No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A Systematic Review of Intimate Partner Violence Protection Order Research: A Decade of Insight
Abstract
This comprehensive review synthesizes scholarly research on intimate partner violence (IPV) and restraining/protection orders (POs), addressing various dimensions including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and legal issues. Results show ongoing disparities in men’s accessibility to POs despite experiencing IPV at comparable rates to women and men’s experiences continue to be severely underrepresented in research. Similarly, no studies were found regarding the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. Consistent with previous research, gender biases in PO issuances were found, while historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups’ racial and ethnic minorities continue to encounter systemic difficulties. The review also highlights the importance of comprehensive studies on firearm dispossession in IPV contexts and the interplay of legal and extralegal factors influencing PO outcomes and victim experiences. Further, legislative reforms are crucial to address age and gender disparities in accessing POs, with variations in definitions of dating violence and access to specialized courts. Tailored interventions based on offender demographics are critical for effective IPV prevention, requiring further research on diverse populations. Despite progress, barriers to reporting and help-seeking persist, hindering survivor access to support services and legal protection. International studies reveal differing patterns of service utilization and legal outcomes, demonstrating the global challenge of IPV.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Teen dating violence (TDV) is a public health crisis that organizations and individuals in several fields are working to prevent and address. State lawmakers are a group with substantial power to address TDV and intimate partner violence (IPV) through policies including Civil Protection Order (CPO) statutes. Understanding the factors that influence how state legislators craft TDV and IPV policies and how those policies are implemented can lead to policy processes that better serve survivors. Past research suggests the level of gender inequality in a state may be an important influence on TDV policies. This study used a case study approach to compare the processes of adding individuals in dating relationships to CPO statutes in a subset of states (n = 3) with high, middle, and low levels of gender inequality. Results did not suggest that gender inequality was related to variation between states but rather that it was a larger factor that creates the need for TDV policies at all. Relationships between the state IPV coalitions and lawmakers and the historical moment that laws were considered emerged as important factors in interstate variation. Future research can build on these results by further exploring the role of gender inequality in policy processes with additional states or policies and by examining the factors identified here in greater depth. Implications for practice are also discussed.
The legal granting of temporary and permanent protective orders prohibits a perpetrator from engaging in contact with the victim. Although protective orders reduce risk of re-abuse, very little research has explored factors that predict the likelihood that a victim is granted a protective order. Thus, we conducted an archival analysis on data previously collected from a Protection Order Assistance Office in a midwestern region of the United States, testing the influence of victim and perpetrator race on protective order allocations. Specifically, we coded data gathered from 490 petitioners (i.e., victims) seeking a protective order against a perpetrator of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual offending. Analyses revealed that racial minority victims were significantly less likely to receive a temporary protective order compared to White victims – effects that were exacerbated when the perpetrator was White (versus racial minority). These results are in line with existing research and theory regarding aversive racism. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.
Consistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence framework, court decisions and processes can have a therapeutic or antitherapeutic effect on intimate partner violence (IPV) victims. To maximize therapeutic effects, IPV scholars have advocated for survivor-defined practices that emphasize the importance of engaging with victims in a collaborative manner that promotes autonomy, choice, and control. However, limited research exists in the context of criminal protection orders (POs). The current study addressed this gap by assessing whether criminal PO match (whether victims received the level PO they requested [i.e., PO match] or not [i.e., PO mismatch]) and victims’ subjective experiences of the court process were associated with their willingness to use the system in the future to address IPV. In a sample of 187 women whose partners were arrested for IPV, experiencing the court processes as positive (β = .36, p = .001) and court-related fear (β = .41, p < .001) were positively associated with willingness to use the system in the future. Additionally, PO match moderated the association between subjective court experiences and willingness to use the system in the future. Experiencing the court processes as negative (b = .33, p = .005) and validating (b = –.36, p = .001) was associated with willingness to use the system in the future only for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. While experiencing the court as positive (b = –.40, p ≤ .001) was associated with willingness to use the system regardless of PO match, it was most strongly associated for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. Results suggest the importance of ascertaining strategies to improve victims’ experiences with the court, especially when victims’ requests are not met, to increase future engagement with the system.
Importance
Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws temporarily suspend firearm and ammunition access by individuals whom a judge has deemed to be at substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Despite widespread recent adoption of these laws, use of ERPOs has been limited. Barriers to ERPO uptake remain unclear.
Objective
To assess public awareness and perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use ERPOs in various risk scenarios, and to identify reasons for being unwilling, overall and by firearm ownership status, to inform efforts to improve ERPO implementation.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, a statewide internet survey on firearm ownership and exposure to violence and its consequences, conducted from July 14 to July 27, 2020. Adult respondents were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel using probability-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Awareness and perceived appropriateness of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs; California’s official term for ERPOs), willingness to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm, and reasons for being not at all willing to use a GVRO in 1 or more risk scenarios, overall and by firearm ownership status.
Results
Of the 5018 panel members invited, 2870 (57%) completed the survey. Of these respondents (mean [SD] age: 47.9 [16.9] years; 52.3% women; 41.9% White, 34.7% Latinx, 14.4% Asian, and 5.8% Black individuals), 65.6% (95% CI, 63.0%-68.1) had never heard of a GVRO or a red flag law. Firearm owners were significantly more likely (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.9%-26.0%) than nonowners who live with owners (6.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.0%; P < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; P < .001) to have heard of both a GVRO and a red flag law. After reading a brief description of California’s GVRO law, 72.9% (95% CI, 70.2%-75.4%) to 78.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-80.8%) of respondents, depending on the risk scenario, indicated that GVROs were in general at least sometimes appropriate, while 73.2% (95% CI, 70.5%-75.6%) to 83.6% (95% CI, 81.2%-85.8%) said they would be somewhat or very willing to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm. Firearm owners reported the highest levels of GVRO appropriateness in 4 of 5 risk scenarios (depending on the scenario, 80.0% [95% CI, 73.6%-85.1%] to 85.6% [95% CI, 79.9%-89.8%]). Nonowners who live with owners reported the highest levels of personal willingness to use a GVRO (depending on the scenario, 83.7% [95% CI, 74.7%-90.0%] to 94.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-98.1%]). The most frequently cited reasons for being unwilling to use a GVRO were not knowing enough about GVROs (44.9%; 95% CI, 39.7%-50.3%), believing the risk scenarios are personal or family matters (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.6%), and distrust that the system will be fair (23.1%; 95% CI, 19.1%-27.6%).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this cross-sectional survey study, public awareness of GVROs was low, but perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use these tools at least some of the time was high. Foci for efforts to address barriers to GVRO use in California were identified; similar challenges likely exist in other jurisdictions.
Background
Fatal mass shootings, defined as four or more people killed by gunfire, excluding the perpetrator, account for a small percentage of firearm homicide fatalities. Research has not extensively focused on the role of domestic violence (DV) in mass shootings in the United States. This study explores the role of DV in mass shootings in the United States.
Methods
Using 2014–2019 mass shooting data from the Gun Violence Archive, we indexed our data by year and mass shooting and collected the number of deaths and injuries. We reviewed news articles for each mass shooting to determine if it was 1) DV-related (i.e., at least one victim of a mass shooting was a dating partner or family member of the perpetrator); 2) history of DV (i.e., the perpetrator had a history of DV but the mass shooting was not directed toward partners or family members); or 3) non-DV-related (i.e., the victims were not partners or family members, nor was there mention of the perpetrator having a history of DV). We conducted descriptive analyses to summarize the percent of mass shootings that were DV-related, history of DV, or non-DV-related, and analyzed how many perpetrators died during the incidents. We conducted one-way ANOVA to examine whether there were differences in the average number of injuries or fatalities or the case fatality rates (CFR) between the three categories. One outlier and 17 cases with unknown perpetrators were excluded from our main analysis.
Results
We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose.
Conclusions
Most mass shootings are related to DV. DV-related shootings had higher CFR than those unrelated to DV. Given these findings, restricting access to guns by perpetrators of DV may affect the occurrence of mass shootings and associated casualties.
Purpose:
To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH.
Method:
We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH.
Results:
We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO.
Conclusions:
The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.
Women engage in multiple strategies to cope with the impact of intimate partner violence (IPV). Prior research has focused predominantly on women’s service utilization and help seeking as individual acts, yet it is likely that women engage in distinct patterns of multiple help-seeking strategies to achieve safety. As such, the current article examines patterns of service-related help-seeking strategies survivors employ. This article also investigates demographic factors, relationship characteristics, and mental and physical health effects of IPV associated with patterns of help seeking. Using a web-based survey, data were collected from service-engaged adult female IPV survivors (n = 369) in the Southwest region of the United States. Latent class analysis (LCA), a person-centered analytical approach, was used to identify survivors’ patterns of help seeking. A 3-class LCA model was determined to be the best fit for the data. Among the sample, 50% of women broadly engaged formal and informal networks, 15% primarily engaged informal networks, and 35% broadly engaged networks but avoided legal systems while seeking other formal services. Findings indicated varying and significant associations between class membership and race/ethnicity, foreign-born status, number of children, IPV severity, and mental health symptoms. The findings reinforce the need for practitioners to be aware of the varied ways women choose or avoid seeking help and explore women’s preferences. Comprehensive and collaborative service networks are necessary for early detection and holistic care. Addressing structural factors is imperative for expanding the range of viable support options available to IPV survivors, particularly women of color.
The current study seeks to better understand the experiences of English as Second Language (ELS) and/or Limited English Proficiency (LEP) petitioners as they access the court system for civil protection orders. In analyzing structured observations of protection order hearings, three themes emerged: 1) Delays in Court for ESL/LEP Cases, 2) Judicial Reactions to ESL/LEP Applications, and 3) ESL/LEP Petitioners’ Experiences are Lost in Translation. Together, these themes suggest that language barriers exacerbate vulnerability to re-victimization and contribute to a broader understanding of justice system linguistic integration. To better address the needs of ESL/LEP populations, civil court systems must not only employ additional qualified interpreters but also ensure that they have received the highest certification possible. Acquiring added fiscal resources is key. Directions for future research are also noted.
Intimate partner violence, stalking, and technology-based abuse increasingly intersect as online surveillance has become more easily accessible. Despite the ubiquity of information communication technologies across all aspects of social life, definitions and measurement of stalking have not kept pace with this cultural shift. This article describes stalking and technology-based abuse across three samples of intimate partner violence survivors. Over a period of 6 years (2012–2018), data were collected from survivors of intimate partner violence (n = 1137) receiving services from domestic violence programs (including shelter). Three forms of data collection were employed across two studies: pen-and-paper surveys, web-based surveys, and qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data were combined and analyzed to document and compare women’s reports of stalking and technology-based abuse. Across the two quantitative samples, 62–72% of women reported experiencing direct stalking and 60–63% reported experiencing technology-based abuse by an intimate partner. Qualitative data are used to describe and contextualize women’s reports of stalking and technology-based abuse. Stalking and technology-based abuse are contingent upon the context, including frequency, duration, history of abuse, and patterns of behavior. Due to the subjective nature of online interactions, it is challenging to create definitions and measures that capture these forms of abuse. Indeed, survivors themselves may not have a clear understanding of the threshold at which monitoring behaviors become abusive. Researchers should work to better understand definitions, measurement, and consequences of technology-based abuse and stalking while advocates and legislators move toward creating legal protections for survivors.
Importance
On October 1, 2018, Maryland’s extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law took effect. This was the first ERPO law in the United States to authorize clinicians to initiate a civil court process to temporarily prohibit people behaving dangerously and at risk of engaging in violence from purchasing and possessing firearms. This is the first publication reporting results from a survey of physicians about ERPOs.
Objectives
To assess Maryland physicians’ knowledge, past use, and likely future use of ERPOs, and to identify barriers to physicians’ use of ERPOs and strategies to address those barriers.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This survey study conducted at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, surveyed physicians, including emergency medicine physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, using a 15-question online instrument between June 15, 2019, and July 1, 2019. Data analysis was performed in July 2019.
Exposure
Maryland’s ERPO law.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Knowledge, use, and likely use of ERPOs, barriers to use, and strategies to address those barriers.
Results
Ninety-two of 353 physicians invited (26.1%) completed the survey; 1 respondent reported having filed an ERPO petition. Sixty-six respondents (71.7%) described themselves as not at all familiar with ERPOs. After reading a brief description of the ERPO law, 85 respondents (92.4%) indicated that they encounter patients whom they would consider for an ERPO at least a few times per year. Fifty-five respondents (59.8%) reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to file an ERPO petition when they identify a qualifying patient. Respondents identified time as the main barrier to using ERPOs (not enough time to complete paperwork, 57 respondents [62.6%]; not enough time to attend hearing at courthouse, 64 respondents [70.3%]), followed by concern that filing an ERPO would negatively affect their relationship with the patient (36 respondents [39.6%]). Having a coordinator to manage the process (80 respondents [87.0%]), training (79 respondents [85.9%]), participating in court hearings remotely (68 respondents [73.9%]), and having access to legal counsel (59 respondents [64.1%]) were all selected by large majorities of respondents as strategies to address barriers to ERPO use.
Conclusions and Relevance
Awareness of ERPOs among physicians in the sample was low. Physicians are treating patients who would qualify for an ERPO, and respondents in the sample indicated a willingness to use ERPOs. Training, providing access to legal counsel, designating a clinician to process petitions, and allowing clinicians to participate remotely in court hearings were strategies respondents identified to address barriers to ERPO use. These survey findings identify concrete solutions for addressing barriers to physician use of ERPOs.
There is extensive debate about whether criminal justice responses are appropriate or effective in helping domestic violence (DV) victim/survivors achieve safety. Supporters argue that criminalization best protects victim/survivors; others have expressed serious concerns about the unintended consequences of criminalization. Victim/survivors (especially women of color) are routinely made more vulnerable by the legal resources designed to help them. They are often arrested with or instead of their abuser, prosecuted for DV as “victim-defendants,” and reported to governmental agencies such as child protection services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Even the protection order system may not provide safety, especially when abusers are able to obtain protection orders against victim/survivors. We examine one facet of the “abuse-to-prison” pipeline – cross-filings for protection orders. We analyze 313 cross-filings for protection orders, comparing them to 1,004 single-filings. We find that cross-filings are a gendered phenomenon, with men more likely to be involved in cross-filings than women, and men less likely than women to report the types of abuse that qualifies for an order. Cross-filings may be an example of abusers leveraging the legal system to extend control over victim/survivors, rendering victim/survivors ineligible for resources and making them vulnerable to arrest and other forms of state control.
All states issue criminal protection orders (POs) with the intention of improving the lives of victims of domestic violence (DV); however, there is a dearth of research examining their impact. This study aims to examine the impact of criminal POs with different levels of restrictions on victims’ revictimization, mental health, and well-being. A cross-sectional design was used to collect data regarding two time points during one interview among a sample of 298 victims in a criminal DV case. Across the three levels of PO restrictions (limited, residential stay-away, and full no-contact), participants reported significantly reduced physical, sexual, and psychological DV; unwanted pursuit behavior; post-traumatic stress and depression symptom severity; and perceived stress and fear of revictimization. The amount of change varied between groups for revictimization variables. Full no-contact restrictions were associated with the greatest decreases in revictimization. However, findings must be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity in victims’ experiences; some victims experienced an increase in revictimization and mental health problems and a decrease in well-being. Findings suggest that the court, through criminal POs, may be a system through which to reach victims who might not otherwise connect with services to promote safety and resilience.
Using observational data obtained from a sample of 303 protection order hearings in a large Southwestern city, the current study explores the impact of formal (i.e., presiding Hearing Master, legal counsel, courtroom-employed translator) and informal actors (i.e., victim advocate, family members, friends) on civil protection order (CPO) decisions. Several multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the net and context-specific effects of these legal and informal actors on the likelihood of receiving an order of protection and its length of time. When examining the effectiveness of courtroom actors in assisting domestic violence (DV)/ intimate partner violence (IPV) victims with their CPO cases, this study finds that whether or not a victim successfully obtains a protection order, and for how long, depends on a range of case attributes as well as who is actually present in the courtroom with the victim. As these findings suggest, gatekeepers matter depending on a range of case attributes. States should allocate additional resources and funding to non-profit agencies to continue to promote affordable/free legal services through legal aid and other similar legal entities as well as offer continued support for victim advocacy and self-help centers.
