ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Barriers to Addressing Substance Abuse in Domestic ViolenceCourt

Stephanie Riger • Larry W. Bennett •

Rannveig Sigurvinsdottir

Published online: 23 January 2014

� Society for Community Research and Action 2014

Abstract Substance abuse commonly co-occurs with

intimate partner violence among both perpetrators and

survivors. Specialized courts that focus on intimate partner

violence provide a unique opportunity to address both

problems simultaneously, but research has yet to identify

whether this happens. In this qualitative study of a

domestic violence court in a large midwestern metropolitan

area, key informants were interviewed to understand how

the Court treats substance abuse. Results indicate that

substance abuse typically is not identified among perpe-

trators or survivors going through the Court unless it is

mentioned in a police report. Barriers to such identification

are the organization of the Court, bounded definition of

actors’ roles in the Court, limited resources, and negative

attitudes towards survivors. These results suggest that

specialized courts that attend to only one problem may

overlook the possibility of addressing issues that com-

monly co-occur.

Keywords Domestic violence � Substance abuse �Domestic violence court � Victims � Perpetrators

Introduction

Substance abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV) have

high rates of co-occurrence (50 % or higher) and the

correlation holds across diverse clinical and forensic set-

tings from primary health care (Coker et al. 2000) to

addiction treatment programs (Chermack et al. 2000;

Easton et al. 2000; El-Bassel et al. 2000; Klostermann et al.

2010; O’Farrell et al. 2003; Rothman et al. 2008) and court

settings, particularly settings where IPV cases are heard

(Goldkamp et al. 1996; Stuart et al. 2003a, b). Both per-

petrators and survivors of IPV often report high levels of

substance abuse (Roberts et al. 1997) and these problems

may be reciprocal. Involvement in either IPV or substance

abuse increases the risk for intervention failure with the

other problem (Kilpatrick et al. 1997), although the causal

and temporal relationship between IPV and substance

abuse is not always clear (Testa 2004).

Specialized domestic violence (DV)1 courts provide a

unique opportunity to intervene in co-occurring IPV and

substance abuse. These courts are a relatively recent

addition to the criminal justice system’s response to IPV.

Comparable to other specialized courts such as those

designed to mandate treatment for substance abuse or

mental illness, DV courts integrate survivor support ser-

vices and treatment agencies into the judicial process with

the aim of rehabilitating offenders while holding them

accountable for their behavior (Tutty et al. 2008). In

addition, advocates for survivors may support their process

through the court and offer referrals to other services. DV

courts are one of the few situations where both substance

abuse and IPV could be addressed in the same setting

(Easton and Sinha 2002; Fals-Stewart and Kennedy 2005;

Martin et al. 2008). There is surprisingly little research,S. Riger (&) � L. W. Bennett � R. Sigurvinsdottir

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

e-mail: sriger@uic.edu

L. W. Bennett

e-mail: lwbenn@uic.edu

R. Sigurvinsdottir

e-mail: rsigur2@uic.edu

1 Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a term that acknowledges that

violence may occur outside the home. Courts established to address

this problem are commonly known as domestic violence courts, so we

retain that terminology when referring to the court and to advocates

for survivors of violence.

123

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217

DOI 10.1007/s10464-014-9636-4

however, describing the ways that domestic violence courts

manage the issue of co-occurring problems among perpe-

trators and survivors. This study examines barriers and

opportunities to addressing substance abuse within a par-

ticular DV Court.

IPV and substance abuse are co-occurring issues for a

substantial group of those who go through the criminal justice

system. In a sample of 255 Illinois women with co-occurring

IPV victimization and substance abuse, 33 % of the respon-

dents who sought help from social service agencies were on

probation or parole at the time for a variety of offenses

(Bennett and O’Brien 2007). In a separate study of 899

domestic violence offenders in the same county, 65 % were

identified in a research protocol as having possible substance

abuse problems (Bennett et al. 2007). Coincidently, the same

study found that probation officers identified only 12 % of the

sample as having substance use disorders, suggesting a lost

opportunity for courts to recognize and intervene in one of the

major risk factors for domestic violence.

Other studies of IPV perpetrators have found similar

results on the co-occurrence of substance abuse and IPV. In

a CDC multisite study of batterer intervention programs

(BIPs), over 50 % of male participants were found to have

substance abuse issues (Gondolf 1999). Using timeline

follow-back methods, Fals-Stewart (2003) found that men

entering BIPs were eight times as likely to batter on a day

in which they had been drinking. Similar results occur

among those in substance abuse treatment programs. Half

of the partnered men entering substance abuse treatment

programs have battered in the past year (Chermack et al.

2000) and men entering an alcohol treatment program were

eleven times as likely to batter on a day when they had

been drinking (Fals-Stewart 2003). A recent study of cases

where survivors filed for domestic violence orders of pro-

tection (OOP: requiring the defendant to stay away from

the survivor) found that defendants had heavy use of

alcohol and drugs while few had received treatment for

substance abuse (Moracco et al. 2010).

Perpetrators of domestic violence are not alone in their

propensity to abuse substances. Survivors may self-medi-

cate with drugs or alcohol in order to ameliorate the adverse

health and mental health outcomes of IPV, including post-

traumatic stress disorder (Dutton et al. 2006). Drugs or

alcohol also may alleviate other effects of IPV, including

tension (Gilbert et al. 2000; Hirsch 2001). In turn, substance

abuse may increase the risk of future victimization in several

ways, including impairing judgment, increasing financial

dependency, and exposing women to violent men. Survivor

abuse of alcohol or drugs may increase exposure to partners

who also abuse substances, impairing the accuracy of danger

assessment and the effectiveness of safety planning, and

increasing reluctance to seek assistance or contact police for

fear of arrest, deportation or referral to a child protection

agency (Bland and Edmund 2008; James et al. 2004).

