“Slipping Through the Cracks” – Evaluation of the Cook County Domestic Violence Division in Chicago

Collaboration for Justice , ,

Since early 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers have been evaluating the Domestic Violence Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, with a specific focus on the Domestic Violence Courthouse at 555 West Harrison in Chicago. Today, we release our findings in our report, “Slipping through the Cracks” – An Evaluation of Cook County’s Domestic Violence Division in Chicago.

The consolidated Domestic Violence Courthouse opened in 2005 at 555 West Harrison in Chicago, in response to growing concerns about crowding, case processing times, and safety concerns with the conditions in the existing court buildings at 1340 South Michigan (for criminal proceedings) and at 28 North Clark Street (for civil proceedings). The consolidated courthouse hears all Orders of Protection cases, both criminal and civil, and was structured to create secure waiting areas with the intent of keeping petitioners and respondents away from each other in the courthouse. In addition to safety goals, the courthouse was intended to improve case efficiency. In 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County established the Domestic Violence Division to further these goals.

Beyond a task force study of the DV Court in 2008 and another more limited study in 2021, both convened by Chief Judge Evans, there has been no comprehensive study of the efficacy of the courthouse. Our report seeks to remedy this.

Background & History

When the Courthouse opened in 2005, there were around 50 dedicated domestic violence courts in the country. By 2010, there were over 200. This growth in domestic violence courts offers an opportunity to examine the successes and failures of Cook County’s courthouse while discovering alternatives to the processes which may improve its functionality. The courts are increasingly called upon to fill in gaps for diminishing social safety resources. This is especially evident in family courts, like those hearing domestic violence issues, and has profound implications for understanding systemic bias. Just as society’s conception of domestic violence has shifted over 50 years, so has our understanding of how poverty and marginalized identities are criminalized and otherwise punished by systems of power. It is incumbent on courts to examine if and how practices support biased systems and seek correction to those practices. 

In February 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts was invited by a group of advocates and attorneys working in the Domestic Violence Division to join them in designing and implementing a court-watching project, given rising concerns over management and culture in the Division. Our goal in doing so was to improve not only access to courts, but the quality and function of justice within those courts. 

For this study, Chicago Appleseed and the Council conducted interviews with more than 35 attorneys, non-attorney advocates, community service providers, court staff, and judges between July 2020 and March 2022. These interviewees provided information about their direct experiences in the Domestic Violence Division—in both the branch courts and the Chicago courthouse—as well as about their general experiences serving the needs of both survivors, their families, and perpetrators of harm. Likewise, Chicago Appleseed’s court-watching program deployed volunteers to observe 188 domestic violence cases in the Circuit Court of Cook County February and March of 2022.

This qualitative information, along with background research into jurisdictional differences and best practices, provided information for our analysis. Nonetheless, we ran into several limitations in our research, including an inability to access quantitative data on the courts, which meant we could not fully understand things like sociodemographic information of litigants or length/outcome of cases, as well as issues connecting with litigants to interview about their direct experiences in the courthouse. Our findings and recommendations, therefore, are based in the analysis of interviews and observations with reference to background research.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

Our findings stress that the courthouse is critical infrastructure and the Division is structured in an appropriate manner, but identify four major deficiencies:

  1. Systemic racism and sexism, which is evident in the structures and procedures of the Domestic Violence Courthouse;
  2. A general disconnect between judges and court staff and the needs of litigants, which is exacerbated by technology and training issues and limited operational capacity;
  3. Judicial culture and bias, lack of trauma-informed practice, and the need for training, which severely impacts quality of justice; and
  4. Issues with the Clerk of the Court’s Office, which are consistent and pervasive, creating barriers to access for both litigants and attorneys.

Broadly, it appears that the Domestic Violence Division is under-resourced to address these needs and (at least until recently) there has been a cycle of neglect regarding community concerns about the court, which exacerbated these barriers to justice.

Our nine recommendations for the Circuit Court fall into four categories to address Accessibility; Communications and Service Provision; Community Support; and Judicial Training and Practice. 

  • Accessibility: Facing pressure from community voices and the city commissioners, the Office of the Chief Judge moved to create 24-hour, 7-day-per-week access to the court for emergency orders of protection. We recommend a measured approach to flexible hours—including evenings and weekends—which will not overly tax existing judicial and legal aid resources. Critical to ensuring accessible and safe courts will be improving and maintaining procedures for remote hearings. 
  • Communications and Service Provision: The two primary recommendations here focus on expanding, improving, and better integrating litigant services into the Division and the courthouse. Litigant screening processes are missing an excellent opportunity to better assess both legal and social service needs and could create vital connections with external agencies for concerns which arise or continue after an order of protection is issued. Existing resources, such as the Division Attorney and Domestic Relations Hearing Officers, can be more strategically deployed in the division, while new resources, such as a Litigant Services Coordinator, would improve case processing efficiency, relieve stress on both court staff and self-represented litigants, while addressing concerns that legal aid agencies are often asked to step in to coordinate between self-represented litigants and the court.  A third recommendation arises from persistent dysfunction in the Office of the Clerk of the Court; while reform and rehabilitation of that office is beyond the control of the DV Division, pressure to hold that office accountable is necessary.
  • Community Support: Cook County has an expansive community of service providers for persons experiencing domestic and intimate partner violence, and the City and state governments have demonstrated an interest in supporting these services. We recommend the court invest in community engagement and connection with non-court-related service providers. Regular, meaningful engagement with practitioners about their experiences—and the experiences of litigants—accessing court services, connecting with non-court services, and interacting with judges and staff will improve court operations and identify problems before they become intractable or politically volatile. Although essential court services cannot depend on pro bono and volunteer resources and be successful, pro bono services play an important role in the health of the legal community and improve outcomes for self-represented litigants. We recommend strengthening these partnerships, while acknowledging their limitations in sustained service provisions. 
  • Judicial Training and Practice: Judges in the DV Division face heavy caseloads and difficult subject matter in their hearings. Litigants face hostility, blame, shame, and disbelief in their lives and often in court as well. Improved judicial training, meaningful implementation of trauma-informed practice, and expanded case management structures will support judges and litigants through the process. We recommend ongoing judicial training from vetted providers to support trauma-informed and culturally-competent practice. We further recommended holistic case management practices employing one of the proven models from other jurisdictions. 

Future Goals

Cook County’s Domestic Violence Division and consolidated Domestic Violence Courthouse in Chicago exhibit many features associated with best practices in domestic violence courts, and yet is not operating at the fullness of its potential. The courthouse is critical infrastructure, incorporating good principles and some best practices, but is sorely lacking in resources and support for its services. Inadequate staffing, training, and technological resources and biased court actors greatly inhibit litigants’ access to justice. Going forward, it will be important for the Division to regularly assess its function and work to better respond holistically to the community’s needs. 

You can read our full report, “Slipping through the Cracks” – An Evaluation of the Cook County Domestic Violence Division in Chicago, here.

For a summary of our report, click here.

Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers appreciate the cooperation of the practitioner community and courts in our research and thank the attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis for their hours of pro bono research. This report would not be possible without the support of our donors.

For questions and press inquiries, please contact Stephanie Agnew (sagnew@chicagoappleseed.org).