The Court Impact Scale

Abstract

The court system is a central part of the societal response to intimate partner violence (IPV), and is a frequently used source of help for victims. The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence suggests that the court should be evaluated not just for its potential effect on recidivism, but for its impact on the well-being of all those who participate in it, and IPV scholars suggest that empowerment is a key component of any therapeutic intervention for victims. Research in these areas is limited by the lack of a standard method for examining victim experience in the court system. This article describes the development and piloting of a 23-item measure designed to address this gap. The pilot sample included 157 victims of IPV seeking civil protection orders (CPOs). Exploratory factor analysis yielded 5 factors: Negative Impact, Positive Impact, Fear, Validation, and Network Impact. Validation was most strongly correlated with global satisfaction with the court process. Implications and applications for work in therapeutic jurisprudence and empowerment are discussed.

What is empowerment anyway? A model for domestic violence practice, research, and evaluation.

“…The model calls on researchers to illuminate the broader set of impacts that any action might bring, and how they relate to what is important to the survivor. For example, the first author and colleagues (Cattaneo, Dunn, & Chapman, 2013) developed a measure to evaluate the experience IPV victims have in court during the process of petitioning for a protection order. The measure goes beyond the traditional focus on case disposition to incorporate experiences such as validation, fear, and influence on work and family.…”

Survivor-Centered Practice and Survivor Empowerment: Evidence From A Research–Practitioner Partnership

“…In addition to emotional strain advocates may feel, the structure of many interventions meant to assist survivors can make survivor-defined practice more difficult. Indeed, across the DV field, researchers have documented numerous ways in which funder and system requirements impact the survivor-centeredness of the intervention (Cattaneo et al, 2013;Fisher & Stylianou, 2016;Messing et al, 2015;Nichols, 2013;Wood et al, 2020). For example, when funding streams set requirements regarding the number of victims served or the types of services delivered, following these imperatives may get in the way of advocates' efforts to center the individual risks and needs of each victim.…”

Empowerment and Advocacy for Domestic Violence Victims

“…The gap in theorising empowerment is noticeable in McDermott and Garafalo's (2004) discussion at the point that they acknowledge the difference between individual and systems advocacy: Empowerment at a systems level is more difficult to conceptualise given the term's strong association with individual advocacy and victim choice. Some evidence of successful systems advocacy is obvious in the plethora of modifications made to western criminal justice procedures dealing with domestic violence over the last two decades in particular (Cattaneo, Dunn, & Chapman, 2013;Epstein & Goodman, 2013). However, the modifications themselves do not address questions about whether systems changes support individual advocacy goals for victim empowerment or criminal justice system goals for protection and safety.…”