evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

GRH — Brazil's Judiciary-Led Reflective & Accountability Groups for Domestic-Violence Perpetrators

Brazil · Brasília · See the Brazil profile · See the Brasília profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 74% 44/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Brazil's judiciary runs Grupos Reflexivos e Responsabilizantes (GRH) for domestic-violence perpetrators, mandated under the Maria da Penha Law. A 2026 mapping counted 704 active groups (up from 312 in 2020); 44,140 men were referred and 32,257 took part in 2025 alone.

704
Active GRH initiatives nationwide (2026)
125.6 %
Growth in active initiatives since 2020
44,140
Men referred to GRH groups (2025)
22,013
Referred men who completed the full cycle (2025)

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), with Cocevid and UFSC's Grupo Margens
Period
First groups from 2008; national mapping series 2020, 2023, 2026; nationally recommended since 2022
Keywords
justice, judiciary, domestic violence, offender accountability

Context

Brazil's Maria da Penha Law (Lei 11.340/2006, amended by Lei 13.984/2020) allows courts to refer men who commit domestic and family violence to Grupos Reflexivos e Responsabilizantes (GRH) -- reflective and accountability groups -- as a protective or sentencing measure. The first groups began in Sao Luis, Maranhao, in 2008.

Activities

Since 2020 the CNJ, with the Colegio de Coordenadores (Cocevid) and UFSC's Grupo Margens, has run a systematic national mapping every few years, and CNJ Recommendation 124/2022 formally urged all state courts to institute and maintain such programmes.

Results

The 2026 national mapping identified 704 active GRH initiatives across every region of Brazil, up 41.4% from 498 in 2023 and 125.6% from 312 in 2020. In 2025, 44,140 men were referred to GRH groups, of whom 32,257 (73.1%) actually participated and 22,013 completed the full cycle.

Conclusions

The mapping is honest about its own evidentiary limits: in 2026, 23.7% of groups reported not measuring effectiveness at all (up from 2.1% in 2020), and formal recidivism checks against justice-system records fell from 46.8% (2020) to 21.3% (2026) -- so GRH has strong process data on reach and participation, but by the CNJ's own admission does not yet have a rigorous, standardised measure of whether it reduces reoffending.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — National judiciary infrastructure across hundreds of courts; specific budget not disclosed.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — First groups from 2008; national mapping series 2020, 2023, 2026; nationally recommended since 2022.
Staffing & skills
judiciary-run GRH facilitators, CNJ, Cocevid and UFSC Grupo Margens researchers

Conditions for success

  • a national recommendation (124/2022) urging all state courts to institute programmes
  • a repeated, standardised national mapping to track growth and process quality

Common failure modes

  • nearly a quarter of groups report not measuring effectiveness at all
  • formal recidivism checks against justice-system records have declined, partly due to facilitators' difficulty accessing judicial data
  • no rigorous, standardised measure yet of whether GRH reduces reoffending

Where it fits

Governance type
national judiciary programme
Scale
national (every region of Brazil)
Income level
upper-middle income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful