This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University]

On: 22 December 2014, At: 23:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Women & Criminal Justice

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwcj20

Specialized Domestic Violence

Courts
a b
Martha L. Coulter Dr. P.H., MSW , Abigail
c d
Alexander & Victoria Harrison
a
Department of Community and Family Health ,
College of Public Health, University of South
Florida , USA
b
The Jennifer and James Harrell Center for the
Study of Family Violence , 13201 Bruce B. Downs,
MDC 56, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
c
Applied Anthropology and Public Health ,
University of South Florida , USA
d
College of Public Health , University of South
Florida , USA
Published online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Martha L. Coulter Dr. P.H., MSW , Abigail Alexander & Victoria
Harrison (2007) Specialized Domestic Violence Courts, Women & Criminal Justice,
16:3, 91-106, DOI: 10.1300/J012v16n03_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J012v16n03_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
 primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014
 Specialized Domestic Violence Courts:
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

Improvement for Women Victims?

Martha L. Coulter
Abigail Alexander
Victoria Harrison

ABSTRACT. The multimethod study assesses the perceptions of spe-

cialized domestic violence courts’ processes with victims’ experiences
as the central focus. Perceptions of the traditional courts and specialized
domestic violence courts are compared among victims, courtroom po-
lice, attorneys, judges and victim advocates. Domestic violence educa-
tion among attorneys, judges, and victim advocates is also compared.
Despite the intended improvements with the specialized court model,
victims report similar problems in both court models. Safety and victims
support among respondents is mixed. Professionals from the specialized
court receive no more domestic violence education than those from the
general court. Victims’ and courtroom police recommendations are pre-
sented. doi: 10.1300/J012v16n03_05 [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Specialized courts, domestic violence courts, judicial

effectiveness, victim advocacy

Martha L. Coulter, Dr. P.H., MSW is Professor, Department of Community and

Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, and Director,
The Jennifer and James Harrell Center for the Study of Family Violence, 13201 Bruce
B. Downs, MDC 56, Tampa, FL 33612 (E-mail: mcoulter@hsc.usf.edu).
Abigail Alexander is a masters student in Applied Anthropology and Public Health,
University of South Florida (E-mail: aalexand@hsc.usf.edu).
Victoria Harrison is a PhD student at the College of Public Health, University of
South Florida (E-mail: har4530@cs.com).
Women & Criminal Justice, Vol. 16(3) 2005
Available online at http://wcj.haworthpress.com
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1300/J012v16n03_05 91
 92 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Specialized drug courts have provided methodology for specialized

domestic violence courts (Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001). The
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

specialized drug courts’ focus moves away from the punitive orienta-
tion of the legal process to a more therapeutic focus through interven-
tion, drug treatment and restoration (Turner et al, 2002; Belenko, 2002;
Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001). While results from drug courts
vary, many report a reduction in recidivism rates, drug abuse, judicial
and probation caseloads as well as a reduction in cost (Turner et al.,
2002; Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001). On the basis of the special-
ized drug court model, specialized domestic violence courts builds from
two legal philosophies of restorative justice and therapeutic jurispru-
dence, assessing the positive and negative effects of the legal system on
the social and psychological functioning of individuals and reflects a
commitment to providing comprehensive services (Tsai, 2000).
While improvements in traditional criminal courts regarding the han-
dling of domestic violence cases are apparent in recent years, special-
ized domestic violence courts were developed to address some of the
weaknesses apparent in traditional court settings. Evidence shows orga-
nizational and attitudinal weaknesses in traditional courts in regard to
domestic violence cases, which affects victims’ experiences throughout
the court process. Attitudes of court personnel, such as victim blaming
(Hart, 1993) can reflect biases, thus adversely affecting victims’ cases
(Hartman & Belknap, 2003; Erez & Belknap, 1998). Due to a lack of
uniform understanding about the dynamics of domestic violence, tradi-
tional courts tend to minimize the criminal nature of domestic violence
cases (Ptacek, 1999). What could be potentially more dangerous is that
court personnel underestimate the severity of their biases and their re-
sulting impact on the judicial process (Erez & Belknap, 1998; Hart,
1993).
Victims tend to have different interests in the criminal justice system
than the criminal court personnel (Hart, 1993). Safety, protection and
participation are significant barriers to victims’ sense of satisfaction
(Erez & Belknap, 1998; Hart, 1993). Victims’ sense of fairness, respect
and empowerment shape their perceptions and influence whether they
will handle future actions regarding domestic violence outside of the
court system (Richman, 2002). Confusion regarding the system, fear
and frustration contribute to the already stressful nature of legal action
for victims (Bennett, Goodman & Dutton, 1999). Legal interventions
that incorporate victim preferences are positively received by victims
(Smith, 2001).
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 93

