying related cases, 

and 5) specialized calendars. 

The JOD demonstrations 

included specialized dockets, judicial review hearings 

for probationers, and a 

domestic violence intake 

court at one site. 

■	 Specialized probation and 

court-ordered batterer intervention services. The JOD 

sites’ demonstrations 

included: specialized probation officers for DV offenders, enhanced supervision 

of DV offenders, increases 

in staffing to reduce probation officer caseloads, 

referrals to only statecertified batterer intervention programs, and greater 

communication between 

probation officers and BIP 

staff to provide information 

for judicial review hearings. 

■	 Enhancement of victim 

services. JOD sites 

expanded in-court victim 

services from both justicebased and communitybased providers in a variety 

of ways, including: in-court 

victim advocates from local 

nongovernmental DV programs, civil legal assistance, services that 

promote autonomy, and private victim waiting rooms 

with childcare provided in 

courthouses. 
■	 Coordination of court and 

community agencies. 

The complex and recurring 

nature of domestic violence requires a coordinated, systemic response 

from courts and other 

community-based agencies. The importance of 

communitywide coordination was affirmed by the 

Violence Against Women 

Act of 1994, in particular 

through the Grants to 

Encourage Arrest Policies 

and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program and 

the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) 

Formula Grant Program, 

which requires states to 

engage in collaborative 

planning prior to awarding 

subgrants; allocate the 

funds among law enforcement, prosecution, courts 

and victim service agencies; 

and encourage coordinated 

community responses. Evaluation indicates that STOP 

subgrantees attributed the 

most significant changes 

in their communities to 

increased collaboration.2 

The design of JOD and its 

specific elements in each site 

reflected principles that were 

identified in earlier demonstrations that focused on 

building coordinated community responses to domestic 

violence. From tha

essential features 

ful implementatio

dinated approach 

violence emerged

policies defining t

and responsibilitie

ners; 2) designate

in each agency res

for coordination; 3

leadership and ove

especially by judg

cross-training of s

multiple agencies

ous prosecution; a

mal monitoring of 

performance.3 Me

to ensure coordin

JOD sites include

project director to 

and oversee imple

of JOD, an execut

tee with working s

tees that met regu

identify and troubl

emerging issues, t

ment of standard p

protocols to impro

sistency of case-h

practices, and enh

munication among 

through shared da

Lessons learn

implementing 

The “lessons learn

cussed here are d

the experiences o

demonstration sit

the implementatio

8 
It is hoped that these lessons 

will provide useful direction 

to other jurisdictions that are 

considering similar innovative, 

comprehensive responses to 

intimate partner violence in 

their communities. The lessons fall generally into three 

categories: 

■	 Barriers and challenges 

faced in implementing 

JOD. 

■	 Strategies used by JOD 

sites to facilitate change. 

■	 The impact of JOD on system responses to intimate 

partner violence. 

These lessons are described 

in this report with one or two 

examples drawn from the 

site case studies. Further 

discussion of these lessons 

can be found in Volume 2 of 

the final report to NIJ on this 

research.4 

JOD implementation 

challenges 

JOD partnerships began with 

a vision of collaborative operations in which agencies would 

work together seamlessly to 

protect victims and hold 

offenders accountable for their 

violence. Agreements were 

forged and commitments 

made. However, the process 

of bringing this collaborative 

vision to life encountered barriers and challenges that can 

serve as a lesson and guide to 

agencies embarking on similar 

coordinated responses to intimate partner violence. The 

challenges highlighted below 

required each of the JOD sites 

to work on issues not anticipated when the vision was 

formed. 

Challenge 1: Gaps in 

knowledge about the 

operations of other partner 

agencies. Despite the existing coordinated community 

response for domestic violence that was in place in all 

three sites prior to the 

demonstration, JOD partner 

agencies often did not understand the specific operations 

of their partners. For example, Dorchester planners discovered that, under union 

rules, cameras for collecting 

pictures to be used as evidence could be used only by 

detectives and not by the officers who responded to an 

incident. Washtenaw County 

found that developing consistent policies and procedures 

across 11 law enforcement 

agencies, independent courts 

and probation agents 

required an enormous effort, 

in part because each lacked 

knowledge of the others’ 

operations. 
Challenge 2: Understanding 

the effects of changes on 

the workload of partner 

agencies. A related challenge 

was the unforeseen impact 

of JOD activities on the workload of partner agencies. For 

example, Milwaukee introduced a crisis response team 

of advocates available to 

assist victims at the time of 

an incident without anticipating the extra burden on the 

police who would need to 

stay to ensure the safety of 

the advocate. Washtenaw 

County found probation 

agent workloads spiraling 

upward with the advent of 

judicial review hearings and 

added probation requirements, and decided to hire 

compliance specialists to 

assist the agents in monitoring IPV offenders. 

