CJA
Research Brief
NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, Inc.
No. 7 December 2004
A series of reports summarizing current research from CJA Executive Director, Jerome E. McElroy Director, Research Dept., Richard R. Peterson, Ph.D. Research Brief Editor, Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Graphics & Production, Raymond Caligiure Administrative Associate, Bernice Linen-Reed CJA is a not-for-profit corporation that provides a variety of criminal justice services under a contract with the City of New York. CJA staff interview defendants arrested in New York City, make recommendations for pretrial release, and notify released defendants of upcoming court dates. Within the Agency, the Research Department conducts studies covering a broad array of criminal justice policy concerns. The Research Brief series summarizes the results of some of these studies. New York City Criminal Justice Agency 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007 PHONE: 646 213-2500 FAX: 646 213-2650 WEB: www.nycja.org © 2004 NYC Criminal Justice Agency
Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court By Richard R. Peterson, Ph.D. Over 300 specialized courts the same defendant. To assess the impact of a spehave been established in the U.S. to hear criminal cases involving cialized DV court, we examined domestic violence. By removing the specialized Criminal Court domestic violence (DV) cases from DV part that was established in Manhattan in June mixed-docket 2000. Specifically, courts, specialHow did Manhattan’s this study compares ized DV courts specialized DV cases processed seek to increase domestic violence court in Manhattan before defendant acaffect case outcomes the establishment c o u n t a b i l i t y, and redicivism of the specialized promote victim in DV cases? DV court with DV safety, and coordinate the activities of criminal cases processed after the court justice agencies that respond to do- was established. The data for this study were mestic violence. In New York City, each borough drawn from the CJA database using has a specialized DV court part in data from the third quarter of 1998, the lower court (Criminal Court), before the specialized DV court and 3 boroughs have specialized was established, and from the first DV court parts in the upper court quarter of 2001, after the court was (Supreme Court). New “Integrated established. (See inset box, next Domestic Violence” courts are also page, for details about the datasets.) being introduced to handle the pro- To inform our discussions, we also cessing of multiple criminal, family interviewed Assistant District Atcourt and divorce cases involving torneys (ADAs). This Research Brief is adapted from: The Impact of Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court (November 2004) by Richard R. Peterson, Ph.D. The full report is available on the CJA web site. www.nycja.org/research/research.htm Address comments to the author at rpeterson@nycja.org Research project staff: Raymond Caligiure, Elyse J. Revere, Elizabeth Walton. Systems programming: Barbara Geller Diaz, Wayne Nehwadowich.
CJA
Research Brief IDENTIFYING DV CASES IN 1998 AND 2001
The courts’ identification of domestic violence cases is based on the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim. When the relationship meets the statutory definition of a family (cases where the victim and offender are married, formerly married, related by blood or marriage, or have a child in common) or the courts’ definition of an intimate relationship (cases where the victim and defendant are cohabiting or previously lived together, including “common-law” marriages and samesex relationships) the courts classify the case as a DV case. After the specialized DV court was established in June 2000, not all DV cases were sent to the specialized court part. Some DV cases (especially those that did not involve intimate partner violence or child abuse) were sent to mixed-docket courts. In the first quarter of 2001, about 18% of DV cases in Manhattan were sent to the mixed-docket courts. It was impossible to determine which cases would have been sent to the specialized DV court in 1998 if one had been in existence then. To keep the samples comparable we included in our 2001 sample all DV cases identified by the court, even those that were sent to mixed-docket courts. Although not every case in 2001 was heard in the specialized DV court, the vast majority (82%) were, and our findings for 2001 primarily reflect the outcomes of cases in the specialized DV court. The volume of DV cases increased significantly after the establishment of the specialized DV court in 2000. The volume of DV cases in Manhattan was 26% higher in the first quarter of 2001 (N = 1,249) than in the third quarter of 2
Data Used in This Study
The study used two samples of cases: Before: all DV cases identified in the third quarter of 1998 (N = 990), a time when Manhattan did not yet have a specialized DV court.
e two samples nclude information about arrests, the court processing of prosecuted arrests, court comes and reof offenders. After:
all DV cases identified in the first quarter of 2001 (N = 1,249), after the specialized DV court had been established in June of 2000.
The analyses were limited to cases that were disposed in the lower court (Criminal Court) and excluded felony cases that were disposed in the upper court (Supreme Court). Since only about 4% of DV cases were disposed in Supreme Court, the analyses provided information for 96% of the DV cases that resulted in criminal prosecution in Manhattan.