Finally, the relationship may be reciprocal, with substance

abuse increasing the risk of violence, which may then lead to

additional substance use (Kilpatrick et al. 1997). One

national study following 3,006 women identified a cyclic

relationship: substance abuse increased the risk of IPV, and

IPV increased the risk of both drug and alcohol abuse

(Kilpatrick et al. 1997).

For some women, victimization predicts substance

abuse relapse. Many survivors begin or increase their use

of alcohol and other drugs to medicate the physical and

emotional effects of victimization. Some chemically

dependent survivors become addicted to sedatives, tran-

quilizers, stimulants, and other drugs that were prescribed

by health care providers from whom they sought help for

injuries. In addition, their partners may coerce survivors to

use alcohol or drugs as a mechanism of control, effectively

sabotaging the survivor’s recovery efforts. Successfully

addressing the safety needs of substance abusing survivors

is an essential part of a recovery strategy. Domestic vio-

lence courts offer a unique opportunity to assess and

intervene in this problem cycle.

Here we explore the current practices relevant to iden-

tifying and intervening in substance abuse by examining a

DV Court in a large midwestern city.2 We asked key Court-

related actors what opportunities exist to increase attention

to substance abuse issues and what barriers prevent such

consideration. We used a qualitative approach to examine

the attitudes and observations of key personnel within the

Court system, as qualitative methods permit interrogation

of subjective phenomena in natural settings.

Method

The Domestic Violence Court

The Domestic Violence Court in this study, established in

1985, is located in a large midwestern metropolitan area.

Cases going through the Court include not only violence by

intimate partners but also that by family members or people

who live together or have done so in the past who hit,

choke, kick, threaten, harass, or interfere with the personal

liberty of another family or household member, as specified

in the state’s domestic violence law. The Court hears both

criminal and civil cases and houses not only Court per-

sonnel but also victim advocates from DV agencies and pro

bono lawyers. The Court also has connections with local

BIPs and the county funds a small number of those BIPs to

2 The sexual orientation of those going through this Court is not

known. However, since the majority of instances of IPV involve male

perpetrators and female victims, we use that terminology.

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217 209

123

provide services for referrals. In 2011, the criminal side of

the Court conducted an average of 900 hearings per week.

Demographic characteristics for these cases are not avail-

able, but in a previous study of 899 male offenders passing

through this Court, most (67 %) were ethnic and racial

minorities, few (17 %) had post-secondary education, and

the rate of full time employment (57 %) was low (Bennett

et al. 2007).

Most dispositions in this Court are plea agreements

between the State’s Attorney and the Public Defender: the

typical agreed-upon sentence is to the state standard of

24 weeks of the domestic violence education classes pro-

vided by BIPs. If the Court identifies substance abuse,

offenders are ordered to substance abuse assessment and

treatment. However, violent offenders with substance

abuse problems are usually ordered to address the sub-

stance abuse first, and then participate in domestic violence

classes, a sequential approach that is often challenged as

less effective than integrated or coordinated approaches

where both issues are treated concurrently (Collins et al.

1997; Downs 2001; Easton and Sinha 2002; Goldkamp

et al. 1996; Moses et al. 2004).

Participants

We conducted in-depth unstructured interviews, typically

1 hour in length, with 22 key informants from September

2011 to June 2012. Informants were chosen to represent the

breadth of variety of roles within the Court as well as those

in outside organizations that dealt with substance abuse and

domestic violence. Roles and gender characteristics of

participants are presented in Table 1. The first two authors

conducted the interviews jointly with all informants, except

three BIP specialists who were interviewed by a single

researcher.

Procedure

The researchers wrote to the Chief Judge describing the

proposed study and requesting approval to conduct inter-

views with members of the Court. In addition to approval

from the Chief Judge, the researchers also received

approval from their university’s Institutional Review

Board. The Domestic Violence Division’s Court Admin-

istrator then notified members of the Court about the study,

and the researchers recruited key informants located in

various roles in the Court system. In addition to Court

actors, key members of the substance abuse and domestic

violence communities were also interviewed. No one

solicited for an interview refused the request, although

seven public defenders chose to submit written statements

rather than be interviewed.

The researchers recruited participants by telephone; all

those contacted agreed to be interviewed. Prior to the

interview, participants were sent a consent form, which they

signed and returned at the start of the interview. The

researchers asked permission to tape the interviews; no one

refused. We then stated, ‘‘We are looking at ways the Court

identifies substance abuse as people pass through the

Court.’’ Probes and subsequent questions were tailored to

participants’ roles. In general, probes covered the following:

How much of a problem is substance abuse; how frequently

do you see it; how does it comes up in Court; and what do

you think ought to be done about it, if anything.

Data Analysis

A research assistant transcribed all the interviews. We

employed a method of qualitative data analysis, Thematic

Analysis (Braun and Clark 2006), to explore the data.

Thematic Analysis involves the following six phases:

Phase I: Data Familiarization

During this phase, researchers immerse themselves in the

data in order to become familiar with its content. In our

study, the first two authors read all transcripts repeatedly.

