Civil Protection Orders: 

The Benefits and Limitations 

for Victims of 

Domestic Violence 

Susan L. Keilitz, Project Director 

Paula L. Hannaford 

Hillery S. Efkeman 

National Center for State Courts Research Report 
Copyright 1997 

National Center for State Courts 

300 Newport Avenue (23185) 

P.O. Box 8798 

Williamsburg, VA 23 187-8798 

ISBN: 0-89656-183-6 

NCSC Publications Number: R-201 

This research was supported by grant number 93-IJ-CX-0035 fiom the National Institute of Justice. 

Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 
Acknowledgments 

Over the course of this study, many people from many quarters have contributed their ideas, experiences, recommendations, guidance, and assistance to project staff. We appreciate very much these contributions, without which we could not have implemented or completed this study. We no doubt have missed acknowledging a few individuals and apologize for this omission. Several others not mentioned here will offer their comments on this draft final report, and for those we also are grateful. We hope that our efforts will merit the 

time and resources so generously given to us. 

Our project advisors shared their considerable experience, knowledge, and insights: the Honorable 

Dale Harris, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in Lynchburg, Virginia; Barbara 

Hart, Esq., Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; and Sergeant Ches Williams, 

City of Dallas Police Department, Youth and Family Crime Bureau. 

In the project sites, numerous individuals donated their time and energy to recruit participants for the 

study, to provide information from civil and criminal records, and to share their expertise on role of the 

components of the justice system and community services in addressing domestic violence. 

In Delaware, we thank the Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti, Chief Judge, Delaware Family Court; Lowell 

Groundland, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts; Raina H. Fishbane, Director, Domestic Violence 

Coordinating Council; Commissioners Ellen Cooper, Carolee Grillo, and Fred Kenney; Edward Pollard, 

Family Court Administrator; Michael Arrington, Special Court Services; Debbie Allen, Renee Cohen, Laura 

Collins, Diane Rodin, and Ellen Wheatley of the Family Court Domestic Violence Unit; Donna Ward, 

Director of Operations; Debbie Whye, Clerk's Office; Rosemary Killian, Attorney General's Domestic 

Violence Unit; Bridget Poulle and Carol Post (former director) of the Project for Domestic Violence Reform; 

Cindy Mercer, Child, Inc.; and Jerry Donovan, Nicole Hyden, and Elaine Markey Moseley of Victim Services, 

Newcastle County Police. 

In Denver, we thank the Honorable Andrew Armatas, Presiding Judge, the Honorable Doris Burd, the 

Honorable Brian Campbell, and the Honorable Jacqueline St. Joan, Denver County Court; Matt McConville, 

Court Administrator; Margaret Abrams, Dora Lee Larson, Pam Goetz, and many unknown volunteers and staff 

of Project Safeguard who recruited women for the study; Kim English and Joan Crouch, Colorado Division of 

Criminal Justice; Michelle Hannigan, Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver; Zoe Livingston-Poole, 

Victim's Assistance Unit, Denver Police Department; Linda Ferry and John Poley, Denver City Attorney's 

Domestic Violence Unit; Norm Brison, District Attorney's Office; and Betty Wytias. 

In the District of Columbia, we thank the Honorable Eugene Hamilton, Chief Judge, District of 

Columbia Superior Court; Ulysses B. Hammond, Executive Officer, District of Columbia Superior Court; the 

Honorable George Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Family Division; the Honorable Susan Winfield, former Presiding 

Judge, Family Division; Dr. Cheryl Bailey, Executive Office; Dwayne Delaney, Clerk of the Superior Court; 

Edward Ricks, Director, Family Division; Kenneth Winston, Family Division; Sharon Denaro, Project 

Coordinator, District of Columbia Domestic Violence Plan; Robert Spagnoletti, U.S. Attorney; Inspector 

Abraham Parks, Commander, Youth and Family Services Division; Professor Deborah Epstein, Georgetown 

University Law Center; Professor Joan Meier, The George Washington University National Law Center; Leslie 
Civil Protectron Orders. The Benefits and Limitatrons for Victrms of Domesrrc Violence 

Orloff and Wanda Resto-Torres, AYUDA; and Professor Mary Ann Dutton, The George Washington University 

Medical Center. 

Others who have provided their insights into the dynamics of domestic violence and ideas for the project methodology include Linda Girdner, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law; Edward 

W. Gondolph, Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute (MAATI); Linda McGuire; and Joyce O'Brien, 

Executive Director, AVALON of Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Finally, we thank Bernard Auchter, Program Manager for the National Institute of Justice, whose assistance, recommendations, accommodations, and patience helped us overcome the difficulties that are inherent in calling upon victims of domestic violence to assist in evaluating systems and processes designed to 

help them. 

Nationa: Center for State Courts Project Staff 

Susan Keilitz, Project Director Karin Marks Hughes 

Henry W. K. Daley Megan Kelly 

Courtenay V. Davis Robert C. LaFountain 

Hillery S. Efkeman Stephanie Lewis 

Carol R. Flango Gwendolyn Lyford 

Paula L. Hannaford Amy Waskowiak 
Table of Contents 

Page 

ExeclctiveSarmmary ....................................................... vii 

Chapter I: Introduction ................................................... 1 

Chapter PI: Methodoisgy .................................................. 7 

Chapter Ill: Characteristics of Study Participants ............................. 19 

Chapter IV: The Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders ............ 35 

Chapter V: Types of Protection Orders Obtained and 

Scope of Relief Provided ............................................... 45 

Chapter VI: Use of Services by Study Participants ............................ 53 

Chapter VII: Police and Prosecution ........................................ 59 

Appendices .............................................................. 63 

Executive Summary 

In 1994 the National Center for State Courts initiated a study of the effectiveness of civil protection orders 

under a grant from the National Institute of Justice. At that time, civil protection orders had become available in all fifty states, but many states still placed significant restrictions on their availability and the scope 

of relief provided in them.l The National Center's study was designed to build on the prior research of others who had explored the reasons why civil protection orders might be more or less effective in providing 

safer environments for victims and in enhancing their opportunities for escaping violent relationship^.^ 

These earlier studies had concluded that the effectiveness of protection orders depends on the comprehensiveness of relief provided in protection orders, the specificity of the protection order terms, and how well 

and consistently the orders are enforced. The National Center's study looked at other factors that might 

influence the effectiveness of protection orders, including accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser. 

Examining Protection Orders in Three Jurisdictions 

The National Center's study examined the civil protection order process and the environments in which the 

process takes place in three jurisdictions with different processes and service model^.^ These jurisdictions 

are the Family Court in Wilmington, Delaware; the County Court in Denver, Colorado; and the District of 

Columbia Superior C~urt.~ The expectation in examining these three jurisdictions was that the different 

models they use would produce various results and that these variations might hold implications for 

improving practices in other jurisdictions. The key structural differences among the study sites relevant to 

ensuring that protection orders serve their intended function are the court intake process, the level of assistance petitioners for orders receive, and access to court hearings. 

The process for obtaining a protection order is more centralized in Delaware and Denver than it is in 

the District of Columbia. In Delaware and Denver, petitioners also receive direct assistance when they file 

"Developments in the Law: Legal Responses to Domestic Violence," Harvard Law Review vol. 106 (1993):7. 

The Urban Institute, The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (Washington, D.C., 1996); M. Chaudhuri and K. Daly, "Do Restraining 

Orders Help? Battered Women's Experience with Male Violence and Legal Process," in E. Buzawa and C. Buzawa (eds.), Domestic Violence: 

The Changing Criminal Justice Response (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1991); P. Finn and S. Colson, "Civil Protection Orders: 

Legislation, Practice and Enforcement," National Institute oflustice Issues and Practice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice 1990). 

On some factors that also might affect the effectiveness of civil protection orders, the three jurisdictions are more alike than different. 

In each of the three jurisdictions, petitioners can obtain an ex parte order of protection during business hours Monday through Friday, 

but there is no weekend or after-hours access to an emergency civil protection order. (In all three sites, criminal no-contact orders can be 

issued in cases where the perpetrator has been released from custody after an arrest.) In each site, police may arrest respondents without 

a warrant based on probable cause that the respondent violated the protection order. Violations can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor 

offense. Orders are also enforceable through contempt proceedings in the court. 

The District of Columbia has undergone significant change in the manner in which the court, law enforcement, and prosecution 

address domestic violence. The descriptions in this report reflect how the court and system operated at the time the study commenced, 

however. The system is still in the beginning stages of implementing an ambitious reform plan that includes a domestic violence court. 
Civr! Protection Orders The Benefits and L~mrtat~ons for Victims of Domestlc Violence 

petitions. In Delaware, specially educated and trained court staff in a Domestic Violence Unit assist petitioners, while in Denver, help is provided by volunteers and staff of a private victim service agency (Project 

Safeguard). At the time of the study, petitioners in the District of Columbia received no assistance other 

than the attention of a court clerk in completing petition forms. 

The docketing for protection order hearings varies considerably among the three courts. Denver has a 

consolidated docket, with a single judge who hears petitions for temporary orders and presides at hearings 

for permanent orders exclusively. Temporary orders are available on an ex parte calendar every afternoon 

and hearings for permanent orders are set every morning. 

The Family Court in Delaware holds ex parte hearings twice daily, once in the morning and again in the 

afternoon, but hearings for permanent orders are set only on Fridays. Three commissioners preside over ex 

parte and permanent order hearings. In the District of Columbia, petitioners seeking an ex parte order must 

wait for the judge assigned to hear emergency matters, including warrants. Hearings for permanent orders 

are held daily and assigned to a judge in the Family Division who sits in a monthly rotation on the protection order calendar. 

Evaluating Benefits in the Context of Victims' Experiences 

The study findings are based on four sources of data: (1) initial telephone interviews conducted with 285 

women petitioners for protection orders in the three project sites approximately one month after they 

received a protection order (temporary or permanent); (2) follow-up interviews with 177 of the same group 

of petitioners about six months later; (3) civil case records of petitioners who participated in the study; and 

(4) criminal history records of men named in the protection orders the study participants ~btained.~ The 

analysis of the data was informed by on-site interviews with judges, court managers and staff, victim services 

representatives, members of police domestic violence units, and prosecutors and by observations of hearings 

for temporary and permanent orders. 

Across the three project sites, 554 women agreed to participate in the study and signed a consent form 

(Delaware, 151; Denver, 194; District of Columbia, 209).6 Project staff were able to complete an initial interview with 285 of the women (51 percent) who were recruited (Delaware, 90; Denver, 90; District of 

Columbia, 105). These women formed the study groups in each site. Approximately 60 percent (177) of 

these women participated in the follow-up interviews. 

Measuring the Effectiveness of Protection Orders 

The National Center's study applied two primary measures of effectiveness: (1) improvement in the quality of the women's lives (women's reports that their lives have improved since getting the order, that they 

feel better about themselves, and that they feel safer) and (2) extent of problems related to the protection 

The method of selecting participants for the study places some limitations on the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from 

the study findings. First, the participants were not randomly selected, which limits the extent to which we can say they are representative of other women who seek protection orders in the study sites. We also do not know what proportion of the women who were asked 

to participate declined. However, this proportion is likely not of any appreciable size because the recruiters reported that few women did 

not agree to participate. Second, the participants' self-selection for the study poses a second threat to the validity of the findings, which 

is that those women who were willing to participate may have some characteristics that distinguish them from the other victims who 

might seek a protection order. Third, all of the participants had a telephone or access to one. This sets them apart from women with 

fewer resources and those who do not have a place where it is safe to have a telephone conversation, including most women who were 

staying in a shelter or other temporary residence. (Interviewers were able to speak with some women who were in transient situations.) 

In each site, women who filed petitions for protection orders were recruited in person for the study. Recruitment for the study began 

in July 1994 at staggered times across the sites as project staff visited each site and trained individuals to recruit women. In each site, the 

recruiters explained the purpose of the study and what participation in it would entail. If the woman agreed to participate, the recruiters 

asked her to sign a consent form. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Table 1: 

Effectiveness Measured by Quality of Life 

Initial Interview Follow-up Interview 

(n=285) (n=177) 

Life Improved Yo Yo 

All Sites 72.3 85.3 

Delaware 82.2 87.5 

Denver 74.4 89.7 

District of Columbia 61.9 79.4 

Feel Better 

All Sites 72.3 92.7 

Delaware 82.2 92.9 

Denver 74.4 93.1 

District of Columbia 61.9 92.1 

Feel Safer 

All Sites 73.7 80.5 * 

Delaware 77.8 83.7 

Denver 83.3 82.9 

District of Columbia 61.9 71.4 

order (women's reports of repeated occurrences of physical or psychological abuse, calling at home or work, 

coming to the home, stalking, and other problems related to the order). 

To quantify these measures of effectiveness, we developed an index of the variables that make up each 

measure. The indexes allow more meaningful analyses of relationships among the dependent (or outcome) 

variables that make up the indices and the many independent variables that could be associated with the 

effectiveness of protection orders. Each of the variables in the indexes has a score of 1. For the Well-being 

Index the possible range of scores is 0 (the lowest level of effectiveness) to 3 (the highest level). For the 

Problems Index the possible range of the values is from 0 (indicating the highest level of effectiveness) to 7 

(the lowest level of effectiveness). Thus the values of the Problems Index are the inverse of those for the 

Well-being Index: the greater the number of types of problems the participant experienced, the higher her 

score on the Problems Index. 

Summary of Key Findings and Implications for Practice 

r Civil protection orders are valuable for helping victims regain a sense of well-being. 

For nearly three-quarters of the study participants, the short-term effects of the protection order on 

three aspects (whether their lives have improved, whether they felt better about themselves, and whether 

they felt safer) of the participants' well-being were positive (see Table 1). These positive effects improved 

over time, so that by the time of the six-month follow-up interview, the proportion of participants reporting life improvement increased to 85 percent. More than 90 percent reported feeling better about themselves, and 80 percent of those with a protection order in effect felt safer. Furthermore, in both the initial 

and follow-up interviews, 95 percent of the participants stated that they would seek a protection order again. 

In the vast majority of cases, civil protection orders deter repeated incidents of 

physical and psychological abuse. 

A majority of the participants in both the initial and follow-up interviews reported having no problems 

(72.4 percent and 65.3 percent, respectively; see Table 2). Repeat occurrences of physical abuse were reportedly rare, but varied greatly across the study sites. In the initial interviews, 2.6 percent of the participants 
Civil Protect~on Orders. The Benefrts and Lrmitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table 2: 

Effectiveness Measured by Problems with Orders: All Sites 

Initial Interview Follow-up Interview 

(n=268) (n=1 67) 

# % # % 

No Problems Exwerienced 194 72.4 109 65.3 

Respondent Called HomeNork 43 16.1 2 9 17.4 

Respondent Came to Home 24 9.0 14 8.4 

Respondent Stalked Victim 11 4.1 12 7.2 

Respondent Physically Reabused Victim 7 2.6 14 8.4 

Respondent Psychologically Reabused Victim 12 4.4 2 1 12.6 

Respondent Caused Other Problems 3 I. 1 1 0.6 

reported repeated physical abuse. At the six-month follow-up, that proportion more than tripled to 8.4 percent. The incidence of repeated physical abuse was much higher, however, in Delaware (10.9 percent) and 

the District of Columbia (11.9 percent) than in Denver, where only about 2 percent of the participants 

reported being reabused physically. 