The development of specialized domestic violence courts have been

viewed as an innovation by emphasizing education and training among
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

the various personnel in the court, and judicial expertise in domestic vi-
olence (Karan, Keilitz & Denaro, 1999). This model has been found to
be more effective in the intake process and organizational management
(Epstein, 1999; Karan, Keilitz & Denaro, 1999), and has decreased re-
cidivism rates and an increased responsiveness in the criminal justice
system (Gover, MacDonald & Alpert, 2003). The specialized nature of
the courts coordinates community services and resources providing a
more integrated approach (Gover, MacDonald & Alpert, 2003; Levey,
Steketee & Keilitz, 2000; Tsai, 2000), thus making the community
more aware of domestic violence issues (Karan, Keilitz & Denaro,
1999). However, Dunford, Frederick, Hart and Hofford (1998) believe
that specialized courts continue to ignore victims’ needs such as safety,
preventative measures and community resources.
In 1994, the Florida State Commission on Family Courts made rec-
ommendations to include domestic violence in the jurisdiction of new
family law divisions in Florida in response to the increased caseload in
the courts and the difficulties of family abuse issues (FL State Correc-
tions Commission, 1997), and was implemented in different ways. This
paper compares and contrasts victims’ attitudes and perceived effec-
tiveness of Florida’s court system. Victims represent counties with tra-
ditional, general court models and counties with specialized domestic
violence court models. Additionally, data from court police from spe-
cialized courts, and judges, attorneys and victims advocates from both
models are analyzed in relation to victims’ data and compared across
court models.

METHODS

This yearlong study, conducted in 2000, utilized a multi-method ap-

proach. The two components of the study included focus groups for bai-
liffs or court police as they like to be referred to as and domestic
violence victims, and written surveys for judges, attorneys, and victim
advocates. The focus groups and surveys were completed during the
same time.
Telephone interviews with domestic violence victim advocates ac-
ross the state revealed that 13 Florida counties have domestic violence
courts. From those 13 counties, 9 were selected for this study based on
geographic location in an attempt to include northern, central, and
 94 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

southern counties. Using census data, 9 additional counties without do-

mestic violence courts were selected to match the original 9 sites.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

