Observations of reintegrative shaming in a mental health court

This study compares the use of stigmatizing and reintegrative shame - as specified in Braithwaite's Crime, shame and reintegration (1989) - across traditional criminal court and mental health court settings. Items from the Global Observational Ratings Instrument were used to gather data on 87 traditional court cases and 91 mental health court cases, presided over by five different judges. The observational items capture three constructs: respect, disapproval, and forgiveness, as they apply to Braithwaite's theory. We present means tests to examine differences in shaming between court types and judges. Findings show that the mental health court is more likely to use reintegrative shaming and show respect and forgiveness for offenders, and less likely to show disapproval. Similarly, judges who preside in both court types are significantly more likely to practice reintegrative shaming in the mental health court context. We further explore these findings using field notes and illustrate those components of a mental health court that are conducive to reintegrative shaming.     

The family law detection of overall risk screen (FL-DOORS): Utility as a repeated measure for assessing change in family violence risk over time

Conflicted parental separation is associated with risks to safety and wellbeing for all family members. The Family Law DOORS (FL-DOORS; Detection of Overall Risk Screen) is a standardized screening framework to assist identification, evaluation, and response to family safety risks. The FL-DOORS has previously been validated in two large Australian samples (N = 6089) and found fit-for-purpose as an indicator of family violence and wellbeing risks in separated families. Now, using pilot data from a community mediation context, we examine its utility as a repeated measure for detecting change in safety and wellbeing over time. A pilot cohort of 67 parents engaged in a mediation service for parenting and/or property disputes completed the FL-DOORS at intake (T1) and approximately 8 weeks later (T2). We assessed T1-T2 change scores and correlations in change between variables and used MANOVA to determine if clusters of related scales discriminated change across time. Findings support the psychometric capacity of the FL-DOORS for use as a repeated measure in risk monitoring. We also note possible effects of this early screening process for reducing risk prior to engagement in mediation input. We discuss implementation utility for family law services to monitor change in risk type and magnitude over time.