Phase II: Initial Code Generation

The first two authors independently generated codes with

the goal of organizing the data into meaningful units.

Braun and Clark (2006) refer to coding done with specific

research questions in mind as ‘‘theory-driven’’ coding, as

opposed to more general ‘‘data-driven’’ coding in which

specific issues to be examined in the data are not pre-

determined. Here the coding was done with an eye to

examining the barriers and facilitators affecting substance

abuse identification and intervention.

Table 1 Study Sample

Female Male

Judges 0 3

Court administrator 1 0

Public defendera 1 0

State’s attorney 3 0

Probation officer 3 2

Domestic violence advocate 2 0

Batterer intervention services provider 1 2

Substance abuse service providers 3 0

Legal advocate 1 0

Total 15 7

a 7 additional Public Defenders provided written statements; gender

unspecified

210 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217

123

Phase III: Searching for Themes

The two authors met, compared codes, and classified codes

into probable themes. This involved examining how codes

might combine into main themes while other codes con-

stituted sub-themes within those main themes.

Phase IV: Reviewing Themes

At this point, Braun and Clark (2006) recommend

reviewing and refining themes to see if some might be

eliminated (as not sufficiently supported by the data) or

combined. They recommend considering whether there is

coherence within themes and sufficient distinctions among

them. The third author read the entire data set and sought to

classify data into the themes, examining them also for

coherence and distinction. The third author also looked for

negative cases that contradicted the themes. All authors

then met to discuss the codes and integrate them into

themes.

Phase V: Defining and Naming Themes

Next we examined the themes to identify the essential

features of each, clarifying the main point of each theme

and any important sub-themes. We described each theme,

giving each a name that captured its essential meaning. We

then reviewed the interview transcripts to identify quotes

that best exemplified the themes.

Phase VI: Reporting the Analysis

Braun and Clark (2006) emphasize that the report needs to

contain an argument rather than merely describing the data.

Here we contend that constraints on the Court and attitudes

of Court personnel act as barriers to intervening in sub-

stance abuse problems.

Rigor of the Study

Psychologists used to quantitative methods sometimes

challenge qualitative research reports as anecdotal, with

quotes arbitrarily chosen. This is in part because traditional

criteria of reliability and validity are difficult to translate to

qualitative research (Barker and Pistrang 2005). But the

rigor of qualitative methods may be demonstrated in sev-

eral ways, including a description of the data analysis

procedures, documenting the process of generating themes

and comparing findings to previously published research

(Lacey and Luff 2001). Above we describe our data ana-

lysis methods in detail. In the discussion section below, we

compare our findings to previous studies, testing our con-

clusions. The researchers analyzed the data independently

(and repeatedly) and then came together to compare

results. The researchers discussed discrepancies in coding

until consensus was reached. We also examined the data

for negative cases that did not fit the themes.

Results

Thematic analysis yielded three consistent themes: (1)

structural constraints prevent identifying and acting on

substance abuse issues; (2) economic constraints act as

barriers to identifying and acting on substance abuse

issues; (3) negative attitudes of Court and community

personnel about the survivors of domestic violence inhibit

fully engaging the survivor of domestic violence in a

helpful way.

Structural Constraints

Both formal and informal constraints act to impede the

Court’s ability to address problems of substance abuse.

Formal Constraints

The Court is organized in a highly formal fashion, with

clearly defined roles and procedures. The Court is bounded

by the legislation that created it and defines its purview.

Substance abuse is mentioned in the legislative act creating

the Court only with respect to child safety.

Cases come to the Court either through a survivor’s

complaint or through referral from the police after an

incident of violence. Unless it is included in a police report,

the Court rarely considers substance abuse. Several actors,

in different roles in the Court, identified boundaries of the

Court’s province when asked about whether the Court

addresses substance abuse:

Court Administrator: ‘‘There’s a lot of things that we

don’t pay attention to’’. What we pay attention to is:

Do you have the eligible relationship? Do you have a

reasonable allegation of abuse as defined in the Act?

And then, if they’re in on an emergency [order of

protection], does it represent an emergency?

Victim Advocate: ‘‘But the first time that they smell it

[substance abuse] or they hear it, it’s always like ‘Oh,

that’s not an issue for this Court. You need more help

someplace else’.’’

Public Defender: ‘‘So I don’t really see [concern

about substance abuse] as being within the realm of

what we do for our clients.’’

Substance abuse becomes an issue for consideration by

the Court only if it is in a police report of an incident, if the

survivor mentions it, or if the defendant or survivor comes to

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217 211

123

Court noticeably in an altered state. Once it is included in a

police report, the Judge may require the perpetrator to attend

substance abuse treatment. But there is no mechanism to

identify substance abuse of the survivor. The only means

available to survivors to obtain help is by actively pursuing it

themselves; Court personnel would not initiate it:

Probation officer: ‘‘… substance abuse issues? No, I

am not aware of … actively [talking to complaining

witnesses about substance abuse] … We do have a

victim assistance officer, but that would entail the

complaining witness [i.e., the survivor] calling us,

looking for some type of assistance. It wouldn’t be as

necessary [for probation to] reach out to the com-

plaining witness.’’

The adversarial nature of the Court constrains what can be

done about substance abuse. For example, Public Defenders

do not want their clients’ substance abuse known as it may

hurt their defense, while State’s Attorneys risk the credibility

of survivors if their substance abuse is raised in Court. To

protect their case, a prosecutor mentioned, ‘‘Our general rule

is to tell our clients, ‘Don’t talk to the social workers’.’’