Challenge 3: Dealing with 

hiring limitations imposed 

by county and state rules 

governing recruiting. All of 

the sites found that state and 

county rules governing recruiting and funding of new positions can slow the start of a 

new project and limit hiring 

options. All three sites were 

eager to begin JOD and developed ambitious plans for 

immediate change, only to 

encounter difficulties in 

staffing their projects. Both 

Dorchester and Milwaukee 

experienced delays 

new activities, ste

limitations on hirin

and turnover in key 

Milwaukee, the se

the probation agen

the new pretrial m

unit was governed 

of Community Cor

seniority rules, wh

in the appointmen

agent whose lack o

tion to the initiative 

mined the effective

new program. Dor

encountered delay

project director be

county personnel r

erning hiring, a hiri

and seniority issue

Challenge 4: Lack 

systems for shar

across justice ag

with community 

providers. A critic

a program that em

offender accounta

need for multiple 

share up-to-date in

on offenders activ

criminal justice sy

systems routinely 

courts and other j

cies may not be a

in a form that can 

provide informatio

agencies. This pre

problems in all thr

sites, none of whi

tems shared by po

and probation age

10 
none of which had consistent 

procedures for collecting 

information on compliance 

with batterer intervention 

programs. In all three sites, 

developing these data-sharing 

systems was technically 

complicated and sometimes 

controversial. In Dorchester, 

probation agents received 

computers for the first time 

as part of the JOD initiative, 

permitting automated tracking of compliance for review 

hearings. In Washtenaw, the 

county devoted extensive 

local funding to an interactive, Web-based system for 

sharing data on probationers 

but found that the system was 

difficult and time-consuming 

to use. In Milwaukee, the 

state-maintained probation 

database lacked a field for 

identifying IPV offenders. This 

made it difficult for officers to 

monitor these offenders, who 

were a small part of large, 

general probation caseloads. 

Challenge 5: Building collaboration between justice 

agencies and community 

service providers. Collaboration between victim advocates from community-based 

organizations and justice 

agencies was central to the 

goals of JOD, but integrating 

community-based service 

providers into justice system 

operations proved difficult in 

all sites because of competing priorities between the 

two groups. Interagency 

differences among victim 

advocates needed to be 

accommodated through 

strategies for bridging the differences in goals, roles and 

expectations of the two 

groups. Issues arose around 

client confidentiality, encouraging victims to testify in 

court, and the weight to be 

given to victim preferences 

during prosecution. The sites 

had varying levels of success 

in meeting this challenge, and 

other communities are likely 

to face similar challenges. 

Successful JOD 

strategies 

The process evaluation identified a number of strategies 

used by the JOD sites to 

accomplish the goals of the 

project. The following list 

identifies those seen as critical to moving each site forward in the implementation 

of JOD. 

Strategy 1: A formal strategic planning process. All 

three sites benefited from 

intensive strategic-planning 

sessions that included a kickoff meeting where site teams 

had an opportunity to present 

their plans to the other sites, 
agency officials, the technical 

assistance provider and the 

national evaluator. Later, sites 

engaged in 1- or 2-day intensive planning sessions, usually with a trained facilitator, to 

discuss initial plans for JOD 

with all local JOD partners. 

For all sites, these sessions 

were the first time that such 

a diverse group of justice and 

community agencies had 

come together to discuss 

a coordinated response to 

domestic violence in their 

communities. These planning 

sessions highlighted components of the initiative that 

required more attention, 

allowed agency partners to 

discuss their views on their 

role in the initiative, and led 

to the development of subcommittees and technical 

assistance on specific topics. 

Strategy 2: An inclusive set 

of partners. Projects typically 

began with a core group of 

agencies that had collaborated in project design and the 

preparation of the initial proposal to OVW for funding. 

It was critical, however, that 

this core group draw a wider 

group of agencies into project planning, giving them a 

voice in shaping policies and 

procedures. Of particular 

importance was the inclusion 

of the defense bar as full network partners in an effort to 

maintain a balance 

advocacy on beha

and fairness to de

court cases. The s

found it important 

ue adding partner

partnership grew, 

oped plans for add

reach to specific c

groups and broade

types of victim as

and batterer interv

grams available fo

referrals. It was no

easy to integrate J

the existing coord

munity response 

judges were reluc

appear to be advo

either the prosecu

defense. Introduc

courts into existin

service provider ne

challenged some e

understandings ab

roles and responsi

Strategy 3: Active 

ment of the colla

with regularly sc

meetings and a f

project director. C

planning and ongo

ings in all sites inc

understanding am

participating agen

increased the con

victim advocates, 

intervention speci

probation staff tha

efforts to change 

12 
behavior would be supported. 