1998 (N = 990). While some of this increase may be due to increases in the rate at which offenses were committed, this seems unlikely. DV complaints (which often do not lead to an arrest) filed with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) declined by about 9% citywide between 1998 and 2001. Most of the increase in DV case volume was probably due to better efforts to identify and track DV arrests and to monitor re-offending by DV defendants. These efforts were made as a direct result of the establishment of the specialized DV court part. December 2004
CJA
Research Brief
Our research addressed four questions. How did the specialized DV court affect: 1
2
3
4
DISPOSITIONS?
CASEPROCESSING TIME?
SENTENCE OUTCOMES?
RECIDIVISM?
1. CHANGES IN DV CASE DISPOSITIONS To examine the impact of the Manhattan specialized DV court on case dispositions, we compared DV cases processed in 1998 to DV cases processed in 2001. As shown in Figure 1, the distribution of case dispositions in DV cases in Manhattan was about the same in 1998 and 2001. The conviction rate was 29% in both years. Over half of the cases were dismissed, and about one sixth of the cases were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD’d). These results suggest that the establishment of the specialized DV court did not affect case dispositions. Case Dispositions in Criminal Court The “convicted” category includes pleas of guilty and findings of guilty after trial. The “dismissed” category includes cases dismissed by the judge before trial as well as a small number of defendants acquitted at trial. Adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACDs) are not convictions; however, they sometimes have conditions attached (e.g., that the defendant successfully complete a program, such as a batterer intervention program and/or a drug or alcohol treatment program). Typically, an ACD is dismissed after 6 months or a year, but only if the defendant fulfills any conditions of the ACD successfully and avoids re-arrest during that time.
FIGURE 1 CASE DISPOSITIONS IN CRIMINAL COURT Prosecuted DV Cases in Manhattan 3rd Quarter 1998 (N = 990) Convicted 29% Dismissed 55%
ACD 16%
1st Quarter 2001 (N = 1,249) Convicted 29% Dismissed 56% ACD 15%
Why didn’t the specialized DV court affect case dispositions? Case dispositions are affected primarily by the strength of evidence. Conviction rates in DV cases are typically low because many victims are reluctant to cooperate with the prosecution. Without victim participation, the remaining evidence in many DV cases is often insufficient to obtain a conviction. Although specialized DV courts are designed to improve the processing of DV cases, they are not likely to affect the strength of evidence in these cases. Research Brief #7
3
CJA
Research Brief 2. CHANGES IN DV CASE-PROCESSING TIME
Although there was almost no change in the distribution of case dispositions, the number of weeks between arraignment and disposition declined significantly between 1998 and 2001 (see Figure 2). In 2001, 24% of cases were disposed within 5 weeks, compared to 14% in 1998. Only 2% of the cases took 36 weeks or longer to reach disposition in 2001, compared to 10% in 1998. This reduction can be attributed primarily to faster processing of cases that ended in conviction. Cases that ended in a conviction were identified and disposed of more quickly in 2001 than in 1998.
FIGURE 2 NUMBER OF WEEKS FROM ARRAIGNMENT TO DISPOSITION Prosecuted DV Cases in Manhattan 1998 (N = 990)
14%
41%
19%
16%
10%
2%
2001 (N = 1,249)
24%
0% 1-5 weeks
48%
20% 6 - 15 weeks
40%
16%
60%
16 - 25 weeks
10%
80% 26 - 35 weeks
100% 36 or more weeks
How were the reductions in case-processing time achieved? There was greater flexibility in plea bargaining after the specialized DV court was established. Among cases that ended in conviction, 78% had a reduction in charge severity between arraignment and conviction in 2001, compared to 69% in 1998. As a result, the severity of the top conviction charge was considerably lower in 2001 than in 1998. About 61% of convictions in 2001 had a violation as the top charge, compared to only 45% of convictions in 1998. (A violation is less severe than a misdemeanor.) This may explain why cases ending in conviction were disposed of more quickly in 2001. Defendants were more willing to plead guilty if the conviction charge was a violation.