Psychological abuse was reported by 4.4 percent of the study participants initially, but after six months 

the reported incidence rose to 12.6 percent. As for the reports of repeated physical abuse, there was a high 

level of variance across the sites. Psychological abuse was highest in Delaware (23.6 percent) and lowest in 

the District of Columbia (1.7 percent), with Denver falling in the middle (13.3 percent). 

The most frequently reported problem in both the initial and follow-up interviews involved respondents 

calling the victim at home or work (16.1 percent and 17.4 percent, respectively). In both the initial and 

follow-up interviews, about 9 percent of the participants reported that the respondents came to their homes. 

Stalking was infrequently reported. In the initial interviews about 4 percent of the participants reported being 

stalked by the respondent, and this figure rose to about 7 percent in the follow-up interview^.^ 

The study participants experienced severe abuse. 

More than one-third of the study participants had been threatened or injured with a weapon; more 

than half the participants had been beaten or choked, and 84 percent had suffered milder physical abuse, 

such as slapping, kicking, and shoving (see Table 3).8 While the use of weapons to threaten or injure the 

participants occurred for most women only once or twice, more than 40 percent of the participants experienced severe physical abuse at least every few months, and 10 percent experienced such abuse weekly. 

About 10 percent of the participants sought a protection order after only a week, but 15 percent of the 

women experienced abuse for one to two years, and nearly one-quarter had endured the respondent's abusive behavior for more than five years. 

The majority of participants with children reported that they did not experience any problems related to the children. However, in 

contrast to the whole group of participants, the proportion of participants with children who reported having any problems rose from 31 

percent in the initial interviews to 42 percent in the follow-up interviews. This difference makes sense intuitively, because participants 

with children are more likely to be in situations where problems could occur, such as seeing the respondent upon the exchange of children for visitation. The two most frequently reported types of problems related to children were problems at exchange of children for 

visitation (3.9 percent, 2.1 percent) and threatening to keep the children (2.1 percent, 3.5 percent). No one reported that the respondent 

actually kept the children. Four participants in the first interview and one in the follow-up interview reported that their respondents did 

not return the children at the appointed time. 

To assess the nature of the abusive behavior experienced by the study participants, the project applied the categories of abusive behaviors used by the Urban Institute and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in an evaluation of the use of mediation in family mediation when domestic violence might be occurring between the parties. See, L. Newmark, A. Harrell, and P. Salem, Domestic 

Violence and Empowerment in Custody and Visitation Cases: An Empirical Study on the Impact of Domestic Abuse (Madison, Wis.: Association 

of Family and Conciliation Courts, 1994). These categories were distilled from the specific acts included in the Conflict Tactics Scale developed by M. Straus, "Measuring Family Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales," Journal of Marriage and the Family vol. 41 

(1979): 75-88. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Table 3: 

Nature of Abuse Before Protection Order 

All Sites (n=285] # 010 By Site # Yo 

Delaware 29 32.2 

Threatened or Injured with a Weapon 105 36.8 Denver 33 36.7 

District of Columbia 43 41.0 

Delaware 55 61.1 

Severe Physical Abuse: Beaten or Choked 155 54.4 Denver 48 53.3 

District of Columbia 52 49.5 

Delaware 80 88.9 

Mild Physical Abuse: 239 83.9 Denver 79 87.8 

Slapping, Grabbing, Shoving, Kicking Dlstrict of Columbia 80 76.2 

Delaware 90 100.0 

Intimidation Through Threats, Stalking, 282 98.9 Denver 90 100.0 

Harassment District of Columbia 90 97.1 

Most significantly, the longer the women experienced abuse, the more intense the abusive behavior 

became; consequently, the longer a victim stays in a relationship, the more likely it is that she will be severely injured by the ab~ser.~ This finding indicates that victims should be counseled at the earliest moment 

they come in contact with a public or private service that the likelihood of the abusive behavior abating 

without a specific intervention is low. Victims should receive assistance in developing a safety plan and 

understanding the importance of enlisting neighbors, friends, and coworkers in following the plan. 

r The majority of abusive partners have a criminal record. 

Sixty-five percent of the respondents had a prior criminal arrest history (see Table 4).1° These charges 

consisted of a variety of offenses including violent crime (domestic violence, simple assault, other violence, 

and weapons charges), drug and alcohol-related crimes (drug and DUI offenses), and other categories of 

crimes (property, traffic and miscellaneous offenses). Of the 129 respondents with any history of violent 

crime, 109 had prior arrests for violent crimes other than domestic violence. These findings are generally 

consistent with a study conducted in Quincy, Massachusetts, that found that "80 percent of abusers have 

prior criminal histories . . . and half have prior violence records."ll 

To examine relationships between the intensity of the abuse the participants experienced and other variables, an index of abuse intensity was created through factor analysis. The duration of abuse was highly correlated with more severe abuse and more frequent abuse. 

The score for the rotated factor matrix for the duration of abuse variable was 0.598, resulting in a factor score coefficient of .231. 

lo The sources of the criminal history records and their inclusiveness in regard to the sample of participants varied across the project sites. 

In Delaware, the Family Court provided statewide data on the respondents to all the orders issued to participants in the study. The Family 

Court could achieve this level of inclusiveness because the Family Court records include the names of the respondents. In Denver and 

the District of Columbia, project staff had to obtain the names of the respondents from the participants' case files. At each of these sites, 

project and court staff could not locate the files of all the participants and consequently also could not obtain the names of all the respondents. In Denver, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice provides statewide criminal histories. In the District of Columbia, project 

staff obtained criminal records from the automated system of the Superior Court. The criminal history records are not likely to be comprehensive. Because of the close proximity that the District of Columbia and Delaware have to neighboring jurisdictions (northern 

Virginia and Maryland for the District of Columbia, and Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey for Delaware), the criminal records in 

these sites may significantly underrepresent the total amount of prior criminal activity for the respondents. In Denver, the arrest histories for respondents may be more representative of their actual prior arrest record because Denver is centrally located within a comparatively large statewide reporting jurisdiction. 

M. Schachere, "STOP Grants Training Conferences Highlight Successful Strategies," National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention 

vol. 1 (December 1995). The Quincy study focused in part on the effectiveness of a highly coordinated and accurate reporting system 

between the civil and criminal court systems. The comparatively high criminal arrest rates reported in the Quincy study may reflect the 

accuracy of that jurisdiction's reporting system rather than an abnormally higher violent crime rate relative to the sites included in this 

study. 
Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table 4: 

Number of Respondents with a Criminal Arrest History 

All Sites (n=244) # Yo By Site # Yo 

Delaware (n=9O) 62 68.9 

All Crime Types 158 64.8 Denver (n=60) 46 67.6 

District of Columbia fn=86l 50 58.1 

Delaware 56 62.2 

Violent Crime 129 52.9 Denver 40 58.8 

District of Columbia 33 38.4 

Delaware 25 27.8 

Drug- and Alcohol-related Crimes 72 29.5 Denver 22 32.4 

District of Columbia 25 29.1 

Delaware 49 54.4 

Other Crimes 12 1 49.6 Denver 31 45.6 

District of Columbia 41 47.7 

If the woman's abuser had an arrest record for violent crime, she was significantly less likely to have been 

available for a second interview.12 Furthermore, respondents with arrest histories for drug- and alcohol-related crimes and for violent crime tended to engage in more intense abuse of their partners than did other 

respondents. These findings strongly support the need for greater attention to safety planning for victims 

whose abusers have a record of violent crime, as well as the need for protection orders to require both substance abuse and batterer treatment for respondents with arrest records for drug- and alcohol-related offenses. Concomitantly, judges need to have the criminal arrest histories available for review when they are crafting protection orders. Judges and victim service providers should stress to victims the need for vigilance in 

taking safety precautions and using law enforcement and the court to enforce their protection orders. 

r The criminal record of the respondent is associated with improvements in wellbeing and in curbing abusive conduct. 

For the Well-being Index, participants are more likely to report positive outcomes when the respondent 

has a record of violent crime.13 Protection orders therefore can be particularly helpful for improving the wellbeing of women when their abusers have been sufficiently (and probably publicly) violent in the past to be 

arrested for the behavior. For the Problems Index, in the initial interviews, the participants whose abuser had 

a higher number of arrests tended to report a greater number of problems with the protection order.14 In the 

follow-up interviews, the participants whose abuser had at least one arrest for a violent crime other than 

domestic violence were more likely to experience a greater number of problems with the protection order.15 

These findings indicate that protection orders obtained against respondents with a criminal history are 

less likely to be effective in deterring future violence or avoiding other problems than those obtained against 

respondents without such a history. Because protection orders provide petitioners with less protection 

against respondents with a high number of arrests, and more specifically with a history of violent crime, the 

need for aggressive criminal prosecution policies becomes more critical. Criminal prosecution of such indil2 These findings related to the respondents criminal history suggest that the women not interviewed a second time may have had less 

positive feelings about themselves than did the women who were interviewed a second time. On the other hand, participants who 

obtained orders against respondents with an arrest record for violent crime tended to have higher scores on an index of subjective measures of effectiveness of protection orders. They also may have suffered repeated physical abuse, psychological abuse, or other violations 

of the protection order to a greater degree than the women participating in the follow-up interviews. See Chapter I11 on effectiveness of 

protection orders. 

l3 See full report, Chapter IV, Table IV.8. 

l4 Analysis of Variance, F = 1.6271, p = .0439. 

l5 Analysis of Variance, F = 4.8820, p = .0285. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

viduals may be required to curb their abusive behavior. Reliance on a protection as the sole intervention in 

these cases may not be the most effective deterrence against further abuse. 

The relationships between the respondents' criminal histories and both the improved quality of life 

and reported problems with protection orders indicate that the dual interventions of criminal and civil 

process are likely to be most helpful to women whose abusers have been arrested in the past. Criminal prosecution may address the violence more effectively, while the civil protection order bolsters the victim's selfesteem and gives greater feelings of security. 

= Temporary protection orders can be useful even if the victim does not follow 

through to obtain a permanent order. 

The most commonly cited reason for not returning for a permanent order was that the respondent had 

stopped bothering the petitioner (35.5 percent), which suggests that being the subject of the court's attention can influence the abuser's behavior. Also, one-fourth of the study participants who obtained only a 

temporary protection order engaged in safety planning at that time. The court process thus offered an 

opportunity for educating victims about the actions they could take to protect themselves. This finding 

indicates that courts and victim service providers should capitalize on this opportunity by spending more 

time in safety planning and assessing victims' needs when they petition for temporary orders. 

= The court process can influence the victim's active participation in deterring further 

violence in her life. 

A more centralized process and direct assistance to petitioners for protection orders may encourage 

women with a temporary order to return to court for a permanent order. The proportion of women who 

returned to court for a permanent order following a temporary order was significantly higher in Denver (60 

percent) than in the District of Columbia (44 percent).16 In addition, a higher proportion of women developed a safety plan in Denver, where each petitioner is assisted by an advocate from Project Safeguard, in 

comparison to Delaware and the District of Columbia. Study participants in Denver also reported far fewer 

repeated occurrences of physical violence compared to the participants in Delaware and Denver. 

r The full potential for comprehensive relief in protection orders has not been 

achieved. 

Exclusive use of the family residence is an available remedy in each of the project sites and can be critical for the both the safety and psychological stability of the victim, but the court in Denver is much more 

disposed than the other courts to order the respondent to vacate a common residence in both temporary 

and permanent orders. Also, although considerable proportions of the respondents had histories of violent 

crime and drug- or alcohol-related offenses, few of the protection orders required the respondent to participate in batterer or substance abuse. Courts should revise protection order petitions and uniform orders to 

include all possible forms of relief available to victims. Making the forms more user friendly and instructive 

as to the relief available will allow petitioners greater opportunity to consider what types of relief are likely 

to be helpful to them. 

= Victims do not use the contempt process to enforce orders. 

Few of the study participants filed contempt motions for violations of the protection order. In 130 

cases (89.7 percent), no contempt motions were filed. Thirteen cases (9.0 percent) had one contempt 

l6 The return rate for participants in Delaware differs considerably from Denver and the District of Columbia, primarily because the 

majority of participants in Delaware were recruited for the study when they appeared for the hearing on the permanent order. 

Xlll 
Civil Protection Orders' The Benefits and Limltat~ons for Vict~ms of Domest~c Violence 

motion and only two cases (1.4 percent) had more than one contempt motion. Of the cases in which contempt motions were filed, the court held a hearing on the matter in nine cases and granted the motion in 

five of these cases. The low use by participants of the civil contempt process to enforce protection orders 

indicates that the court should do more to inform victims about the availability of and the process for filing contempt motions.17 Judges should advise victims during hearings about the avenues of enforcement, 

including law enforcement, the court, and courts in other states. Furthermore, the protection order should 

include a statement regarding the order's enforceability locally, throughout the state, and in other states. 

This need to provide easily accessible and understandable information about the enforcement process has 

become more acute in the wake of the Violence Against Women Act's full faith and credit provisions for protection orders.18 

r The potential for linking victims to services through the court process has not been 

achieved. 

Overall, more than three-fourths (77.5 percent) of the study participants received some type of service 

or assistance, either before or after they obtained a protection order. However, the participants' private circle of friends and relatives accounted for a large proportion of the assistance victims received. Although an 

array of services is available to victims from both governmental sources, such as police and prosecutor victim assistance units, and the community, such as victim counseling, shelters for battered women and their 

children, pro bono legal services, and employment and education counseling, a relatively low proportion of 

victims appears to be making a connection to these services. The court should ensure that petitioners for 

protection orders receive not only information about the services available to them but also assistance in 

accessing the services. 

Law enforcement agencies can do more to assist prosecutors in developing cases 

for prosecution, to arrest perpetrators, and to help victims access the civil protection order process. 

The reported use of police services varied across the sites, as did the responses of the police (see Table 

5). In Delaware, for example, a higher proportion of the participants had called the police following the 

incident that spurred them to seek a protection order (Delaware, 97 percent; Denver, 93 percent; District of 

Columbia, 90 percent), but the police came to the scene of the incident in a lower proportion of the cases 

(Delaware, 79 percent; Denver, 89 percent; District of Columbia, 94 percent). Once at the scene, however, 

the police in Delaware (Wilmington Police and New Castle County Police) were more likely to take notes 

and interview witnesses. The police arrested the respondent in Denver in a considerably higher proportion 

of the cases, particularly in comparison to the District of Columbia (87 percent compared with 41 percent). 

