Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors ... - Springer Link

Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1999

Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Re-Abuse Matthew J. Carlson,1,4 Susan D. Harris,1,2 and George W. Holden1,3 One of the few legal tools for protecting victims of domestic violence is the civil Protection Order (PO). How effective they were in preventing re-abuse was analyzed by examining court and police records from 210 couples in which female victims (or "applicants") filed POs against their violent partners. Police records for 2 years prior and two years following the issuance of a PO were reviewed. Results indicated a significant decline in the probability of abuse following a PO. Prior to filing a PO, 68% of the women reported physical violence. After filing, only 23% reported physical violence. Several risk factors were assessed and it was found that very low SES women were more likely to report re-abuse as were African-Americans. KEY WORDS: domestic violence; protective order; legal intervention; physical violence.

INTRODUCTION Prior to passage of Pennsylvania's 1976 Protection from Abuse Act, only two states had protective order (PO) legislation specifically for battered women (Chaudhuri and Daly, 1992). The landmark Protection from Abuse Act provided protection from spouse abuse through civil proceedings. The Pennsylvania legislation stimulated many other states to adopt similar avenues of protection for married and unmarried women (and men) experiencing abuse from their partners (Grau et al., 1985; Keilitz, 1994). In 1983, 1University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Psychology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001. 3 Department of Psychology and the Center for Criminology and Criminal Justice Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. 4To whom correspondence should be addressed at Health Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903. 2Department of

205 0885-7482/99/0600-0205$16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

206

Carlson, Harris, and Holden

POs (also commonly referred to as restraining orders) were available in 32 states, and by 1994 some form of protective order legislation had been adopted by all 50 states (Keilitz, 1994). Although POs may contain several orders, including vacating the residence and paying child support, the primary function is to protect victims by prohibiting their abusive partner from: (1) committing acts of family violence, (2) directly communicating with a member of the family or household in a threatening or harassing manner, (3) going to or near the residence or place of employment of a member of the family or household. Violation of any of these orders can result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. In theory, the PO addresses many of the limitations of traditional approaches to legal intervention in domestic violence cases. For example, prior to protective order legislation the only protection available to women was through cumbersome and usually ineffective criminal proceedings. Abusers were prosecuted infrequently, and when they were, punishment was minimal. Moreover, many women refused to participate in criminal proceedings out of fear that their abusers would retaliate (Hart, 1996). Because the PO is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, a woman may be more willing to take action on the belief that her abusive mate will be less likely to retaliate than with criminal proceedings (Wallace, 1996). Furthermore, from a deterrence perspective, the criminal penalties associated with violating protective orders may decrease the likelihood that the offender continues his abuse for fear of facing penalties. As Wallace (1996) puts it, "although some offenders may have had numerous contacts with the police and judicial system, most have not been involved with a direct order from a judge banning certain conduct. The specter of facing a judge after violating a judicial order may act as a deterrent for some abusers" (p. 206). Despite the widespread use of POs, there have been very few studies examining whether they work. Just how effective are protective orders for reducing the likelihood of future violence? Only five studies were found that have addressed this question. Those investigations produced essentially similar results, despite the fact that each study comprised different lengths of follow-up (from 4 months to 2 years), as well as different types of data collection (interviews and police records). Three of the evaluation studies, which used follow-up periods of 6 months to 2 years, found that 40% to 50% of women who filed protective orders reported no further physical abuse (Harrell and Smith, 1996; Morton et al., 1987; Klein, 1996). Not surprisingly, the two studies which used shorter follow-up periods found lower rates of re-abuse. Chaudhuri and Daly (1992) and Grau (Grau et al., 1985) interviewed victims 2 and 4 months (respec-