The domestic violence protection order (DVO) system is a hybrid system of criminalisation in which the DVO itself is a civil order, but any contravention of that order may result in a criminal charge. Limited attention has been paid to the potential consequences of criminalisation through the hybrid DVO system in the Australian context. We use Queensland as a case study and examine administrative data gathered through Queensland Courts. We show that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people are named on DVOs, charged with contraventions of DVOs and significantly more likely than non-Indigenous people to receive a sentence of imprisonment for a contravention of a DVO, compared to non-Indigenous people. We find that ATSI women are particularly overrepresented in this system. We review explanations for these startling figures and emphasize the need for a change in approach.
Legal responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) can determine whether and how those exposed to IPV seek help. Understanding the victim’s perspective is essential to developing policy and practice standards, as well as informing professionals working in policing and the justice system. In this survey study, we utilized a subset of 2,831 people who reported experiencing IPV to examine (a) rates of reporting to the police; (b) experiences with, and perceived helpfulness of, police; (c) rates of involvement with the criminal and family law systems, including protection orders; and (d) experiences with, and perceived helpfulness of, the justice system. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for closed-ended survey questions and content analysis of text responses. More than 35% of victims reported a violent incident to the police, and perceptions of helpfulness were mixed. Fewer victims were involved with the criminal and family law systems, and their satisfaction also varied. Text responses provided insight into possible reasons for the variability found in experiences, for example, the proposed role of victim and system expectations, and respondents’ perception that getting help depends on “being lucky” with the officials encountered.
The study examined patterns of utilization of various services among female victims of domestic violence in Israel. The study looked at how cultural background, characteristics of violence, attempts at separation from partner, and women’s emotional distress contributed to patterns of service utilization. The sample of participants included 499 women who arrived at 12 shelters in Israel. Of those participants, 142 were Jewish, 156 were Arab, 125 had been born in the former Soviet Union (FSU), and 76 had been born in Ethiopia. Latent class analysis procedure was applied to identified patterns of service utilization. The procedure identified three patterns of service utilization: substantial use, frequent use of welfare and criminal justice services, and minimal use. Among Arab women, the likelihood of making substantial use of services was greater than the likelihood of making minimal use. Moreover, among the entire sample, the higher the levels of sexual abuse, violence, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the greater the likelihood of substantial versus minimal use of services. In addition, being employed, enduring higher levels of violence, and making attempts to separate increased the likelihood of utilization of welfare and criminal justice services versus minimal use. The study highlights the factors that motivate women to make use of services and the distinct strategies they use in the help-seeking process. At the practice level, the study emphasizes the need to take into account both the woman’s cultural context and the stage of help seeking she is at. In this way, professionals can provide differential treatment accordingly.
Objective:
The goal of this study was to assess the frequency, nature, and outcome of weapon use in intimate partner violence (IPV) and to assess compliance with related gun policies.
Methods:
Data were drawn from forms police are mandated to complete at the scene of IPV in the fifth largest U.S. city during 2013. Proportions were calculated and odds ratios were adjusted for demographic and contextual characteristics and a Bonferroni correction for multiple statistical tests was applied.
Results:
Of the 35,413 incidents, 6,573 involved hands, fists, or feet, and 1,866 involved external weapons of which 576 were guns. Most incidents were male-on-female: 63.4% (no weapon), 77.4% (bodily weapon), 50.2% (nongun external weapon), and 79.5% (gun). Guns were used most often to threaten the partner (69.1%). When a gun (vs. bodily or nongun external weapon) was used, IPV victims were less likely to have visible injuries (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.64 and 0.23, respectively)-offenders were less likely to have pushed or shoved, grabbed, punched, or kicked the victim-but (victims) were more likely to be frightened (AOR = 3.13 and 1.49, respectively).
Conclusions:
Weapon use of any type by an intimate partner is associated with a wide range of violent offender behavior and multiple negative outcomes for victims. The use of a gun has implications that include, but go beyond, physical injury of the victim. Documentation of the enforcement of state law regarding gun removal merits improvement, which has important implications for the evaluation of policies designed to keep guns out of the hands of abusers.
This mixed-methods study examines the impact of immigration status on the ability of Latina survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) to file for and obtain a domestic violence protection order. Undocumented Latinas living in shelters are less likely to know what a protection order is or how to obtain one. At the same time, undocumented Latinas are more likely to believe that their partner would follow an order and that police would arrest their partner for a violation. Latina survivors of IPV live at the nexus of multiple systems of oppression; therefore, understanding their experiences using an intersectional framework is critically important.
Research typically compartmentalizes health and justice as separate areas of study. However, the current health literature on inequality suggests the two concepts are overlapping. For victims of partner violence, procedural justice (defined in this article as access to protective orders and enforcement of protective orders) potentially provides a step toward improved health and well-being by improving safety. There has been limited research examining these factors in rural compared with urban areas. This study examines the impact of procedural justice on health and well-being through interviews with rural and urban women 6 months prior to, and 6 months after, obtaining a protective order. Consistent with other literature, rural women who were victims of partner violence reported worse health, higher stress, and higher Stress-Related Consequences Scale scores compared with urban women. Women’s reported health consequences were related to the interaction of perceived ineffectiveness of the protective orders and their rural/urban environment. Thus, the perceived effectiveness of procedural justice may play an important role in alleviating victims’ safety, health, and well-being, all of which are components of contemporary views of justice.
Few studies examine the comparative effectiveness of different formal interventions for domestic violence. Using arrest and civil protection order data, we compare three intervention scenarios (arrest, civil protection order, and both). Results suggest that intervention type has no substantive influence on the odds of reoffending. However, subsequent domestic violence is significantly associated with offender age, sex, and prior offense history as well as victim age and sex. We discuss our findings and their policy implications, noting that responding agencies should be sensitive to the characteristics that increase the odds of reoffending among those they come into contact with.