In each of the sites, however, the proportion of participants who reported that the police had told them how 

to obtain a civil protection order was too low for good practice (Delaware, 57 percent; Denver, 54 percent; 

District of Columbia, 71 percent). 

Because law enforcement officers are on the front lines of the fight against domestic violence, they 

should be more aggressive in ascertaining probable cause to arrest abusers, as well as in informing victims 

about the civil protection order process. The role of law enforcement officers in enforcing protection orders 

has become even more critical since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. The full faith and 

credit provision of VAWA places greater responsibility on law enforcement officers to respond effectively to 

l7 Participants in Denver also reported little use of the contempt process to enforce orders, but this is most likely because the policy of 

the City Attorney is to vigorously prosecute violations of protection orders. The City Attorney's domestic violence unit works closely with 

the police department to coordinate arrests, arraignments, and prosecution. They reportedly obtain a high proportion of guilty pleas 

because the prosecution efforts have been successful. 

Is The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322,Title IV, 108 Stat. 1902-55 940221 (2265-2266). 

XIV 
EXECUTIVE SUMMRY 

Table 5: 

Police Procedures 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

# Yo # Yo # Yo 

Petitioner Called Police Followinq CPO Incident 58 96.7 56 93.3 8 0 89.9 

Police Came to the Scene 46 79.3 50 89.3 7 5 93.8 

Police Interviewed Witnesses at the Scene 2 5 59.5 2 7 55.1 2 7 37.5 

Police Took Notes at Scene 3 1 72.1 28 60.9 4 6 64.8 

Police Arrested Res~ondent 9 55.0 27 87.1 14 41.2 

Police Informed Petitioner About CPO Availability 35 60.3 37 60.7 69 77.5 

Police Informed Petitioner About CPO Procedures 33 56.9 32 53.6 63 70.8 

Petitioner Believes Police Were Helpful 3 1 52.5 2 7 45.0 39 43.8 

victims' calls for enforcement of protection orders issued by jurisdictions outside the local or state jurisdiction. Law enforcement training in domestic violence, arrest policies, and enforcement procedures should be 

an integral and mandatory component of officer preparation and continuing education, not just an isolated topic at the academy and a low priority activity for veterans. 

Continued Research on Current and Future Initiatives 

A significant movement has developed to implement new approaches to redressing family violence and 

addressing the needs of its victims.19 Over the course of the past few years, a wave of legislative reforms in 

the states and at the federal level has accelerated this movement. Chief among these is the Violence Against 

Women Act (VAWA), enacted by Congress in 1994. 

The VAWA presents a pivotal opportunity to increase the effectiveness of protection orders through several changes in current practice that will affect access to protection orders and enhance enforcement remedies. The VAWA provisions include full faith and credit for protection orders, sanctions for interstate violation of protection orders, and substantial grant opportunities that are building the capacities of state and 

local jurisdictions to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, corrections, and 

providers of victim services, batterer treatment, and medical, mental health, and social services. 

Many of the initiatives funded by VAWA include the implementation of data collection and communication systems and enhancement of coordinated community interventions. These initiatives are likely to 

encourage improved processes for obtaining and enforcing protection orders and for incorporating protection orders as a key component in the web of responses to domestic violence. Future research should capitalize on the data collection and community coordination systems that are evolving with VAWA and other 

funding. The most effective interventions can only be determined by examining the interactive dynamics 

of domestic violence, including the nature of abuse experienced by victims, the criminal histories of the 

abusers, the use of criminal history information in crafting orders and counseling victims, the actions of 

police and prosecutors, the enforcement and effects of specific terms (including supervised visitation and 

batterer and substance abuse treatment), and the application of full faith and credit for protection orders. 

The National Center's study demonstrates that the effectiveness of civil protection orders is inextricably 

linked to the quality of the system of government and community services in which protection orders operate. Issuing a protection order is only one part of the remedy. 

l9 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence: State-of-the-Art Court Programs (Reno, Nev.: National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1992). 

Chapter I: 

Introduction 

-- - 

Chapter I: 

Introduction 

In 1994, the National Institute of Justice provided grant funds to the National Center for State Courts to 

examine the effectiveness of civil protection orders in deterring further violence for victims of domestic 

abuse. The National Center's study began at a point when many changes were taking place across the country in the ways that government and the community addressed the myriad problems that domestic violence 

engenders. With systems in a state of flux and searching for ways to improve their operations, the National 

Center's study examined how courts in three jurisdictions process civil protection orders. These jurisdictions 

are the Family Court in Wilmington, Delaware; the County Court in Denver, Colorado; and the District of 

Columbia Superior Court. Each of these jurisdictions has court processes and service models that are distinct from the others. 

The expectation in examining these three jurisdictions was that the different models would produce 

various results and that these variations might hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. The study was designed to build on the prior research of others who had explored the reasons why 

civil protection orders might be more or less effective under particular circumstance^.^ These earlier studies 

had concluded that the effectiveness of protection orders depends on the comprehensiveness of relief provided in protection orders, the specificity of the protection order terms, and how well and consistently the 

orders are enforced. Other factors that might influence the degree to which protection orders provide safer 

environments for victims and enhance their opportunities for escaping violent relationships include easy 

accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and assistance in pursuing criminal remedies. 

Since the National Center initiated its study of civil protection orders, emergency orders have become 

available on an ex parte basis in all fifty states and waves of legislative reforms across the country have 

changed the landscape of protection orders. Over the past two decades, advocates for eliminating societal 

and governmental tolerance for violence against women have challenged the criminal and civil justice systems, legislatures, governors, corporations, communities, schools, churches, and other social institution^.^ 

These advocates achieved a major victory in 1994, when the United States Congress set in motion the most 

sweeping legislative response to violence against women by enacting the Violence Against Women Act 

(VAWA). The VAWA contains numerous provisions to prevent violence against women, promote safe homes and 

streets, and provide new and expanded legal remedies for women who are victims of domestic violence and 

sexual assault. The VAWA presents a pivotal opportunity to increase the effectiveness of protection orders 

The Urban Institute, The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (Washington, D.C.,1996); M. Chaudhuri and K. Daly, "Do Restraining 

Orders Help? Battered Women's Experience with Male Violence and Legal Process," in E. Buzawa and C. Buzawa (eds.), Domestic Violence: 

The Changing Criminal Justice Response (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1991); P. Finn and S. Colson, "Civil Protection Orders: 

Legislation, Practice and Enforcement," National Institute oflustice Issues and Practice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1990). 

The Urban Institute, 1996. 

Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. 
Civ~lProtection Orders The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestrc V~olence 

through several changes in current practice that will affect access to protection orders and enhance enforcement remedies. These new provisions include full faith and credit for protection orders (Section 40221, subsections 2265 and 2266), sanctions for interstate violation of protection orders (Section 40221, subsection 

2262), and alleviation of requirements that victims pay filing fees or service costs for protection orders 

obtained in the course of criminal prosecution of the batterer (Section 40114, subsection 2006). 

The full faith and credit provision is monumental in its potential for expanding the enforcement of 

protection orders. Under the provision of the VAWA, state and tribal courts are directed to enforce valid civil 

and criminal protection orders issued by foreign states and tribal courts as though they were issued in the 

enforcing state or tribe.4 Prior to its enactment, only a handful of states afforded full faith and credit to protection orders issued in other states and often imposed specialized registration procedures as prerequisites to 

enfor~ement.~ 

The lack of full faith and credit places severe constraints on the scope of protection available through 

court orders, as well as additional bureaucratic burdens on victims seeking protection. Research has found 

that one of the most dangerous times for victims is when they are fleeing their batterer.6 Often, the victim 

may seek safety and refuge from the violence by moving to another state.' When protection orders are not 

given full faith and credit, the victim is not afforded critical law enforcement protection and is put at risk of 

future abuse. Furthermore, differing requirements for obtaining a protection order may result in a victim 

being ineligible for an order in the state to which she has mo~ed.~ 

Although the VAWA full faith and credit provision is an integral tool for protecting women from violence, it poses challenges for courts and law enforcement that directly affect the development of data information and communication systems. Among these challenges are effectively determining whether the due 

process rights of the respondent were honored when the order was issued; maintaining confidentiality of the 

victim's location in the new resident state; providing the enforcing state's law enforcement and courts with 

adequate information regarding the remedies allowable in the issuing state's protection orders; and responding to liability concerns of law enforcement in enforcing foreign orders that officers cannot ~erify.~ Several 

initiatives to implement VAWA's full faith and credit provision are underway, including a regional experiment 

led by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, state and national registries, and development of model forms 

including a uniform certification of compliance with due process requirements for full faith and credit.1° 

VAWA also incorporates grant opportunities that ultimately will influence the effective use and enforcement of protection orders. The concentration areas for the grant programs include (1) developing and 

implementing more effective police and prosecution policies to respond to violence against women, (2) 

developing, installing, or expanding data collection and communication systems to track protection orders 

and violations, and (3) developing and strengthening victim service programs and providing specialized 

court advocates in locations with a high volume of petitions for protection orders. Through these formula 

grants for "Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors" (STOP grants), resources are provided to states, Indian 

tribal governments, and units of local government to undertake projects in these and other areas. 

Many of the 1995 STOP grant implementation plans submitted by the states include initiatives for data 

collection and communication systems and community coordination approaches. Both initiatives are likely to encourage improved processes for obtaining protection orders and incorporate orders as a key component in the complex web of responses to domestic violence. The programs realize, however, that the effecThe Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322,Title IV, 108 Stat. 1902-55 540221 (2265-2266). 

C. F. Klein, "Full Faith and Credit: Interstate Enforcement of Protection Orders Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994," 

Family Law Journal Quarterly (summer, 1995). 

M. Hofford, "Full Faith and Credit: A Promise and a Challenge!" in Courts and Communities: Confronting Violence in the Family vol. 2 

(spring 1996); L. G. Lerman, "Statute: A Model State Act: Remedies for Domestic Abuse." Haward Iournal on Legislation vol. 21 (1984). 

Hofford, 1996. 

Ibid. 

B. J. Hart, "Full Faith and Credit for Protection Orders and Federal Domestic Violence Crimes" (paper presented at the National College 

of District Attorneys, Reading, Pa., 1996). 

Hofford, 1996. 
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 

tiveness of orders are inextricably linked to the quality of their enforcement and their use in conjunction 

with other services and remedies. 

Information technology and communication systems are largely untapped opportunities to enhance 

criminal justice and community responses to violence against women.ll Numerous difficulties have hampered the development of communication systems to efficiently and effectively capture, store, and share 

information. Perhaps the most fundamental of these problems is that responses to violence against women 

are generated by many different government agencies, service providers, and community organizations.12 

Law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, corrections, and providers of victim services, batterer treatment, and 

medical, mental health, and social services all have significant roles to fulfill in the process. 

Safety concerns of victims likewise render improvements to and integration of information and communication systems into a double-edged sword. Put simply, greater access to information on violence 

against women potentially can heighten safety risks for its victims. Despite this safety concern and other 

difficulties, competent systems for communication and information sharing are essential, particularly in 

conveying information about the existence of protection orders, their provisions, and enforcement among 

the courts, police, prosecution, and victim service providers. 

Community coordination and collaboration approaches also are an integral component in many STOP 

grant implementation plans. This trend parallels the proliferation of national, state, and local initiatives 

that employ various strategies to coordinate the community's response to violence against women. These 

initiatives focus on developing community-based approaches to respond to domestic violence that incorporate effective use of protection orders in conjunction with enhanced and coordinated enforcement and 

expanded provision of victim services. Protection orders in the context of these initiatives are not regarded 

as a stand-alone remedy, a practice that was a criticism of the use of orders in the past. The programs assert 

that through these integrated initiatives, the effectiveness of the entire community response ultimately will 

be improved.13 

The VAWA provisions and grant opportunities recognize protection orders as a critical component in 

an effective response to violence against women, but they present states and localities with new challenges 

in implementation and enforcement. The results of the National Center's study will be valuable to practitioners as they work to meet these challenges. It examines what impact various factors have on two primary measures of effectiveness: (1)improvement in the quality of the women's lives (women's reports that 

their lives have improved since getting the order, that they feel better about themselves, and that they feel 

safer) and (2) the deterrence of abusive behavior (women's reports of violations of the order, repeated incidence of physical or psychological abuse, and problems associated with the order). 

11 B. J. Hart, "Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence" (paper presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on 

Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C., March 31, 1995). 

l2 Urban Institute, 1996;Justice Research and Statistics Association, Report on State Domestic and Sexual Violence Against Women Act of 1994 

(Washington, D.C., 1995); L. P. Edwards, "Reducing Family Violence: The Role of the Family Violence Council," Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal vol. 43 (1992); M. Steinman, "The Public Policy Process and Woman Battering: Problems and Potentials," in Michael Steinman 

(ed.), Woman Battering: Policy Responses (Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and Anderson 

Publishing, 1991). 

l3 Researchers assert that the lack of integration and coordination of all the efforts to address violence against women (e.g., responses of 

the police, prosecution, courts, and victim services) can create fragmentation and weaken the system's impact and effectiveness. See Hart, 

1995; M. Syers and J. L. Edleson, "The Combined Effects of Coordinated Criminal Justice Intervention in Woman Abuse," Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence vol. 7 (1992); E. R. Hamlin, "Community-based Spouse Abuse Protection and Family Preservation Team," Social Work 

vol. 36 (1992);Steinman, 1991; D. J. Gamache, J. L. Edleson, and M. D. Schock, "Coordinated Police, Judicial, and Social Service Response 

to Woman Battering: A Multiple-Baseline Evaluation Across Three Communities," in G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, and 

M. A. Straus (eds.), Coping with Family Violence: Research and Policy Perspectives (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1988);M. Hofford 

and R. J. Gable, "Significant Interventions: Coordinated Strategies to Deter Family Violence," in Meredith Hofford (ed.), Families in Court 

(Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1989); G. A. Goolkasian, Con/?onting Domestic Violence: A Guide For 

Criminal Justice Agencies (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1986). To avoid this pitfall, integration and coordination of services has been a rallying cry of researchers and practitioners as the key to effective management. See Hart, 1995; National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Courts and Communities: Confronting Violence in the Family, Conference Highlights (Reno, Nev.: National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1994); "Developments in the Law: Legal Responses to Domestic Violence," Harvard Law 

Review vol. 106 (1993); Edwards, 1992; Steinman, 1991. 