Case-level collaboration 

also increased substantially. 

In each site, JOD management required regular team 

meetings, executive committee meetings, and meetings 

of subcommittees formed 

around specific issues. 

A full-time project director 

was also critical to the full 

implementation of JOD. In all 

three sites, the project director was knowledgeable about 

one or more components of 

the criminal justice system or 

community responses to intimate partner violence. One 

project director was from the 

victim service field, another 

was from the probation 

department, and the third 

had years of management 

experience in the prosecutor’s office. The JOD project 

directors had the confidence 

of the primary agency that 

was initiating JOD (the court 

or the prosecutor), and sufficient contacts throughout the 

criminal justice system and 

the community service network, to know whom to talk 

to when a specific problem 

arose. The project directors 

also ensured that grant deadlines were met, committee 

meetings were scheduled, 

and the overall implementation of JOD continued to 

move forward. 

Strategy 4:Training and 

technical assistance by 

“outsiders” with acknowledged expertise to help 

promote change. All 

demonstration sites had 

extensive and ongoing training of personnel in the JOD 

partner agencies and provided technical assistance to 

partners in developing new 

policies and procedures. All 

sites benefited from general 

training on DV dynamics, 

cross-agency training on specific interagency protocols 

being developed, and specialized technical assistance and 

training on skills for specific 

positions, including judges, 

prosecutors, law enforcement officers, probation 

agents and others. OVW 

funded the Vera Institute to 

coordinate specialized training 

that greatly assisted the sites. 

For example, judges were 

offered the opportunity to 

attend Judicial Training Institutes sponsored by OVW, the 

Family Violence Prevention 

Fund, and the National 

Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges. Statesponsored training was also 

offered. Law enforcement 

officers in JOD sites received 

training from local DV organizations and law enforcement 

consultants as part of the 

technical assistance provided 
by VERA throughout the 

demonstration period. Advocates and public defenders 

from each site received 

cross-disciplinary training. 

During JOD, the Milwaukee 

District Attorney’s Office, in 

conjunction with a local service provider, the Task Force 

on Family Violence, conducted 

training for probation agents 

on investigation strategies to 

help them better prepare for 

revocation hearings. 

Strategy 5: Dedicate 

specialized staff to IPV 

cases. Specialized staff in the 

justice agencies is critical to 

developing a more effective 

response to intimate partner 

violence. IPV cases present 

specific challenges, including 

difficulties in collecting evidence for prosecution, the 

need to consider victim safety, the resistance of offenders to changing their behavior 

despite intervention, and the 

ambivalent feelings of those 

victimized by intimate partners. To act effectively, the 

police, prosecutors, courts 

and probation agencies need 

to understand, through training, the challenges of these 

cases and the strategies for 

responding effectively to intimate partner violence. In 

addition, they need to build 

ties to specialized staff in 

partner agencies to foster a 

team approach to 

cases. 

Impact of JOD 

system respon

to IPV 

The process evalu

fied three principa

JOD on criminal ju

community respo

cases. 

Impact 1: Fundam

changes in the co

tion between the 

and other justice 

munity agencies 

cases. A major co

of JOD in the thre

stration sites has 

explicit involveme

in developing a co

response to intim

violence and the c

ment of judges to 

of domestic violen

shift has dramatic

manently changed 

of the court syste

three sites. 

JOD judges were 

to the independen

judiciary and their 

interpreters of the 

avoided involveme

decisions on subs

matters that migh

before them. At th

time, they were c

14 
to systemic changes in the 

courts that were designed to 

improve the administration of 

justice, which meant holding 

offenders more accountable 

under the law. They realized 

the importance of being seen 

as fair and unbiased toward 

both the victim and the 

defendant, and they knew 

they must maintain a balance 

between the presumption of 

innocence and a willingness 

to hear the kinds of evidence 

that are relevant to domestic 

violence. The prospect of 

JOD challenged some traditional notions of the role of 

the judiciary, but all judges in 

the project emerged with a 

strong belief that JOD could 

simultaneously help ensure 

victim safety and justly hold 

offenders accountable. 

