Upload
rannveig
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: [email protected]
L. W. Bennett
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Sigurvinsdottir
e-mail: [email protected]
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