Protective Orders and Re-abuse

207

tively) after filing protective orders and found that 60% and 76% (respectively) reported no further abuse. Whether or not the relief from violence experienced by women filing POs was a function of the court order, or would have occurred regardless of legal intervention is unclear. Grau and colleagues (1985) reported no significant difference in rates of physical abuse between women with protective orders and women without them. However, their sample consisted of women participating in a family violence demonstration program, so even the women who didn't file protective orders were still receiving some form of intervention. Other studies found little or no difference in re-abuse rates between women who filed permanent POs (in effect for 1 year) compared with women who filed only temporary POs (in effect for 30 days). Both Klein (1996) and Harrell and Smith (1996) reported that rate of re-abuse did not significantly differ for women who pursued permanent POs compared to those who obtained only temporary POs. Risk factors for re-abuse are not well understood because so few studies have examined them. Only very recently have studies begun to assess risk factors. First, in Harrell and Smith's (1996) study, the likelihood of re-abuse was higher if the victim shared biological children with her abuser. They suggested that the presence of biological children contributed to higher rates of re-abuse due to conflict and violence which occur as a result of custody and visitation issues. A second risk factor for reabuse is whether or not the abuser had been arrested. The evidence for the impact of a prior arrest on post-PO abuse is mixed. Harrell and Smith (1996) found that the probability of post-PO abuse was lower if the abuser were arrested at the time of the incident that led the victim to file the PO. However, Klein (1996) did not find any effect of arrests on the likelihood of re-abuse. A third risk-factor for re-abuse is the history of prior domestic violence. Harrell and Smith (1996) examined both duration and severity of abuse which occurred in the relationship prior to filing the PO. They found no effect for the duration of prior abuse, but they did identify prior severe abuse as being predictive of more severe post-PO violence. In this study, we sought to add to existing knowledge concerning effectiveness of protective orders by estimating the relative risk of re-abuse for women who have received protective orders. To provide a good index of effectiveness, we decided to use a 2-year follow-up period—a longer time frame than typically has been used. We also sought to examine the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on re-abuse, which has been ignored in prior research. Below we outline our rationale for assessing certain SES, family, and legal intervention variables that may impact the likelihood of re-abuse after a PO has been issued.

208


ASSESSING THE RISK OF RE-ABUSE Socioeconomic Status There are compelling reasons for expecting that SES may influence the likelihood of re-abuse following a PO. First, women often remain with abusive partners out of economic necessity (Chaudhuri and Daly, 1992; Giles-Sims, 1983); similarly, many women return to abusive relationships for financial reasons (Giles-Sims, 1983). Women who are economically dependent on their abusive partner typically wield little power in the relationship, which makes them incapable of imposing costs on their abusive partner to end the violence (Gelles, 1983). Second, economic resources outside the home are linked to the use of violence inside the home. Studies comparing men with low SES to men with relatively higher SES find that the low SES men are more likely than their higher resource counterparts to use violence in the home. The abuse may be precipitated by financial anxiety and/or frustration, or it might reflect a tactic for balancing power in the home (Gelles, 1972; O'Brien, 1971; Straus, 1990; Tauchen et al., 1991). In other words, research has shown that men with low resources are more likely than their high resource counterparts to use marital violence. A third reason why SES may be related to the effectiveness of POs is that men with low SES are also less easily deterred by legal sanctions. Research on effectiveness of arrest for reducing domestic violence reveals that employed men are more likely to discontinue abuse than unemployed men (Sherman et al., 1992). Employed men are believed to have a higher "stake in conformity," meaning they have more to lose by being arrested than their unemployed counterparts. In sum, low SES men are more likely to use violence and are less likely to be deterred than higher-SES men. Women low in resources are, by definition, more economically dependent than higher-SES women, and thus less able to leave their partners. Consequently, we hypothesized that women who were higher in SES should be less likely to report re-abuse after filing a protective order than their lower SES counterparts. Intervention Characteristics Although this topic is still being debated (e.g., Buzawa and Buzawa, 1996), the experience of arrest has been shown to decrease the probability of recidivism for at least some offenders (Sherman and Berk, 1984; Sherman et al., 1992). Furthermore, studies on the relation between the experience


209

of arrest and perceived costs of future arrest show that being arrested increases the perceived likelihood and severity of future consequences in abusive men (Dutton et al., 1992). In turn, this has been shown to reduce the likelihood of engaging in domestic violence (Williams, 1992; Williams and Hawkins, 1992). This means that men who have been arrested should, on average, be less likely than their never arrested counterparts to engage in domestic violence because having experienced arrest, they have a heightened sense of fear about another arrest. Because arrest has been shown to reduce the likelihood of domestic violence, we hypothesized that men who had been arrested for domestic violence prior to the issuance of a PO should have lower rates of future violence than men who had POs only. Stated another way, prior arrest should be a significant predictor of the success of POs. If arrest reduces domestic violence for some men because they fear the consequence of continuing their abuse, then it follows that women who file permanent POs rather than just getting temporary restraining orders may be more likely to experience relief. The primary differences between a temporary and a permanent PO are that temporary POs may be obtained "ex pane" (by the victim alone) without the offender appearing in court and temporary POs are only in effect for about 30 days, until a court hearing can be set and a permanent order can be obtained. Permanent orders require the perpetrator's (legally labeled as "respondent") presence in court and are typically in effect for 12 months. If going to court has the effect on the offender of increasing the perceived likelihood of punishment, and there is evidence that suggests it does (Harrell et al., 1993), then we would expect the permanent order to result in lower rates of re-abuse than a temporary order alone. Another plausible reason to expect that filing a permanent protective order may decrease re-abuse is that a victim's willingness to go through the time consuming and difficult process of going to court may be an indicator of the woman's resolve to free herself from the violent relationship. A woman's resolve to leave the relationship may be an important element in ending the abuse (Giles-Sims, 1983). If this is the case, women who go to the trouble of obtaining a permanent order may be more likely to experience relief, even if only because they are more determined to make changes in the relationship. Based on these expectations, we hypothesized that women who filed permanent protective orders should be more likely to experience relief than women who filed only temporary orders of protection. Family Characteristics As discussed above, men who feel they have more to lose from continuing their abusive behavior may be less likely to continue the abuse. In

210


Dutton et al.'s (1992) research, men who had experienced arrest were more concerned that future abuse might result in damaging their relationship than never-arrested men. Men who believe that arrest might result in the loss of a spouse or partner, may be less likely to engage in future abuse (Williams, 1992; Williams and Hawkins, 1992). To the extent that an abusive man feels a sense of investment in a relationship, fear of losing that relationship may influence the likelihood of future violence. Simply put, the more invested a man is in his family, the less likely he may be to continue to abuse his partner if he feels that doing so may negatively impact the relationship. What these findings indicate is that arrest may be most effective for men who feel more investment in their families, and thus face a greater sense of loss than men who feel less investment. We hypothesized that relationship investment, operationalized as length of relationship, and presence of children should all be negatively related to the likelihood of re-abuse. METHOD Data The data came from two sources: (1) court records were reviewed at the Travis County (Texas) courthouse, and (2) police reports were gathered from the files of the Austin Police Department (APD), which included records from the Travis County sheriff's office. Travis County, in which Austin is located, is primarily urban and has a population of approximately one million people. A systematic sample of petitions filed between 1990 and 1992 was collected. Because of the large number of court orders filed for the 3-year period of the study (over 1400) and the time-consuming process of going through court files, the sample we collected was limited to all protective orders filed during the months of January, August, and October during each of the 3 study years. The initial sample had 348 cases, representing the total number of protective orders filed in the Travis County municipal court during the 9 target months included in the study. Of those 348 cases, 33 were excluded for one of the following reasons: (a) same sex couple; (b) men filing POs against women; or (c) parent, aunt/uncle, or sibling filing against consanguineous kin. In addition, two cases were excluded due to extraordinary circumstances. One woman was institutionalized in a mental hospital just after filing, and the second committed suicide shortly after filing. Consequently, the court sample included 313 cases in which a protective order was filed in municipal court. In 210 of those cases, the couples

211


also had police records before the PO was filed. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 210 couples in which police records could be examined from 2 years prior to the PO to 2 years after.

Measures

Both the court and police records were analyzed to obtain basic demographic information, relationship histories, and histories of abuse and police involvement. Court records included demographic information, information on children, relationship history, as well as whether or not a permanent PO was obtained. Police records were analyzed to determine history of police contacts for physical abuse and arrests for domestic violence. Table I presents the descriptive statistics for the sample. In order to ensure maximum reliability, a consensus method was employed in the coding. Each police record was coded independently by two trained coders. Where inde-

Table I. Descriptive Statistics for the Sample (N = 210) N

Percentagea

Victims' race White Black Hispanic

71 66 72

34% 31% 34%

Victims' SES Medium SES Low SES Very Low SES

56 74 64

29% 38% 33%

149 61

71% 29%

52 62 43 34

25% 29% 20% 16%

70 131

35% 65%

147 63

70% 30%

Variables

Perpetrator arrested prior to PO Yes No Number of years together 5 years Presence of biological children Yes No PO status Permanent Temporary a

Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding or missing data.

212


pendent codings did not agree, the discrepant ratings were discussed and the appropriate categorization was decided on the basis of consensus. Demographic Variables The demographic variables included in this study were the age, the race, and the SES of the victim. Because all victims were female and all perpetrators were male, no sex variable was needed. The women's SES were estimated using median family income from block level census tract data. The focus of the research was on the victims' resources, and it is the victims' addresses which were used to identify their census tract. However, because 90% of the victims lived with their partner at some point prior to filing a PO, it is likely that the measure was also indicative of their partner's SES. SES was coded into one of the following categories: (1) Very Low SES (annual family income