Do Protection Orders Protect?

Christopher T. Benitez; Dale E. McNiel; Renée L. Binder

Article Figures & Data

Tables

View popup

Table 1

Summary of Studies Related to Violation of Protection Orders

References	Sample Size; Setting	Study Design	Study Limitations	Study Findings	Variables Related to Violation of Protection Orders
Holt et al.⁵	N = 2691; IPV	Retrospective study IPV reports in Seattle over 16-month period PO group vs. no-PO control Police record review 1 year follow-up from date of IPV report	Record review only Study does not include any information on violations that were not reported to police No information on which subjects may have been lost to follow-up Intervention and control groups may have had different reporting rates for violation Lack of complete information on demographics	Permanent PO associated with 80% reduction in police-reported violence during follow-up period	Time: may be increased risk for violation in period immediately after PO placement
Horton et al.¹¹	2 studies (1) N = 68 (2) N = 144; IPV	Two studies (1 and 2) Prospective from date of temporary PO filing Noncontrolled Review of petition (1), observation of court proceedings (1), victim interview (1), victim questionnaire (2) Data collected within 1 year of enrollment (1) and questionnaire completed over 26-month period (2)	No comparison group that did not have POs in place Two samples with different measures Sample 2 had only 24% response rate, with no information on how nonresponders may have differed from participants	Significant reduction in police contact after temporary PO: 66% (1) and 50% (2) had no further police contact 38% had no further contact with defendant, 24% had infrequent contact, 22% saw defendant frequently, and 16% were living with defendant (1) 19% allowed defendant to return home (2)	N/A
Chaudhuri and Daly¹²	N = 30; IPV	Prospective from date of temporary PO filing Noncontrolled Interviews at 1 week and 2 months after filing; review of court affidavits were also reviewed 2-month study duration	No comparison group that did not have POs filed Small sample size Descriptive study; no statistical analyses reported Short follow-up period	37% of POs violated	Violator factors: more likely to have a criminal history, less than full time employment, substance abuse, violence history
Kaci¹³	N = 224; IPV	Retrospective pre/post evaluation Court record review 6 months before and 18 months after temporary PO application	Record review only No comparison group that did not have POs in place Study focused on placement of PO and not on violation Not able to account for whether subjects were in jurisdiction for duration of study period	7.14% of POs violated	N/A
Tjaden and Thoennes¹⁴	N = 15,776; Stalking	Retrospective study of random sample of U.S. households Telephone interview Single interview	No comparison group that did not have POs in place Sample includes only those with access to phones Recall bias: questions related to lifetime exposure to violence No data from court records on POs to assist with validation of victim responses	68.7% violation of POs for female victims 81.3% violation of POs for male victims	Victim factors: male victim more likely to have order violated by defendant
Meloy et al.¹⁵	N = 200; PO defendants (78% IPV)	Retrospective pre/post design Record review of criminal proceedings in temporary restraining order cases Random sample of defendants with POs lasting >3 years Records examined 3 years before and 3 years after PO	Record review only, so no identification of characteristics that may contribute to long duration POs Sample only included those with long-duration POs in place No comparison group that did not have POs in place Only 36 of 200 subjects committed victim related crimes Analysis based on small subset of cases	18% of POs violated	Violator factors: male, prior arrests, substance-abuse history, and contact with mental health system increased risk of violation; race not predictive of violent behavior after PO placement Legal system factors: nonmutual protection orders more likely to be violated
Harrell and Smith¹⁶	N = 497;355 female victims,142 male defendants;IPV	Prospective Interviews; review of court documents and police records Convenience sample of female complainants and male defendants Interview at 3 months after PO; women interviewed one year later	Complex subject group—no clear relationship between defendants and victims No information on whether PO still in place at time of victim-reported contact No comparison group that did not have POs in place No information on the large percentage of identified women who refused to participate in study (43%); no info given on rate of refusal for male defendants	77% of women and 71% of men reported some contact at 3 months after a temporary PO and >50% unwanted contact in that time frame 75% of women with a permanent PO reported some contact within the first year of the order	Time: temporary PO more likely to be associated with psychological abuse than permanent PO; risk higher shortly after PO initiation Relationship Factors: severity of violence predicted severity of subsequent violence; suggested that biological children more common in violation; cohabitation decreased the likelihood of abuse Violator factors: high resistance at the hearing increased violation Legal system factors: women reporting need for more protection more likely to report severe violence; women's positive rating of police predicted lower probability of severe violence; arrest at the time of incident that led to PO led to decreased risk of severe violence
Klein¹⁷	N = 663; IPV	Record review of court documents All cases where a PO was obtained during a single calendar year Defendant tracking for 2 years after PO placement	Record review only Unclear whether PO in place at time of re-abuse or arrest for re-abuse No comparison group that did not have POs in place	48.8% re-abused victims within 2 years 34% arrested for re-abuse	Violator factors: younger age, criminal history, substance abuse associated with re-abuse Legal system factors: court-ordered no-contact provisions more likely to result in re-abuse than contact permitted