Objectives:
To determine risk factors for violent death of women in the home, and particularly, to assess the strength and direction of any association between domestic violence or keeping firearms and homicide or suicide in the home.Methods:
Subgroup analysis of a large population-based case-control study database was performed, defining cases as all homicides and suicides occurring in the homes of female victims in 3 metropolitan counties: Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Randomly selected control subjects were matched to the victims by neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Exposures to potential risk factors were ascertained by interviewing a proxy for the victim 3 to 6 weeks after the violent death occurred. These answers were compared with those obtained from controls using matched-pairs methods.Results:
All cases (n=266) were identified in the 3-county area, including 143 homicides and 123 suicides, during a 5-year period. Matching controls (n=266) were also identified. Firearms were involved in 46% of the homicides and 42% of the suicides. Independent risk factors for suicide in the home included a history of mental illness (odds ratio [OR], 258.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2-3679.8), living alone (OR, 13.4; 95% CI, 2.0-87.8), and having 1 or more guns in the home (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.2-17.5). Independent risk factors for homicide included living alone (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.0-13.2), illicit drug use by any member of the household (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.3-15.9), prior domestic violence (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.5-10.5), 1 or more guns in the home (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.6- 7.1), and previous arrest of any member of the household (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.6). The increased risk of homicide associated with domestic violence, firearms, or illicit drugs was attributable to the homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.Conclusions:
Among women, mental illness and living alone increase the risk of suicide in the home, and household use of illicit drugs and prior domestic violence increase the risk of homicide. Instead of conferring protection, keeping a gun in the home is associated with increased risk of both suicide and homicide of women. Household use of illicit drugs, domestic violence, and readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. Many factors place women at increased risk of violent death in the home. Community- and clinic-based interventions should target those with identifiable risk factors.Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:777-782
Social support has been found in many studies to be a protective factor for those exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV), but personal resilience has received far less attention. The present study concerns 136 female IPV victims seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Family Justice Center (FJC). The relationships between IPV victimization, social support, resilience, and psychological distress were examined. Hierarchical regressions found that both perceived social support and self-reported resilience were inversely associated with distress symptoms. Higher social support was associated with lower trauma symptoms, controlling for abuse history, demographics, and resilience. Higher resilience was associated with lower mood symptoms and lower perceived stress, controlling for abuse history, demographics, and social support. No significant associations were recorded for anger symptoms. These findings suggest that fostering resilience can have important health benefits for IPV victims, above and beyond the well-known benefits of social support. Ways that resilience might be cultivated in this population and other implications for practice are discussed.
Protection orders (POs) are a widely recommended and commonly used intervention for intimate partner violence (IPV), but evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. This mixed methods study used the framework of empowerment to explore the goals of petitioners who seek POs, and the extent to which one group of experts considers these goals to be a good fit with the court’s intent. We collected data in three phases: (a) We conducted a qualitative study to generate a list of goals (n = 10); (b) we administered the list to a sample of IPV survivors (n = 157); and (c) we surveyed a group of attorneys (n = 10). Results showed that petitioners endorse many goals for seeking POs and that while their highest priority goals relate to safety, other nearly universally endorsed goals are more psychological in nature, such as moving on with one’s life. Petitioners also use the orders to navigate complex relationships, helping themselves to set boundaries in addition to sending a clear message to respondents. Our group of lawyers viewed petitioners’ highest priority goals as a relatively good fit with the system, but was fairly pessimistic about the likelihood of success. Petitioners’ ratings of progress toward their goals, at the time of the PO hearing, differed markedly from lawyers’ perceptions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Logistic regression was used to assess five different police actions that an investigating police officer can choose to employ when handling a domestic violence call. Each significantly increases the likelihood the prosecutor will file charges: obtain photographs (60 percent); find and arrest the defendant (94 percent); obtain an emergency protective order (87 percent); locate additional witnesses (68 percent); and list more than one criminal charge in the police report (284 percent). Three optional police actions increase the likelihood of criminal conviction: find and arrest the defendant (78 percent); obtain an emergency protective order (102 percent); list more than one charge (142 percent). Survival analysis shows a sixth action, completing the investigation the same day, to significantly increase rates of criminal case filing and also rates of criminal conviction. A strong case, best practices model for the investigation of domestic violence incidents was validated and is presented. Police discretion is discussed. Lawmakers should consider making these optional investigative actions mandatory.
Although previous research has examined arrests for intimate partner violence (IPV), most of these analyses focus exclusively on physical assault and intimidation. Research on arrests for sexual assault have examined arrests for cases of stranger and/or acquaintance sexual assault, but have not included sexual IPV. Using data from the 2010 National Incident-Based Reporting System, this analysis is the first to calculate and compare arrest rates for sexual IPV, physical IPV, and intimidation. Results indicate that after controlling for other factors, police are less likely to make an arrest in cases of sexual IPV than in cases of physical IPV or intimidation. These findings are discussed in the context of the consequences of sexual assault on IPV victims.
Thousands of women each year initiate the process of obtaining a restraining order against a violent partner. Although many women request an emergency restraining order, many fail to return to obtain a final 1-year order. The present study examined factors associated with completion of this process. Sixty-five women who initiated the process of securing a restraining order against a male partner participated in the study. Participants completed an interview, self-report measures, and were followed up to determine final restraining order status. Less than half of the women who initiated the process obtained final orders. Women who indicated an attachment to the abusive partner were less likely to complete the process. Perceived threat to the women facilitated persistence with the process; however, when the threat involved her children, women were less likely to persist. Understanding factors influencing persistence in help seeking, especially attachment and threat, is a crucial step toward enhancing interventions to facilitate efforts toward violence-free lives.