Matches were made based on ethnicity of citizens (specifically His-

panic versus non-Hispanic), geographic location, size, and urban versus
rural status. Although all 18 counties initially agreed to participate in
the study, 4 counties failed to recruit enough participants and/or dissem-
inate surveys. A total of 14 counties (7 with domestic violence courts
and 7 without domestic violence courts) participated in the study. Due
to the systemic variations of the courts among the counties, a thorough
comparison of the service delivery was outside the scope of this study.
Therefore, general themes are discussed.
Ten focus groups were conducted across seven sites: eight groups
with victims and two with court police with an average of six people per
group. The majority of groups had a moderator and co-moderator and
all but one group was audiotaped (the tape recorder malfunctioned in
one instance). One victim group was conducted entirely in Spanish with
the assistance of a translator. Only one male victim was recruited across
all of the groups. All the participants, including the male victim himself,
reported feeling comfortable with his inclusion in the group. Therefore,
he was not interviewed separately. There were limited numbers of court
police available from which to form focus groups. To remedy this, a
brief survey was developed from the focus group guide and court police
at those sites were asked to complete the surveys.
Three distinct surveys were developed for judges, attorneys, and vic-
tim advocates. The surveys incorporated both open-ended and closed-
ended questions that assessed safety issues, offender treatment, training
and experience, and recommendations for improving the court system,
and the last page of each contained questions specific to each profes-
sion. Victim advocates and court administrators were recruited to mail
surveys to attorneys and judges and to distribute surveys to other victim
advocates, and as a result, response rates are not available. Participants
were given the option of returning surveys to the appropriate victim
advocate or mailing them directly to the researcher.
Transcripts from focus groups were coded by independent coders
and checked for interrater reliability. Using constant comparative anal-
ysis, focus group data were analyzed for recurrent patterns, content
themes, and important points. The three datasets generated from the sur-
veys were analyzed independently using SAS. They were then com-
bined to yield general results in terms of the differences between
domestic violence versus general courts. Chi-square statistic was used
to evaluate the statistical significance of any difference (Fisher’s Exact
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 95

was used when Chi-square restrictions could not be met). Open-ended

questions on the surveys that could not be quantified were analyzed
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

using content analysis.

FINDINGS

Victim Data

Information Issues

Noted across several focus groups from both court models is the need
for victims to do a great deal of researching, phone calling, and investi-
gating to support their own case in court, something a few participants
refer to as doing the legal “legwork.” For example, a participant from a
domestic violence court states, “I had to do my own legwork, I had to be
my own investigator, prosecutor, and support system. The end result,
was that this man was charged with trespassing and spent 10 days in
jail-my rape and assault went unnoticed.”
A participant from a domestic violence court system states, “The
amount of hours I have spent educating myself, calling people, attend-
ing court hearings, it would probably be around 300 hours of my per-
sonal time on this whole mess. And that does not even count worry
time.” A woman from general court explains that she knows there is
help but “its just a matter of asking, finding, doing research and
searching for [help].”
In some cases, the process is confusing and victims report they have
insufficient guidance to get through the legal system. One woman from
a general court states “It was very, very confusing for me. I don’t know
about anybody else. I’ve never been in the system or had any experience
as a victim prior to this so I really didn’t know the right questions to ask,
or didn’t know which steps to really follow through with. So, it was very
confusing for me.” Another woman from the same group states, “But all
that time, you are fighting, you are struggling the system. You don’t
know what they’re doing. You don’t have any access to what’s happen-
ing. You don’t get notices. The only reason that I knew anything about
what was going on . . . the only reason, like I said, [Name of Victim
Advocate] was the victim advocate.”
Several participants from specialized courts found that there was a
general lack of assistance throughout the legal process and that there is
very little predictability in what area one will receive assistance. One
 96 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

woman explains that the process is “just an unknown, whether or not if

you are going to get help. You never know if you are going to call and
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

someone is going to answer and understand or if the person is going to

just blow you off and say ‘you are still married, try to work it out.’ It just
depends on the individual on the other end.”

System Biases and Barriers

The court process including paperwork, information gathering and

the lack of consistent information was discouraging for many of the par-
ticipants from both court models because it is often time consuming, un-
predictable and involves a lot of red-tape and paperwork. As one
woman from a specialized court explains “There is so much work in-
volved, go here, go there, fill this out, do this, read this, come next week,
come back again and again. Before you know it, you’re missing work,
losing money and not getting anywhere in the process.”
Participants in the focus groups identify the problem with high turn-
over rates among court personnel, including their own attorneys, result-
ing in personnel new to the system who aren’t knowledgeable about the
system and their unique cases. Between continuances and multiple
court appearances, victims express frustration with the inefficiency and
lack of consistency associated with more than one judge dealing with
their cases. As one woman explains from a specialized court, “You get a
different judge every time who does not know the history and they don’t
have the time, and the state attorneys office, their staff has a high turn-
over, so you don’t get the same person there as well.”