Domestic violence victim advocates who are aware of a

survivor’s substance abuse also may not want it known, often

because substance use influences the way the Court views the

survivor. For example, one victim advocated stated:

Victim Advocate: ‘‘And when we’re working with a

client who has some type of substance abuse, we

don’t write it down in their file. We don’t want

anything about it in the file. We will not tell anyone

that there may be substance abuse issues…[because]

having that used against them as why they don’t need

an order of protection or why they don’t need crim-

inal charges.’’

Known in the law as ‘‘admission against interest,’’

acknowledgement of substance abuse may harm the legal

claims of both survivor and perpetrator. Furthermore, the

extensive reach of the law may discourage survivors from

requesting help, as, for example, known substance abuse

may jeopardize the survivor’s child custody claims. This

may also discourage both survivors and perpetrators from

seeking help for substance abuse.

Another feature of the organization of the Court that

may hinder the detection of substance abuse is that Judges,

State’s Attorneys and Public Defenders work on rotation.

They move among courts during their careers, perhaps

making it more difficult for them to detect issues that are

not already visible to this Court. Those new to the Court

may lack familiarity with IPV or substance abuse.

Community substance abuse treatment worker: ‘‘This

is on a rotation. You have new judges coming in all

the time and you have new State’s Attorneys coming

in all the time. They don’t stay.’’3

Probation officer: ‘‘So it’s like a constant education.

You have new judges, you have new State’s Attor-

ney’s, you have new Public Defenders and you’re

always trying to educate everyone about this

population.’’

Informal Constraints

The informal structure of the Court refers to how people

interpret and perform their jobs and the relationships they

develop with others in the organization. In several instan-

ces, Court personnel identified dealing with substance

abuse as ‘‘social work’’ and distinguished their job from it.

In response to questions about whether they voluntarily

address substance abuse, several people in different roles

mentioned that they are not ‘‘social workers.’’

Judge: ‘‘I am not a Social Service Agency. It’s not my

job to control or counsel or anything like that. I’m

here to apply the law.’’

Defense Lawyer: ‘‘Yea. I mean, it seems like a waste

of an attorney’s time to do that kind of [substance

abuse] screen when their time needs to be devoted to

matters of legal work.’’

Furthermore, some questioned whether addressing sub-

stance abuse was within the realm of the Court if people

did not ask for it. Survivors are seen as asking for relief

from violence, not substance abuse:

Probation officer: ‘‘But with limited resources, I think

it’s an interesting prospect … to support people for

things they’re not asking for.’’

Moreover, relationships between the Court personnel

and substance abuse and domestic violence agencies are

strained by different perceptions of IPV and the Court’s

response to IPV. Victim advocates tend to see violence as

stemming from the perpetrator’s desire for power and

control of the survivor, not from his (or her) substance

abuse. They may fear that substance abuse by a violent

perpetrator may be seen as an excuse for violence. As one

interviewee described this conflict:

Probation Officer: ‘‘…the prevalent view of the

domestic violence community [is] that [IPV is] a

learned behavior and therefore can be unlear-

ned … So there might be a propensity … to see

something like that as … because they are involved

with substance abuse, it is really not their fault.’’

3 In fact, judges, especially in the criminal side of the Court, do not

rotate often.

212 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217

123

Substance abuse treatment providers have a different

perspective, with most seeing substance abuse as a disease,

one sequel of which is violence. A key point of contention

among substance abuse providers is whether to treat the

violence or the substance abuse, or which to treat first.

Victim Advocate: ‘‘And so I think the biggest argu-

ment from a domestic violence community is that

they just don’t want it to say that substance abuse

causes domestic violence, you know? And we need to

treat for domestic violence because, you know, that’s

an issue that that person’s not safe at the time and

things like that. And substance abuse issues are more

like long term …. And I think that each group is

trying to say which issue should be first.’’

Another informal constraint is individual judicial inter-

pretation of their legal responsibilities and constraints. One

particular illustration of this is the subject of identifying

substance abuse issues after a negotiated plea has been

accepted. A probation officer, for example, or a BIP pro-

vider in the community may identify substance abuse

issues long after sentencing and seek to get an evaluation or

treatment ordered. Some judges believe that they cannot

legally order such treatment after a plea has been negoti-

ated and punishment determined, while other judges may

not recognize such a constraint.

Judge: ‘‘Once a negotiated sentence is imposed, if

that sentence didn’t include an alcohol and drug

evaluation, the State can’t come in then and say, ‘We

want an alcohol and drug evaluation now’.’’

According to the State’s Attorney, however, there is a great

deal of variation between Judges on this issue:

State’s Attorney: ‘‘It’s different. You step into a

different courtroom, and you’re going to get a dif-

ferent answer about [modifying a negotiated plea].’’

Resource Constraints

Actors in the Court system are limited by the scarcity of

resources, both time and money. During 2011, in the midst of

severe budget cutbacks, the Court processed approximately

11,000 misdemeanor domestic violence charges and 8,000

orders of protection. The high volume puts tremendous pres-

sure on the Court to resolve a case quickly, making it difficult

to address multiple needs. For Court personnel, addressing

substance abuse would add to their responsibilities when they

already feel overwhelmed. As one victim advocate expressed

it when asked about addressing substance abuse:

Victim Advocate: ‘‘I think it just adds something else

to the plate. And everybody’s plates are full right

now. And so everybody’s just saying, you know, we

understand that issue is there, but we’re not here to

deal with that, because maybe we don’t know how, or

maybe we don’t have the time to deal with it. But

today’s issue is this. Let’s focus on this issue and then

connect them to somebody else who can help them

deal with the rest of them. But we only have so much

time before we have to move on to the next person

coming in the building, you know? So, it’s unfortu-

nate, but that’s just how some of our systems go right

now.’’