JOD permitted experimentation with innovative court 

responses that likely would 

have not been attempted otherwise. In Milwaukee, JOD 

faced the challenge of integrating judges into a coordinated community response 

to domestic violence that had 

been managed for years by 

the Milwaukee Commission 

on Domestic Violence and 

Sexual Assault. Historically, 

the city’s judges had been 

reluctant to become involved 

in the commission in order to 

avoid appearing biased 

toward DV victims. It soon 

became apparent, however, 

that to integrate JOD into the 

larger community, the participation of judges in the commission was needed and 

could be handled in a way 

that did not compromise their 

impartiality. This shift in the 

commission’s governance formally joined the court to the 

larger community response 

to intimate partner violence 

and left in place a structure 

for further joint planning of 

policies and practices well 

into the future. 

One site’s experience with 

the impact of JOD on the 

judiciary and its operations 

illustrates a lesson learned. 

There was relatively strong 

opposition within the court 

system to making the changes 

in procedures required by 

JOD. Pleas for additional 

judges were slow to be heard 

and space for project staff 

was difficult to arrange. But 

the leadership of the judges, 

the skills of the project director, and positive interactions 

with JOD staff produced 

gradual acceptance. Eventually, there was a fundamental 

change. As a staff member of 

one JOD partner agency put 

it, “It was a combination of ... 

a solid idea, plus dollars, that 

made it possible ... against all 

odds.” 
Impact 2: Increased consistency in the justice system 

response to IPV cases. An 

important concept of justice 

is consistency in the standards applied to defendants 

and probationers. One expectation of a well-functioning 

justice system is that the 

responses of the police, 

courts, prosecutors and probation will be similar for similarly situated individuals and 

that variations should derive 

from differences in the 

offense and mitigating circumstances. JOD jurisdictions made huge strides in 

establishing consistent practices and policies that were 

negotiated by multiple partners. They also made efforts 

to make these policies clear 

to offenders. 

Extensive efforts were made 

in the JOD sites to standardize procedures for IPV cases 

and to communicate clearly 

the actions of the court to 

both offenders and victims. 

(Some of the most notable 

examples are reviewed in this 

Research for Practice. Further 

discussion of these issues is 

available in Volume 2 of the 

final report to NIJ.)5 

Responses to intimate partner violence varied across 

law enforcement agencies 

within the same county. For 

example, while on

may have a mand

policy that results 

prior to arraignme

law enforcement 

neighboring jurisd

issue a citation th

the offender to pa

the local police sta

dardized procedur

enforcement offic

ticularly difficult to 

and implement. In 

County, a uniform 

reporting form dev

IPV cases was eve

into place in the m

the law enforcem

cies in the county

to getting officers 

consistently to IPV 

the information co

greatly helped pro

the development o

The judiciary has o

gled with consiste

release conditions 

offenders, especia

ing when and for 

impose a no-conta

The judges in Was

County negotiated 

script for the pretr

that recommende

tion of a standard 

release conditions

victim no-contact 

Judicial meetings 

policies on pleas, 

and probation con

their enforcement

16 
regularly. One effect of these 

changes was greater consistency in the response to 

these offenders, reducing the 

potential for bias and increasing the predictability of 

outcomes. 

Judges in the JOD sites also 

had difficulty in deciding 

whether and when to lift a 

no-contact order, either during the pretrial period or during probation. Less progress 

was made toward consistent 

policies in this area as judges 

reacted differently to victims’ 

requests to drop no-contact 

orders. Probation officers 

were frequently asked for 

information about an offender’s compliance with court 

requirements to provide additional information for the 

judge’s decision. As a compromise, several sites developed a no-violent-contact or 

no-nonconsensual-contact 

agreement that all parties 

signed. 

JOD paid substantial attention to the probation function 

as a critical element of 

offender accountability. Probation officers have little flexibility in their work, are often 

overworked and underpaid, 

and rarely can implement 

special supervision procedures for particular types of 

cases. In response, probation 

agencies in JOD sites developed new procedures and 

protocols that attempted to 

impose some consistency on 

officers’ interactions with 

offenders and with victims. 

These included protocols for 

officers’ contacts with victims, revision of no-contact 

orders, and ending probation 

supervision. Specialized DV 

probation officers and, ideally, 

specialized DV probation 

units, improved consistency 

in the responses to offenders’ violations of probation 

conditions. 

Impact 3: Changes in the 

response to intimate partner violence that will outlast the demonstration 

period. All three demonstration sites chose to implement 

JOD throughout their communities rather than in a few 

police districts or with a 

selected subset of IPV cases. 