Perceptions of Safety and Sensitivity

Safety in the courtroom is a primary concern for participants in both

court systems. There is general agreement that individuals use the court
system because of fear of escalating abuse and because there are no
other alternatives. Fear follows victims to the courtroom setting. While
contact with the abuser despite the presence of security is more reported
by participants representing the general courts, both groups feel that se-
curity is less of a priority than it should be. One woman from a domestic
violence court was told that it was “a hassle” to get security in the court
room: “When we got to court, my husband followed me to the restroom
and I ran back to the desk and told her that it does not matter what kind
of trouble it will cause to fill out the paperwork, that I needed it and I
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 97

told her she tried talking me out of it, and I did not appreciate it because I
felt I was in fear of my husband right there in the courtroom”.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

Several participants from both models report being or feeling threat-

ened by their perpetrators and the perpetrators’ family and friends in the
court building. One woman states that she received a direct threat from
her husband’s friend while standing outside of the specialized domestic
violence courtroom. A participant representing a specialized court warns;
“the victim should be worried because there is no one looking out for
anyone during all of the court appearances.”
In both court models, focus group participants feel like there were
several areas where the process reflected insensitivity to their needs and
to the private nature of their cases. Several participants from the general
court were very surprised to realize that their case would be heard in
front of other people. One woman thought she would meet the judge
alone but the meeting “was in his big courtroom and all these people I
did not know. They brought [the perpetrator] in handcuffs and every-
body was able to sit down except me. I had to walk up to this little table
in front of the judge. Just really intimidating. My life is private . . . really
embarrassing to me.”
Throughout the legal process, several participants explained that they
had to repeat their stories of abuse many times to many people. One
general court victim explains:

The biggest thing is that you have to repeat your story 100 times,
and it’s embarrassing and humiliating. You want it over and done
with and you don’t want everyone to know what’s going on. Be-
cause, people say they don’t discriminate. . .Then they look at you
and say, ‘Well, you healed nicely’. That’s when you don’t want to
mess with it anymore and you give up!

Others, who have had to repeat their “stories” several times within
the legal process, describe holes and lack of communication within the
court infrastructure. One woman states that in the general courts “The
clerk’s office doesn’t necessarily talk to the people upstairs. Or the ad-
vocates’ office. Or the sheriff’s office.” Several participants from spe-
cialized courts report feeling like they were the ones with the problem
and feeling revictimized all over again. One woman explains that this is
“why victims stay in the abusive situation, because going to court only
victimizes you again.”
Attorneys showed insensitivity regarding cases by not being ade-
quately prepared, and in one instance, blatantly disregarded this indi-
 98 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

vidual by coming to court late without apologizing. Several described

frustration that the judges become desensitized to the dynamics of do-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

mestic violence and that they show their biases in ways that minimize
participants’ experiences. In several specialized court settings, it is re-
ported that judges didn’t allow the victims to address their concerns. One
individual explains “in a way your case and your life all depend on if the
judge is in a good mood . . . if he is in a good mood, it’s lucky for you.”

Language Barriers

The consensus in the Spanish-speaking group is that there isn’t

enough literature available to victims written in Spanish pertaining to
domestic violence as well as the legal process. Without the ability to get
information in Spanish, the participants from a specialized court were
unable to track case progress including court proceedings. Also, there
are not enough Spanish-speaking or bilingual professionals in the court
system to help them through the process. For example, one participant
states “There’s um, the language problem. You know because there’s
not a lot of people . . . they don’t explain the steps (in Spanish).”

Positive Court Experiences

While the discussions of the groups focus mainly on problems and

barriers for victims, some victims discuss positive experiences with the
professionals-especially the judges. In spite of some participants report-
ing judge bias and lack of sensitivity, many describe satisfaction with
judges’ knowledge of domestic violence and sensitivity toward the is-
sues. Positive perceptions relate to participants’ being heard by the
judge. A woman from a specialized court states,

When I got in my pretrial hearing, I really had no idea that the

judge was going to allow me to talk and just say what I had to say.
Instead, I was expecting that I was going to be cut off and that is
not how it went at all, and the judge seemed very interested in what
I had to say, and boy did I have something to say. . . And I just felt
so heard and even after I finished speaking I was allowed to come
back beyond that and add more comments.

