Data Driven Decisions

BENNINGTONCOUNTY

INTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKETPROJECT:

PROCESSEVALUATION

FINALREPORT

Submittedto:Karen Gennette

State Treatment Court Coordinator

Vermont Court Administrators Office

Submittedby:Vermont Center for Justice Research

P.O. Box 267

Northfield Falls, VT 05664

802-485-6942

Fundedby:FFY 2011 State Justice Statistics Program grant 2011-BJ-CX-K014

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

February2013

BENNINGTONCOUNTYINTEGRATEDDOMESTICVIOLENCEDOCKET

PROJECT:

PROCESSEVALUATION

FINALREPORT

SubmittedBy

VERMONTCENTERFORJUSTICERESEARCH

ResearchTeamRobinAdler,JD,Ph.D.,ResearchDirector

Fundedby:FFY2011StateJusticeStatisticsProgramgrant2011-BJ-CX-K014

U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics

February2013

TableofContents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………1TheIDVDDay............................................................................................................................2ResearchQuestion..................................................................................................................3Methodology.............................................................................................................................3MeetingtheObjectives..........................................................................................................5I.Objective:IncreaseVictimSafety............................................................................................5A.Implementation..........................................................................................................................................5B.Outcome.........................................................................................................................................................5

II.Objective:IncreasedServicestoVictimsandFamilies...................................................6A.Implementation..........................................................................................................................................6B.Outcome:HiringofCoordinator..........................................................................................................6C.Outcome:IncreasedRepresentationandProceduralFairness.........................................10

III.Objective:IncreasedOffenderAccountability................................................................11A.Implementation.......................................................................................................................................11B.Outcome......................................................................................................................................................11

ThematicIssuesAffectingReplication...........................................................................13I.HighTrustEnvironment...........................................................................................................13II.RoleExpansion/Understanding............................................................................................15III.Training.......................................................................................................................................17IV.Transition....................................................................................................................................18V.“UpNorth”andCentralizedAdministration.....................................................................18

RecommendationsforReplication..................................................................................19I.RFADayProcedures...................................................................................................................20A.ArrivalonRFADay.................................................................................................................................20B.IncreasedAccesstoCourtRecords.................................................................................................21C.IncreasedRepresentation....................................................................................................................21

II.ProbationConditions................................................................................................................21III.MaketheIDVDaVermontInitiative.................................................................................21

1

Introduction1TheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocket(IDVD)ProjectwasinitiatedinSeptember,2007,asaspecialdocketwithintheBenningtonCountyCriminal/FamilyDivisionCourts.ThegoaloftheIDVDProjectwastoprovideanimmediateresponsetodomesticviolenceeventsbycoordinatingFamilyandCriminalDivisioncases.DedicatedtotheideaofOneFamily,OneJudge,theIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoallowasinglejudge,onedayeachweek,tohaveimmediateaccesstoallrelevantinformationregardlessofthetraditionaldocketandtogatherallappropriateplayersatthetableregardlessofanytraditionallylimitedroles.TheIDVDProjectfocusedon:1)protectionandsafetyforvictimsandtheirchildrenaswellasotherfamilymembers;2)providingimmediateaccesstocommunityservicesandresourcesforvictims,theirchildren,andoffenderstohelpovercometheimpactofpriordomesticabuseandpreventfutureabuse;and3)providinganimmediateandeffectiveresponsetonon-compliancewithcourtordersbyoffenders.VictimSafety:OfparamountimportancetotheIDVDProjectwasthecourt’sabilitytoprovidethevictimwithimmediateaccesstoafreeattorneywhospecializedinmattersofdomesticviolenceonbehalfofvictims.Inaddition,aseparatevictimadvocateandadditionalvictimadvocacyserviceswereavailabletoassistvictimsofdomesticviolencewithsafetyplanningandsupportservicesbefore,during,andaftercourtproceedings.Services:TheIDVDProjectwasdesignedtoquicklyidentifyseriousunmetneedsforfamiliesinthecourtsystemandprovidereferralstoacomprehensivearrayofhealthandsocialservicesdesignedtomeettheimmediateandlong-termneedsofthefamily,includingthevictim,theoffender,andtheirchildren.OffenderAccountability:TheIDVDProjectsoughttoensureoffenderaccountabilitybyrelyingonacomprehensivecoordinatedcommunityresponsebasedonactiveparticipationofthecourt,criminaljusticeagencies,thecommunity,andprofessionalserviceproviderstoholdoffendersaccountablefortheirbehavior.WithinthecontextoftheIDVDProjectresponsestonon-compliancewith

1ThisIntroductionwasoriginallypublishedintheOutcomeEvaluationoftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketavailablehere:http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/idvd_final_report_b.pdfandwasoriginallywrittenbyJudgeDavidSuntag,thefoundingJudgeoftheProject.

2

courtorderswereswift,consistent,andproportionatetotheviolationandneedsoftheoffenderandvictim.Toensurethatoffendersunderstoodordersthatwereissuedaswellastheirrightsandresponsibilities,publicdefendersprovidedassistanceduringtheabusepreventionorderprocessaswellasthecriminalprocess.Byintegratingalldomesticviolencerelatedmatters(e.g.,criminalcharges,protectionorders,custody/visitationmatters)involvingthesamepeople,theIDVDProjectwasabletocoordinateallcourteffortstowardthesamegoalsofpreventingfurtherabuseandviolenceandremediatingtheeffectsofpriorabuseonfamilymembers.Coordinatedorders,expeditedcaseschedulingandcomprehensivecaseresolutionforallpartieswastheprimaryandimmediatefocusoftheIDVDProject.

