January 2, 2003
Protection Orders Curb Partner Violence, But Few Seek Them
Women who experience threats of violence or abuse from an intimate partner may be best protected by a permanent civil protection order, a new study indicates, yet many victims may be skeptical about the effectiveness of taking a legal avenue.
The study, by researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, is published in the January 2003 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
?Based on these findings, civil protection orders appear to be one of the few widely available interventions for victims of intimate partner violence that has demonstrated effectiveness,? says Victoria Holt, Ph.D., M.P.H., the study?s principal investigator. Holt is a University of Washington (UW) professor of epidemiology.
Civil protection orders are legally binding orders designed to prevent partner abuse. An individual who violates such an order may face civil contempt, misdemeanor or felony charges. Only 20 percent of the approximately 2 million U.S. women who are physically abused, stalked or raped by partners each year obtain these orders, according to the study.
Holt and colleagues conducted a series of interviews during a period of more than nine months with approximately 400 women who had been threatened or abused by their partners. One group of women had obtained temporary or permanent civil protection orders and the other group had contacted the police after being threatened or abused, but had not obtained protection orders.
The researchers found that women who obtained and maintained civil protection orders were safer than those without them in the five-month period after they were initially threatened or abused. The intimate partners in the protection order group were significantly less likely to have threatened the women or to have inflicted psychological or physical abuse on them.
When Holt and colleagues interviewed the women again four months later, they found the protection order effect had grown even stronger. At this point, women who had maintained their protection orders from their first abuse incident were also less likely than those with no protection order to have been sexually abused or injured or to have received medical care for abuse.
Unwelcome phone calls were one experience the protection order did not shield against over the nine-month study period.
The findings contradict those of a 1980 study, which found that protection orders did not shield women from abuse. Holt and colleagues suggest that this disagreement may relate to the shorter study period of the 1980 study, which spanned only four months. They also suggest that civil protection orders may be more effective today than they were two decades ago. Penalties for civil protection order violation have shifted from civil to criminal and ?police response has improved following the institution of mandatory arrest laws,? according to the study.
?While obtaining a civil protection order is no guarantee further abuse will be prevented, health and criminal justice providers should consider providing information about civil protection orders to all individuals affected by intimate partner violence,? Holt concludes.
In addition to Holt, the investigators were Mary Kernic, Ph.D., M.P.H., a UW assistant professor of epidemiology; Marsha Wolf, Ph.D., formerly of the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center; and Fred Rivara, M.D., M.P.H., a UW professor of pediatrics and adjunct professor of epidemiology.
This study was supported by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Justice as part of the Interagency Consortium on Violence Against Women and Family Violence Research.