Some other participants discuss the support they received from their
victim advocates. For example, a woman from a domestic violence
court states, “The only thing that kept me going through all this (court
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 99

process) was the victim advocate. She was the one that pushed for me,
otherwise I probably would have given up.”
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

Recommendations
Victims of domestic violence, whether they participated in special-
ized domestic violence court or the traditional court system, had numer-
ous shared areas where they would like to see improvement or changes
within the court process. Table 1 outlines victims’ suggestions.
Court Police
The courtroom police offer interesting insight into the judicial pro-
cess, which often supports and corroborates victims’ experiences in the

TABLE 1. Recommendations from Victims for Respective Court Systems

Counties without Domestic Violence Counties with Domestic Violence

Courts Courts
Link a victim up with a “buddy”: someone to
walk them through the court process every Take victims on a walk-through of the court
step of the way (possibly a victim who has buildings and sit in on domestic violence
been through the system) courts hearings with them
Assign Judges solely to domestic violence Take offender out of court when victim has
cases (i.e., have a domestic violence court) to be in court
Give victims privacy when speaking to the Provide education for judges and law
Judge enforcement officers on domestic violence
Treat victims as individuals rather than seeing Provide written material to victims on
them as just another domestic violence case resources for food, shelter and other
Provide judges with opportunities to hear from emergencies–Victims may be distraught and
victims in a format similar to focus groups so need written information to take home with
that they can hear about personal stories and them
circumstances Have victims who are veterans of the court
Have more female staff in a male-dominated system volunteer to support victims through
court system their court case

Provide education for judges and law Decrease postponements (continuances) in

enforcement officers on domestic violence
court hearings/trials
Have victims be part of a team to redesign
court system
Provide evaluation forms to victims upon
completion of their court case to evaluate
the professionals involved in their case
(judge, attorney, etc.)
 100 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

specialized court setting. Due to the small numbers, the focus group
findings (n = 12) and the questionnaire findings (n = 14) will be pre-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

sented together. The limited number prevents comparisons to be made

between general and specialized courts.

System and Safety Issues

Court police’s impressions of the legal system are generally related

to the symbolic nature of the court, a system where justice is served and
where criminals are held accountable. Approximately one-quarter of
participants feel that the court system is confusing, overburdened and
stricken with bureaucratic barriers. One court officer lists problematic
issues: “Overloaded, disorganized, does not work most of the time.”
Another writes that it is “an overcrowded system that is struggling to
keep face.” Bureaucratic barriers or “red tape” increases the length of
time cases remain in the system, thus contributing to the burden of
growing numbers.
Court police comments reflect frustration with the system regarding
the inflexibility of the court system to address the unique aspects of the
domestic violence cases. Moreover, court police feel that the mandatory
arrest policies are too strict and such policies take the decision-making
power away from the victims. One bailiff describes a situation where
the “[domestic violence] issue is over with, they love each other and
they want it dropped, but they can’t get it dropped. That causes more
harm and pain than anything else.” Additionally, the judgments are
standardized despite the unique circumstances from case to case.
Court officers generally relate victims’ safety to the interactions or
potential interactions with their perpetrator in the court building, in the
courtroom itself, and coming and going from the building, and describe
their roles as preventing contact between the parties including families.
However, at least four (6%) of the participants did not relate victims’
sense of safety to their perpetrators. Either these respondents see no rea-
sons for victims to worry about their safety or they think victims’ con-
cerns related only case outcomes like child custody or getting what they
want from the court process.
There is variation among court police about perceived job priorities.
Several participants explain that their primary concern is the protection
of the judge and to uphold the integrity of the court process. One partici-
pant reports that due to a lack of court police in his court building often
don’t know whom the victims are in order to assure no contact between
parties once in the building. Additionally, because they are tasked with
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 101

many duties they are not able to have their full attention on the victims.
Describing the position of courtroom cop as being “bottom of the hill,”
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

one explains: “The cop is always the common denominator at all in-
stances, ”he’s just standing around anyway, let’s throw this at him, too.”
But, let someone get hurt in the courtroom because we’re busy handling
paperwork or something-we are responsible for all of it! Something is
wrong here!”

