Effectiveness, Victim Safety, Characteristics, and Enforcement of Protective Orders

Protective Orders for Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Differences Between Violators and Non-Violators

The goal of this study was to determine the profile of the aggressors of intimate partner violence (IPV), who tend to violate protective orders (POs). A cohort of 200 men convicted of IPV (120 violators and 80 non-violators of the POs) was studied. Male perpetrators were more likely to belong to the PO violator group when they had a prior criminal history, they inflicted more severe physical violence, they were drug users, and they had a low education level. Using the risk factors identified here when dealing with males who perpetrate IPV and taking appropriate measures may help to prevent revictimization.

Effects of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator and Victim Race on Protective Order Determinations

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.

Firearm-related Abuse and Protective Order Requests Among Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Firearms play a critical role in the murder of intimate partner violence (IPV) victims and there is evidence that laws prohibiting protective order (PO) respondents from possessing a firearm reduce IPV fatalities. However, little research has compared specific abuse tactics involving firearms among victims who have and have not sought a PO against an abuser. This study investigates IPV victims' experiences with a range of firearm-related abuse tactics across victim race/ethnicity, in addition to the relationship between firearm IPV and PO requests, above and beyond IPV not involving firearms. Questionnaires were administered to 215 female victims recruited from six domestic violence shelters in Texas. Over one-half of victims who sought a PO were threatened to be shot by their abuser and victims who experienced high levels of firearm abuse incurred a 302% increase in the odds of requesting a PO. There were no significant differences between White, Black, and Hispanic victims regarding firearm IPV tactics. The results shed light on the magnitude of risk IPV victims can experience when seeking a PO against an abusive partner.

Órdenes de protección en Montevideo, Uruguay: qué tan efectivas son para prevenir la revictimización conyugal de las mujeres

Introducción. A nivel global, las órdenes de protección (OP) son el instrumento legal más utilizado para prevenir la violencia conyugal hacia las mujeres (Herrera & Amor, 2017). Las investigaciones del Norte Global indican que estas medidas reducen la revictimización de forma considerable (Dowling et al., 2018b). Sin embargo, en Latinoamérica se conoce muy poco sobre sus efectos en el bienestar de las mujeres. Objetivo. Este artículo analiza qué tan efectivas han sido las OP para prevenir la revictimización de las mujeres a manos de una (ex)pareja en Montevideo, Uruguay. Metodología. A partir de la lectura de reportes policiales y expedientes judiciales para una muestra probabilística de 1.034 casos de violencia doméstica en el marco de la (ex)pareja ocurridos en 2018, realiza un análisis cuantitativo de: (i) los niveles de incumplimiento de las OP durante los seis meses posteriores a su aplicación; (ii) las características de las revictimizaciones constatadas; (iii) los atributos de las víctimas, los autores, y los hechos denunciados que incrementan la probabilidad de revictimización de las mujeres. Resultados. Los resultados muestran que los niveles de incumplimiento e incumplimiento violento de las OP alcanzan el 33,6% y 25,9%, respectivamente. Indican también que las medidas reducen de forma exitosa los incidentes de violencia física, psicológica, sexual y económica; pero incrementan el acoso. Conclusión. Finalmente, los elementos estadísticamente asociados con la probabilidad de revictimización son: (i) El hecho de que la mujer haya sido víctima de violencia conyugal con parejas previas; (ii) el contacto previo del autor con el sistema de justicia; y (iii) la existencia de violencia psicológica y económico-patrimonial previa al hecho denunciado. Este trabajo pretende ser un insumo para el diseño de políticas de seguridad basadas en evidencia, que permitan optimizar recursos para la protección de las mujeres que se encuentran en una mayor situación de vulnerabilidad ante futuros abusos.

The Effectiveness of Protection Orders in Reducing Recidivism in Domestic Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Preventing and reducing domestic violence is a national and international social priority. Civil law protection orders (POs) have been the primary legal response to domestic violence internationally for a number of decades. However, evidence of their effectiveness is mixed due to variations in application within and across countries and variable quality of the research with most studies at high risk of bias. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of POs in reducing violation rates of domestic violence, compare violation rates reported by victims and police reports, and identify factors that influence violation and reoffense. Two electronic databases were searched; two independent researchers screened abstracts. Data were collected and assessed methodologically, using the Kmet Checklist Appraisal Tool and National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence. Twenty-five studies that evaluated the effectiveness of POs in reducing recidivism in domestic violence met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of weighted means of violation in the studies were conducted. Violation rates were found to be higher for victim reports compared with police reports. Violation rates were reduced when POs used in combination with arrests. PO violation rates were lower among perpetrators without histories of arrest for committing violence, perpetrators not engaging in stalking, and where couples have had medium to high incomes. There is no consensus among the studies about what the most appropriate methodology is to measure PO effectiveness. Future research should establish a more unified approach to evaluating the effectiveness and violations of POs.

Judging Domestic Violence From the Bench: A Narrative Analysis of Judicial Anecdotes About Domestic Violence Protective Order Cases

Interview participants sometimes share anecdotes (stories about past events), to illustrate a point or discuss their perspectives. When sharing these stories, participants may imbue the events with their own personal meaning-making, selective memory, and biases. We conducted a narrative analysis of anecdotes shared by judges ( n = 20) who preside over Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings to examine how biases and misperceptions shape decisions in DVPO cases. We found that judges rely on biases to sort cases as "true domestic violence" compared with "frivolous cases." In the anecdotes they shared, judges often used gendered stereotypes to depict litigants, and many judges felt that DVPOs had limited efficacy in preventing violence. We argue that important cognitive insights are revealed by interview participants during the spontaneous act of storytelling. In the case of judges, their biases could lead to DVPOs being denied in situations when they are warranted.

Responding to Intimate Partner Violence: Urban Women's Decisions About Getting Personal Protection Orders When Other Resources are Scarce

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.

"I Don't Know That I've Ever Felt Like I Got the Full Story": A Qualitative Study of Courtroom Interactions Between Judges and Litigants in Domestic Violence Protective Order Cases

One in three U.S. women has experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) and many seek domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) for secondary IPV prevention. Because judges have considerable autonomy making DVPO decisions, there is a need to describe how courtroom interactions and information available to judges may influence DVPO dispositions. We conducted DVPO hearing observations and phone interviews with District Court Judges. Qualitative themes emerged that may influence judges' decision making in DVPO hearings: case information availability, judge engagement level, and litigant credibility. Recommendations include more time for judges to review case files, IPV-related training for judges, and increased court advocate use.

Stalking: A Multidimensional Framework for Assessment and Safety Planning

Despite the high prevalence of stalking and the risk of harm it poses to victims, arrest rates, prosecutions, and convictions for stalking continue to be low in the United States. The overall goal of this article is to introduce a multidimensional framework of stalking that adds to the current literature by (1) providing a conceptual framework consistent with legal elements of many stalking statutes to facilitate assessment, communication, documentation, and safety planning for stalking several victims; (2) introducing a more systematic way of assessing course of conduct and the context of fear in stalking situations in order to increase the understanding of cumulative fear for stalking victims; (3) emphasizing the aspects of stalking harm that go beyond violence and that show how harm from stalking accumulates over time including life sabotage; and (4) discussing 12 risk factors derived from the overall multidimensional framework that can be used to describe the big picture of stalking and to facilitate safety planning for victims. Implications for future research are discussed.

The Goals of IPV Survivors Receiving Orders of Protection: An Application of the Empowerment Process Model

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.