Chapter 11: 

Methodology 

Chapter 11: 

Methodology 

Jurisdictions Participating in the Civil Protection Order Study 

The Delaware Family Court in Wilmington, the Denver County Court, and the District of Columbia Superior 

Court participated in the civil protection order study. These jurisdictions were selected based on particular 

attributes that rendered them interesting and appropriate study sites. Among these attributes was the variance among the sites on a number of characteristics that might influence how effective a remedy protection 

orders can be. 

On some factors that also might affect the effectiveness of civil protection orders, the three jurisdictions are more alike than different. One of these factors is the availability of emergency protection orders. 

In each of the three jurisdictions, petitioners can obtain an ex parte order of protection during business hours 

Monday through Friday, but there is no weekend or after-hours access to an emergency civil protection 

order. (In all three sites, the court can issue a criminal no-contact order in cases where the perpetrator has 

been released from custody after an arrest.) 

Two other important aspects of effectiveness that are similar in the three sites are the mechanisms for 

enforcing protection orders and the legal treatment of violations. In each site, police may arrest respondents 

without a warrant based on probable cause that the respondent violated the protection 0rder.l Violations 

can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense. Orders are also enforceable through contempt proceedings in 

the court. 

The factors that distinguish the three jurisdictions are described below. These factors include (1) the 

stage of development that initiatives to address domestic violence had reached when the study commenced; 

(2) the accessibility of victims to the court process; (3) the organization, level, and source of intake services 

for petitioners; (4) the scope of relief available in protection orders; (5) eligibility for protection orders; and 

(6) the provision of services to victims of domestic violence (availability, coordination, and centralization of 

services). 

Development of Domestic Violence Initiatives 

Delaware. Two primary reasons for studying protection orders in Delaware were the relative recency and 

comprehensiveness of Delaware's civil protection order statute and the placement of jurisdiction for protection orders in the Family Court. Delaware has had a Domestic Violence Task Force since 1984. Since that 

time, the Task Force has worked cooperatively with state agencies and community organizations to improve 

The entry of protection from abuse orders is fully automated now in Delaware. When a judge or commissioner grants a PFA, the order 

is printed out for the parties in the courtroom and simultaneously entered into the statewide justice information system (DELJIS). Orders 

thus are accessible by all law enforcement officers statewide. The information system has recently been automated. Colorado is in the 

process of developing a statewide registry for civil protection orders. In the District of Columbia, protection orders are entered into the 

Washington Area Law Enforcement System (WALES), but this system will soon change along with other components of the domestic violence response system. 
Civil Protection Orders. The Benefits and Llmitatlons for Victims of Domestic V~olence 

Delaware's response to domestic violence and to coordinate public and private resources. In 1991, a coalition of professional and community volunteers organized the Project for Domestic Violence Reform, which 

added impetus to the movement. 

These initiatives led to the enactment of legislation in 1993 that significantly altered how the justice 

system addressed domestic ~iolence.~ Included in the legislative package was the creation of the Domestic 

Violence Coordinating Council and the Protection from Abuse ~ct,~ which authorizes Protection from 

Abuse Orders and, for the first time, an ex parte hearing for emergency protection order^.^ The Protection 

from Abuse Act became effective January 16, 1994. 

A feature of Delaware's domestic violence response that places the Family Court in a key role vis & vis 

its other governmental and community partners is the location of the Domestic Violence Coordinating 

Council office in the Family Court. The Executive Director for the Coordinating Council works closely with 

the Chief Judge, who chairs the Coordinating Council. As implementation of the Protection from Abuse Act 

and related domestic violence initiatives has proceeded, the Family Court thus has been well positioned to 

track progress and problems and to revise procedures and policies accordingly. 

Denver. Denver has been on the forefront of the movement to eliminate domestic violen~e.~ Since 

the early 1980s, the advocacy community has engaged the justice system, including law enforcement, prosecution, and the courts, in the reform of laws, policy, and practice related to domestic violence. Although 

problems remain and improvements are still needed, these government and community participants have 

learned over the years to work cooperatively to better protect and assist victims of domestic violence. 

Judicial leadership has promoted innovations in court procedures, including the consolidation of calendars for civil protection order proceedings into a single docket and courtroom presided exclusively by one 

judge. Before this consolidation took place, Denver was one of two courts that participated in a study of the 

effects of civil protection orders by the Urban ~nstitute.~ The current NCSC study therefore offered an 

opportunity to compare the effectiveness of protection orders issued before and after the consolidated docket was established. 

District of Columbia. At the time the study began, the District of Columbia was in the process of 

major reform of its approach to addressing the problems of domestic violence. The District had established 

a Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, which is chaired by a judge of the Superior Court, to develop an 

integrated system for reducing domestic violence and assisting its victims. However, at the outset of the 

study an array of services was available to victims, but there was little coordination of those services. 

Furthermore, despite good intentions, police, prosecutors, and the courts did not function efficiently to confront domestic violence issues. For example, petitioners for civil protection orders faced a fragmented intake 

system and received little assistance in obtaining protection orders or effecting service of process on respondents. The contrast between the District of Columbia and Delaware and Denver provided an opportunity 

to examine how these organizational differences might affect victims of domestic violence who obtain civil 

protection orders. 

Over the past two years, the District has completed a comprehensive study of its procedures for handling domestic violence cases and services for victims. The study led to a plan for an integrated system 

involving the court, police, prosecutors, and victim service providers.' Representatives from each of these 

components of the system have collaborated during the past year to implement the plan incrementally. The 

major aspects of the system were expected to be in place and operating by January 1997. 

See Domestic Violence Coordinating Council Annual Report (State of Delaware, 1994). 

10 Del. C. §§1041-1047. 

The legislative package also created the First Offenders Domestic Violence Diversion Program and the Victim's Bill of Rights; authorized warrantless arrest for violations of PFAs; and required training for deputy attorneys general. 

See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence: State-of-the-Art Court Programs (Reno, Nev.: National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1992). 

A. Harrell, B. Smith, and L. Newmark, Court Processing and the Effects of Restraining Orders for Domestic Violence Victims (Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1993). 

See District of Columbia Domestic Violence Plan (1995). 
CHAPTER II' METHODOLOGY 

Accessibility to the Court Process 

Delaware. In Delaware, commissioners in the Family Court generally hear petitions for civil protection 

orders, called Protection from Abuse Orders (PFAs). Commissioners are attorneys who are appointed to the 

Family Court by the governor and confirmed by the senate for four-year terms. They serve in a special unit 

of the Family Court designed to address the needs of families and children at-risk. In addition to PFA petitions, commissioners hear juvenile criminal matters, adult criminal matters where the victim is a juvenile or 

family member, bail petitions, and other matters assigned by the chief judge. 

In Wilmington, the daily ex parte calendar rotates among three commissioners. Hearings are available 

at 11:OO a.m. and 3:00 p.m. each business day and are held privately. Ex parte orders expire after 10 days. 

All three commissioners generally are assigned to preside over PFA hearings on Fridays, when cases are set 

at 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m., and 11:30 a.m. The docket often becomes delayed, however, and hearings sometimes stretch into the early afternoon. 

Petitioners pay a filing fee to obtain a Protection from Abuse Order, but the fee can be waived upon a 

motion that the petitioner cannot afford the fee. Family Court provides service of orders, other documents, 

and notice of hearings through the local law enforcement agencies. 

Denver. Denver has a specialized docket (Courtroom 303W) for civil protection order proceedings in 

the County Court, a limited jurisdiction trial court. One judge is assigned exciusively to this docket, generally for a two-year period. Petitions for temporary protection orders are heard daily on an ex parte calendar 

beginning at 1:30 p.m. Temporary orders are valid for 14 days. Hearings on permanent orders are held in 

Courtroom 303W every morning beginning at 8:30. 

At the time of the study, the court imposed a filing fee for a protection order, but the fee could be 

waived upon the request of the petitioner. Service of process was made by the police for a fee, but this fee 

also could be waived. 

District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, Superior Court judges hear petitions for civil protection orders. Uudges generally sit in two-year rotations in the Family Division.) Ex parte hearings for temporary orders are held privately and are available daily from the "judge in chambers," who also hears warrants and other emergency matters. Petitioners sit in a small and busy waiting area until the judge in chambers can hear their case. Temporary orders expire after 14 days. Hearings for full orders are set daily on a 

trailing docket. One judge generally is assigned to the protection order calendar for a one-month period. 

The Superior Court does not impose a filing fee for a protection order (and did not do so during the 

study period). Service, however, was the total responsibility of the petitioner. This policy imposed not only 

costs on victims but also the burden of effecting service. The judges of the court were aware of these restrictions on access to a protection order, and many included in the order a provision for service by the 

Metropolitan Police Department. Service is now universally provided at no ~harge.~ 

Organization, Level, and Source of Intake Services for Petitioners 

Delaware. The Delaware Family Court has a Domestic Violence Unit that provides intake services for most 

petitioners for Protection from Abuse Orders (PFAs). The Domestic Violence Unit staff are professionals with 

academic backgrounds in the social science or mental health fields and specialized training in domestic violence. Under the usual procedure, individuals seeking a PFA are advised to proceed to the Domestic Violence 

Unit on the second floor, and their names are placed on a PFA waiting list. The petitioners wait for an intake 

interview in a lobby seating area outside the offices of the Domestic Violence Unit. (The general Intake Unit 

for the Family Court may perform the PFA intake process if the waiting time in the Domestic Violence Unit 

To qualify for block grant funds available under the Violence Against Women Act, petitioners must have access to service of orders at 

no cost. 
Civ~l Protection Orders The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domest~c Violence 

becomes too long or if it becomes apparent during intake for another Family Court matter that an individual 

may need a PFA. Staff of the Intake Unit have training in domestic violence and the PFA petitioning process.) 

During the intake interview in a private office, Domestic Violence Unit staff screen the case to determine whether the individual is in immediate danger and needs to have an ex parte hearing for a temporary 

order that day or if the individual can safely wait until a full hearing can be held in either 10 or 30 days. If 

the individual wishes to file a petition for a PFA, the Domestic Violence Unit staff assists the individual in 

completing the petition and, if appropriate, an affidavit for an emergency hearing. If an ex parte hearing is 

needed, the petitioner's file is forwarded to the commissioner hearing ex parte petitions that day and a hearing is set for either 11:OO a.m. or 3:00 p.m. The Domestic Violence Unit staff accompanies the petitioner to 

the hearing, but does not provide repre~entation.~ 

Denver. Petitioners for restraining orders obtain court forms and instructions from the clerk for 

Courtroom 303W. Court personnel do assist petitioners in completing the forms. However, the Denver 

County Court has an informal cooperative agreement for limited intake services with a community victim 

advocacy and service organization, Project Safeguard. Under this agreement, Project Safeguard advocates 

may assist women filing petitions for restraining orders, both in the courthouse and at an off-site location. 

Project Safeguard offers a free clinic each day at 10:30 a.m. where paid and volunteer staff advise victims 

about the process for obtaining a temporary and permanent restraining order and assist victims in completing the necessary court forms. Advocates also are present each day in Courtroom 303W to assist women in 

preparing for the ex parte hearings, which begin at 1:30 p.m. These advocates assist women who have been 

at the morning clinic as well as women who have not had any previous assistance. Many of these women 

will have arrived at Courtroom 303W sometime after 12:30 p.m., when the Clerk's Office for Courtroom 

303W reopens for the ex parte hearing docket. (Individuals who come into the Clerk's Office during the morning calendar are given a packet of court forms and instructions and advised to return at 12:30 p.m.) 

District of Columbia. At the time that participants in the study were recruited, victims of domestic 

abuse could start the petition process for either a temporary or full protection order during the business day 

at either the Citizen's Complaint Center (since closed) or the Clerk's Office for the Family Division of the 

Superior Court. All petitions were filed, however, in the Clerk's Office, where victims waited their turn for 

time with court intake staff. Court staff completed the petition based on the affidavit filed by the petitioner, 

but provided no advice or assistance in completing the affidavits or other court forms. Court staff advised 

petitioners where to go for an ex parte hearing with the judge in chambers but usually did not accompany 

them there. (A new centralized intake system was scheduled to begin operating in November 1996. 

Corporation Counsel, the equivalent of a city attorney's office, will provide intake services.) 

Eligibility for Protection Orders 

Delaware. Under Delaware's Protection from Abuse Act, Protection from Abuse Orders (PFAs) are an available remedy for a protected class of people who are victims of an act of abuse. The protected class includes 

family members,1° former spouses, a man and a woman living together with or without a child in common, 

or a man and a woman living apart with a child in common. Thus, PFAs are available to those who have a 

former relationship with the abuser only if the victim and the abuser have a child in common or the abuse 

occurred while the parties lived together; PFAs also are not available to men or women in a homosexual relationship. Although eligibility of individuals for PFAs is narrower than in Denver and the District of 

In some cases, victims may have been referred to the Victim Advocacy Office before they came to the Domestic Violence Unit. In these 

cases, victim advocates assist victims in completing petitions and other court forms. Domestic Violence Unit staff also refer victims to the 

Advocacy Office for services after the victims have completed the petition process. 

lo For purposes of the PFA Act, the meaning of "family" is defined in Title 10 5901 (9) of the Delaware Code. This definition of family 

excludes classic dating relationships and homosexual relationships. 
CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY 

Columbia, the definition of abusive acts for which a remedy is available is more broad. It includes causing 

or attempting to cause physical injury, threatening to cause physical injury, destroying property, trespassing, 

child abuse, unlawful imprisonment, and insults or taunts that reasonably would cause alarm, humiliation, 

or degradation in another individual. 

Denver. The Colorado statute on domestic abusell defines broadly both eligibility for a civil protection order (restraining order to prevent domestic abuse) and domestic abuse in a single definition: Domestic 

abuse is "any act or threatened act of violence which is committed by an adult or emancipated minor against 

another adult, minor child, or emancipated minor with whom the actor is a current or former relation, or 

with whom the actor is living or has lived in the same domicile, or with whom the actor is involved or has 

been involved in an intimate relationship."12 Thus, protection orders cover individuals involved in current, 

former, heterosexual, or homosexual relationships (legal, intimate, cohabitant). 

District of Columbia. Domestic abuse is an "intrafamily offense" (an act punishable as a crime) against 

which eligible persons may obtain a civil protection order.13 Eligibility is broad and extends to persons related by blood, legal custody, or marriage, or having a child in common, sharing a domicile, or having a current or former romantic relationship.14 

Scope of Relief Available in Protection Orders 

Delaware. The scope of relief available in Protection from Abuse Orders includes restraining any abusive 

behavior toward the petitioner or her children; prohibiting contact on the telephone and at specified locations; giving exclusive use of the residence; awarding temporary custody and child and spousal support; 

requiring payment for damages caused by domestic violence; allowing exclusive use of personal property 

(e.g., automobiles, bank accounts); requiring the respondent to relinquish firearms to police and prohibiting him from obtaining additional firearms; requiring evaluations for substance abuse treatment; and ordering counseling for the respondent. Commissioners also may include other terms in the order. Protection 

from Abuse Orders expire after 1year but may be extended an additional 6 months for a total of 18 months. 

Denver. The terms of restraining orders issued in Denver also can be broad. Available relief includes 

restraining all specified contact with the petitioner; specifying the distance in yards that the respondent 

must stay away from the petitioner; excluding the respondent from the residence; providing temporary care 

and control of the children until a custody order can be obtained in the District Court (120 days); setting 

child visitation when care and control has been awarded; and other terms that the judge finds to be appropriate given the evidence. 

Standard restraining orders in Denver also contain a term that prohibits either the petitioner or respondent from speaking badly about the other party directly to or in the presence of the children. The sanctions 

for violating the order are spelled out on the order and a notice to law enforcement officials makes clear that 

they have a duty to arrest the respondent if they have probable cause to believe that the respondent has violated the order. Permanent restraining orders have no expiration time; they are effective until the court 

grants the petitioner's motion to dismiss the order. 

District of Columbia. Protection orders issued by the District of Columbia Superior Court can be fairly comprehensive and flexible to fit particular circumstances. Standard terms available include prohibiting 

molesting, assaulting, threatening or physically abusing the petitioner or her children; requiring the respondent to vacate the mutual residence and relinquish possession or control of personal property; ordering temporary custody for and visitation with the children; and providing notice to the Metropolitan Police 

l1 C.R.S. 514-4-101-105. 

l2 C.R.S. 514-4-101. 

l3 Title 16 52 of the District of Columbia Code. 

l4 District of Columbia Code 916-1001(5)(A)(B). 
Civil Protect~on Orders The Benefits and Lmtations for Vict~ms of Domest~c Violence 

Department that they should patrol the premises of the petitioner or stand by while the respondent removes 

personal possessions from the mutual residence. The court also may order other relief. Civil protection 

orders expire after one year. 

Service Provision to Domestic Violence Victims 

Delaware. In Delaware, domestic violence victims have access to both government and community services 

through a court connection. This connection is close primarily because the Family Court has played a key 

role in bringing about improvements in justice system responses to domestic violence and Delaware's 

Domestic Violence Coordinating Council operates from offices in the Family Court in Wilmington. (See discussion of the stage of development of domestic violence initiatives, above.) 

The Family Court's Domestic Violence Unit provides services directly to petitioners in both the intake 

process and at the hearings for permanent orders. As noted above, at intake Domestic Violence Unit staff 

help petitioners complete forms for orders, give objective advice, and screen the cases to determine whether 

the victim needs an ex parte order that day or whether she can wait safely for 10 or 30 days until notice can 

be given to the respondent and a hearing can be set. (In cases in which criminal charges are filed, Domestic 

Violence Unit staff conduct a risk assessment with the defendant for the bail review by a commissioner and 

determine which type of process for obtaining a Protection from Abuse Order is most likely to be appropriate for the victim.) 

At the time of the scheduled PFA hearing, Domestic Violence Unit staff perform several functions. 

They first explain the procedures for the hearing to petitioners and respondents who appear; inform both 

parties that they may enter into a consent agreement that will result in a Protection from Abuse Order but 

eliminate the need for a contested hearing in which evidence of abuse will be taken; help the parties to 

develop a consent agreement if the parties decide to try to reach an agreement; and inform the commissioner whether a contested hearing is necessary. 

The Family Court also provides office space for the Victim Advocacy program coordinated by the 

Project for Domestic Violence Reform. Through the Victim Advocacy Office a cadre of more than forty volunteers assists victims in a number of ways, including crisis intervention, safety planning, accompaniment 

at hearings for protection orders and criminal proceedings for the batterer, and information and referral to 

community services. The volunteer advocates maintain contact with victims for two months or longer, 

according to the victims' wishes. Also operating in cooperation with the Family Court is Delaware Volunteer 

Legal Services, which provides pro bono assistance to low-income victims in Protection from Abuse proceedings and other matters related to the domestic abuse.15 

The Family Court maintains a close working relationship with other governmental units involved in 

addressing domestic violence. Among these are victim assistance services in the three law enforcement 

agencies that serve the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Wilmington (Wilmington Police Department, the 

New Castle County Police Department, and the state police) and the Attorney General's domestic violence 

prosecution unit. 

Two primary service providers in the community with which the Family Court cooperates to assist victims are Child, Inc., and Families in Transition. Both providers operate a domestic abuse hotline and a shelter 

for a battered women and their children and provide counseling services for victims, batterers, and children. 

Denver. Although the Denver County Court does not coordinate victim services or provide them 

directly to petitioners for civil protection orders or services, it has developed cooperative alliances with 

Project Safeguard, Children's Legal Services, the Denver Police Department, the City Attorney, the District 

Attorney, the Legal Aid Society, and other governmental and community services. Victim assistance units 

l5 See Domestic Violence Coordinating Council Annual Report, 1994. 
CHAPTER 11' METHODOLOGY 

operate in the Denver Police Department and both the City Attorney and District Attorney's offices. An 

innovation in the court is a guardian ad litem program operated by Children's Legal Services, which provides representation for children involved in or affected by restraining order proceedings. 

Project Safeguard functions as the primary coordination point for services to petitioners for restraining 

orders. Through Project Safeguard, petitioners receive direct assistance in filing for protection orders as well 

as information about and referral to more comprehensive services. In addition to a daily restraining order 

clinic to assist petitioners in completing forms to apply for protection orders and assistance at the court to 

petitioners who did not attend the clinic, Project Safeguard provides a daily safety orientation in the court; 

a weekly legal clinic to assist women who file pro se for divorce or child custody; referrals to and coordination of other services for victims; and training for police, shelter, court, and hospital staff, batterer treatment 

providers, community groups, and others. 

Among the numerous community services available to victims of domestic violence in the Denver area 

are battered women shelters, victim and child counseling, batterers' treatment, education and employment 

counseling, housing assistance, immigration counseling, and pro bono legal assistance. The Legal Aid 

Society coordinates pro bono representation at hearings for permanent restraining orders for women with 

children. The Legal Aid Society works cooperatively with Project Safeguard to provide this service. 

District of Columbia. During the time since the study period commenced, the District of Columbia 

has been developing and implementing a domestic violence plan that will significantly change how protection orders are processed as well as the type and manner in which services are provided to victims. This 

section describes how the Superior Court functioned at the time the study began. Some aspects of the 

process have since changed and many more will change by 1997. 

The District of Columbia does not coordinate or provide direct services to petitioners for protection 

orders. (See discussion of domestic violence initiatives, above.) Clerk's Office staff give to petitioners a booklet that describes the hearing process and contains information about legal and other services available in 

the community. (The booklet was developed by the Emergency Domestic Relations Project [EDRP] of the 

Georgetown University Law Center.) 

However, access to and provision of services is decentralized and fragmented. Corporation Counsel, 

the equivalent of a city attorney office, provides legal representation in hearings for permanent protection 

orders to a small proportion of petitioners. The U.S. Attorney's Office, which serves as the prosecutor for the 

District of Columbia, has a victim assistance unit. Staff and volunteers of the EDRP meet with petitioners 

and respondents before scheduled protection order hearings to explain the process and to try to reach agreement on the terms of orders. In addition, other local law school clinics (American University Washington 

College of Law, Catholic University, and George Washington University) assist some victims, and AYUDA is 

an advocacy and service provider for the Hispanic community. Two battered women's shelters operate in 

the District of Columbia (House of Ruth and My Sister's Place), and several other shelters provide services in 

communities in Virginia and Maryland. 

Sources of Data 

The study findings are based on four sources of data: (1)initial telephone interviews conducted with 285 

women petitioners for protection orders in the three project sites approximately one month after they 

received a protection order (temporary or permanent); (2) follow-up interviews with 177 of the same group 

of petitioners about six months later; (3) civil case records of the women who participated in the study; (4) 

criminal history records of men named in the protection orders the study participants obtained. The analysis of these data was enhanced by on-site interviews with judges, court managers and staff, victim services 

representatives, members of police domestic violence units, and prosecutors, and by observations of hearings for temporary and permanent orders. 
C~vrl Protecton Orders. The Benefits and Limitat~ons for Victims of Domestic Vlolence 

Participant Recruitment and Attrition 

Recruitment 

In each of three sites, women who filed petitions for protection orders were recruited for the study in 

person. Recruitment for the study began in July 1994 at staggered times across the sites as project staff visited each site and trained individuals to recruit women there. In each of the sites, the recruiters explained 

the purpose of the study and what participation in it would entail. If a woman agreed to participate, the 

recruiters asked her to sign a consent form. Signed consent forms were mailed in weekly batches to the 

NCSC. In Delaware, court staff of the Domestic Violence Unit recruited participants either when they petitioned for an ex parte order or when they appeared for a hearing on a permanent order. In Denver, volunteers and staff of Project Safeguard recruited participants either at the protection order clinic that Project 

Safeguard offers each day or in the courtroom prior to each day's exparte docket. In the District of Columbia, 

court staff who processed the court forms for petitioners recruited participants.16 

Across the three project sites, 554 women agreed to participate in the study and signed a consent form 

(Delaware, 151; Denver, 194; District of Columbia, 209). We were able to complete an initial interview with 

285 of the women (51 percent) who were recruited (Delaware, 90; Denver, 90; District of Columbia, 105). 

These women formed the study groups in each site. 

Attrition Among Women Recruited for the Study 

Reasons for attrition among the women recruited for the study are numerous and varied, but difficulty in contacting the women by phone was a major factor. About one-fifth (55) of the women recruited for 

the study did not participate because they did not respond to phone messages asking them to return the call 

by using a toll-free number. We left messages either on an answering machine or with an individual.17 In 

Delaware, almost 30 percent of the women recruited did not return messages. In Denver and the District of 

Columbia, the figures are 21 percent and 17 percent, respectively. 

Disconnected telephones were a second major communications hurdle. Sixteen percent of the women 

recruited could not be reached because their phones had been disconnected and no contact person or new 

number had been provided.18 About 10 percent (29) of the women recruited were not interviewed because 

we were unable to leave a message or get an answer at the number provided. This proportion is slightly 

higher in the District of Columbia (15 percent) than in Delaware (7 percent) and Denver (9 percent). Wrong 

phone numbers (4 percent), and women who had no phone at all (3 percent), also precluded staff from completing interviews with women who were recruited. 

A variety of other reasons explain why staff were unable to complete interviews with women recruited 

for the study. Some women simply changed their minds and chose not to participate (9 percent).lg Others 

broke appointments or put off the interview by repeated requests for rescheduling (7 percent). A small proportion of women recruited ultimately did not obtain an order (6 percent). Another 4 percent of the women 

l6 Recruitment was to continue until project staff had completed 100 interviews in each site. In the District of Columbia, court staff were 

able to recruit women more consistently and the recruitment process concluded in March 1995. In Delaware and Denver, recruitment 

was not as consistent and the process did not conclude until October 1995. In these two sites, only 90 women participated in the study 

because insufficient time remained to recruit and interview another 10 women. 

l7 Telephone interviewers took safety precautions when leaving messages. For example, they did not leave messages with males or if the 

voice of the recorded message was a male's. They only left their first name and the toll-free number. Other safety precautions were used 

when placing all calls. 

Recruiters asked the women to provide alternative ways to reach them in the event they moved or changed their telephone numbers. 

Interviewers also asked for the names of contact persons to increase the likelihood of finding the participants for the follow-up interviews. 

l9 The proportion of women who changed their mind about participating in the study was much lower in Delaware (3 percent) than in 

Denver (12 percent) and the District of Columbia (10 percent). This is most likely because the majority of women in Delaware were 

recruited at the hearing for the permanent order. Because they were not in an emergency situation then, they were more likely to have 

been able to pay greater attention to the explanation of the study and what would be expected of them. 
CHAPTER 11: METHODOLOGY 

had moved.20 Five percent of the women had petitioned for protection orders against a family member who 

was not an intimate partner. 

lrnplications of Recruitment and Attrition of Women Recruited 

The method of selecting participants for the study places some limitations on the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the study findings. First, the participants were not randomly selected, 

which limits the extent to which we can say they are representative of other women who seek protection 

orders in the study sites. Because the women had to agree to participate, however, the sample could not ultimately have been random.21 

This self-selection poses a second threat to the validity of the findings, which is that those women who 

were willing to participate may have some characteristics that distinguish them from the other victims who 

might seek a protection order. For example, all of the women in the study could understand English and 

could read and write well enough to provide their name, phone number, address, and names and contact 

information of someone who would know their whereabouts if they moved or changed their phone number. 

Third, all of the participants had a telephone or access to one. This sets them apart from women with 

fewer resources and those who do not have a place where it is safe to have a telephone conversation, including most women who were staying in a shelter or other temporary residence. (Interviewers were able to 

speak with some women who were in transient situations.) They also were in a sufficiently stable psychological state to be able to pay attention to the explanation of the study and to think about a future time 

when interviewers might be calling and where they could be at that time. Many of the women whom interviewers could not reach may have returned home to an environment that was more dangerous than when 

she left and no longer could take the chance that participation in the study might aggravate a dangerous situation or inflame a violent partner whose violence momentarily was dormant.22 

Attrition Among Study Participants 

We were able to complete six-month follow-up interviews with 62 percent (177) of 285 study participants (Delaware, 56; Denver, 58; District of Columbia, 63). The two primary reasons staff could not interview participants a second time were disconnected telephones (35 percent) and unreturned messages (35 

percent). This was not surprising, given the safety precautions victims of domestic abuse should take and 

the instability many victims experience when they are either making a break from an abusive relationship 

or still struggling to make the break. 

lmplications of Participant Attrition or the Study Findings 

To determine what characteristics of the participants or the respondents might account for the unavailability for or lack of participation in the second interview, the study examined differences in responses to 

questions in the initial interview, variations in demographic variables, and differences in the respondents' 

criminal history. The only variable that differentiated among the women in all three sites who were interviewed a second time and those who were not was the criminal history of the resp~ndent.~~ If the woman's 

20 Many of the women whom the interviewers could not reach because of disconnected phones and unreturned calls also may have 

moved. 

21 We also do not know what proportion of the women who were asked to participate declined. However, this proportion is likely not 

of any appreciable size because the recruiters reported that few women did not agree to participate. 

22 Research indicates one of the most dangerous times for victims is when they are fleeing their batterer and anger can escalate in 

response to threatened loss and intensive feelings of dependency. See Hofford, 1996; M.A. Dutton, "Understanding Women's Responses 

to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome," Hofstra Law Review vol. 21 (1993); A. Harrell, A Guide to Research 

on Family Violence. (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1993); and Lerman, 1984. 

23 In Delaware and the District of Columbia, participants with children were more likely to have been reached for a follow-up interview. 

This suggests that having children may add stability to a woman's life. She may be less likely to go into hiding and she may be more likely to carry on a routine life. 
Civil Protection Orders The Benefits and Limrtations for Victims of Domestic Vrolence 

abuser had an arrest record for violent crime, she was significantly less likely to have been available for a second interview. This finding suggests that the women not interviewed may have had less positive outcomes 

from obtaining a protection order. That is, these women may have had less positive feelings about themselves and their lives than did the women who were interviewed a second timeIz4 and they may have suffered repeated physical abuse, psychological abuse, or other violations of the protection order to a greater 

degree than the women participating in the follow-up interview^.^^ 

24 On the other hand, participants who obtained orders against respondents with an arrest record for violent crime tended to have higher scores on an index of subjective measures of effectiveness of protection orders. See Chapter IV on effectiveness of protection orders. 

25 An index of objective measures of effectiveness (repeated abuse, violations of orders, problems with orders) indicates that a history of 

violent crime adversely affects the effectiveness of protection orders. See Chapter IV on effectiveness of protection orders. 
Chapter Ill: 

Characteristics of Study Participants 

Chapter Ill: 

Characteristics of Study Participants 

Demographics of Study Participants 

Length of relationships, marital status, and children. The length of relationships between the participants 

and the respondents at the time the women obtained a protection order averaged seven-and-a-half years 

across the study sites.l On average, relationships were longer in Delaware (10 years) in comparison to 

Denver (6 years) and the District of Columbia (7 years). A higher proportion of participants in Delaware also 

were married at the time of the protection order (32 percent) compared with participants in Denver (21 percent) and the District of Columbia (19 per~ent).~ A greater proportion of participants in the District of 

Columbia had never been married to the respondent (59 percent) compared with Delaware (24 percent) and 

Denver (51 percent). The majority of participants in each site have children in common with the respondent, but the proportions vary across the sites: 90 percent in Delaware, 65 percent in Denver, and 80 percent in the District of C~lumbia.~ 

Living arrangements relationships. At the time they petitioned the court for a protection order, roughly 50 percent of all participants were living with the respondents to their protection orders, and another 11 

percent had a dating relationship with them. Obtaining a protection order at least had the temporary effect 

of separating the petitioner from the respondent. Three-quarters of the study participants no longer had a 

relationship with their respondents after the orders were issued, and 10 percent still shared a residence. 

Approximately six months later, 80 percent of the participants interviewed had no relationship with their 

respondents, and 12 percent shared a residence. The proportion of participants in Delaware who maintained 

some close relationship with their respondents after six months was greater than in the other two sites, however. In Delaware, 18 percent of the women lived with their respondents, and 7 percent had dating relationships after six month^.^ 

Age/Education. Across the sites, more than 70 percent of the participants were 35 years old or younger. 

The average (mean) age across the sites was 32, with virtually no variation among the three sites.5 At each 

site, the proportion of participants with high-school diplomas (80 percent) is only slightly lower than the 

proportion of high-school graduates in the general population. The proportion of participants with college 

degrees is much lower than the general population, however. In Denver, for example, where 29 percent of 

the population are college graduates, only 12 percent of study participants have a college degree.6 

Income. Because income generally rises with educational level, it is not altogether surprising that the 

study participants also have lower incomes than the general population. In the District of Columbia and 

Denver, the average (mean) monthly income of study participants is roughly half that of the general popuSee Appendix 111, Table A.III.l: Length of Relationship with Respondent. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.2: Marital Status of Participants When Order Obtained. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.3: Proportion of Participants with Children. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.4: Relationship of Participants with Respondent. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.5: Age of Participants. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.6: Educational Level of Participants. 
Civil Protection Orders The Befiefits and L~rnitatrons for V~ct~ms ofDomest~c V~olence 

lation ($1,267 and $1,150, respectively). In Delaware, the disparity is not so great; there the average monthly income of participants is nearly two-thirds the level of the larger community ($1,432).' 

Employment. Across the study sites, 61 percent of the participants were employed full-time at the time 

of the initial interview, and another 7 percent had part-time jobs. Unemployment rates vary across the sites, 

however. In the District of Columbia unemployment was the highest among the sites (35 percent); in 

Delaware and Denver, participants' unemployment stood at 28 percent and 26 percent, re~pectively.~ 

Race. Of the 285 women who participated in the study, 51 percent are African-American, 34 percent 

are white, 13 percent are Hispanic, and 2 percent belong to groups classified as "~ther."~ The racial composition of the study groups varies across the three sites; within each site, the proportion of minorities is significantly higher than their representation in the general population of that site. This is illustrated starkly 

in the District of Columbia, where whites make up about 30 percent of the population but comprise a mere 

3 percent of the participants in the study.1° 

Implications of Study Participants' Characteristics for Study Findings 

The study findings indicate that the participants in the study had been in committed relationships. They 

were not casually forming loose relationships and then finding trouble with their partners. Rather, the 

majority of them had long-term relationships and had children in common with their respondents. The 

protection orders they obtained may have provided the extra measure of stability they needed either to end 

their relationships or to reorder their lives after separating. 

A number of theories have been propounded to explain why a woman remains in an abusive relationship.ll Most of these theories focus on the individual personality traits of the abused person as the cause of 

her decisions to remain in the relationship. One theory, however, takes the focus off the personality of the 

victim and places it on environmental and structural factors in her life.12 This theory uses an investment 

model to explain decisions to stay or to go.13 According to this model, a woman's feelings of commitment 

to the relationship weigh most heavily when she is deciding whether she should leave her abusive partner. 

Commitment is influenced by three variables: satisfaction with the relationship, the quality of her alternatives to staying, and the level of her investment in the relationship. 

For a victim of domestic violence, satisfaction is likely to be low if she suffers serious and prolonged 

abuse (although the abuser's level of contriteness or affection may mitigate the level of abuse). If satisfaction 

is low, the victim evaluates the quality of economic or social alternatives available to her. If she has no source 

of income, her income is low, or she has little education; if no other partner is on the horizon; or if she has 

other constraints, children, for example, leaving is unlikely to be a viable option. The emotional energy and 

resources invested in the relationship must also be considered. In general, the more enduring the relationship, the more a woman has at stake: her children, shared possessions, and mutual friends. When the stakes 

are high, a woman may struggle to maintain the partnership in spite of intense and prolonged abuse. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.7: Monthly Income of Participants. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.8: Employment Status of Participants. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.9: RaceIEthnicity of Participants. 

lo C. M. Slater and G. E. Hall (eds.), 1996 County and City Extra: Annual Metro, City and County Data Book (Lanham, Md.: Bernan Press, 

1996). 

l1 See, e.g., D.G. Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal lustice Perspectives (Vancouver, British Columbia: 

UBC Press, 1995); Harrell, 1993; Dutton, 1993; M.A. Dutton-Douglas and D. Dionne, "Counseling and Shelter Services for Battered 

Women," in M. Steinman (ed.), Women Battering: Policy Responses (Highland Heights, Ky., and Cincinnati, Ohio: Academy of Criminal 

Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing, 1991;) and MJ. Strube, "The Decision to Leave an Abusive Relationship: Empirical Evidence 

and Theoretical Issues," Psychological Bulletin vol. 104 (1988). 

l2 C. E. Rusbult and J. M. Martz, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol. 21 Uune 1995), pp. 558-571. 

l3 The model has been applied in the study of the dynamics of commitment in friendships, dating relationships, long-term adult relationships, and heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Id. 
CHAPTER Ill. CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table Ill. 1 : 

Nature of Abuse Before Protection Order 

All Sites (n=285) # % By Site # % 

Delaware 29 32.2 

Threatened or Injured with a Weapon 105 36.8 Denver 33 36.7 

District of Columbia 43 41.0 

Delaware 55 61.1 

Severe Physical Abuse: Beaten or Choked 155 54.4 Denver 48 53.3 

District of Columbia 52 49.5 

Delaware 80 88.9 

Mild Physical Abuse: 239 83.9 Denver 79 87.8 

Slapping, Grabbing, Shoving, Kicking District of Columbia 80 76.2 

Delaware 90 100.0 

Intimidation Through Threats, Stalking, 282 98.9 Denver 90 100.0 

Harassment District of Columbia 102 97.1 

The investment model could be applied to the participants in this study. In Delaware, for example, 

women endured more severe abuse for a longer period of time than did their counterparts in Denver and 

Delaware.14 The average length of relationships was longer in Delaware and higher proportions of the 

women were married to and had children in common with their respondents at the time they obtained their 

protection orders. The greater investment of time and emotional resources in marriage and children may 

partly explain why a higher proportion of the Delaware participants remained in a relationship six months 

after they obtained a protection order. 

The Nature of the Abuse Experienced by Study Participants 

On several dimensions, the abuse the participants in the study reported was severe. The types of abusive 

behavior, the frequency of the abuse, and its duration over time all indicate that the participants in the study 

were not seeking protection orders frivolously or for some motives other than ending the violence and protecting themselves and their children from further harm. More than one-third of the study participants had 

been threatened or injured with a weapon; in the District of Columbia this figure was 41 percent (see Table 

111.1). More than half the participants had been beaten or choked, and 84 percent had suffered milder physical abuse, such as slapping, kicking, and shoving.15 

The frequency of the respondents' abusive behaviors also was high (see Table 111.2).16 While the use 

of weapons to threaten or injure the participants occurred for most women only once or twice, more than 

40 percent of the participants experienced severe physical abuse at least every few months, and 10 percent 

experienced such abuse weekly. The length of time the participants experienced abuse before seeking a protection order varied (see Appendix IV, Table A.IV.4). About 10 percent of the participants sought a protection order after only a week, but 15 percent of the women experienced abuse for one to two years, and nearly one-quarter had endured the respondent's abusive behavior for more than five years. 

l4 See discussion of the nature of the abuse reported by the study participants, infra. 

l5 To assess the nature of the abusive behavior experienced by the study participants, the project applied the categories of abusive behaviors 

used by the Urban Institute and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in an evaluation of the use of mediation in family mediation when domestic violence might be occurring between the parties. See, L. Newmark, A. Harrell, and P. Salem, Domestic Violence and 

Empowerment in Custody and Visitation Cases: An Empirical Study on the Impact of Domestic Abuse (Madison, Wis.: Association of Family and 

Conciliation Courts, 1994). These categories were distilled from the specific acts included in the Conflict Tactics Scale developed by M. Straus, 

"Measuring Family Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales," Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 41 (1979), pp. 75-88. 

l6 See Appendix IV, Tables A.IV.3a, b, and c, for frequency of abuse reported in the individual sites. 
C~vil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Vlctims of Domestic V~olence 

Table 111.2: 

Frequency of Abuse, All Sites 

Weapons Severe Physical Abuse Mild Physical Abuse Intimidation 

1 to 2 Times Onlv 77 73.3 6 9 44.5 7 1 29.7 17 7 6 

1 to 2 Times Per Year 7 8.7 17 11.0 26 10.8 7 3.1 

Every Few Months 8 7.6 2 1 13.5 3 9 16.3 4 1.8 

Every Few Weeks 3 2.9 23 14.9 3 7 15.4 4 2 18.8 

Weekly 1 1 .O 16 10.3 3 1 13.0 3 3 14.8 

Almost Daily 6 5.8 9 5.8 35 14.6 102 45 7 

TOTAL 103 100.0 155 100.0 239 100.0 223 100.0 

To measure the intensity of the abuse, we asked the study participants about both the type and frequency of the abuse they experienced. Looking at the intensity of abuse we can obtain a better picture of 

the dynamics of abuse than we could by looking only at the type of abuse.17 The intensity of abuse experienced by an individual victim could be expected to be one of the factors that would have some impact on 

the potential effectiveness of a protection order. 

To have a more simplified and more useful measure of abuse intensity, we explored whether an index 

could be created from the individual variables used to measure abuse intensity; i.e., each type of abuse the 

study participants experienced and the frequency of each of those types. Such an index would facilitate a 

more streamlined analysis of the possible relationships between abuse intensity, other factors such as the 

respondent's criminal history, and the effectiveness of the protection orders. An index of abuse intensity 

also would allow more meaningful comparisons among the different variables and among the sites. 

The first step in constructing an index was a factor analysis to examine the extent to which the individual measures of abuse type, frequency, and duration are correlated.18 This analysis revealed two sets of 

highly correlated variables, which are distinguished primarily by the presence or absence of weapons.lg This 

statistical distinction indicates that the use of a weapon is a categorically different level of abuse than abuse 

not involving the use of a weapon. 

The first set of variables (Intensity Index 1)includes six variables:20 (1)frequency of verbal intimidation or 

threatsjZ1(2) frequency of mild physical abuse,22 (3) frequency of severe physical abuse,23 (4) duration of 

abuse,24(5) incidence of milder physical abuse,25 and (6) incidence of more severe physical abuse.26 The secl7 Harrell, 1993; A. Browne, When Battered Women Kill (New York: The Free Press, 1987); L. Walker, The Battered Woman's Syndrome (New 

York: Springer Publishing, 1984). 

Is The values for the type of abuse are 1 for reported incidence and 0 for no reported incidence. The values for the frequencies of the 

types of abuse range from 1 (once or twice) to 6 (almost daily). The duration of abuse is counted in the number of days; e.g., 365 equals 

one year. 

l9 Although the factor analysis showed a strong correlation between Intensity Index 1 and Intensity Index 2 (Chi-square = 74,100; p = 

0.0000),the individual variables making up the two indexes were not so closely related that the variables in each could be combined into 

a single factor. 

20 The incidence of verbal intimidation or threats had no significant correlation with these variables, ostensibly due to the lack of variance for this variable. Nearly all of the petitioners reported threats as part of the abusive behavior inflicted by the respondents. 

21 The participant was asked how often the man named in the order ever tried to frighten or intimidate her by making threats, following her around, or harassing her on the phone. 

22 The participant was asked how often the man had ever done anything to physically hurt her, such as slapping, grabbing, shoving, kicking, punching, or the like, even if it didn't leave any marks or she didn't report it. 

23 The participant was asked how often the man had ever beaten or choked her. 

24 Survey Question 111: "How long had physical abuse been occurring before you got the protection order (in years, months, weeks, or 

days)?" 

25 Survey Question 116: "Had he ever done anything to physically hurt you, such as slapping, grabbing, shoving, kicking, punching, or 

the like, even if it didn't leave any marks or you didn't report?" 