Perceptions of Domestic Violence Issues

The court police report that for many situations the prosecution of do-
mestic violence cases is inappropriate and a waste of the courts’ time.
As one respondent explains: “I think [we] all understand that domestic
violence is an emotional issue. It’s dealt with as an emotional issue,
rather than a criminal issue, but we are using criminal laws to facilitate
that.”In general, court police feel there are more serious crimes more
appropriate for the criminal justice system affording courts to make
more of an impact. They explain that victims only get a piece of paper
providing no real protection, thus showing the ineffectiveness of prose-
cuting domestic violence cases.
Some court police feel that the victims of domestic violence misuse
the court system. Divorce, child custody, and other legal matters are of-
ten addressed within this forum, thus moving away from the intended
criminal purpose of domestic violence cases. In other words, court po-
lice feel that too many extraneous issues are being brought into the
courtroom, thus minimizing the appropriateness of hearing domestic
violence cases in the first place.
With regard to knowledge about domestic violence issues, court po-
lice reflect insensitivity to the potential lethality of abusive situations.
One focus group distinguishes between real victims and those who are
taking advantage of the system. Speaking about victim advocates’ con-
cern for victims’ safety in the courthouse, one court officer explains
“that they really make a mountain-out-of-a-hole-hill, ‘oh, she needs an
escort’, and really, its not that bad. Again, if they need an escort, we pro-
vide it, because that’s our job, to provide security here at the courthouse.
But, it just seems like it is exaggerated on many, many occasions.”
In general, court police feel that judges have a good understanding of
domestic violence and that they put a lot of “time and consideration into
it, which is good. That’s one of positives that we get to see. Because we
know that these judges don’t take it lightly.” Other positive aspects of
the specialized courts include the increased accessibility to the courts
 102 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

and quicker processing of the cases, and the role and presence of the vic-
tim advocates. One focus group identified the victims’ advocates as be-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

ing there mostly for comfort, which they recognize as being important
for the victims.

Recommendations

The court police recommendations concern the support system for

victims throughout the court process and once the case is closed. One
courtroom officer summarizes a shared concern: “I think with all of the
resources we have outside of the judicial system, I think we would rely
more on curing the problem, other than just temporarily fixing it.” Their
recommendations are summarized in Table 2.

Attorney, Judge, and Victim Advocate Data

Perceptions of Victim Support and Safety

The overwhelming majority of attorneys and judges from the special-

ized domestic violence courts believe that victims’ receive sufficient
amount of support. Ninety-one percent (n = 35) believe they do have
enough support. Of the responding victims advocates (n = 16), 69% re-
port that there is sufficient amount of support for victims. The attorneys
and judges from the general courts are a little more divided regarding
their perceptions of sufficient victim support (63%; n = 12). Of the re-
sponding victim advocates (n = 13), 62% believe that victims have a
sufficient amount of support.
In terms of attorneys’ and judges’ perceptions of victims’ safety in
the courtroom, three-quarters (84%; n = 16) of respondents from the
general courts are concerned with victim safety compared to just over

TABLE 2. Court Police Recommendations for Improving Aspects of the Court

Process

Recommendations for Improvements

• More counseling for victims throughout the court process
• More victim’s advocates (smaller caseloads for advocates)
• Someone to be a court contact for victims
• A video to show victims how the court is able to help them
• Train more investigators
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 103

half in the specialized courts (56%; n = 20). In both court models, judges
are more likely to report safety concerns. Sixty-four percent (n = 9) of the
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

victim advocates from general court report that they have safety con-
cerns for the victims, which is very similar to perceptions in the special-
ized court (59%; n = 10).