The two units that may be in the best position to identify

and intervene with harmful substance use—the State’s

Attorney (on the survivor’s side) and the Probation Office

(on the perpetrator’s side)—have had severe cutbacks in

their budgets in recent years. Likewise, the community

agencies where substance use disorders can be assessed and

treated have also had major budget cuts since 2008,

resulting in fewer opportunities for treatment.

The majority of people seen in this Court are low

income or indigent. Cutbacks in the Court’s budget have

affected people’s ability to obtain treatment. Those sen-

tenced to attend substance abuse or domestic violence

treatment have to pay at least a minimal amount for those

services; they may also have to pay transportation and

other costs in order to attend treatment programs or DV

education classes. But even minimal amounts may be

beyond their ability to pay. Lack of funds was reported as

the biggest obstacle to offenders’ completing substance

abuse treatment or domestic violence classes. Subsidizing

the classes has helped, although judges may hesitate to

order classes if they are not sure that the classes will be

subsidized.

Judge: ‘‘[Money] is the … most common reason

people don’t do what they’re supposed to do. It’s a

hard one to disprove. You know, you can’t tell

someone ‘I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you

don’t have the money.’ Especially the last couple of

years. A lot of people aren’t working that come

in … When there’s a referral for the alcohol and drug

evaluation, that costs money a lot of the times. If they

get treatment, that costs money. The domestic vio-

lence classes costs money. And it’s just they don’t

have it. And that’s usually the reason I get if the State

files a petition.4 Let’s say they plead guilty. A couple

of months later State brings them in and says, ‘We’re

filing a petition because John Jones hasn’t done

4 If someone violates the conditions of his/her sentence, the State’s

Attorney can petition the judge to change the sentence. Typically,

costs of domestic violence education classes are subsidized for those

who qualify but substance abuse treatment may not be.

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217 213

123

anything’. ‘Why haven’t you done anything?’ ‘I’m

not working. I don’t have the money’.’’

Resource constraints also affect the occurrence of IPV. As

one respondent stated:

Prosecutor: ‘‘I think we get a lot of, I consider them,

poverty induced domestic violence, where it’s people

with limited resources [in] like unbelievable

circumstances.’’

Drinking may be a response to the stress of poverty, which

then increases the risk for IPV. The psycho-educational

approach advocated by this Court (i.e., sending offenders to

domestic violence and/or substance abuse classes) may not

address underlying causal factors.

Attitude toward survivors

A troubling theme in our interviews was the way that

domestic violence survivors –particularly females—are

viewed in the Court and by representatives of community

agencies. From ‘‘respondents showing up who are not all

here’’ to concerns that ‘‘the complaining witness might be

inebriated,’’ interviewees in all parts of the system

expressed concerns about the reliability of domestic vio-

lence survivors. Several mentioned that survivors might

come to Court drunk. This occurs so frequently that one

judge has a standard way to address witnesses who might

be intoxicated:

Judge (male): ‘‘I say, ‘Miss Jones, I might not nec-

essarily think this, but somebody looking at you or

listening to you in the courtroom might wonder if you

might have had a couple of beers before you came to

Court.’ And see what their response is.’’

Actors in the Court tended to view proceedings from the

perspective of their clients. Substance abuse counselors

typically work with perpetrators of violence, and may

become sympathetic to their worldview. A substance abuse

counselor interviewee criticized the attitudes toward men

(typical perpetrators) and women (typical survivors) in the

Court, and sees the survivor’s use of substances as critical

to the perpetrator’s failure to recover:

Community Services Personnel: ‘‘Nobody wants to

admit victims have co-occurring issues…we view

them as victims and men as perpetrators. We have

these expectations that the men are going to operate

in an unchanged and untreated environment, that

family system. So they are doomed to fail….How are

they to then come back and negotiate with an actively

using partner? How are they to come back and plan

rational visitation with a mentally ill mother? It

doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it isn’t going to

work.’’

Some who treat male substance abusers believe that the DV

Court is biased in favor of women, even if men are the ones

who are abused.

Community Services Personnel: ‘‘I think men are

often times not considered. It can’t be true, that this

woman would have done this violence to you, and it’s

overlooked often and feel they are victimized just as

much, if not more than women in some circumstances

and in each group.’’

In contrast, a victim advocate describes negative attitudes

that she sees toward survivors, while acknowledging their

problems with alcohol:

Victim Advocate: ‘‘We’ve had people come to Court

intoxicated … who have drank before they came to

Court, maybe even been a little high. And they’re

trying to tell the Court about their abusive situation,

but all the Court sees is that you’re a drunken person

right now that is not able to articulate themselves, so

therefore I don’t think you’re at risk of harm because

it’s more so that you have substance abuse problems

than domestic violence. And maybe if you weren’t

drinking or if you weren’t at that party last night and

both of you weren’t drinking, then this abuse would

not have occurred. You see that not just in Court but

with the police …. it’s not a serious issue any more

because of the substances that were present or

whatever. And then they just kind of say well, that’s

your fault pretty much because you shouldn’t have

been doing that.’’

