Final Report on the Evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration Volume 2: Findings and Lessons on Implementation

• NCJ Number: 219383
• Author(s): Adele Harrell; Lisa Newmark; Christy Visher
• Date Published: June 2007
• Length: 155 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1999-WT-BX-K005
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
• Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
• Sale Source: The Urban Institute; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: For additional information see NCJ-219382, 384-386.

Annotation

This federally supported report presents the process evaluation of the three Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) sites (Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Michigan) a model of coordinated justice and community response to intimate partner violence, detailed descriptions of JOD operations in each partner agency within each site, and findings and lessons learned on the implementation of JOD.

Abstract

The process evaluation of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) initiative describes the broad changes in the demonstration sites as they implement a model of coordinated justice and community response to intimate partner violence (IPV). All of the sites experienced challenges to the implementation of JOD, yet devised creative solutions to most problems. In addition, the dedication of the site teams to the goals of the demonstration enabled the sites to develop new strategies to facilitate change in their community’s response to IPV. The process evaluation identified a number of strategies used by JOD to accomplish the goals of the project, critical strategies identified include: (1) a formal strategic planning process; (2) active management of the collaboration with regularly scheduled meetings with a full-time director; (3) an inclusive set of partners; (4) training and technical assistance by outsiders with acknowledged expertise to help promote change; and (5) dedicate specialized staff to IPV cases. In addition, the impact of JOD on system response to IPV include: (1) fundamental change in the coordination between the judiciary and other justice and community agencies in IPV cases; (2) increased consistency in the justice system response to IPV cases; and (3) JOD produced changes in the response to IPV that will outlast the demonstration period. This report presents Volume 2 of the evaluation of the JOD initiative and entails the process evaluation, the JOD operations description and the findings and lessons learned on the implementation of JOD. The three demonstration sites included Dorchester, MA, Milwaukee, WI, and Washtenaw County, MI. The JOD initiative tested the idea that a coordinated community response, a focused judicial response, and a systematic criminal justice response could improve victim safety and service provision, as well as offender accountability in IPV cases. Tables and figures