This study sought to review the extant literature on effectiveness and safety
associated with orders of protection from abuse. Forty-three scholarly articles
were reviewed and placed in a table representing four themes, including (a)
victim safety and effectiveness (as measured by protective order [PO] violations
and revictimization); (b) perceptions of victim satisfaction, safety, and psychological
well-being; (c) predictors and characteristics of victims, perpetrators;
and (d) the enforcement of POs. Results suggest that approximately 40%–50%
of POs are violated. Although some large-scale studies have found significant
reductions in revictimization, a larger number of smaller community samples
have found physical and psychological abuse increases upon issuance of a PO.
Research on perceived safety and effectiveness suggests female victims feel
safer when POs are issued and find them effective. Issues associated with enforcement
demonstrate difficulty enforcing and POs. Issues of public policy and
directions for future research are discussed.
Every state in the United States authorizes its courts to issue civil orders of protection for victims of domestic violence.
Ideally, restraining orders should be available to all victims. However, consistent with the patriarchal paradigm, research
suggests that judicial responses to domestic violence temporary restraining order (TRO) requests may be sex-differentiated.
This paper reports on a study that explored equal protection issues in family law by evaluating gender and violence profiles
of a random sample of 157 TRO petitions involving intimate partners, dating couples, and married persons in a California district
court. The majority of cases involved allegations of low or moderate levels of violence perpetrated by male defendants against
female plaintiffs. Although there were no systematic differences in level of violence as a function of plaintiff sex, judges
were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a
TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner. Further analyses revealed that this sex differentiation was
limited to cases involving allegations of low-level violence.
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to provide an overview of state laws on domestic violence protection orders (DVPO) for teen dating violence. DVPOs are one legal remedy that is available to victims of intimate partner violence to reduce the potential risk of future violence. However, minors are often prohibited from filing a DVPO on their own due to statutory requirements.
Method
Using multiple resources and a Westlaw search, we developed a list of state laws pertaining to the statutory requirements for DVPOs for partner-abused minors. We detailed the content of each state’s laws and specific requirements, including self-petitioning, eligible age, dating relationship, and stalking. Additionally, we explored how statutes were interpreted by judicial and non-judicial branches of the governments and nonprofit victim service organizations, and searched other statutory provisions for states where the state statute on the DVPO eligibility for teen dating violence was unclear.
Findings
Our findings indicate that state statutes vary in terms of whether minors can be granted DVPOs, whether they can self-petition without a guardian, whether a non-sexual romantic relationship is covered, and whether stalking is covered. Additionally, a variety of courts’ practices and governmental opinions pertaining to protection remedies for child abuse, sexual violence, harassment, or stalking and other statutory provisions other than DVPOs was found.
Discussion
This research discusses the importance of more inclusive statutory revisions in each state, and the need to secure greater information accessibility to eligibility requirements, instructions, and procedures for obtaining a DVPO for minors.
Research summary
We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders ( n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession ( n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender ( n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).
Policy implications
Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.
Background
Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use firearms to injure, scare, and manipulate their partners. Abusers who have a firearm in their homes are more likely to threaten and/or kill their partner. To date, however, limited research documents the nature of IPV perpetrator firearm access or the prevalence of nonfatal firearm abuse behaviors.
Methods
Federal law restricts firearm access for IPV perpetrators in qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) cases; thus, information about firearms should be disclosed during the DVPO process. We used secondary data from civil DVPO cases (n = 406) in North Carolina that were collected using a representative sampling strategy. Data were from DVPO case files and structured DVPO hearing observations. We conducted a content analysis to record IPV perpetrator access to guns and reported firearm abuse behaviors. We used a linear regression analysis to determine whether IPV perpetrator gun access was associated with higher levels of abuse. We also examined factors associated with perpetration of nonfatal firearm abuse.
Results
We found evidence of perpetrator firearm access in nearly half of all cases (46%, n = 108). Controlling for covariates, gun access was significantly associated with higher levels of reported IPV (b = 0.5, p < .001). Firearm abuse was reported in nearly one out of four cases (23.1%, n = 101), and often entailed spoken threats, displaying a gun, or holding a partner at gun point. The only factors associated with firearm abuse in the multivariate models were related to English language speaking/fluency.
Conclusions
Gun access should be considered an indicator for severe IPV. We must ensure that existing legal mechanisms to identify and restrict abuser access to firearms are fully implemented and enforced. Firearm abuse often manifests as non-physical coercive control which is traumatic and has the potential to escalate to homicide, even in the absence of past physical violence.
Protection orders (POs) are one legal system resource available to survivors of intimate partner violence. Many survivors choose not to obtain a PO, yet prior research has not examined the perspectives of these survivors. This study examined the open-ended survey responses ( n = 308) regarding the choice not to obtain a PO by survivors residing in emergency shelters in the United States. Content analysis indicated that many survivors made deliberate decisions to not seek safety through this venue. Survivors indicated that a PO may increase their partner’s violence, identified substantial barriers, evaluated a PO as unnecessary, preferred alternative strategies, were dealing with complex partner dynamics, and chose to protect their loved ones by not seeking a PO. Women with marginalized identities, in particular, indicated that there are multiple costs to seeking interventions within the legal system. Structural changes are needed within the legal system to facilitate access to justice for survivors.
Purpose:
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among adolescents. Civil protection orders (CPOs) are the most common legal remedy used by individuals experiencing IPV to prevent recurrence. However, laws on whether adolescents can access CPOs vary by state. We assessed the landscape of state legislation regarding adolescents' access to CPOs for IPV.
Methods:
We systematically assessed statutes across all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia for 5 indicators: whether minors can be granted CPOs, whether minors can file on their own behalf, whether dating relationships are eligible, definitions of abuse qualifying for CPOs, and whether a CPO prohibits firearm possession and requires surrender of firearms.