TheIDVDDayCentraltotheideaofOneFamily,OneJudge,thecourtroomaspectoftheProjectwascarriedoutinoneday.Inthemorning,ReliefFromAbuse(RFA)orderswereheard.Intheafternoon,thecriminaldocketwasheard,includingviolationsofprobationwherethedefendantwasanIDVDparticipant.TheRFAmorningswerefundamentallydifferentfromtheusualwayofdoingbusiness.First,theCoordinatorwouldpullallfilesrelatingtothefamily:prior/currentcriminalcasesandprior/currentfamilycourtcases.Second,thearrivaltimesofthepartieswerestaggered;plaintiffsarrivedatonetime,defendantsatanother.Thepartiesweresegregated,andonlytogetherfortheirownhearing.Whilewaitingforthehearing,theCoordinatorwouldexplaintheProject,andProtectionAgainstViolentEncounters(PAVE--thelocaldomesticviolenceadvocacyorganization)wouldmakeapresentationonitsservices.Finally,attheactualhearing,athirdfundamentalchangewasimplemented;allpartiesreceivedtheassistanceofcounsel.Notably,itappearsthatitwasattheRFAhearingthattheproblemsolvingnatureofthedockettookshape.TheCriminalDocketintheafternoonwasalsofundamentallychanged.TheState’sAttorneyprovideddiscoverytodefensecounselthatdayandgenerallyoffereda

3

deferredsentencewithstrictprobationconditionsasapleabargain.2TheCourtthengavethedefendanttwoweekstodecidewhetherornothewantedthedeferredsentencewithspecialconditionsandservices,orgothroughamoretraditionalcriminalprocess.TheCourtalsoheardViolationsofProbationontheIDVDDay.Thedefendantsinthesecaseswerethedefendantsthatweresubjecttotheenhancedprobationrequirementsfordomesticviolenceoffenders.Thosethatappearedhadbeenarrestedfortheviolationandspentanightortwoinjailthepriorweek.Theimmediatesanctionofthejail,coupledwiththespeedyviolationofprobationhearing,wastantamounttotheobjectiveof“HoldingOffendersAccountable.”

ResearchQuestionsForvaryingreasons,theIDVDProjectdisintegratedfromitsoriginalinception.Thepurposeofthisprocessevaluationwastodetermine“whatworked”whileitwasupandrunningfrom2007throughearly2010,andiftherewereprocessissuesthatcontributedtothesubsequentdisintegrationofthedocket.

MethodologySemi-structuredinterviewswereconductedinpersonwithteammembers.GroundedTheorywasthemethodologicalchoiceforthisevaluation.GroundedTheorydoesnotstartwithahypothesis,butratherwiththedata.Thedataarethencodedforthemesthatallowaresearchertoseecommonalitiesacrossinterviewsanddevelopaholisticpictureoftheprocess.Inthedevelopmentofthemes,thisstudyalsosoughttoanswerwhattraditionalprocessevaluationsanswer:Didtheprocessworkthewayitwasplanned/expectedtowork?Theresearchpresentedbelowcatalogstheprominentthemesastheyappearedafterthecodingoftheinterviews.Thethemesidentifiedfallintotwobroadcategories:themesthatwererelatedtotheoutcomesandthemesthatarose

2Therewere123sentencesimposedbytheIDVDProjectduringthestudyperiod,ofwhich85(69%)weredeferredsentences.Thenextmostfrequentsentencewasstraightprobationwith19(15%)defendantsreceivingthatsentence.Someparticipantsdidreceivejailtime.

4

organicallyduringtheinterviewprocess.ThefirstpartofthisreportaddressestheimplementationandoutcomesofthestatedgoalsoftheProject.ThesecondpartofthisreportaddressestheorganicthemesthatillustrateissuesthatwereimportanttoteammembersoutsideoftheobjectivesoftheIDVDProjectbutarerelatedtotheabilitytoreplicatetheProjectelsewhere.SeveralfactorshamperedthisresearchFirstwasthelengthoftimethatelapsed(twoyears)fromtheendoftheIDVDProjectperiodunderreview(2007–2010)untilthereviewconductedaspartofthisevaluation.Second,therewerefewdocuments(policies,procedures,meetingminutes,agendas,etc.)oftheactualdevelopmentprocessoroftheproceduresandmeetingsafterimplementation.Forthosedefendantsthatchosenottoparticipate,norecordswerekeptonwhytheyoptedoutoftheIDVDProject.ProvidersdidnotkeeprecordsofIDVDclients,oradditionaltimespentonthedocket.Finally,theCoordinatorduringthetimeframewasunavailableforinterview.TheProjectdidprovidesomedocumentationthatwashelpfultothereview.TheCoordinator’strackingspreadsheetwashelpfulindeterminingwhatneedswereassessed.However,thespreadsheetwaskeptmorefortrackingthanforresearch.3Severaldraftdocumentswerealsoprovidedincludinganearlydraftofahandbookandanearlyevaluation.Thefollowingteammemberswereinterviewed: TheFoundingJudge TheCurrentJudge4 MembersofthePAVE(2membersinterviewed) MembersofProbation(2membersinterviewed)SuperiorCourtClerk MembersofHaveJusticeWillTravel(3membersinterviewed) PublicDefenderforBenningtonCounty State’sAttorneyforBenningtonCounty3ProblemSolvingCourts/Projectsshouldconsiderdatabasedesignwhenstarting/modifyingprojects.Databasesanddatacollectionthatallowforcasemanagementandevaluationbalancetheneedsoftheprojectwiththeneedforaccurateevaluation.4The“CurrentJudge”istheJudgewhowasresponsibleforthecriminaldocketinBenningtonatthetimeofthereview.TheIDVDProjectwasnotoperationalatthetimeofthereview.However,theCurrentJudgerotatedintotheDocketanddidtrytoparticipateinit.TeammembersappeartoagreethattheIDVDProjectendedwhentheState’sAttorneywithdrewhersupport.AthirdJudgewhopresidedovertheDocket(betweentheFoundingJudgeandtheCurrentJudge)providedsomeobservationsonthedocketviaemail.Thoseobservationsareincorporatedherein.

5

MeetingtheObjectivesThissectionexaminestheIDVDProject’sstatedobjectivesandhowwelltheprocessmayhavehelpedmeettheobjectivesofincreasedvictimsafety,increasedservicesforfamilies,andincreasedoffenderaccountability.TheanalysisbelowfocusesonthemainchangestheIDVDProjectmadecomparedtobusinessasusualandifithelpedmeettheobjective.