Education and Training

There is no statistically significant difference in hours of education

received by court model (pFisher’s = 0.1406). Of the total respondents
from the general court (n = 21), 38% have less than 20 hours of educa-
tion. In the specialized court, the overall percentage of those receiving
20 hours or less of education is approximately half (18%; n = 8). From
the general court, the majority of respondents (60%; n = 17) have re-
ceived between 21 and 40 plus hours of education compared to 62%
(n = 13) in the specialized court. Interestingly, six respondents, one at-
torney and 5 judges, from the specialized court have received zero hours
of domestic violence education.
The number of hours logged by victim advocates between the two
court models did not vary much, and are comparable to attorneys and
judges. In the general court, 63% (n = 5) has received over 40 hours of
education, a slightly higher number than among the specialized court
victim advocates (56%; n = 5).
Frequencies of education among the two court models are statisti-
cally significant (pFisher’s = 0.0375). In the general court, 71% (n = 17)
received education more than once a year. While approximately three-
quarters (76%; n = 22) of the specialized court professionals also re-
ceived education more than once a year, one-quarter (24%; n = 6) have
not received education within the last year, compared to 29% (n = 7) in
the general court. Table 3 shows the type of education received by court
model.

DISCUSSION

By comparing victims’ experiences from the two different court

models we can conclude that there is little difference in terms of atti-
tudes regarding procedures within the criminal court system. Systemic
variations among the courts across the seven counties studied exist. As a
result, counties were subdivided into general court models and special-
ized domestic violence court models. Contrasting those experiences
 104 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

TABLE 3. Education Received by Court Model

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

College/ Victim Conference/ On- Very Total P-fisher’s

Graduate Advocate Seminars the-Job Little/None
Ed Cert. training
DV Court 5% 2% 30% 18% 5% 59% pFisher’s =
(n = 3) (n = 1) (n = 18) (n = 11) (n = 3) (n = 36) .0375
General 5% 0% 25% 12% 0% 41%
Court (n = 3) (0) (n = 15) (n = 7) (0) (n = 21)

Total 10% 2% 54% 30% 5% 100%

(n = 6) (n = 1) (n = 33) (n = 18) (n = 3) (n = 61)

with court personnel feedback shows that several issues are supported
by the courtroom police such as increasing support within the court-
room process, improving management of information for victims, and
allowing for greater flexibility within the system to better serve the vic-
tims. However, attorneys’ and judges’ and courtroom polices’ positive
perceptions of victims’ safety counter what the victims themselves in
both court settings feel. Victims often feel unsafe and while court offi-
cers and others might believe that this anxiety is unwarranted, the feel-
ings of lack of safety clearly replicate the feelings of fear experienced
by victims in abusive situations. Safety provisions are often approached
from the perspective of the overt signs between the two parties. Yet, as
discussed by some victims, the presence of extended family and friends
of their abusers, and the courthouse staff’s sincere efforts and de-
meanor, are often substantial factors in their feelings of safety.
In terms of support, attorneys’ and judges’ perceptions of victim sup-
port counters victims’ perceptions. Victims are confronted by informa-
tional barriers and have little knowledge with which to predict some of
the basic procedures within the court process. The associated time, cost
and required negotiation of the system yields negative experiences
throughout the process, for which victims offer a number of recommen-
dations. In both court models, victims suggest increasing guidance
through the court system by involving individuals who have been a part
of the process. Additionally, victims and courtroom police suggest a
step-by-step procedure that would guide and equip them with the details
in an effort to minimize the unknown elements that may cause addi-
tional stress. Just as judges’ attempts to allow victims to be heard are
very positively received, victims suggest that they be given an opportu-
 Coulter, Alexander, and Harrison 105

nity to comment on the process formally to address ways in which the

process can improve.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

The formation of specialized domestic violence courts has a number

of intended outcomes including the assumption that personnel in these
courts will have a higher level of expertise in the dynamics of domestic
violence. However, the findings from this study shows there is virtually
no difference in the education or training of judges between court mod-
els and that general court attorneys actually had more training. Attitudes
reflected by the court police and through anecdotes from the victims
suggest that more education and training is needed and should include
personnel whom victims will come into contact.
The effectiveness of both the specialized and general courts greatly
affects the overall experience. Unfortunately, according to this formative
research regarding victims’ experiences, specialized courts in Florida
have shown little improvement or benefits of court specialization for
victims.