The demonstration became a 

full-scale assessment and 

overhaul of policies and practices related to the justice 

system and community 

response to IPV cases in 

which all partner agencies 

participated. Such an intensive process is likely to have 

lasting effects on the community. As of 2006, at least 

one year after the funding for 

JOD ended, a number of 

changes implemented during 
the demonstration have outlasted the demonstration 

period: ■	 Post-conviction judicial 

review hearings with IPV 

probationers. These 

hearings were strongly 

embraced by most judges 

and probation officers, 

despite the extra work and 

time involved. Judges can 

see for themselves whether 

offenders are making 

progress and they appreciate the chance to receive 

feedback from victims and 

the probation staff. Most 

probation officers appreciated the court’s support of 

their supervision and reported that offenders faced with 

a review hearing were more 

willing to comply with referrals to batterer intervention 

programs and other probation requirements. 

■	 Improved practices for 

investigating and prosecuting IPV cases. All three 

JOD sites refined evidencecollection procedures for 

law enforcement and prosecution investigators targeted to IPV cases. The 

use of digital cameras at 

the scene of the incident 

and the introduction of 

tapes of harassing calls 

from jailed defendants to 

their victims are just two of 

the innovative p

methods that re

JOD. In Milwau

prosecutor’s do

violence unit do

their new practi

manual for the i

and prosecution 

cases. 

■	 Greater involvem

bation officers w

and batterer inte

programs. It is l

permanent chan

occurred in the 

probation office

IPV defendants 

sites. Although 

have been able 

specialized dom

lence probation 

the lessons lear

the demonstrat

enhanced monit

been included in 

of new staff and 

in written proce

Moreover, proba

cers in the JOD 

recognize the va

municating with 

tims and have b

from specialized 

victim contacts. 

probation office

developed collab

tionships with b

vention program 

(who have impro

case tracking an

procedures), thu

18 
probation and the court to 

have more timely information on the offender’s compliance with probation 

conditions. 

Conclusion 

The process evaluation of 

JOD describes the broad 

changes in the demonstration 

sites as they implemented a 

model of coordinated justice 

and community response to 

intimate partner violence. 

Such a model was untested 

in the nation prior to the JOD 

site awards. All of the sites 

experienced challenges to 

the implementation of JOD 

yet, when faced with problems, were able in most 

instances to devise creative 

solutions and move forward. 

In addition, the dedication of 

the site teams to the goals of 

the demonstration enabled 

the sites to develop new 

strategies to facilitate 

changes in their communities’ responses to intimate 

partner violence, even 

“against all odds.” Their 

accomplishments are further 

supported by the permanent 

changes in the system 

response to intimate partner 

violence after the demonstration was concluded in the 

three sites. 

Notes 

1. Harrell, Adele, and Barbara E. 

Smith, “The Effects of Restraining 

Orders on Domestic Violence Victims,” in Eve Buzawa (ed.), Protection Orders for Domestic Violence 

Victims, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 

1996; Harrell, Adele, Barbara Smith, 

and Lisa Newmark, “Court Processing and the Effects of Restraining 

Orders for Domestic Violence 

Victims,” final report to the State 

Justice Institute, Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute, 1993. 

2. Burt, Martha R., Adele Harrell, 

Lisa J. Raymond, Britta Iwen, 

Kathryn Schlichter, Bonnie Katz, 

Lauren E. Bennett, and Kim M. 

Thompson, “1999 Report: Evaluation 

of the STOP Formula Grants Under 

the Violence Against Women Act of 

1994,” final report for the National 

Institute of Justice, grant number 

95–WT–NX–0005, Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice, 1999, 

NCJ 181797, available at 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ 

grants/181797.pdf. 

3. Hofford, Merideth, and Adele Harrell, “Family Violence: Interventions 

for the Justice System,” Bureau of 

Justice Assistance Program Brief, 

grant number 89–DD–CX–K001, 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 1993, NCJ 144532. 

4. Harrell, Adele, Lisa Newmark, 

and Christy Visher, “Final Report on 

the Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration, Volume 2: 

Findings and Lessons on Implementation,” final report for the National 

Institute of Justice, grant number 

1999–WT–VX–K005, Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice, 
2007, NCJ 219383, available at 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ 

grants/219383.pdf. 

5. Ibid. 

20 


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). 
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of JusticeWashington, DC 20531Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STA

POSTAGE & FEE

DOJ/NIJ

PERMIT NO. G

*NCJ~219077*