Carlson et al.¹⁸	N = 210; IPV	Retrospective observational study Convenience sample of cases in which POs filed against intimate male partners Court and police reports Data from 2 years before and 2 years after PO filing	Record review only Sample only included those with police contact over the 2 years before filing of PO No comparison group that did not have POs in place	23% of POs violated	Victim factors: very low SES, black race associated with higher risk of re-victimization; presence of biological children with defendant increased violation risk Legal system factors: arrest of the violator before the initiation of the PO increased risk of future violation for subset of victims with low SES Order type: permanent PO associated with decrease in violence among subset of victims with low SES Relationship factors: 5 or more years in a relationship decreased violence, but not for the lowest SES group
Grau et al.¹⁹	N = 270; IPV	Retrospective observational study Live interviews were conducted with battered women in four states Single interview approximately 4 months after contact with IPV program	Selection bias: sample taken from only those involved in IPV project Recall bias: varied time of interviews after contact with IPV program No validation of interview with court documents Short follow-up period	56% of POs violated	Relationship factors: women with less severe prior injury were re-abused 44% of the time compared with 67% with more severe prior injuries, and 59% of women not receiving PO's were re-abused
McFarlane et al.²⁰	N = 150; IPV	Prospective observational study Women who had obtained a PO Telephone interviews 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after PO obtained	No validation of subject responses with court documents No comparison group that did not have POs in place Recall bias Strict criteria for obtaining POs in jurisdiction of this study	Rates of PO violation: 44% overall, 21% at 3 months 20% at 6 months, 25% at 12 months, 23% at 18 months 5% reported a violation at each time period	Time: for 18 months after applying for PO, victims experienced significant decreases in levels of violence
Holt et al.²¹	N = 448; IPV	Prospective cohort study Random sample of women who had police contact for IPV (and no PO) and women who obtained a temporary/permanent PO Live and telephone interviews 9-month follow-up period from time of original IPV incident	Recall bias No validation of interviewer responses with court documents Moderate duration of follow-up period Differential loss to follow-up between study groups	79.6% of POs violated within the first 5 months 60.1% of POs violated between 5 and 9 months	Time: longer PO duration predicted lower rates of violent abuse but not unwanted phone calls.
Isaac et al.²²	N = 18,369; PO defendants	Descriptive study Review of PO database in Massachusetts 0–6 months of follow-up	Database review only Variable follow-up period No data on those who left jurisdiction	10% of POs violated at 3 months 15.4% of POs violated as a cumulative probability by 6 months	Time: overall probability of violation highest in first 3 months
Logan et al.²³	N = 757; IPV with and without stalking	Retrospective cohort Women who had obtained POs Interview survey One time interviews conducted over 5-week period	Recall bias No comparison group that did not have POs in place No validation of responses using court documents No follow-up Remote stalking cases excluded from study group	17.4% of POs violated for women who reported that they had not been stalked 35.9% of POs violated for women who reported that they had been stalked	Relationship factors: stalking associated with more severe violence
Mears et al.²⁴	N = 336; IPV	Retrospective, controlled, observational study PO case filings and arrests (without PO filings) for IPV Police and court records 10 years before and 2 years following PO	Record review only Comparison group (those without POs) consisted of sampling of 25 cases/month rather than all cases No information on whether subjects were in jurisdiction for duration of study period	N/A	Victim factors: women from low SES households at higher risk for re-victimization; increased incidence of re-abuse if victim had substance abuse history; black race associated with increased risk for re-abuse; age and prior abuse not linked to re-victimization rates

IPV, intimate partner violence; PO protection order; SES socioeconomic status.

View popup

Table 2

Characteristics Associated With Increased Risk of Violation of Protection Orders

Characteristic	Studies Reporting That the Characteristic Was Associated With Increased Risk of Violation, Listed According to the Focus/Context of the Study			Studies of the Characteristic That Did Not Find It to Be Associated With Risk of Violation
Characteristic	Intimate Partner Violence	Stalking	Defendant
Time
Less time since protection order implementation	5, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22			20
Victim characteristics
Male		14
Low socioeconomic status	18, 24
Biological children with defendant	16, 18		16	17
African-American	18, 24
Substance abuse history	24
Perpetrator characteristics
Violence history/criminal history	12, 16, 17		15, 16
Younger age	17
Male			15
Substance abuse history	12		15	17
Less than full-time employment	12
Mental health system contact			15	17
Relationship factors
Living separately	16		16	17
Type of abuse (stalking vs. other)	23	14, 23
Shorter relationship duration	18
Legal system factors
No arrest at the time of protection order placement	18			16, 17
Perceived adequacy of the protection order	16		16
Nonmutual protection order (vs. mutual)			18
No-contact protection orders (vs. contact)	17