provided impetus for the development of the first spe-
cialist courts in Florida. The courts were believed to
increase efficiency, and most criminal justice practi-
tioners felt that the judicial and prosecutorial expertise
resulting from specialization had a positive effect on
the system for handling cases and helped reduce recidi-
vism. Specialist courts also began to be developed in
New York, initially based on the criminal “cluster
court” model, whereby criminal cases involving domes-
tic violence matters are assigned to a dedicated session
for domestic violence cases only. The dedicated listing
of cases facilitates the allocation of specialist judges
and prosecutors and independent advocacy support for
victims. The involvement of advocates was found to
enhance the quality of information available to the
prosecution and increase the likelihood of victims
remaining committed to the prosecution. Some courts
in New York progressed from the criminal cluster court
model to a combined civil/criminal model, realizing the
benefits of the latter, in particular for ensuring judicial
consistency in relation to all orders. For example, hav-
ing a divorce proceeding and a criminal assault case
heard in a combined court would promote the ideal of
“one family, one judge.” While the development of
DVCs can be driven primarily by system needs such as
effective case management and efficient use of resources,
other key objectives include increasing victim safety
and perpetrator accountability. Practitioners feel that
these courts are more responsive to victims’ needs and
provide improved enforcement and better services for
perpetrators.
By the late 1990s, a plethora of DVCs were in
operation in the United States, and various attempts
were made to compare them with a view to identify-
ing good practice. One such review was undertaken by
the National Center for State Courts, which estimated
that there were more than 300 courts with some spe-
cialized court structures, processes, or practices dis-
tinct to domestic violence in the United States;
however, the review found much variation in court
processes and a lack of systematic evidence of their
benefits. The report identified cultural and organiza-
tional problems that hindered the development of
DVCs. Other concerns included the views that the
pursuit of efficiency may result in “assembly-line jus-
tice” and that the promotion of information sharing
may be detrimental to victims in some cases (e.g.,
where custody issues were involved). But the benefits
of specialization were clear, in terms of increased
judicial understanding of domestic violence issues,perpetrator accountability, and more comprehensive
support provided to victims.
The core “components” of effective DVCs were
identified from the review. These include advocacy
services for information exchange between the victim
and the court, the coordination of partner agencies,
environments that offer security and comfort to victims
and children, specialist court personnel who receive
ongoing training, evenhanded treatment of both parties
and a serious tone to indicate that domestic violence is
being treated seriously, integrated information systems
for sharing and accessing information, evaluation and
accountability of court processes and outcomes, proto-
cols for risk assessment compliance, monitoring of
defendants with court orders, and sentencing that is
consistent and promotes the accountability of domes-
tic violence offenders.Domestic Violence Courts in Canada
In Canada, a number of multi-agency approaches to
domestic violence have been promoted. In Ontario, the
impetus for an improved judicial response to domestic
violence came from a domestic homicide review fol-
lowing the killing in 1996 of Arlene May, a mother of
five, by her former boyfriend. The new court that was
subsequently established was evaluated by the Woman
Abuse Council of Toronto, which concluded that spe-
cialized courts do make a difference. For example,
men sent to the perpetrator program from the DVC had
a lower breach rate than men sent via other routes. The
court, established in Winnipeg in 1990, deals with inti-
mate partner violence as well as other forms of abuse.
Evaluations of this court demonstrated that it was suc-
cessful in reducing the time taken to process cases and
bringing about more appropriate sentencing. Prior to
specialization, the most frequent sentences were con-
ditional discharge, suspended sentences, and proba-
tion: Imprisonment was rare. In the 2 years after
specialization, the most frequent sentences were pro-
bation, suspended sentences, and imprisonment. The
review of Canadian initiatives to challenge violence
against women concluded that “specialization has
become the key to effective system reform.”Domestic Violence
Courts in the United Kingdom
The introduction of specialist courts in the United
Kingdom has been relatively recent, as the first was238 ———Domestic Violence CourtsD-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 238