The probation officers tend to see the issue from the

perspective of those they are helping, the offenders. They

may see the survivor as at fault, even provoking violence:

Probation Officer: ‘‘And if she’s causing whatever

problems … there is a lot of anger at the survi-

vor … frustration that turns into anger … It’s one or

the other. It’s very black and white.’’

Discussion

The current study highlights several obstacles to identify-

ing and intervening in substance abuse situations through

the Court. Those within the Court see their roles as cir-

cumscribed (‘‘I am not a social worker.’’), focusing on

violence but not substance abuse. Moreover, the adversary

system underlying the Court works against identification of

substance abuse, as that would be harmful to both

214 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217

123

defendants and complainants. Differences in worldviews

between domestic violence victim advocates and substance

abuse treatment providers, and between those Court actors

on opposing sides of a case, act as obstacles to addressing

this problem. Finally, the scarcity of resources, both within

the Court and among those convicted of domestic violence

but who have substance abuse problems, makes it difficult

to get treatment.

Finding negative attitudes toward survivors was not

unexpected and supports previous research. For example,

in one mixed-method study of 62 judges, prosecutors, and

public defenders within a single urban Court system,

researchers reported that in the interviews, battered women

often appeared to be in a ‘‘no-win’’ situation with these

Court officials. They were frequently viewed as pathetic,

stupid, or even deserving of the abuse they experienced if

they stayed with the defendant and/or were uncooperative

with the Court officials. At the same time, when the women

actively pursued the cases against their abusers, they were

viewed as vindictive, crazy, or falsely charging domestic

violence to meet their own selfish needs (Hartman and

Belknap 2003).

The lack of economic resources of survivors, perpetra-

tors, courts, and community services is well known.

Although IPV occurs in all social strata in society, more of

it occurs among the poor and working classes than among

the affluent and middle classes. Using income as an indi-

cator of social class, the 5-year (1993–1998) prevalence of

nonlethal IPV against women declined in a linear fashion

as income rose from 20.3 per 1,000 women earning under

$7,500 to 3.3 per 1,000 women earning $75,000 or more

(Renniston and Welchans 2000). In the same study, but

using home ownership as a marker of social class, the

prevalence of IPV per 1,000 women was 4.8 for women

who owned their home compared to 16.2 for women who

rented their home. In some definitions of social class,

marital status is employed as an indicator of stake in

conformity, the capacity or willingness to comply with

societal rules (Toby 1957). The 5-year prevalence of IPV

per 1,000 married women was 2.6, which is significantly

lower than the 11.3 rate for never-married women and the

31.9 rate for divorced or separated women (Renniston and

Welchans 2000).

Deprivation increases the risk of IPV occurring, limits

the ability of courts and communities to respond to

domestic violence once it has happened, and increases the

risk of relapse and re-offence once perpetrators and sur-

vivors have been processed by a court. Despite the role of

class and socio-economic status in domestic violence,

attention to social class has been quite limited in domestic

violence intervention. In part, this is because class is nei-

ther a visible marker like race and gender, nor a potentially

treatable condition like behavioral disorders. Linking class

and domestic violence is seemingly contrary to the view of

domestic violence held by community programs and courts

alike, where offenders are viewed as being fully responsi-

ble, and therefore accountable, for their violent behavior.

In addition, the reality of both court and community set-

tings is that, while a greatly disproportionate number of

survivors and perpetrators are lower class, a similar dis-

proportion of court and community staff are middle class,

exacerbating differences between worldviews.

The current study has a number of important limitations.

The study examined only one Court in one county in a

large urban area; the experience of people and courts in

smaller or less urban areas or those with a different

demographic mix of clients may vary substantially. A

second limitation of our study—and of most IPV criminal

justice studies—is that domestic violence is viewed as a set

of discrete behaviors that would meet the criteria of assault

or battery in the Court. Survivors of domestic violence may

view their situation not as the experience of discrete illegal

behaviors but rather as a continuum of isolation, domina-

tion, control, and emotionally abusive behaviors, most of

which are legal (see, for example, Smith et al. 1999). IPV

may include a range of behaviors from severe abuse

intended to coerce and control the survivor to incidents of

mild violence, possibly bidirectional, that are less likely to

cause fear (Johnson 1995). The Court makes no distinction

between those who engage in different types of violence

although it does differentiate between degrees of violence,

with abuse that would not reach a level of criminal charges

being brought to the Civil Court. Psycho-educational pro-

grams such as domestic violence classes may have a dif-

ferential impact on those perpetrating different types of

abuse. Complicating this is the specific domestic violence

law in this state that includes, for example, conflicts

between brothers and sisters, roommates, and other non-

intimates who share the same household within the juris-

diction of the Court. Thus cases that came before the Court

include these relationships as well, adding to the caseload.

A separate DV court has many advantages for survivors.

It allows judges to become familiar with this problem; it

permits consolidation of separate instances with the same

offender; and it treats survivors’ concerns seriously

(MacDowell 2011; Tutty et al. 2008). But for those with

substance abuse problems, the DV court model presents

limitations as it often treats people as if their violence may

be isolated from other co-occurring problems. Focusing

only on IPV may prevent attention to be paid to substance

abuse. Ironically, interventions aimed at substance abuse

may lead to reduction in IPV (O’Farrell and Murphy 1995).

For example, assessment and intervention into alcohol

problems of both perpetrators and survivors of violence

may be a productive route to reduce violence in some

instances (Klostermann and Fals-Stewart 2006).