3. CHANGES IN SENTENCE OUTCOMES IN DV CASES FIGURE 3 SENTENCE OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT Convicted DV Defendants in Manhattan As shown in Figure 3, convicted DV defendants were slightly less likely to receive a jail sentence in 2001 (27%) than in 1998 (31%). Conditional discharges (often with a requirement that the defendant complete a batterer intervention program) were much more common in 2001 than in 1998 (67% vs. 54%). Other sentences (probation, fines, restitution) were imposed in only 6% of DV cases in 2001, compared to 15% of DV cases in 1998. 4
3rd Quarter 1998 (N = 283) Jail 31%
Other Sentence 15%
1st Quarter 2001 (N = 360) Jail 27%
Other Sentence 6% Conditional Discharge 54%
Conditional Discharge 67%
December 2004
CJA
Research Brief
Why did the use of conditional discharges increase after the specialized DV court was established? In many DV cases in the specialized court, ADAs and/or the court may view a conditional discharge with a program requirement as a more appropriate sentence than jail. Our data suggest that there was a greater emphasis on the use of batterer intervention programs in the specialized DV court in 2001 than in the mixed-docket courts in 1998. Interviews with ADAs in Manhattan indicate that this change occurred primarily because the court, not the DA’s office, changed its approach. According to the ADAs, the Manhattan DA’s office continued to seek jail sentences in DV cases as often in 2001, after the DV court was established, as it did in 1998.
4. CHANGES IN RE-ARRESTS OF DV OFFENDERS Figure 4 presents the re-arrest rates for the 1998 and 2001 samples. The re-arrest rate for new DV offenses is defined as the percentage of defendants who were re-arrested at least once for a DV offense within 18 months of case disposition. The number of cases is smaller in Figure 3 because the data reflect the re-arrest rate for the defendant’s first DV arrest in each sample. (The data in Figures 1 through 3 included all DV arrests for each defendant in each sample.) The re-arrest rate for DV offenses was higher after the establishment of the specialized DV court in Manhattan (see Figure 4). In the 18 months after case disposition, the re-arrest rate for new DV offenses was 12% in 1998 and 16% in 2001.
FIGURE 4 POST-DISPOSITION RE-ARREST RATES Prosecuted DV Defendants in Manhattan Re-arrest Rate for DV Offenses
50%
25% 12%
16%
0% 3rd Quarter 1998 (N = 955)
1st Quarter 2001 (N = 1,188)
Why did the re-arrest rate for new DV offenses increase after the specialized DV court was established? First, the establishment of the specialized DV court led to greater efforts to identify DV cases to be processed in the new court. In 1998, as noted earlier, the courts were less successful at identifying DV cases accurately. Second, the re-arrest rate increased as a result of closer monitoring of DV offenders for new DV offenses. In 2001, post-disposition judicial monitoring in a compliance part increased a defendant’s likelihood of being re-arrested for a new DV offense. The compliance part received reports from batterer intervention programs about new DV offenses and violations of program conditions, some of which resulted in the defendant’s re-arrest. Because this type of judicial monitoring was not available in 1998, there were not as many re-arrests for new DV offenses. These changes associated with the specialized DV court preclude us from determining whether the establishment of the court deterred re-offending among defendants in DV cases. Research Brief #7
5
CJA
Research Brief CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the introduction, specialized DV courts have multiple goals: increasing defendant accountability, promoting victim safety, and coordinating the activities of criminal justice agencies that respond to domestic violence. Our research has been able to assess the success of the Manhattan specialized DV court in meeting only the first of these goals. It seems clear that the specialized court has increased defendant accountability. However, we were unable to determine whether the court increased victim safety by deterring future violence by the defendants. Furthermore, our study was not designed to assess how well the court coordinated the activities of criminal justice agencies. How has the specialized DV Criminal Court in Manhattan increased defendant accountability? To evaluate its impact on defendant accountability, we compared the processing of DV cases before and after the establishment of the specialized DV Criminal Court in Manhattan. The findings suggest the court produced at least three important changes: faster processing of DV cases, improved identification of DV cases, and improved monitoring of DV offenders.
● Faster Processing of Domestic Violence Cases Although there was no change in the distribution of case dispositions, the average time between arraignment and disposition declined significantly between 1998 and 2001. Plea bargains were reached more quickly because there was greater flexibility in plea bargaining in 2001 than in 1998. The establishment of the specialized DV court made the processing of DV cases more efficient. This enabled the court to enroll convicted defendants in batterer intervention and drug and alcohol treatment programs more quickly.
How did the specialized DV court reduce case-processing time? One way may be through greater routinization in the processing of DV cases in the specialized DV court. One of the rationales for specialized DV courts is that the court becomes familiar with the special features of DV cases. In a specialized DV court, it may be easier for ADAs, defense attorneys, and judges to reach agreement on the strength of the evidence in the case and on an appropriate sentence for the defendant. Defendants may be more willing to agree to sentences requiring program completion rather than jail time. It is also easier to identify appropriate batterer intervention programs or drug or alcohol treatment programs in a specialized DV court, since these programs are routinely used in large numbers of cases.