I.Objective:IncreaseVictimSafety

A.ImplementationTheIDVDProjecttookseveralstepstoincreasesafetyforvictims.ThelargestinstitutionalchangerevolvedaroundReliefFromAbuse(RFA)OrderDays.PriortotheIDVDProject,bothplaintiffsanddefendantshadthesamearrivaltimeandarrivedinthesamecourtroomforthehearing.TheIDVDProjectimplementedastaggeredarrivaltime:victimswereorderedtoappearatonetime,defendantsanother.Extrasheriff’sdeputieswereassignedtopatroltheparkinglot.Thepartieswereseparatedintodifferentcourtrooms,andanextradeputywasseatedbetweenthetwocourtrooms.Fortheactualhearing,thedefendantwasbroughtintotheplaintiff’scourtroom.

B.OutcomeWithoutspeakingwithvictims,itwasdifficulttomeasureiftheIDVDProjectwasmeetingthegoalofincreasedsafety.Evenifvictimshadbeeninterviewed,mostmaynothavebeenawarethattherewerechanges.Thatis,anewuserofthecourtandRFAprocesswouldnotknowhowthingsweredonebeforeandwouldnot,therefore,feelan“increase”insafety.However,oneteammemberrepresentedvictimsintwocounties.Heassertedthatvictimsdidfeelsafer,andreachedthatconclusionbasedonhisexperiencewithquestionsvictimsaskedinothercounties.InRutlandCounty,plaintiffsanddefendantsarriveatthesametime,areinthesamecourtroomonRFAday,althoughondifferentsidesoftheaisle.Therearenoadditionaldeputies.HisclientsinRutlandaskifitis“safetogotothebathroom”,andsimilarlyhauntingquestionsaboutmovementaroundtheCourtandifitissafe.However,hisclientsinBenningtonCountydonotasksuchfear-basedlogisticalquestions.

6

II.Objective:IncreasedServicestoVictimsandFamilies

A.ImplementationBenningtonCountyisfortunatethatmanyservicesarelocatedverynearthepopulationhubofBenningtonitself.PriortotheIDVDProject,accessingserviceswasdependentonthefamilyaskingforhelpfromPAVEand/orfromattorneys.UnrepresenteddefendantsinRFAhearings,withnoattachedcriminalcase,wereessentiallyleftontheirown.Thereweretwoinstitutionalchangesthatsupportedthisobjective:thehiringoftheCoordinator;andincreasedlegalrepresentationattheRFAhearings.

B.Outcome:HiringofCoordinatorTheCoordinatorwashiredtobeapart-timeemployee.AlthoughhousedintheClerk’soffice,herrolewastosupporttheProject.Byallaccounts,theCoordinatorworkedmorethanthepart-timehoursbudgetedfortheposition.Thepositionwaseventuallyexpandedtofull-time.Shesupportedtheobjectiveof“increasedservices”intwodistinctroles.Thefirstwastoprovidethejudgewithallfiles(familyandcriminal)relatedtothefamilyfortheRFAhearings.Thesecondwastocoordinatetheoutsideservicesforthefamily.Bothrolesarediscussedbelow.

1.ConsolidationofInformationforRFAHearings

WhentheDocketstarted,theIDVDDaywasonMondays.ItwasreportedthatonSundayevening,theCoordinatorwouldbeatthecourthousemanuallypullingthefilesfromFamilyandCriminaldivisionsthatpertainedtothefamily.Thecombinedfilesalongwithcasenotesweregiventothejudgeinthemorning.Attorneysalsohadaccesstothefiles.Thisallowedeveryonetohaveamoreholisticpictureofthefamily.Bothjudgesinterviewedagreedthatthisprocessprovidedawealthofinformationthattheydidnotnormallyhaveaccesstoandgavethemabettersenseofthefamilyandagreaterconfidenceintheirrulings.TheCoordinatorwrotethisannotationdescribinganRFAhearing:

mutual APO's (Abuse ProtectionOrder)were in place,as a means to resolve this complicated case a letter/order of understanding was written up by (PlaintiffAttorney)inplaceoftheApo…withanagreementofno

7

contact…andresolutionoftheirchildren'svisitation(childrenareinthecustodyofothers)

TheCoordinator’sspreadsheetlisted155IDVDProjectcases,ofwhich76(49%)hadrelated5familycourtcases.FamilycourtcasesincludedactiveReliefFromAbusecases,AbusePreventionOrders,divorce,andparentage.Thespreadsheetlisted121DistrictCourtcasesthatwereIDVDProjecteligible,butdidnotaccepttheinvitationtobecomepartoftheProject,ofwhich59(49%)hadarelatedfamilycourtcase.

2.CoordinationofServices

TheplanningphaseidentifiedservicesthatexistedintheCountythatwereessentialtomeetingtheanticipatedneedsofthefamilies.TheserviceswerealreadyinplaceinBenningtonCounty,butnotpartofacoordinatedresponsefromtheCourt.Counseling,supervisedvisitation,parentingclasses,andsubstanceabusecounselingwereidentifiedasstrongneeds.Safetyplanning,includingsafehousing,wasalsoseenasaneedforvictims.

Theneedsofthedefendantandfamilyappeartohavebeenascertainedintwoways.ThefirstwayneedswereassessedwasinformallyattheRFAhearing.6MembersreportedthattheRFAhearingoftenbroughttolightthecollateralissuesthefamilywasfacing.Teammembers,throughreadingtheconsolidatedfilesand/orthroughpersonalknowledgeofthefamilywereencouragedtoaddressthefamily’sneedsinthefinalorders.

ThesecondwayneedswereassessedwasthroughUnitedCounselingServices(UCS).UCSisanon-profitorganizationthatprovidesavarietyofmentalhealthservicesinBennington.UCSsetasideonedayaweektoscreenIDVDProjectparticipantsforneeds.Thisscreeningallowedpeopletobeseenwithinaweek,asopposedtotheseveralweeksanon-participantwouldhavetowaittobeseen.

