No abstract

Much of the prior court literature has demonstrated gender and racial disparity exist across various decision-points. Less understood are the processes that produce this disparity, particularly in problem-solving courts. This article utilizes 100 observations of probation review hearings in three domestic violence courts to examine how judges, probation agents, attorneys, and probationers construct a probationer’s non-compliance. Using a critical discourse analysis approach, the author examined how probationers and their actions are constructed based upon gender and racial discourses. Gender differences in parenting responsibilities, mental health, and domestic violence discourses emerged, with racial differences in responsibility and mental health discourses.

Prior literature on judicial decision-making post-sentencing is relatively scarce, yet with the growth of problem-solving courts and offenders placed on probation, judges are responsible for overseeing compliance of offenders beyond traditional decision-making points. More recently, scholars have called for more nuanced methods of examining judicial decision-making, disparity, and attribution than traditional quantitative methods. This study examines the factors that influence judicial sanctioning of probationers for non-compliance in a domestic violence court. The following research questions are examined: Which factors predict whether a probationer is sanctioned for non-compliance? What are the discourses utilized to frame these violations? Are there differences in discourses utilized based upon a probationer’s race? This study combines participant observation of probation review hearings with agency records for a mixed-methods examination of which factors influence the decision to sanction non-compliant probationers, and whether differences emerge based on race. The sample included 350 cases of probation review hearings with 100 cases selected for critical discourse analysis. Results demonstrated that drug use, missed treatment sessions, gender, race, and family status influenced sanctioning decisions. Qualitative results demonstrated that judges evaluate probationers based upon contextual information, which at times relies on racial discourses of drug use and responsibility.

There is a growing interest in developing comprehensive assessments that measure intimate partner violence (IPV) alongside other adverse events that correlate with IPV and compound its effects. One promising line of research in this area has focused on the impact of exposure to multiple types of victimization, i.e., polyvictimization. The purpose of this study is to examine the experience of administration of a polyvictimization tool from staff and client perspectives in order to inform future tool developments and assessment procedures. Qualitative interviews and focus groups with clients and staff from a family justice center who had experience with the assessment tool were used to identify strengths and challenges of the assessment too and inform future tool development. Findings demonstrate that an assessment tool provides the space for clients to talk about trauma and facilitate empowerment, while providing the opportunity for psychoeducation and service referrals. Concerns about the assessment tool included adverse reactions without proper framing and language, as well as shifting the emphasis from screening for adversities toward strengths, coping skills, and resilience. Implications for future measurement development and establishing best practices in polyvictimization assessment are discussed, with an emphasis on the benefits of social service agencies utilizing assessment tools.

No abstract