The Victim-Informed Prosecution Project (VIP) was designed to amplify the voice of the victim in the prosecution of a battering current or ex-partner through collaboration between the prosecution and victim-centered agencies.This article describes the rationale for and design and implementation of VIP and then explores whether it increased perceived voice.While some VIP services (advocacy and civil protection order representation) were associated with increased perceived voice, the program as a whole was associated with it only in the context of greater contact with prosecutors, when cases were more likely to be felonies.We make specific recommendations for applying this model.
Bell, M.E. ( 2007). Empowerment and disempowerment for victims of intimate partner violence: An overview of the effects of criminal justice system practices . In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. Giacomoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: Civic Research Institute.
2.
Bennett, L.E., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M.A. ( 1999). Systemic obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner: A victim perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 14, 761-772.
3.
Bennett Cattaneo, L., Bell, M.E., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M.A. ( 2007). Intimate partner violence victims’ accuracy in assessing their risk of re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence , 22, 429-440.
4.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
5.
Dalton, J.H., Elias, M.J., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thompson Learning.
6.
Davis and Hammon v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006).
7.
Epstein, D. ( 1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the roles of prosecutors, judges, and the court system. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 11(3), 9-11.
8.
Epstein, D. ( 2002). Procedural justice: Tempering the state’s response to domestic violence. William & Mary Law Review , 43, 1843-1905.
9.
Epstein, D., Bell, M.E., & Goodman, L.A. ( 2003). Transforming aggressive prosecution policies: Prioritizing victims’ long-term safety in the prosecution of domestic violence cases . Journal of Gender, Social Policy, & the Law, 11, 465-498.
10.
Erez, E., & Belknap, J. ( 1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s response. Violence & Victims, 13, 251-268.
11.
Fagan, J. ( 1996). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and limits (Document No. 157641). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12.
Fleury-Steiner, R.E., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C.M., Belknap, J., & Melton, H.C. ( 2006). Contextual factors impacting battered women’s intentions to reuse the criminal legal system. Journal of Community Psychology , 34, 327-342.
13.
Ford, D.A., & Regoli, M.J. ( 1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaulters: Process, problems and effects. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Gavin, C., & Puffett, N.K. ( 2005). Criminal domestic violence case processing: A case study of the five boroughs of New York City. New York : Center for Court Innovation.
15.
Gillis, J.R., Jebely, P., Orekhovsky, V., Ostovich, E.M., MacIsaac, K., Sagrati, S., et al. (2006). Systemic obstacles to battered women’s participation in the judicial system: When will the status quo change? Violence Against Women, 12, 1150-1168.
16.
Hanna, C. ( 1996). No right to choose: Mandated victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Harvard Law Review, 109, 1850-1851.
17.
Hotaling, G., & Buzawa, E. ( 2003). Forgoing criminal justice assistance: The non-reporting of new incidents of abuse in a sample of domestic violence victims (Document No. 195667). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
Jordan, C.E. ( 2004). Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examination of the interface. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 19, 1412-1434.
19.
Kohn, L.S. ( 2008). The justice system and domestic violence: Engaging the case but divorcing the victim. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 32(2), 191-252.
20.
Landau, T.C. ( 2000). Women’s experiences with mandatory charging for wife assault in Ontario, Canada: A case against the prosecution. International Review of Victimology, 7, 141-157.
21.
Lewis, R. ( 2004). Making justice work: Effective legal interventions for domestic violence. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 204-224.
22.
Newmark, L., Harrell, A., & Salem, P. ( 1995). Domestic violence and empowerment in custody and visitation cases. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1(33), 30-62.
23.
Rebovich, D.J. ( 1996). Prosecution response to domestic violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 176-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Russell, M. ( 2002, April). Measures of empowerment for women who are victims of violence and who use the justice system. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Victim Services Division, BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
25.
Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Tolman, R.M. ( 1999). The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25-37.
28.
Zweig, J.M., & Burt, M.R. ( 2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients ? Violence Against Women, 13, 1149-1178.