Oncetheneedswereidentified,theCoordinatorhelpedthefamilyobtaintheservicesneeded.Thespreadsheetgivessomeindicationofwhatneedswere

5Itisnotclearfromthespreadsheetifthesecaseswerejustopened,pending,orclosed.6Oneteammemberrecalledlawenforcementconductingalethalityassessmentthatwasthenusedtohelpidentifyservices.

8

identified.78Thespreadsheethasacolumntitled“PresentingServiceNeeds,”afreeformtextentrycolumn.Usingthedatainthiscolumn,itappearsthat36(23%)casesintheProjecthadmorethanonediscreteneedidentified.Forexample,therecouldbementalhealthneedsinadditiontosubstanceabuseneeds.Mentalhealthneeds,includingindividualcounseling,wereidentifiedin55(35%)ofthecases.Substanceabusecounseling/serviceswereneededin48(31%)cases,andparentingclassesin20(13%)cases.

Identifyingtheneedswasalmostsecondarytothetruenatureofthecourt;coordinationofserviceswastheprimarygoal.Thespreadsheetannotationsareinstructiveonhowthoseserviceswerecoordinated.BelowisasamplingthatindicatesthetypeofcoordinationthattheCoordinatorprovided:9

helpedXwithcounselingandinsurance

harassingcontactwithparents-noncomplianceheldwithoutbail....Acompetency/sanityevaluatingwasscheduledforOctober8thwithDr.Linder-thereportindicatedthattheisneedinongoinginpatientcare.IwasabletoconfirmtheavailabilityofabedattheBrattretreat;itbecamenecessarytocontactvariousfolksinecservicestoupgradehisVHAPinsurancetoVHAPplusa-asitwasnotyetthefirstofthe"next"month...thisisnecessaryforinpatientcare(andthisisdoneonanautomatedbasisusually)...

helpedXwithutilities,backrentcosts,childcarewhensheisin

school.Asmentionedinfootnote7,theannotationsinthespreadsheetappeartoapplytothepartiesinthecase,withoutclearspecificityastowhowasin

7Itisnotclearfromthespreadsheetwhentheneedswereidentifiedorbywhom.Further,theneedsareattachedtoacriminalcase,buttheneedsrecordeddidnotspecifywho(defendant,victim,otherfamilymembers)wasinneedoftheservices.8TheCoordinator’sspreadsheetdidnotrecordservicesneededforRFAfamilieswhohadnoconcurrentcriminalcase.Budgetaryconstraintslimiteddatacollectionduringtheproject.Futureprojectsshouldreceiveadequateresourcesfordatacollection.9Spellingerrorshavebeencorrected.

9

needoftheservices.However,theteammembersinterviewedallrememberedtheCoordinator’sdedicationtoarrangingforservicesforallparties.TheresearcheridentifiedtheinstitutionalservicestheProjectprovidedvictims.InadditiontotheCoordinator,thevictimmetPAVEontheIDVDDay,theState’sAttorney,andperhapstheVictimAdvocate.Thevictimmayreceiveuptofivedifferentadvocacy/facilitativecontactsinoneveryemotionalandlongday.Thechartbelowillustratestheserviceprovidersandtheirroles.Theremaybeclearprofessionalboundariestotheteammembers,buttheresearcherwondersifanewuseroftheserviceswouldunderstandwhomtocallandforwhatservices.Itwasnotclearthattherewasacoordinated“teamapproach”tothecareofthevictim/familyoncethefamilyleftthecourthouse.

Duringthestructuredinterviews,teammembersconsistentlypointedtotwoservicesthatwereessential,intheiropinions,tomeetingtheneedsoffamilies:UnitedCounselingServicesandFamilyTimeSupervisedVisitation(FamilyTime).Asdiscussedabove,UCSsetasideonedayaweektoscreenpeopleformentalhealthneeds.Theswiftnesswithwhichthiswasdone(thatweekappointmentasopposedtoweeks)wasseenasessentialbyteammemberstothesuccessoftheProject.

IDVDCoordinator

CoordinationofServices

PAVE

Availableaslongasvictimneedsservices,includessafetyplanning.

HaveJusticeWillTravel

ProvidedattorneyforRFAhearingonly

State'sAttorney

Forcriminalcaseonly

VictimAdvocate

Forcriminalcaseonly

10

FamilyTimeprovidessupervisedvisitationforfamilies.TeammembersbelievedthatitsphysicalproximitytothecourtwasresponsiblefortheincreaseinusagebyIDVDparticipants.OnememberreportedthatuseoftheFamilyTimehadincreasedundertheIDVDProject,sothatadditionalfundraisingbythecenterwasnecessarytomeetdemand.TeammembersindicatedthatorganizinguseofFamilyTimeattheRFAhearingdaywasagreatbenefit,andhelpedoffendersespeciallymaintaincontactwiththeirchildren.

C.Outcome:IncreasedRepresentationandProceduralFairnessTheFoundingJudgeconsideredproceduralfairnesstobeanecessaryservicetheIDVDProjectshouldprovide.ProceduralfairnesswouldallowallpartiestohavetheirlegalneedsmetatCourt.Ifthoseneedsweremet,heargued,thentheotherserviceswouldbemorelikelytobeused.Tothisend,hewantedallpartiesrepresentedattheRFAhearing.ProvidingrepresentationattheRFAhearingswastheoneoutcomeoftheProjectthatwassolelyoutsidetheofficialinfluenceoftheCourt.TheStatedoesnotprovidelegalservicestoRFAplaintiffsordefendants.InBenningtonCounty,HaveJusticeWillTravelrepresentstheplaintiffs.TheIDVDProjectbenefitedfromachangeingrantstatusforHaveJusticeWillTravelwhichallowedittomeettherepresentationneedsoftheIDVDProjectplaintiffs.ThePublicDefenderfortheCountyagreedtositinanadvisoryroleinRFAhearingstoassistthedefendants.TheDefenderGeneral,withthecaveatthattheadditionaldutiesnotinterferewithhisregularcontractedwork,supportedthearrangement.Theattorneyfortheplaintiffsappreciatedhavingthedefenseattorneypresenttohelpsmoothandfocustheprocessonresolutionofthecase.Thedefenderwasabletoassistthedefendantinaskingquestionsregardinggettingpossessionsfromthehouseandchildvisitation.Thisgavethedefendanttheproceduralfairnessthatwaslackingbefore.BothJudgesinterviewedsaidhavingbothcounselpresentwasawelcomeadditionandallowedthehearingstomoveinamoreproductivemanner.