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217 215

123

Specialized DV courts are becoming a common

response to domestic violence. A philosophy of therapeutic

jurisprudence underlies these courts, which holds that one

aim of the court is to attend to the emotional well being of

those who come before it (Winick 2002). Lack of consid-

eration of substance abuse conflicts with the court’s goal of

healing and rehabilitating while administering justice. This

dilemma is inherent in all specialty courts, where the index

problem (e.g. substance abuse in drug court, domestic

violence in domestic violence court) is the sole target of

intervention, but the litigant or petitioner may have

numerous crosscutting issues (e.g. mental disorder or

substance abuse in domestic violence court) that are often

ignored. But, as one court official in our study states:

‘‘The world doesn’t come in these little differentiated

packets (where) that person has this problem, that

person has this problem. And if we only look at the

presenting kind of an issue that got them arrested and

got them ordered to us, we’re going to miss the boat.

So … we have to look at all of that.’’

The issues we have presented in this paper suggest that

addressing these problems requires an approach that can

accommodate the complexity of the people appearing before

the Court rather than reduce them to their simplest legally-

defined target. Some promising efforts in this direction

include the development of Family Justice Centers and

Family Violence Coordinating Councils. Justice Centers

include courts that take a broad, coordinated, full service

approach to IPV and its many crosscutting and co-occurring

issues (Family Justice Center Alliance 2009). Family Vio-

lence Coordinating Councils also bring together the efforts

of a wide array of community actors to increase survivor

safety and hold perpetrators accountable. The formation of a

Family Violence Coordinating Council in one state appeared

to improve the judicial response regarding orders of pro-

tection in some courts (Allen et al. 2013), while a Health Care

Council educated health care providers about IPV and

increased the use of universal screening for domestic vio-

lence (Allen et al. 2012). However, the current study iden-

tifies some obstacles that may make collaboration difficult.

The movement to address domestic violence has made

great strides in the past years in developing resources for

survivors and in holding perpetrators accountable. Mobilizing

the criminal justice system has been a large part of this effort.

But there may be limits inherent in the criminal justice system

such as the adversarial nature of courts that hinder cooperation

among those interested in survivor safety and well being.

Findings of this study may help identify those limits and

enable interventions that keep survivors safe. For example,

educating substance abuse personnel about IPV, and victim

advocates about substance abuse, may reduce some of the

impediments that prevent their working together, as may

making explicit the negative attitudes that some court per-

sonnel hold toward survivors. Reducing barriers to collabo-

ration is essential to addressing the multiplicity of problems

occurring to both survivors and perpetrators of IPV.

Acknowledgments The first two authors are grateful to the Great

Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago for support in

conducting this research. We also thank members of the Domestic

Violence Court and community agency personnel who generously

participated in this study.

References

Allen, N. E., Larsen, S. E., Javdani, S., & Lehrner, A. L. (2012).

Council-based approaches to reforming the health care response

to domestic violence: Promising findings and cautionary tales.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 50–63. doi:10.

1007/s10464-011-9471-9.

Allen, N. E., Todd, N. R., Anderson, C. J., David, S. M., Javdani, S.,

Bruehler, V., et al. (2013). Council-based approaches to intimate

partner violence: Evidence for distal change in the system

response. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52,

1–12. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9572-8.

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodo-

logical pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating

research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35,

201–212. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3398-y.

Bennett, L. W., & O’Brien, P. (2007). Effects of coordinated services

for drug-abusing women who are victims of intimate partner

violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 395–411. doi:10.1177/

1077801207299189.

Bennett, L. W., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program

completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system.

Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 42–54. doi:10.1177/

1049731506293729.

Bland, P., & Edmund, D. (2008). Getting safe and sober: Real tools

you can use. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Network on Domestic

Violence and Sexual Assault.

Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol-

ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.

1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Chermack, S. T., Fuller, B. E., & Blow, F. C. (2000). Predictors of

expressed partner and non-partner violence among patients in

substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58,

43–54. doi:10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00067-8.

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. J. (2000).

Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type:

Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal

of Public Health, 90, 553–559.

Collins, J. J., Kroutil, L. A., Roland, E. J., & Moore-Gurrera, M.

(1997). Issues in the linkage of alcohol and domestic violence

services. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alcohol-

ism, Volume 13: Alcohol and violence (pp. 387–405). New York:

Plenum.doi: 10.1007/0-306-47141-8_20.

Downs, W. R. (2001). Alcohol problems and violence against women:

Report of summary findings. U.S. Department of Justice

Document 188267.

Dutton, M. A., Green, B. L., Kaltman, S. I., Roesch, D. M., Zeffiro, T.

A., & Krause, E. D. (2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD,

and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

21, 955–968.

Easton, C., & Sinha, R. (2002). Treating the addicted male batterer:

Promising directions for dual-focused programming. In C.

216 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217

123

Wekerle & A. Wall (Eds.), The violence and addiction equation:

Theoretical and clinical issues in substance abuse and relation-

ship violence (pp. 275–292). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Easton, C. J., Swan, S., & Sinha, R. (2000). Prevalence of family

violence in clients entering substance abuse treatment. Journal of

Substance Abuse Treatment, 18(1), 23–28. doi:10.1016/S0740-

5472(99)00019-7.

El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Schilling, R., & Wada, T. (2000). Drug

abuse and partner violence among women in methadone

treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 15(3), 209–228.