●
Improved Identification of Domestic Violence Cases The volume of cases identified as DV cases in Manhattan increased significantly between 1998 and 2001. Since domestic violence complaints declined citywide during that period, we do not believe this increase in DV cases reflected an increase in the incidence of domestic violence offenses in Manhattan. Instead, the increase in DV cases in Manhattan between 1998 and 2001 probably reflects the increased accuracy of the courts in identifying DV cases. How did the specialized DV court improve the identification of DV cases? Better efforts were made to identify DV cases at arraignment by gathering more information about the relationship between the defendant and the victim. After the DV court was established, it became more important to accurately identify DV cases. Improvements in record-keeping insured that post-arraignment appearances would be scheduled in the specialized DV court.
6
December 2004
CJA
Research Brief
Conclusions (continued)
● Improved Monitoring of Domestic Violence Offenders The specialized DV court increased the monitoring of DV offenders by requiring more of them to complete batterer intervention programs and/or drug or alcohol treatment programs. Convicted defendants were often given a sentence of a conditional discharge with program completion as one of the conditions. Although we do not have information about enrollment in the programs, we do know that the use of conditional discharge sentences for convicted DV defendants increased significantly.
How did the specialized DV court improve the monitoring of DV offenders? The conditional discharge sentence allowed the court to monitor defendants for up to a year after case disposition. Compliance with the requirements of batterer intervention programs and drug and alcohol treatment programs was monitored in a DV compliance part. These programs reported to the DV compliance part about defendants’ progress, as well as about violations of program conditions and re-offending.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS Specialized DV courts have been established in many jurisdictions to change how the judicial system responds to domestic violence cases. Research on the success of specialized DV courts is still in its early stages, and much more remains to be learned. A more comprehensive assessment is needed to determine whether specialized DV courts are more appropriate for DV cases than mixed-docket courts. What are the policy implications of our research for future efforts to use specialized DV courts?
●
For the foreseeable future, the specialized misdemeanor DV courts will continue to process most misdemeanor DV cases in New York City. All the boroughs now use specialized misdemeanor DV courts similar to Manhattan’s specialized DV Criminal Court. Although all the boroughs will also soon have Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) courts, the IDV courts will handle cases only for defendants who have simultaneous cases that would otherwise be processed in two or more courts. The majority of DV cases, which involve defendants whose only case is a misdemeanor DV case, will continue to be processed in the specialized misdemeanor DV courts. Given these plans, the key policy question in New York City is not whether specialized DV courts should be retained, but how they can be improved.
● More research is needed to determine whether improved monitoring of offenders by a specialized DV court can increase victim safety. Although the Manhattan specialized DV court increased defendant accountability, we Research Brief #7
were not able to assess accurately whether defendants were deterred from committing future DV offenses. Additional research, perhaps interviewing victims about re-offending by the defendant, is needed to address this question.
●
More research is needed to improve the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs. Specialized DV courts rely heavily on batterer intervention programs, yet many of these programs have not been evaluated. Are some types of programs more effective than others? Are certain types of defendants more likely to complete these programs successfully?
●
More research is needed on victim outcomes. Small-scale focus groups or interviews with victims would be able to address questions about victim satisfaction with the court system. Victims could be asked about their satisfaction with information provided to them about orders of protection, services and resources available to them, how the case would proceed, and the disposition of the case. 7
Research Brief from
CJA
No. 7 (December 2004): Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court Previously published in this series: No. 6 (August 2004): Release and Bail Decisions in New York City (Phillips) No. 5 (April 2004): CJA’s New Release-Recommendation System (Siddiqi) No. 4 (December 2003): Combating Domestic Violence in New York City, 2001 (Peterson) No. 3 (August 2003): The Impact of Quality-Of-Life Policing (Solomon) No. 2 (April 2003): The Impact of Felony ATI Programs On Recidivism (Savolainen) No. 1 (December 2002): Jail Displacement for ATI Programs (Phillips)
E-mail us at: res_info@nycja.org and tell us if you would like to be notified when new reports become available on our web site.
Forthcoming: No. 8 (April 2005) will present the results of research on patterns of re-arrest among New York City defendants by Senior Research Analyst Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. www.nycja.org/research/research.htm
Research Brief from
CJA
No. 7 (December 2004): Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court The New York City Criminal Justice Agency 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007
TO: