Research article
Do protection orders affect the likelihood of future partner violence and injury?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00576-7Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Approximately 20% of U.S. women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV) annually obtain a civil protection order (CPO). The effect of these orders on future abuse has been estimated in only a few studies, with mixed results. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a CPO on the risk of future self-reported IPV and injury.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study of 448 adult female Seattle WA residents with IPV between October 1997 and December 1998, interviews were conducted at baseline, 5 months, and 9 months after the index incident. Odds ratios (ORs) estimated risks of contact; unwelcome calls or visits; threats; weapon threats; psychological, sexual, or physical abuse or injury; and abuse-related medical care among women who obtained a CPO after the index incident, compared with those who did not.

Results

Women who obtained a CPO following the index IPV incident had significantly decreased risk of contact by the abuser (OR=0.4); weapon threats (OR=0.03); injury (OR=0.3); and abuse-related medical care (OR=0.2) between the first and second follow-up interviews. Stronger decreases in risk were seen among women who had maintained the CPO throughout follow-up, which were significant for contact by the abuser (OR=0.2); weapon threats (OR=0.02); psychological abuse (OR=0.4); sexual abuse (OR=0.2); physical abuse (OR=0.3); injury (OR=0.1); and abuse-related medical care (OR=0.1) between first and second follow-up interviews.

Conclusions

CPOs are associated with decreased likelihood of subsequent physical and nonphysical IPV.

Introduction

I . n the past decade, intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognized as a public health problem and a major contributing cause of injury and other adverse health consequences for women in this country.1, 2, 3, 4 In addition to, or in lieu of, reporting IPV to the police, abused women may choose to obtain a civil protection order (CPO) after an abuse episode. These legally binding orders are designed to prevent future abuse, and violation of the order’s conditions may result in possible civil contempt, misdemeanor, or felony offense charges against the perpetrator, with penalties ranging from verbal reprimand or monetary fines to incarceration. The effectiveness of CPOs, which are obtained by approximately 20% of the 2 million U.S. women who are physically abused, raped, or stalked by partners annually,5 has been estimated in only two studies using comparison groups, with mixed results. A 1980 interview study6 did not find a significant difference in self-reported re-abuse according to CPO status, but the study was limited by small size, short follow-up period, and lack of control for potentially important confounders. In contrast, in a large population-based study7 we recently conducted in Seattle that relied on review of police records rather than interviews to ascertain IPV incidents, we found that having a permanent CPO during the 12 months following a police-reported incident was associated with a significantly decreased risk of new episodes of police-reported physical abuse.

In the current report, we provide the results of an interview study conducted in the same setting during roughly the same time period as the abovementioned police record–review study.7 We conducted this interview study, for which baseline data have been reported previously,8 to obtain information not available from police records, including details of IPV incidents not reported to the police, and more complete information on potentially confounding variables. Because women who obtain CPOs may be hypothesized to be more likely to report any subsequently occurring IPV to the police than would women without orders, interviews allowed us to obtain an accurate assessment of all post-CPO violence occurring among study participants, whether or not it was reported to police.

Section snippets

Subject selection, exposure classification, and contact

Study methods have been described previously.8 Briefly, the study population consisted of women who were abused or threatened by male intimates in a police-reported IPV incident and women who obtained IPV-related CPOs between 15 October 1997 and 31 December 1998 in Seattle. The protection-order group included women who obtained temporary or permanent CPOs during the study period, whether or not the precipitating incident was reported to police. The non-CPO group was a random sample of women who

Results

Baseline characteristics of study participants have been reported previously.8 In the current analysis of women who participated in baseline and at least the first follow-up interview, women who obtained CPOs after the index incident did not differ significantly from non-CPO women by race (Table 1). However, women with CPOs were significantly more likely to be working full-time, pregnant, and depressed at the time of the index incident, and were less likely to have an alcohol or drug problem.

Discussion

Our findings of substantially reduced risk of subsequent contact, threats, violence, and injury associated with obtaining a CPO are at variance with those of Grau et al.,6 who did not find significantly different rates of self-reported abuse or physical violence according to CRO status among women enrolled in the Family Violence Demonstration program. Several factors may contribute to this discrepancy. CPO effectiveness has been posited to depend largely on mandated sanctions for violations and

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by grant 1 R01 DA11151, Protection of Women: Health and Justice Outcomes, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and National Institute of Justice, as part of the Interagency Consortium on Violence Against Women and Family Violence Research.

We are grateful to Sheila Hargesheimer, the Seattle Police Department Domestic Violence Unit, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, the King

References (24)

  • L.S. Radloff

    The CES-D Scalea self-report depression scale for research in the general population

    App Psych Measurement

    (1977)
  • J. Ware et al.

    A 12-item short-form health surveyconstruction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity

    Med Care

    (1996)
  • Cited by (114)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text