11

III.Objective:IncreasedOffenderAccountability

A.ImplementationInordertoincreaseaccountability,theoffenderhadtounderstandforwhathewastobeheldaccountable.Tothatend,theProjectprovideddefensecounselatRFAhearingstohelpthedefendantunderstandtheorder.TheProjectalsocreatednewprobationrequirementsthatexplicitlystatedthebehaviorsthatwouldleadtoaviolationandinstitutedarapidarrestandhearingprocesstoaddressviolations.Theroleofthedefensecounselisdiscussedabove.Thisfollowingsectiondetailstheoutcomesofthenewprobationrequirementsandprocedures.

B.OutcomeTheteammembersdraftednewprobationrequirementsandproceduresfortheIDVDProject.Therequirementsarefarmorerestrictiveandmoretailoredtodomesticviolenceoffendersthanthegeneralprobationrequirements.Forexample,thenewconditionsincludesuchresponsibilitiesasinformingtheprobationofficerofthenameandcontactinformationofapotentialromanticpartner,disclosingthedomesticviolenceoffensetoneworcurrentdomesticpartners,andprohibitingtheoffenderfromenteringabarorliquorstore.Therequirementscouldbedescribedas“Draconian”withoutthecarrotofadeferredsentence.However,inapriorstudy,wefoundthat85participantsweresentencedtoadeferredsentence,and60%(51)ofthosewereabletosuccessfullyearnthedeferredsentence,thatis,havetheirrecordsexpunged.10Someteammembersperceivedthistobeahighfailurerateofthedeferredsentences.Oneteammembersaid,“Wewerereallyconcernedaboutthedeferredsentences,butthenwesawthatsofewwereabletokeepthem,itbecameanon-issue.”Anotherteammember,whowasinfavorofdeferredsentencessaid“[T]hey’reearnedoveraperiodofyears,iftheycandothisthenhe’searnedit.”Thenewconditionsalsoincludedasectiondefiningbehaviorthatwouldleadtoaviolation.Thisexplanatorysectionwasnewtothetraditionalconditionsofprobation.Theconditionsdefineandillustrateexamplesofharassingandthreatingbehavior.Someexamplesofthreateningbehaviorsincluded:

10http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/idvd_final_report_b.pdf

12

Makingthreatsbywordoractionsorbothtocausephysicalharmtoanyone,includingthevictimofyouroffense,his/herchildrenoranyotherfamilymembersorfriendsincludingacurrentorpriorboyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/dateorpersonyoubelieveisorwassexuallyorromanticallyinvolvedwithyourvictim;Threateningtotakethechildrenorpreventyourvictimfromseeingorhavingcontactwiththechildreninanyway.Ifyoudecidetoseekcustodyorvisitationwiththechildrenthroughthenormalcourtprocess,youarepermittedtodothatbutyoumaynottellthevictimthatyouareplanningondoingsoorthreatentodoso:i.e.:“Iwillgetcustodyofthekids”typestatements;Makingthreatstoharmvictims’orchildren’spetsorownedanimals;Makingthreatstodamagepropertyofthevictimand/orher/hischildren;

Thefollowingaresomeexamplesthenewconditionsusedtodescribeharassingbehavior:

Interferinginanymannerwithyourvictim’semploymentandabilitytomoveaboutfreelywithoutbeingsubjecttoyourharassingorthreateningbehavior:thisincludesappearingatvictim’sworkplacewhennotinvitedorpermitted,interferingwithyourvictim’sabilitytoperformher/hisjobfunctionsbyyourpresenceathis/herworkplaceorbytelephoningher/himathis/herworkplace;Drivingorwalkingbyvictim’sresidenceorworkplaceorthechildren’sschoolwhenyouareeithernotpermittedtodosobyanycourtorderoryourprobationofficerorfornootherlegitimatereason;Drivingbythevictimandorhis/herresidenceorworkplaceandmakingloudnoisessuchashornblowing,squealingtires,oryellingorshoutinganythingtooratherorherchildrenoranyonehe/sheistheninthecompanyof;Makingrude,insultingoroffensivegesturesatthevictim;

Teammembersweregenerallyverysupportiveofthedefinitionalsectionsofthenewrequirements.Thedetailedexplanationsmadeitcleartothedefendantwhat

13

behaviorswereprohibited.Italsogavedefensecounselandprobationerstheabilitytoengageinaconversationbeyondwhattheynormallywouldhave.Thatis,priortothenewconditionstheconversationmightbe“don’tharass,ifyouseeherinastore,youhavetoleave,”whereasthenewwrittenconditionscoverabreadthofactivitythatcanleadtoaconversationaboutappropriateandinappropriatebehavior.Inadditiontothenewconditions,theProjectencouragedimmediatearrestforviolations,nomatterhowminor.Probationwouldmakethearrestandthedefendantwouldspendanightortwoinjailfortheviolation.TheviolationhearingwouldbeheardonthenextIDVDDay.TheProbationteammembersfeltvalidatedbytheimmediateViolationofProbationHearings(VOPs).InthebeginningoftheProject,VOPswereheardonceaweekonascheduledbasis.This,themanagersreported,gavetheirstafftheinstitutionalsupporttheyneededforthechangeofpolicythattheProjectrequired.ViolationhearingspriortotheIDVDProject,andnow,arescheduledroughlyonceamonth.Duringthestudyperiod,roughlyequalpercentagesofdefendantsintheIDVDProjectandtheBenningtonDistrictCourtwerechargedwithviolationsofprobation.

ThematicIssuesAffectingReplicationThethematicissuesdiscussedbelowwerethosethemesthatwerepervasiveduringthestructuredinterviews.UsingtheGroundedTheorymethodologydescribedabove,thesethemeswerethemostimportanttotheteammemberswhendiscussingthesuccessoftheProject.

I.HighTrustEnvironmentBenningtonCountyhasalegalculturethatismorecooperativethanadversarialinnature.Oneteammembermentionedthatatafterajurygoesouttodeliberation,thedefenseattorneyandprosecutorshakehandsasa“thanksfordoingyourjob.”Furtherthistraditionisofhighvalueinthecommunity--newattorneysareinformedimmediatelyuponentrytothelocalbar.ThelegalcultureoftheCountyhelpedlaythefoundationoftrustthatwasneededtobegintheProject.Almostallteammembersdescribedtheplanningandimplementationasahightrustenvironment.OnemembercametotheCountyto

14

workontheProjectbecauseofthereputationofthePresidingJudge.Othermemberswerenewtotheirroles.Yet,everyonefeltheardduringtheprocess.ThePresidingJudgeattheinceptionwasveryaccessible.TeammemberswereencouragedtoemailtheJudgeifs/hehadquestionsaboutanorder.ThePresidingJudgealsoappearedtoencourageamoretribunalcourtroomintheRFAhearings.Teammembersspokeof“weatherreports”issuedbytheJudgeasawayofwarningpartiesofwhichwayhewasleaning.Theteammembersuniformlyappreciatedthese“weatherreports.”TheJudgealsowasaveryactivequestionerfromthebench.Onemembersaid,“Hehadawayofgettingtotheheartofthestory.”ThisdemeanorfromtheJudgemadetheteammembersfeelheardandunderstoodinthecourtroom.Althougheveryonefeltheardinthebeginning,thereappearstohavebeennoformalprocessforchangeorvoicingconcernsastheProjectprogressed.Teammeetingsweretheprimarymeansofcommunication.Oneteammemberdescribedanissueregardingthetimingofproceedingsandtheneedformotherswithchildcareissuestobeheardearlier,orinamoreconstrictedtimeframe.Theissuewasresolvedinformallythroughmeetingsandemails.Theonlydocumentationofthechangewastheteammember’smemoryandachangeinpractice.11Althoughthisissuewasresolved,thelackofformalprocessforaddressingchangemeantthatitwasuptotheindividualteammembertochooseapathtovoiceconcerns.Themanagersthatwereteammemberssharedintheenvironmentofopencommunication.However,thephilosophyoftheProject,insomecases,didnottrickledowntotherankandfilewhowereimplementingpartsoftheProject.Oneteammember(amanager)reportedremovingasubordinatewho“justdidn’tgetit.”Managerialdiscretionwasexercisedandthesubordinatewasreassigned.Othermanagersreportedsimilardissatisfactionamongsubordinates.Oneteammemberdescribeditas“playingtelephone”referringtothechildren’sgamewhereamessagegetspassedfrompersontopersonandoftenbearslittleresemblancetotheactualmessage.

11SeeThematicIssueIVTransition,infra,foradiscussionontheeffectsoflackofformalprocessforchangeontransition.

15

II.RoleExpansion/UnderstandingTheCourtRoomWorkGroupimpactsthedeliveryofjusticeservices.12Thetheorysuggeststhatthemembersoftheregularworkgroupareconditionedbythegrouptoworktogether,andpeoplegenerallyoutsidetheworkgrouphavedifficultyobtainingsimilaroutcomes.13Howmembersoftheworkgroupperceiveeachotherandcarryouttheirrolesimpactscourtoutcomes.Aswithmost“problemsolving”courts,thepre-IDVDcourtroomworkgroupexpandedastheIDVDProjectdeveloped.TheIDVDProjectexpandedtheworkgroupbyinsistingonrepresentationforallpartiesatRFAhearingsandhiringaCoordinatortocoordinateservicesandinformation.Eachteammemberwasaskedtodescribetheroleofthevariousteammembers.AlthoughthisProjectrequiredsomeroleexpansionandcreationofnewroles,therewerefewareasofdisagreementonwhatthoseroleswere.DefenderThePublicDefenderfortheIDVDProjecthadtoexpandhisroletobeinanon-representationalmodefortheRFAdays.Allteammembersrecognizedthisroleexpansion.ItisimportanttonotethatthisexpansionwasatthelargesseoftheDefenderGeneralandtheDefenderhimself.ThecontracttoprovideservicesbetweentheDefender’sOfficeandtheDefenderGeneralwasnotenhanced.State’sAttorneyMostteammembersdidnotviewtheState’sAttorney’sroleaschanging.Asonememberputit,shewasto“providethedeal”(referringtothedeferredsentences).However,theState’sAttorneyexpendedprofessionalcapitaltobringhersubordinatesandlocallawenforcementonboardfortheProject.Thisexpendedcapitalwasnewtoherroleassheviewedit.

12Eisenstein,J.&Jacob,H.(1977).FelonyJustice:Anorganizationalanalysisofcriminalcourts.Boston:Little&Brown.13See,forexample,Sudnow,David,NormalCrimes:SociologicalFeaturesofthePenalCodeinaPublicDefenderOffice,SocialProblems,Vol.12,No.3(Winter,1965),pp.255-276illustratinghowtheworkgroupbehaviorchangesinaparticularcourtdependingonthetypeofattorney.

16

TheJudgeTeammembersfoundtheProjecttobelargelyoneofjudicialdiscretion.Indeed,theCurrentJudgedidnotsharesomeofthephilosophyoftheFoundingJudgeandthereforechangedsomeoftheproceduresregardingprobationviolations.Astherewasnoformalprocessforchange,thechangesmadebytheCurrentJudgewereviewedasasoleexerciseofjudicialdiscretionwithoutdiscussionwithteammembers.HaveJusticeWillTravelHaveJusticeWillTravelisafederalgrantanddonationfundedorganizationthatprovidesrepresentationtowomeninruralareasinfamilylawmatters.InBenningtonCounty,itsrepresentationisnowexclusivelyforplaintiffsinRFAhearings.Duringtheplanningphasesitsrepresentationwasbroaderinscope,encompassingcustody,divorce,andotherfamilylawmatters.ThegrantchangedatthefederalleveltoonlyrepresentvictimsattheRFAhearings.ItwasbecauseofthisgrantfromtheDepartmentofJusticethattheorganizationwasabletomeettheneedsoftheRFAdocket.Withoutthatgrant,theorganizationwouldhavehadtoclosetheBenningtonoffice.PAVE(ProjectAgainstViolentEncounters)PAVEhassupportedBenningtonCountyforthirtyyears.Itprovidesadvocacyandsafetyplanningforvictimsandfamilies.ItisalsotheprimarydomesticviolenceeducationalorganizationinBennington,providingworkshopsandoutreachondomesticviolenceissuesandservices.PAVEmaintainsthatitsroledidnotchangesignificantlyduringtheProject.Instead,theorganizationvieweditasanenhancementtoitsservices.PAVEworkedcloselywiththeCoordinatortofollowupondefendantsandservicesrequestedbythevictims.Itenjoyed(asdidallteammembers)agreaterdialoguewiththeFoundingJudgethatallowedforanunderstandingoftheProjectasitprogressed.CourtClerkTeammembershadalessdefinedroleoftheClerkofCourtthanotherteammembers.Teammembersdescribedtheroleas“logistical”or“organizational.”ThismaybeareflectionofhowtheroleoftheClerkinteractswithothercourtroomactors.Forexample,attorneyshavedifferingrelationshipswiththeofficeversustheJudgeversustheadvocates.WhatisclearisthatiftheroleoftheofficewasdefinedinrelationshiptotheIDVDProject,othermembersdidnotinternalizeit.TheClerk,inadditiontothedutiesoforganizationandlogisticalsupport,isalsothepublicfaceofthecourthouse.Theinteractionwiththepublic,andthewaythe

17

Projectinfluencedandmayhavehinderedthatconduct,wentlargelyunmentionedbyteammembers.CoordinatorTheCoordinatorwasoriginallyapart-timeposition,althoughteammembersallthoughtsheworkedmorethanthebudgetedhoursbeforeherpositionwasexpandedtofull-time.ThiswasanewpositioninsidetheClerk’soffice;however,heronlydutiesweretosupporttheIDVDProject.HerrolewastocoordinatetheinformationonRFAday,toprovideservicestothefamilies,andtokeepthedataontheProject.MostteammembersspokeoftheCoordinatoringlowingterms.Shewas,accordingtooneteammember,“theglue”thatheldtheProjecttogether.Someteammembersspokeofanappearanceofnon-neutrality,andthattheCoordinatorfavoredvictimsoverdefendants.Theneutralityoftherole,however,wasessentialtomeettheProject’sgoalofproceduralfairness.NeutralitywasalsorequiredbecausethepositionwashousedintheClerk’soffice.Nodatawereavailabletoevaluatetheappearanceofnon-neutrality.

III.TrainingAllteammemberswereaskedaboutwhattrainingwas(andis)availablefortheteam.TheCoordinatorandanattorneyforHaveJusticeWillTravelattendedtraininginNewYorkStateonDomesticViolenceCourts.TheFoundingJudgeisconsideredanexpertinthefield,andhasattendedandledseminarsonDomesticViolenceCourts.Otherteammemberswereabletorecallingeneraltermsthat“trainingshadbeenheld”butwithverylittledetailonwhattheyentailedandwhotheywerefor.Thereappearstohavebeentrainingforpoliceofficersandinvestigators.Thiswasattendedbynon-lawenforcementpersonnelaswell.However,oneteammemberwalkedoutofthetrainingbecausethelawenforcementofficerleadingthetrainingsuggestedthatinvestigatingthevictim’ssobrietywasnotnecessaryinrespondingtothecase.Iftherewerefurthertrainings,thisteammemberdidnotattendthem.TheteammemberarguedthatpromotingaparticulartheoryofvictimizationintrainingwasinappropriateandcontrarytothecooperativeatmosphereoftheProject.Thiswastheonlyspecificrecollectionofin-countytrainingthatanyteammemberrecalled.

18

IV.TransitionRelatedtotrainingisthetransitioningofpersonnel.Judgesrotateandotherteammembersmaymoveintootherpositions.Therewasnoformalizedtransitionplanfornewteammembers.Asmentionedabove,teammemberswhoweremanagerswereresponsiblefortrainingandeducationabouttheprogram.Likewise,judicialtransitionwashandledamongstthejudges.TheCurrentJudgereceivedlittlewrittenexplanationoftheProjectandthedecisionsmade.HerecalledhavingconversationsabouttheProjectwithpriorjudges,butdidnotreceiveanydetaileddescriptionofwhyparticulardecisionsweremadeorhow.ThislackofinformationandnoclearprocessforchangecontributedtoproblemsintheworkingsoftheIDVDProject.ThesecondPresidingJudgerecalledthatattorneyswerenegotiatingtheconditionsofprobation,whichwascontrarytothephilosophyoftheProject.Initially,hewasunawarethatsuchnegotiationsweredetrimentaltotheProject.TheCurrentJudgehasadifferentjudicialphilosophythantheFoundingJudgeinregardtotheprobationviolations.Placingdefendantsinjailforlow-levelviolationsiscontrarytohisphilosophy.However,theimmediateandseveresanctionsforviolationswereviewedbyteammembersasessentialtotheirparticipationintheProject.Asdiscussedabove,theState’sAttorneyexpendedprofessionalcapitaltosecureparticipationofhersubordinatesandpartnersintheProject.Specifically,theuseofimmediateandharshsanctionsforviolationshelpedherdothat.Whenthatchanged,shewithdrewhersupportfortheProject.Withoutaformaltransitionplan(includingdocumentation),newteammembersandtheirsubordinateswereunintentionallyactinginawaythatwasdetrimentaltotheProgram.