SUMMARY

This study indicates that while some court personnel feel that court
processes may be improved through the establishment of the special-
ized courts, improvements are not evident. Most notably, change in the
areas of training of court personnel and the provision of increased sup-
port and safety for victims are imperative. Further comparative studies
of operational management, judicial caseloads and community collabo-
ration in relation to case outcomes among specialized and general
courts are indicated.

REFERENCES
Belenko, S. (2002). The Challenges of Conducting Research in Drug Treatment Court
Settings. Substnace Use & Misuse. 37 (12 & 13), 1635-1664.
Bennett, L., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M.A. (1999). Systemic Obstacles to the Criminal
Prosecution of a Battering Partner: A Victim Perspective. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. 14, 761-772.
Dunford-Ford, B.L., Frederick, L., Hart, B., & Hofford, M. (1998). Unified Family
Courts: How Will They Serve Victims of Domestic Violence?. Family Law Quar-
terly. 32, 131-146.
Epstein, D. (1999). Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence Cases: Rethinking the
Roles of Prosecutors, Judges and the Court System. Yale Journal of Law and Femi-
nism. 11. Retrieved 8/1/03 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
 106 WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Erez, E. & Belknap, J. (1998). Battered Women and the Criminal Justice System: The
Service Providers’ Perspective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Re-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 23:39 22 December 2014

search. 6, 37-57.
Florida State Committee on Criminal Justice Commission. (1997). An Overview of
Florida’s Criminal Justice Specialized Courts. Florida State Senate.
Goldkamp, J.S., White, M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2001). Do Drug Courts Work? Get-
ting Inside the Srug Court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues. 31(1), 27-72.
Gover, A.R., MacDonald, J.M., & Alpert, G.P. (2003). Combating Domestic Violence:
Findings from an Evaluation of a Local Domestic Violence Court. Criminology &
Public Policy. 3(1): 109-132.
Hart, B. (1993). Battered Women and the Criminal Justice System. American Behav-
ioral Scientist. 36, 624-638.
Hartman, J.L. & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the Gatekeepers: Court Professionals’
Self Reported Attitudes About and Experience With Misdemeanor Domestic Vio-
lence Cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 30, 349-373.
Karan, A., Keilitz, S., & Denaro, S. (1999). Domestic Violence Courts: What Are They
and How Should We Manage Them?. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 50,
75-86.
Levey, L.S., Steketee, M.W., & Keilitz, S.L. (2000). Lessons Learned in Implementing
an Integrated Domestic Violence Court: The District of Columbia Experience. State
Justice Institute.
Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Re-
sponses. Boston, Northeastern University Press.
Richman, K.D. (2002). Women, Poverty and Domestic Violence: Perceptions of Court
and Legal Aid Effectiveness. Sociology Inquiry. 72, 318-344.
Smith, A. (2001). Domestic Violence Laws: The Voices of Battered Women. Violence
and Victims. 16: 91-111.
Tsai, B.C. (2000). The Trend Toward Specialized Domestic Violence Courts: Im-
provements on an Effective Innovation. Fordham Law Review. 68, 1285-327.
Turner, S., Longshore, D., Wnzel, S., Deshenes, E., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., Harrell, A.,
Morral, A., Taxman, F., Iguchi, M., Greene, J., & McBride, D. (2002). A Decade of
Drug Treatment Court Research. Substance Use & Misuse. 37 (12&13), 1489-1527.

doi: 10.1300/J012v16n03_05