Fals-Stewart, W. (2003). The occurrence of partner physical aggres-

sion on days of alcohol consumption: A longitudinal diary study.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 41–52.

doi:10.1037//0022-006X.71.1.41.

Fals-Stewart, W., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Addressing intimate partner

violence in substance-abuse treatment. Journal of Substance

Abuse Treatment, 29, 5–17.

Family Justice Center Alliance. (2009). Overview of the family

justice center alliance. Downloaded February 28th 2012 from

http://familyjusticecenter.com/Overview/overview.html.

Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., Schilling, R. F., Wada, T., & Bennet-Ruiz,

B. (2000). Partner violence and sexual HIV risk behaviors

among women in methadone treatment. AIDS and Behavior, 4,

262–269.

Goldkamp, J. S., Weiland, D., Collins, M., & White, M. (1996). The

role of drug and alcohol abuse in domestic violence and its

treatment: Dade county’s domestic violence court experience:

Final report. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research

Institute.

Gondolf, E. W. (1999). Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in

four cities: Diversity and dichotomies. Violence Against Women,

5, 1277–1293. doi:10.1177/10778019922183372.

Hartman, J. L., & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the gatekeepers: Court

professionals’ self-reported attitudes about misdemeanor domes-

tic violence cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 349–373.

doi:10.1177/0093854803030003005.

Hirsch, A. (2001). ‘‘The world was never a safe place for them’’:

Abuse, welfare reform and women with drug convictions.

Violence Against Women, 7, 159–175.

James, S. E., Johnson, J., & Raghavan, C. (2004). ‘‘I couldn’t go

anywhere’’ Contextualizing violence and drug abuse: A social

network study. Violence Against Women, 10, 991–1014.

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple

violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 57, 283–294. doi:10.2307/353683.

Kilpatrick, D., Acierno, R., Resnick, H., Saunders, B., & Best, C.

(1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationships

between violent assault and substance abuse in women. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834–847. doi:10.

1037//0022-006X.65.5.834.

Klostermann, K. C., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2006). Intimate partner

violence and alcohol use: Exploring the role of drinking in partner

violence and its implications for intervention. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 11, 587–597. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.008.

Klostermann, K., Kelley, M. L., Mignone, T., Pusateri, L., & Fals-

Stewart, W. (2010). Partner violence and substance abuse:

Treatment interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior,

15(6), 162–166.

Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Trent focus for research and

development in primary healthcare: An introduction to qualita-

tive analysis. Sheffield: Trent Focus.

MacDowell, E. L. (2011). When courts collide: Integrated domestic

violence courts and court pluralism. Texas Journal of Women

and the Law, 20, 95–130.

Martin, S. L., Moracco, K. E., Chang, J. C., Council, C. L., & Dulli, L. S.

(2008). Substance abuse issues among women in domestic violence

programs: Findings from North Carolina. Violence Against Women,

14(9), 985–997. doi:10.1177/1077801208322103.

Moracco, K. E., Andersen, K., Buchanan, R. M., Espersen, C.,

Bowling, J. M., & Duffy, C. (2010). Who are the defendants in

domestic violence protection order cases? Violence Against

Women, 16, 1201–1223. doi:10.1177/1077801210387036.

Moses, D. J., Huntington, N., D’Ambrosio, B., Mazelis, R., & Reed,

B. G. (2004). Developing integrated services for women with co-

occurring disorders and trauma histories: Lessons from the

SAMHSA women with alcohol, drug abuse and mental health

disorders who have histories of violence study. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

O’Farrell, T. J., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M.

(2003). Partner violence before and after individually based

alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 92–102. doi:10.

1037//0022-006X.71.1.92.

O’Farrell, T. J., & Murphy, C. M. (1995). Marital violence before and

after alcoholism treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 63, 256–262.

Renniston, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence.

Bureau of justice statistics special report, NCJ 178247. Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Roberts, G. L., Lawrence, J. M., O’Toole, B. I., & Raphael, B. (1997).

Domestic violence in the emergency department: Two case-

control studies of victims. General Hospital Psychiatry, 19, 5–11.

Rothman, E. F., Cheng, D. M., Pedley, A., Samet, J. H., Palfai, T.,

Liebschutz, J. M., et al. (2008). Interpersonal violence exposure

and alcohol treatment utilization among medical inpatients with

alcohol dependence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34,

464–470. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.07.006.

Smith, P. H., Smith, J. B., & Earp, J. A. L. (1999). Beyond the

measurement trap. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,

177–193. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00350.x.

Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Kahler, C. W., & Ramsey, S. E. (2003a).

Substance abuse and relationship violence among men court-

referred to batterers’ intervention programs. Substance Abuse,

24(2), 1–16. doi:10.1080/08897070309511539.

Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2003b).

Relationship aggression and substance use among women court-

referred to domestic violence intervention programs. Addictive

Behavior, 28, 1603–1610. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.038.

Testa, M. (2004). The role of substance use in male-to-female

physical and sexual violence: A brief review and recommenda-

tions for future research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,

1494–1505. doi:10.1177/0886260504269701.

Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stakes in conformity:

Complimentary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums.

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science,

48, 12–17. doi:10.2307/1140161.

Tutty, L., Wyllie, K., Abbott, P., Mackenzie, J., Ursel., E. J., &

Koshan, J. M. (2008). The justice response to domestic violence:

A literature review. https://www.ucalgary.ca/resolve/reports/

2008/2008-01.pdf.

Winick, B. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving

courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1053–1103. doi:10.

1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_12.

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:208–217 217

123