Results:
A total of 48 states (94%) explicitly allow minors to obtain CPOs. Fourteen states (27%) explicitly allow minors to file for a CPO on their own behalf. Forty-four states (86%) recognize dating relationships as qualifying relationships for a CPO. A CPO may be issued for physical violence in all 51 states (100%), sexual violence in 46 states (90%), threats of physical or sexual violence in 47 states (92%), stalking in 44 states (86%), and psychological/emotional violence in 28 states (55%). In 22 states (43%), an individual subject to a CPO is prohibited from possessing firearms and is required to surrender firearms they already have.
Conclusions:
There is a significant variation in states' CPO statutes related to adolescent IPV. Improvements in legislation that reduce the barriers to legal relief for those experiencing violence can be an important part of a comprehensive solution to reducing IPV among adolescents.
Intimate partner violence continues to be a widespread and serious problem. African American women experience a high lifetime prevalence of physical intimate partner violence, but resources for them are often scarce. This mixed-methods analysis of telephone survey responses found that women who were African American, had less education, and were dissatisfied with criminal justice responses to an abusive incident were less likely to seek personal protection orders (PPOs). The qualitative analysis showed that many women did not seek POs because their assessment of their partners indicated it was not needed or increased risk. Practical obstacles in obtaining orders were noteworthy.
Though gun violence is a global issue, the risk of firearm death is substantially higher in the United States than in other high-income nations. Guns are deeply rooted within American culture; however, different subcultures exist along the urban-rural divide. Such differences between urban and rural communities related to gun culture have been dubbed “firearm localism.” We investigated firearm localism in a state that has the highest proportion of firearm-related domestic violence homicide and a large rural area representing a subgroup of rural culture: Appalachia. Specifically, key professionals reported issues related to domestic violence gun control in their communities. We conducted phone and in-person surveys with a sample of community professionals (N = 133) working in victim services and the justice system in urban and Appalachian communities. Despite evidence of a strong gun culture in the rural communities, both urban and rural professionals estimated that about two-thirds of their community would support restricting abusers' firearm access. Additionally, rural professionals were more likely to show concern for abusers' Second Amendment rights when discussing unintended negative consequences of gun confiscation; urban professionals were more likely to point out that gun confiscation can provide a false sense of security for victims. Policy implications are discussed.
The Personal Protection Order (PPO) is one civil intervention all states provide to victims of domestic violence; however, each state varies widely in who can access PPOs, what protections are included in PPOs, and how they are enforced. Given the many changes to state PPO statutes over the last decade, this research replicates and updates DeJong and Burgess-Proctor’s research on PPOs’ victim-friendliness (using states’ 2003 PPO statutes) by examining states’ 2014 PPO statutes. Findings suggest that states have become more victim-friendly with most states ranking in the highest category of victim-friendliness. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Under federal and many state laws, persons under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) are prohibited from possession of firearms. Using multiple sources and a Lexis Nexis search, we developed a list of state laws pertaining to the relinquishment or removal of firearms from persons prohibited from possession by DVROs. After downloading the text of each law, we conducted a legal analysis to enumerate provisions of the laws specifying implementation. We found 49 laws in 29 states and Washington, DC. The laws were conceptualized as instructions to the court, the respondent, and law enforcement. We detail the content of each state’s law, including such elements as whether it applies to ex parte DVROs; whether certain criteria must be met, such as previous use of a firearm in domestic violence or lack of an employment exemption, before the law can be applied; and whether the application of the law is mandatory. We also detail instructions to the respondent regarding to whom firearms may be relinquished, whether the respondent must seek permission to transfer the firearm to a third party, and the time by which dispossession must occur. Finally, whether law enforcement bears the responsibility for removing the firearm or whether the law gives the court the authority to order a search and seizure for the firearms is discussed. The purpose of the research is to provide an overview of these state laws that can be used by key stakeholders in legislative, judicial, advocacy, or research roles. Implications are discussed.
Guns figure prominently in the homicide of women by an intimate partner. Less is known, however, about their nonfatal use against an intimate partner. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched eight electronic databases and identified 10 original research articles that reported the prevalence of the nonfatal use of firearms against an intimate partner. Results indicate that (1) there is relatively little research on the subject of intimate partners’ nonfatal gun use against women. (2) The number of U.S. women alive today who have had an intimate partner use a gun against them is substantial: About 4.5 million have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun and nearly 1 million have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner. Whether nonfatal gun use is limited to the extreme form of abuse (battering) or whether it occurs in the context of situational violence remains to be seen. Regardless, when it comes to the likely psychological impact, it may be a distinction without a difference; because guns can be lethal quickly and with relatively little effort, displaying or threatening with a gun can create a context known as coercive control, which facilitates chronic and escalating abuse. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed, all of which include expanding an implicit focus on homicide to include an intimate partner’s nonfatal use of a gun.
In the USA, civil protection orders, commonly known as restraining orders, have been underutilized as a means of protecting victims of intimate partner violence. It has been proposed that part of the reason for this underutilization is victim apprehension over treatment by the courts. To improve the experience of accessing legal relief, Court Watch programs have been implemented in various jurisdictions across the country. Court Watch programs monitor judicial behavior on several dimensions, including whether interactions with victims are informational, explanatory, participatory, and respectful. Using secondary data obtained from a Florida Court Watch program, this study examines judicial behavior in 500 civil protection order hearings for intimate partner violence. Applying quantitative and qualitative analytic strategies, we examine Court Watch perceptions of judicial behavior, the association between Court Watch perceptions of judicial behavior and civil protection order outcomes, and factors that might account for judicial behavior.