V.“UpNorth”andCentralizedAdministrationBenningtonCountyislocatedinthesouthwestcornerofVermont.Itisabouta2.5-hourdriveawayfromCentralVermont,wheremanystateofficesarelocated.Duringtheinterviewsmanyteammembersusedthephrase“UpNorth”todescribeinteractionswiththecentralizedadministrationofthevariouscriminaljusticeagenciesinvolvedintheProject.Itwasalsousedtodescribeinteractionswithpeers

19

fromacrossthestate.Forexample,theState’sAttorneyusedthephrasetodescribeherinteractionswithotherState’sAttorneys.AlthoughtheProjectwasseenasorganicwithinBennington,mostteammembershadsomeone“UpNorth”toanswerto.TheDefenderGeneralallowedthePublicDefendertoparticipateinRFADays.TheState’sAttorneyreceivedsomecriticismfromotherState’sAttorneysforherparticipation.TheemergencyarrestwarrantforprobationviolationsconflictedwiththeDepartmentofCorrections’statewidepolicytoreducedetentions.TheFoundingJudgefeltresistancefromhispeers.IftheProjectisreplicatedelsewhere,thistensionshouldbeexaminedandaddressed.

RecommendationsforReplicationTruereplicationoftheBenningtonCountyIntegratedDomesticViolenceDocketwouldrequire:

• adedicatedIDVDDay;

• acooperativelocallegalculture;

• representationofbothpartiesattheRFAhearing;

• schedulingboththeRFAhearingANDthecriminalcaseonthesamedayinfrontofthesamejudgeandestablishingacultureofearlyresolution;

• aCoordinatortoassistfamiliesquicklyaccessservicesandprovidesupportfortheteambyreviewingandsummarizingcourtfilespriortoproceedings;

20

• availabilityofacomprehensivearrayofhealthandsocialservicesdesignedtomeettheimmediateandlong-termneedsofthefamily,includingthevictim,theoffender,andtheirchildren;14

• restrictiveprobationconditionswhicharedescribedindetail;

• strictandimmediateenforcementofviolationsofprobation(VOP)

throughimmediateVOPhearingsandjailsanctionswhereappropriate;

• deferredsentences;

• awrittenprotocolfortheProject;and

• anagreementamongteammemberstoadheretothephilosophyandprotocolsoftheProject.

ThefollowingsectionproposesrecommendationsthatamajorityofmembersoftheIDVDTeamwhowereinterviewedforthisstudyfeltwereessentialtothesuccessoftheIDVDProjectandcouldbeusedtoincreasetheeffectivenessofcurrentcourtresponsestodomesticviolence.

I.RFADayProcedures

A.ArrivalonRFADayAccesstojusticeshouldnotbecloakedinfearofphysicalharm.Victimsinothercountiesaskfear-basedquestionsaboutmovementinapublicbuildingonRFAday.ThatfearwasremovedinBenningtonwiththestaggeredarrivaltimes,separatecourtrooms,andextrasheriff’sdeputiesonduty.Policymakersshouldconsiderthefeasibilityofadoptingthispracticestatewide.

14TheservicesthatwereseenasessentialwereFamilyTimeandUnitedCounselingServices.ThecloseproximityofFamilyTimetothecourt,andthereforethepopulationcenterwasviewedasnecessarytomeettheneedsofthefamilyforvisitationwiththechildren.TheimmediateavailabilityandbreadthofservicesofferedbyUCSwasalsoviewedasessentialtoaddressingthementalhealthneedsofthefamily.

21

B.IncreasedAccesstoCourtRecordsJudicialdecision-makingandproceduralfairnessbenefitfromcompleteinformation.Thejudges,attorneys,andadvocatesappreciatedthewealthofinformationthattheCoordinatorprovidedonafamily’sothercourtcases.PolicymakersshouldconsiderinstitutionalizingattorneyandjudicialaccesstoinformationinRFAcasesandrelatedcriminalcases.

C.IncreasedRepresentationVermontdoesnotcurrentlyproviderepresentationforplaintiffsordefendantsforRFAhearings.HaveJusticeWillTravelrepresentedplaintiffsinBenningtonCounty,usingafederalgranttofundtheservices.TheDefenderdidnotprovideformalrepresentation,butessentiallyvolunteeredtimeonRFAdaytoinformallyadvisethedefendants.TheJudgesandplaintiffs’counselfelttheadditionofdefenseattorneysinthecourtroomonRFAdayresultedinasmoother,moresatisfyingexperienceforallparties.ItwasthecornerstoneoftheproceduraljusticeobjectiveoftheProject.NewYorkStateprovidescounselforallpartiesinFamilyCourt15,thefeasibilityofsuchglobalrepresentationshouldbeexplored.

II.ProbationConditionsAsmentionedabove,thenewprobationconditionsincludednewrestrictionsandexplicitdefinitionsofprohibitedbehavior.Thenewrestrictionsshouldnotbeimplementedwithoutdeferredsentencesandswiftresponsestoviolations.TodosowouldunderminetheproceduralfairnessgoaloftheProject.Teammembersuniformlyfeltthatthesectionsclearlydefiningwhatbehaviorconstitutedthreatening,harassingetc.ledtoagreatercomplianceandastandardlanguagethatdefendantscouldunderstand.PolicymakersshouldconsideraddingthosesectionsoftheconditionstoalldomesticviolenceprobationcontractsandRFAorders.

III.MaketheIDVDaVermontInitiativeTeammemberswereconvincedthatwithouttheuniquecultureofBenningtonCounty,theProjectwouldbedifficulttoreplicateelsewhere.However,astheydescribedthetensionbetween“UpNorth”andtheirparticipation,itappearsthatacentralizedinitiativemayactuallyhelpovercomesomelocalbarriersto

15See,forexample:http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/6jd/tompkins/family/CourtAndYou.pdf.

22

implementation.16PerceivedtensionswithDepartmentofCorrectionspolicy,DefenderGeneralstatutoryrestrictionsonrepresentation,andgeneralprofessionalacceptanceoftheworkingsandgoalsoftheProjectarebestaddressedatthestatewidelevel.

16VCJRisapartnerwiththeJointFiscalOfficeandThePewCenterforPolicyResearchontheResultsFirstModel,apredictivemodelingtoolthatwillallowpolicymakerstoseewhateffectcertainprogramswillhaveoncrimerates.VCJRhasaskedPewtoconductameta-analysisofDomesticViolenceCourtsandDocketstoincludeinthemodel.Resultsareexpectedtobeavailableinearly2013.