26 Survey Question 114: "Had he ever beaten or choked you?" 
Table 111.3: 

lntensity of Abuse 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

Intensity of Abuse Without a Weapon 0.35 0.07 -0.36 

Intensity of Abuse with a Weapon -0.1 1 -0.06 0.14 

ond set of correlated variables (Intensity Index 2) consists of two variables: (1)the incidence of the use of 

or threat to use a weapon2' and (2) the frequency of the use of or threat to use a weapon.28 

Perhaps the most significant relationship among the variables that compose Intensity Index 1 is the 

strong correlation of the duration of abuse to the types and frequency of abuse.29 The longer the period of 

time that the victim reported she had experienced abuse from the respondent, the more frequent and severe 

the abuse she reported. This finding confirms the experience of many victims and the belief of their advocates that domestic violence is an escalating phenomenon. The longer a victim stays in an abusive relationship, the greater the abuse becomes and the more likely it is that the victim will be severely injured by 

the abuser.30 

The next step in creating the measure of abuse intensity involved regression-method factor analysis to 

calculate standardized score coefficients for Intensity Index 1 and Intensity Index 2.31 The scores for 

Intensity Index 1, intensity of abuse without a weapon, range from -2.23 to 2.07 with a normal distribution. 

The scores for Intensity Index 2, intensity of abuse involving a weapon, range from -0.95 to 3.37 but are not 

normally di~tributed.~~ 

The mean scores for the set of participants in the first round of interviews and the smaller set of participants in the second-round interviews did not differ significantly for either Intensity Index 1or Intensity 

Index 2. This lack of variance between the two groups suggests that the intensity of abuse experienced by 

the participants who could not be reached for the second interview did not differ significantly from the 

intensity of abuse experienced by those who were interviewed a second time. 

A comparison of the intensity indexes for the three sites indicates significant differences among the 

sites on Intensity Index 1,but not for Intensity Index 2 (see Table 111.3)~~~ The intensity of the abuse experienced by the participants in Delaware was significantly higher compared to the participants in the District 

of Columbia. 

As the discussion of the respondents' criminal history records points out below, the intensity of the 

abuse is correlated with histories of arrests for drug- and alcohol-related crimes and for violent crime. 

Respondents with arrest histories for these two types of crime tended to engage in more intense abuse of 

their partners than did other respondents in the study. 

Criminal Histories of Protection Order Respondents 

In each of the three project sites, we obtained some form of criminal histories of the respondents named in 

the protection orders issued to the project participant^.^^ These histories consist of respondents' reported 

27 Survey Question 118: "Had he ever used a weapon such as a gun, knife, or car to threaten or to injure you?" 

2s The participant was asked how often the man had used a weapon such as a gun, knife, or car to threaten or to injure her. 

29 The score for the rotated factor matrix for the duration of abuse variable was 0.598, resulting in a factor score coefficient of .231. 

30 Harrell, 1993;A. Browne, 1987; L. Walker, 1984. 

31 The resulting indices each have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. 

32 Nearly two-thirds (63.2 percent) of the scores fall into the lowest quintile of the distribution range and more than three-fourths (76.1 

percent) fall into the two lowest quintiles. 

33 The statistical significance of the difference in means was tested using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): F-ratio = 13.776, p = 

0.0000. 

34 The sources of the criminal history records and their inclusiveness in regard to the sample of participants varied across the project sites. 

In Delaware, the Family Court provided statewide data on the respondents to all the orders issued to participants in the study. The Family 
Civil Protection Orders. The Benefits and L~mitat~ons for Vict~ms of Domestic Violence 

Table 111.4: 

Categories of Criminal Offenses 

Project Categories Specific Charges 

Domestic Violence Domestic Violence 

Simple Assault Offensive Touching, Menacing, Aggravated Harassment, Ist Degree Assault 

Other Violence Murder. Attempted Murder, Manslaughter, Rape, Kidnapping, 2nd or 3rd Degree Assault, 

Battery, Terrorist Threatening, Armed Robbery 

Weapons llleaal Possession or Use of a Firearm, Carrvina a Concealed Weapon, 

Drug-related Offenses Possession, Sale, or Intent to Distribute an Illegal Drug, Conspiracy to Sell or Distribute an 

Illegal Drug 

Property Offenses Possession or Sale of Stolen Property, Breaking and Entering, Robbery, Burglary, Larceny, 

Embezzlement, T~~sD~ss~~Q 

Traffic Offenses Movinq Violations, Habitual Offender. Leavinq the Scene of an Accident 

DUI Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol 

Miscellaneous Contempt of Court, Capias, Disorderly Conduct, Harassment, Indecent Exposure 

arrests and convictions within each jurisdiction (the state of Delaware, the state of Colorado, and the District 

of Columbia), but do not include arrests or prosecutions that occurred outside the jurisdicti~n.~~ Because the 

information on prosecutions is less comprehensive and reliable than is the information on arrests, the analysis of criminal histories presented in this report uses only the arrest information contained in these records.36 

The criminal history records also are not likely to be comprehensive. Because of the close proximity that 

the District of Columbia and Delaware have to neighboring jurisdictions (northern Virginia and Maryland for 

the District of Columbia, and Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey for Delaware), the criminal records in 

these sites may significantly underrepresent the total amount of prior criminal activity for the respondents. 

In Denver, the arrest histories for respondents may be more representative of their actual prior arrest record 

because Denver is centrally located within a comparatively large statewide reporting jurisdiction. 

Because specific arrest charges are set out in the statutory criminal code for each jurisdiction, similar 

types of offenses are categorized differently in each jurisdiction. To provide a consistent basis for analysis, 

we classified each of the charges into one of the following categories: domestic violence, simple assault, 

other violence, weapons offenses, property offenses, DUI, drug-related offenses, traffic offenses, and miscellaneous offenses (see Table 111.4). Many of the arrest records also date to a period before charges for domestic violence were classified separately from charges for other violence (for example, assault, battery). Thus, 

some of the "simple assault" and "other violence" arrests may include instances of domestic violence. In 

addition, destruction-of-property offenses may also be related to domestic violence. A substantial portion 

of the miscellaneous category consists of contempts of court and capias warrants (for failure to appear for a 

scheduled court proceeding), which may or may not be related to domestic violence charges. 

Based on these arrest reports, we found that 65 percent of the respondents had a prior criminal history (see Table 111.5). For respondents with a multiple arrest history, the charges rarely were limited to a speCourt could achieve this level of inclusiveness because the Family Court records include the names of the respondents. In Denver and 

the District of Columbia, we had to obtain the names of the respondents from the participants' case files. At each of these sites, project 

and court staff could not locate the files of all the participants and consequently also could not obtain the names of all the respondents. 

In Denver, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice provides statewide criminal histories. In the District of Columbia, we obtained criminal records from the automated system of the Superior Court. 

3s These records also do not reflect juvenile arrests or other charges that have been expunged or sealed by court order. 

36 Delaware is the only site in which final disposition of arrests (e.g., conviction, guilty plea, acquittal, nolle prosequi) are consistently 

included in the same reporting system with the arrest histories. In Colorado's statewide reporting system, the local jurisdiction where the 

arrest and subsequent prosecution occurred is responsible for entering the disposition data. The entry of this information and its accuracy are inconsistent and irregular, however. In the District of Columbia, very little information was available on prosecutions and dispositions. 
CHAPTER Ill CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table 111.5: 

Number of Respondents with a Criminal Arrest History 

All Sites (n=244) # Yo By Site # Yo 

Delaware (n=9O) 62 68.9 

All Crime Types 158 64.8 Denver (n=60) 46 67.6 

Distrlct of Columbia (n=86) 50 58.1 

Delaware 56 62.2 

Violent Cr~me 129 52.9 Denver 40 58.8 

District of Columbia 33 38.4 --

Delaware 25 27.8 

Drug- and Alcohol-related Crlmes 72 29.5 Denver 22 32.4 

District of Columbia 25 29.1 

Delaware 49 54.4 

Other Crimes 121 49.6 Denver 31 45.6 

District of Columbia 41 47.7 

cific type of offense. Rather, they consisted of a variety of offenses including violent crime (domestic violence, simple assault, other violence, and weapons charges), drug- and alcohol-related crimes (drug and DUI 

offenses), and other categories of crimes (property, traffic, and miscellaneous offenses). 

With respect to respondents with a history of violent crime, few of them had a record reflecting prior 

arrests for domestic violence only. Of the 131 respondents with any history of violent crime, 109 had prior 

arrests for violent crimes other than domestic violence. These findings are generally consistent with a study 

conducted in Quincy, Massachusetts, that found that "80 percent of abusers have prior criminal histories 

. . . and half have prior violence records."37 

For respondents with any prior criminal history, the number of prior arrests ranged from 1 to 23, with 

an average (mean) of 5.8 prior arrests per respondent (see Table 111.6).~~More than half (56 percent) had 

more than 3 prior arrests. The average number of prior arrests by type of crime differed significantly, however (see Tables III.6a-c). Alcohol- and drug-related offenses had the lowest average number of prior arrests 

(mean = 1.9 per respondent) with a correspondingly smaller proportion of respondents (8.3 percent) with 

more than 3 prior arrests. 

Respondents with a history of violent crime had the next lowest number of prior arrests (mean = 2.3 

per respondent). One in four (25.6 percent) of these respondents had more than 3 prior arrests for violent 

crime. Even after excluding prior arrests for domestic violence, these respondents still had an average of 2.4 

prior arrests for violent crime, with 21.1 percent having more than 3 prior arrests for violent crime. 

In contrast, the "other crimes" category had the highest average number of prior arrests (mean = 3.4 

per respondent) and the largest proportion of respondents (35.5 percent) with 3 or more prior arrests. As 

discussed above, this category encompasses a wide variety of nonviolent, misdemeanor, and public nuisance 

type crimes. In addition, the inclusion of contempts of court and capias charges under this category implies 

that many of these offenses stem from a single prior crime. The comparatively high numbers of prior arrests 

and proportions of respondents with multiple prior arrests appear to reflect a greater public tolerance for 

these types of crimes (i.e., the arrests do not appear to lead to incarceration) at least relative to violent crimes 

and drug- and alcohol-related crimes. 

There is only one difference among the three sites with respect to the criminal histories of protection 

order respondents. Using Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), we found a statistically significant differ37 M. Schachere, "STOP Grants Training Conferences Highlight Successful Strategies," National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention vol. 

1 (December 1995). The Quincy study focused in part on the effectiveness of a highly coordinated and accurate reporting system between 

the civil and criminal court systems. The comparatively high criminal arrest rates reported in the Quincy study may reflect the accuracy 

of that jurisdiction's reporting system rather than an abnormally higher violent crime rate relative to the sites included in this study. 

38 For respondents with any prior criminal history, the median number of prior arrests was four. 
Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table 111.6: 

Reported Arrests* (All Crimes) 

All Sites Mean Median By Site Mean Median 

Delaware (n=62) 7.3 6 

All Crimes (n= 158) 5.8 4 Denver (n=46) 5.2 4 

District of Columbia (n=50) 4.5 3 

Delaware 1 to 23 

Range 1 to 23 Denver 1 to 16 

District of Columbia 1 to 12 

Respondents with . . . # % # % 

Delaware 7 11.3 

One Prior Arrest 27 17.1 Denver 8 17.4 

District of Columbia 12 24.0 

Delaware 4 6.5 

Two Prior Arrests 21 13.3 Denver 9 19.6 

District of Columbia 8 16.0 

Delaware 11 17.7 

Three Prior Arrests 22 13.9 Denver 4 8.7 

District of Columbia 7 14.0 

Delaware 40 64.5 

Four or More Prior Arrests 88 55.7 Denver 25 54.3 

District of Columbia 23 46.0 

*Excludes respondents with no reported criminal history. 

Table Ill.6a: 

Reported Arrests * (Violent Crimes) 

All Sites Mean Median By Site Mean Median 

Delaware (n=56) 3.6 2 

Violent Crime (n= 129) 2.3 2 Denver (n=40) 2.6 2 

District of Columbia (n=38) 2.5 2 

Delaware 1 to 17 

Range 1 to 17 Denver 1 to9 

District of Columbia 1 to9 

Respondents with . . . # % # % 

Delaware 13 23.2 

One Prior Arrest 44 34.1 Denver 15 37.5 

District of Columbia 16 48.5 

Delaware 17 30.4 

Two Prior Arrests 29 22.5 Denver 8 20.0 

District of Columbia 4 12.1 

Delaware 9 16.1 

Three Prior Arrests 23 17.8 Denver 8 20.0 

District of Columbia 6 18.2 

Delaware 17 30.4 

Four or More Prior Arrests 33 25.6 Denver 9 22.5 

District of Columbia 7 21.2 

* Excludes respondents with no reported criminal history. 
CHAPTER Ill. CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table Ill.6b: 

Reported Arrests* (Drug- and Alcohol-related Crimes) 

All Sites Mean Median By Site Mean Median 

Delaware (n=25) 2.4 2 

Drug- and Alcohol-related Crimes (n=72) 1.9 1 Denver (n=22) 1.9 1 

D~strict of Columbia (n=25J 1.6 I 

Delaware 1 to 5 

Range 1 to6 Denver 1 to 6 

District of Columbia I to 4 

Respondents with . , # % # % 

Delaware 11 44.0 

One Prior Arrest 36 50.0 Denver 11 50.0 

District of Columbia 14 56.0 

Delaware 8 32.0 

Two Prior Arrests 20 27.8 Denver 5 22.7 

District of Columbia 7 28.0 

Delaware 2 8.0 

Three Prior Arrests 10 13.9 Denver 5 22.7 

District of Columbia 3 12.0 

Delaware 4 16.0 

Four or More Prior Arrests 6 8.3 Denver 1 4.5 

District of Columbia 1 4.0 

* Excludes respondents with no reported criminal history. 

Table Ill.6~: 

Reported Arrests* (Other Crimes) 

All Sites Mean Median By Site Mean Median 

Delaware (n=49) 4.3 3 

Other Crimes (n= 12 I) 3.4 3 Denver (n=3 1 J 3.1 3 

District of Columbia (n=41 J 2.5 2 

Delaware 1 to 17 

Range 1 to 17 Denver 1 to 9 

District of Columbia I to 7 

Res~ondents with . . . # % # % 

Delaware 11 22.4 

One Prior Arrest 34 28.1 Denver 6 19.4 

District of Columbia 17 41.5 

Delaware 8 16.3 

Two Prior Arrests 25 20.7 Denver 7 22.6 

District of Columbia 10 24.4 

Delaware 10 20.4 

Three Prior Arrests 19 15.7 Denver 7 22.6 

District of Columbia 2 4.9 - -

Delaware 20 40.8 

Four or More Prlor Arrests 43 35.5 Denver ll 355 

D~str~ct of Columbia 12 293 

* Excludes respondents with no reported criminal history. 
Civil Protect~on Orders The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table 111.7: 

Proportion of Respondents with Reported Prior Arrests 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

All Crime Types 68.9 67 6 58.1 

Violent Crime* 62.2 58.8 38.4 

Drug/Alcohol-related Crimes 27.8 32.4 29.1 

Other Crimes 54.4 45.6 47.7 

* Significant difference among sites (at p = 0.05) 

ence among the three sites for the proportion of respondents with a prior history of violent crime (see Table 

111.7). The District of Columbia had a significantly lower proportion of respondents with reported violent 

criminal histories than either Delaware or ~enver.~~ This difference may reflect the respective priorities of 

local arrest policies in District of Columbia relative to the other sites. Alternatively, the higher rates may be 

the result of more comprehensive reporting systems in Delaware and Denver. 