We examined whether risks to children of intimate partner violence survivors affected the type of legal assistance accessed. We hypothesized that the level and type of perceived child risk would be associated with whether women sought a protection order in civil court or filed charges against a current or former intimate partner in criminal court. Using data from a sample of predominantly African American women (N=293), we found that some forms of child risk were positively associated with seeking a civil order of protection but negatively associated with pressing criminal charges. Implications for practice, policy, and future research are presented.
This literature review examines the existing empirical literature on gender and racial/ethnic differences in issuance of protective orders, arrest, prosecution, and simulated jury verdicts in intimate partner violence cases. An evaluation of the methodologies employed found that some
studies have used surveys of reactions to simulated scenarios, others official data sources, such as police reports and court records, and others interviews or surveys of victims or suspects; but few have used triangulation of different types of sources. Most studies on differential treatment
in arrest and prosecution have focused on gender and then race, whereas studies on differential decision making in the issuance of protective orders and jury decision making have focused primarily on gender. In terms of the differential criminal justice response regarding demographic categories,
it appears that there is the less favorable treatment of males but more impartial treatment toward racial/ethnic minorities regarding the issuance of protection orders, arrest, and prosecution.
Although most women abused by intimate partners experience a patterned behavior of abuse (by either the same or new partners), little is known about their decision making regarding whether to call the police for subsequent abuse. The current study found that 90 percent of women who had encountered the criminal legal system for previous intimate partner abuse victimizations did not contact the police for some or all recurrences. Qualitative analysis was conducted among a sample of 102 women regarding their reasons for not re-engaging the legal system for subsequent victimizations. The results suggested 5 overall reasons as to why women involved with the criminal legal system choose not to engage the system again.
The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and correlates of sexual assault in the context of intimate partner violence in a sample of women receiving a protection order in South Africa. In all, 268 women (18 years of age and older) consecutively receiving a protection order
in the Vhembe District in South Africa were assessed by an external interviewer. Results indicate that from the total sample, 40.7% reported sexual assault, one or more times, during the relationship in the past 3 months; 58.2% reported stalking by the intimate partner; and almost all reported
some form of psychological abuse (94.0%), physical violence (93.7%), and danger (99.3%). In all, 37% reported psychological, physical, and sexual violence. In multivariate regression psychological abuse, physical violence and stalking were found to be associated with sexual assault.
Objectives:
We evaluated a law enforcement initiative to screen respondents to domestic violence restraining orders for firearm ownership or possession and recover their firearms.
Methods:
The initiative was implemented in San Mateo and Butte counties in California from 2007 through 2010. We used descriptive methods to evaluate the screening process and recovery effort in each county, relying on records for individual cases.
Results:
Screening relied on an archive of firearm transactions, court records, and petitioner interviews; no single source was adequate. Screening linked 525 respondents (17.7%) in San Mateo County to firearms; 405 firearms were recovered from 119 (22.7%) of them. In Butte County, 88 (31.1%) respondents were linked to firearms; 260 firearms were recovered from 45 (51.1%) of them. Nonrecovery occurred most often when orders were never served or respondents denied having firearms. There were no reports of serious violence or injury.
Conclusions:
Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.
This study followed 137 victims of domestic violence who sought assistance with filing protective orders from a legal aid clinic in southern California. All of those returning the one-month questionnaire obtained temporary restraining orders but only 42% obtained permanent orders; even lower rates were indicated on the four-month questionnaires. Physical abuse continued after seeking the temporary order for one in eight respondents; no one indicated that the abuse escalated after the temporary order was sought. Leaving the abuser was rated as the most effective method used to stop the violence except for filing for a protective order. Other strategies receiving positive ratings included, in descending order, the victim going to counseling regarding domestic violence, asking family for help, filing for divorce, having the defendant arrested and asking friends for help. Unfortunately, all of these items also appeared, albeit less frequently, on the list of things other respondents indicated made the situation worse. Asking religious practitioners for help was rated as effective by 15 % of respondents and no one indicated that it increased the violence.
Are male victims of domestic violence provided the same protections as female victims? With increasing entanglement of custody and domestic violence law, the answer to this question is critical for fathers embroiled in disputes where allegations are sometimes made to secure custody of children. All non-impounded requests for Abuse Prevention Orders initiated in Massachusetts Gardner District Court, in the year 1997, involving opposite gender litigants were analyzed to determine if court response to the associated allegations is affected by the gender of those litigants. These orders were previously examined and male and female defendants were found similarly abusive. By studying the characteristics of each case, and overall court response at court hearings, a determination is made concerning any evident gender trends in the aggregate court response to requests for protection. Despite gender-neutral language of abuse prevention law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application of that law favors female plaintiffs.
Previous research offered little guidance on sentencing outcomes for protection order (PO) violations in cases of domestic assault and whether PO violation charges affected offender recidivism rates. Using data from local court records, this study examined the effect of PO violation charges on the odds of case conviction relative to dismissal, and whether case conviction or a PO violation charge results in lower domestic violence rearrest rates compared to offenders not receiving these sanctions. The models indicate that PO violation charges has no significant effect on the odds of conviction or recidivism rates, and these trends were not significantly different for convicted versus dismissed offenders. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research with recommendations for future areas of study.
Research has shown that respondents to protective orders have robust criminal histories and that criminal offending behavior often follows issuance of a protective order. Nonetheless, the specific nature of the association between protective orders and criminal offending remains unclear. This study uses two classes of statistical models to more clearly delineate that relationship. The models reveal factors and characteristics that appear to be associated with offending and protective order issuance and provide indications about when a victim is most at risk and when the justice system should be most ready to provide immediate protection.