Implications of Respondents' Criminal Histories for Protection Order Petitioners 

The substantial proportion of protection order respondents with prior criminal histories, especially for violent crime, potentially has tremendous implications concerning judicial responses to petitions for both ex 

parte and permanent protection orders. In particular, the existence of a prior criminal history demonstrates 

a propensity by the respondent to engage in criminal behavior that logically might indicate a greater reluctance by that respondent to comply with the specific provisions of a protection order. In addition, the petitioner's awareness of the respondent's inclination toward criminal behavior may affect her confidence in the 

protection order and its ability to protect her from future violence. To test these assumptions, we examined 

the relationship between the criminal backgrounds of respondents for different categories of crime and the 

objective and subjective outcome measures for the protection orders. 

As a preliminary matter, we first explored the extent to which the study participants were aware of the 

criminal backgrounds of respondents. During the initial interviews, participants were asked whether their 

respondents had ever been arrested, either for prior incidents of domestic violence or for other types of 

crimes. Answers to this question pose obvious hearsay problems insofar that petitioners for protection 

orders may not have accurate knowledge or may be unwilling to disclose their knowledge concerning 

respondents' criminal backgrounds. Nevertheless, responses to this question are useful for comparing petitioners' assertions about respondents' criminal histories with the reported arrest histories used within each 

jurisdiction. (See Table 111.8 for the results of this comparison.) 

In the majority of cases (68.4 percent), the petitioner correctly stated whether the respondent had been 

arrested. The difference between the number of petitioners' correct assertions and incorrect assertions was 

statistically ~ignificant.~~ In 35 cases (14.3 percent), however, the petitioner stated that the respondent had 

no arrest record even though the criminal history report from that jurisdiction indicated prior arrests. The 

discrepancy may indicate that the petitioner is unaware of or has forgotten the respondent's arrest history. 

Alternatively, it may indicate that the petitioner is unwilling to make negative statements about the respondent, perhaps out of fear of retaliation or to protect a newly reconciled relationship with the respondent. 

In contrast, the petitioner stated in 42 cases (17.2 percent) that the respondent had been arrested 

although no official record existed to document that fact. This discrepancy may indicate that the official 

39 We used comparison of means for independent samples to evaluate the differences in prior arrest rates for the sites in each category. 

40 Statistical significance was measured by using both gamma and Spearman's Correlation coefficient. Gamma = 0.57280, p = 0.00001; 

Spearman's Correlation = 0.29620, p = 0.00000. 
-- 

CHAPTER Ill, CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table 111.8: 

Comparison Between Petitioners' Statements About Respondents' 

Arrest Record and Respondents' Reported Arrest Records, All Sites 

Respondent Has No Respondent Has 

Reported Arrest Record a Reported Arrest Record Row Total 

(%1 (%I MI 

Petitioner States That Respondent Has Never 

Been Arrested (%I 

Pet~t~oner States That Respondent Has Been 

Arrested Previouslv 1%) 

Column Total (%) 

Note: Shaded areas represent correct assertions by petitioner regarding respondent? criminal history 

Table 111.8a: 

Comparison Between Petitioners' Statements About Respondents' 

Arrest Records and Respondents' Reported Arrest Records, by Site 

Respondent Has No Respondent Has a 

Reported Arrest Record Reported Arrest Record Row Total 

Been Arrested (%) 

Arrested Previously j%J 

Denver 22 (32.4) Denver 46 (67.6) Denver 68 (1 00.0) 

DC 36/41,?) DC 50 (58.1) DC 86 / 100.0) 

Note: Shaded areas represent correct assertions by petitioner regarding respondent's criminal history 

reporting systems do not reflect accurate arrest histories due to interjurisdictional obstacles or failure to 

update records on a timely basis. Alternatively, the petitioner may believe that the respondent's past confrontations with law enforcement officials resulted in an arrest when in fact no charges were filed. A third 

possibility is that the petitioner has exaggerated the respondent's criminal history to lend credibility to her 

claims about the respondent's dangerousness. 

A site-specific comparison of petitioners' assertions with reported arrest records yielded very different 

results, however (see Table III.8a). In Delaware and Denver, more than two-thirds of the petitioners (71.1 

and 70.6 percent, respectively) correctly stated the respondent's arrest history, whereas District of Columbia 

petitioners gave correct responses only slightly more than half the time (57.0 percent). 

The more accurate responses by Delaware and Denver petitioners possibly reflect the nature of their 

relationships with the respondents. Compared to petitioners in the District of Columbia, Delaware petitioners were more likely to be married to the respondent^;^^ their relationships with respondents were of 

longer duration;42 and their relationships had been abusive for a longer period of time before they sought 

protective orders.43 In addition, Delaware has a significantly higher proportion of respondents with criminal histories, especially for violent crimes, than the other two jurisdictions. The Denver petitioners also were 

41 See Appendix 111, Table A.III.2: Marital Status of Participants. 

42 See Appendix 111, Table A.III.l: Length of Relationship with Respondent. 

43 See Appendix IV, Table A.IV.4: Duration of Abuse Prior to Order. 
- -- - 

C~vil Protection Orders, The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table 111.9: 

Comparison of Initial and Follow-Up Interviews: 

Criminal History of Respondent 

Initial Follow-up 

Respondents with Prior Arrests for: Interviews Interviews Difference 

All Crimes 70% 61% 9% 

Violent Crime* 63 47 16 

Violent Crime (Excluding Domestic Violence) * 53 3 9 I5 

Drua/Alcohol-related Crimes 3 0 29 0.5 

Other Crimes* * 58 45 13 

* Difference is statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level. 

** Difference is statistically significant at the p = 0.10 level. 

Table 111.10: 

Mean Score of Intensity of Abuse Without Weapons 

by Criminal History of the Respondent 

Respondents with Arrest Record for: Reported Arrests No Reported Arrests 

All Crimes 0.08 -0.1 1 

Violent Crime* 0.13 -0.1 1 

Drug/Alcohol-related Crimes* 0.21 -0.07 

Other Crimes 0.13 -0.10 

* Statistically significant. 

more likely to be married than District of Columbia petitioners and were more likely to be continuing in a 

relationship with their respondents six months after obtaining their protection orders. 

A domestic violence victim's awareness of the batterer's criminal background and its significance related to future abusive behavior may be an important consideration in increasing the effectiveness of protection orders. Victims who do not know about their batterers' criminal records may be less likely to appreciate the potential dangerousness of those batterers, especially those with histories of violent crime. Without 

knowledge of the batterer's criminal record or the possible link between a criminal record and abusive behavior, the victim may be less cautious and fail to take adequate safety measures to protect herself. 

With respect to the official arrest reports, we discovered that the criminal history of the respondent had 

a profound effect on two aspects of the study. First, the existence of an arrest history for violent crime had 

a significant impact on the attrition rate of participants in the study (see Table 111.9). Participants who 

obtained a protection order against a respondent with an arrest history for violent crime comprised 62.8 percent of the women interviewed initially, but only 46.7 percent of the women reached for a follow-up interview.44 This effect on participants' attrition rates also occurred in arrests for violent crime other than dornestic violence45 and in arrests for "other" crimes.46 

44 This difference in means was statistically significant. t = 2.47, p = 0.014. 

45 The proportion of participants in initial interviews who obtained protection orders against respondents with violent arrest records 

(other than domestic violence) was 53.2 percent compared to 38.7 percent of the participants who had follow-up interviews. t = 2.24, p 

= 0.026. 

46 The proportion of participants in initial interviews who obtained protection orders against respondents with arrests for "other" crimes 

was 57.5 percent compared to 44.7 percent of the participants who had follow-up interviews. t = 1.95, p = 0.052. 
-- 

CHAPTER Ill. CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table Ill. 1 1 : 

Mean Score of Intensity of Abuse With Weapons 

by Criminal History of the Respondent 

Respondents with Arrest Record for: Reported Arrests No Reported Arrests 

All Crimes 0.05 -0.06 

Violent Crime 0.10 -0.08 

Drua/Alcohol-related Crimes 0.19 -0.07 

Other Crimes* 0.16 -0.12 

* Statistically significant. 

In every category of crime, the mean scores for both intensity of abuse not involving a weapon and 

intensity of abuse involving a weapon were higher for respondents with reported arrest records than for 

those with no arrest records (see Tables 111.10 and 111.11). For intensity of abuse without a weapon,47 these 

differences were statistically significant for two categories of crime, violent crime48 and drug- and alcoholrelated crimes.49 The close relationship between arrest histories for drug- and alcohol-related crimes and 

greater intensity of abuse lends support to related research indicating that drug and alcohol abuse are often 

a contributing factor in domestic violence.50 

These findings strongly support the need for greater attention to safety planning for victims whose 

abusers have a record of violent crime and crime involving drugs or alcohol, as well as the need for protection orders to require both substance abuse and batterer treatment for respondents with arrest records for 

drug- and alcohol-related offenses. Concomitantly, judges need to have the criminal arrest histories available for review when they are crafting protection orders. Judges and victim service providers should stress 

to victims the need for vigilance in taking safety precautions and using law enforcement and the court to 

enforce their protection orders. 

47 For the index of intensity of abuse involving a weapon, the only significant difference in the mean scores is between respondents 

arrested for "other crimes" such as property, traffic, and miscellaneous offenses and respondents without arrests for these types of crimes. 

The difference in the scores on intensity of abuse without a weapon according to respondents' arrest history for "other crimes" approached 

statistical significance at the 95 percent confidence level with t = -1.90, p = 0.058. 48 T-test results: t = -2.09, p = 0.038. 

49 T-test results: t = -2.10, p = 0.037. The difference in the mean for intensity of abuse with weapons scores for respondents with an arrest 

history for drug- and alcohol-related offenses approached statistical significance at the 95 percent confidence level with t = -1.88,p = 0.61. 

Studies indicate that alcohol and drug abuse increase the likelihood, and often the severity, of domestic violence, both when the batterer is intoxicated and when sober. See G.T. Hotaling and D.B. Sugarman, "An Analysis of Risk Markers in Husband to Wife Violence: 

The Current State of Knowledge," Violence and Victims vol. 1 (1986), pp. 101-124; Browne, 1987; I. Freize and A. Browne, "Violence in 

Marriage," in L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1989), as cited in Harrell, 1993. 

Substance abuse should not be identified, however, as an excuse for or a direct cause of domestic violence. See D.G. Dutton with S.K. 

Golant, The Batterer: A Psychological Profile (New York: Basic Books, 1995); "Making the Link: Domestic Violence and Alcohol and Other 

Drugs," Prevention Works vol. 3 (1994); Harrell, 1993; L. H. Bowker, Beating Wife-beating. (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1994). 

Chapter IV: 

The Benefits and Limitations 

of Civil Protection Orders 

Chapter IV: 

The Benefits and Limitations 

of Civil Protection Orders 

Over the past decade civil protection orders have become a vehicle for expanding and strengthening the 

remedies available to victims of domestic violence. The trend across the country has been to invoke the 

power of the justice system to alter the environment in which the violence has taken place. The benefits of 

protection orders therefore should not be gauged solely by quantifying statistics on whether the respondent 

named in the order reassaults the victim or violates the order in some other way. A growing body of research 

is developing alternative and more expansive measures that take into account positive changes in the lives 

of victims and their families as well as continued victimization in the form of psychological abuse and passive resistance to provisions in the protection 0rders.l The National Center's study of protection orders 

attempted to extend that research by asking study participants about both their well-being since they 

obtained a protection order and various ways in which they were experiencing problems related to the 

ordere2 

Measuring Improvements in the Quality of Life 

The three questions designed to measure each participant's well-being are (1)whether her life had improved 

since she obtained the protection order, (2)whether she felt better about herself, and (3) whether she felt safer 

with the protection order. For nearly three-quarters of the study participants, the short-term effects of the 

protection order on these aspects of their well-being were positive (see Table IV.l). These positive effects 

improved over time, so that by the time of the six-month follow-up interview, the proportion of participants 

reporting life improvement increased to 85 percent. More than 90 percent reported feeling better about themselves, and 80 percent of those with a protection order in effect felt safer (see Table IV.l). 

Measuring Reductions in Abusive Conduct 

To measure how well the protection orders worked to curtail abusive behavior, we asked the study participants what types of problems they had experienced related to their protection orders. A majority of the participants in both the initial and follow-up interviews reported having no problems (72.4 percent and 65.3 

percent, respectively; see Table IV.2). In addition to repeated acts of physical and psychological abuse, the 

These more expansive measures build on research such as the 1990 case study by Hoff, which examined women's life experiences 

before, during, and after battering using a self-evaluation guide. Questions included on the 17-item guide pertained to physical health, 

self-acceptance/self-esteem,intimate relationships, vocation/occupation, residential and financial situation, and life philosophy/goals. L. 

E. Hoff, Battered Women as Survivors (New York: Routledge 1990). See also, Bowker, 1983; note Chaudhuri and Daly, 1992; and references 

in Hart, 1995. 

The study benefited from the advice and direction of Barbara Hart, who has propounded the value of more expansive measurements 

of the effectiveness of protection orders. 
C~vrl Protect~on Orders: The Benefits and Lim~tations for Vict~ms of Domestrc Violence 

Table IK 1 : 

Effectiveness Measured by Quality of Life 

lnitial lnterview Follow-up lnterview 

(n=285) (n=1 77) 

Life Improved Yo Yo 

All Sites 72.3 85.3 

Delaware 82.2 87.5 

Denver 74.4 89 7 

Distr~ct of Columbia 61.9 79 4 

Feel Better 

All Sites 72.3 

Delaware 82.2 

Denver 74.4 

District of Columbia 61.9 

Feel Safer 

All Sites 73.7 

Delaware 77.8 

Denver 83.3 

District of Columbia 61.9 

Table IK2: 

Effectiveness Measured by Problems with Orders: All Sites 

Initial lnterview Follow-up lnterview 

[n=268) (n=1 67) 

# Yo # Yo 

No Problems Experienced 194 72.4 109 65.3 

Respondent Called HomeNork 43 16.1 29 17.4 

Res~ondent Came to Home 24 9 1) 14 8 4 

Res~ondent Stalked Victim 11 4 1 12 7 7 

Respondent Physically Reabused Victim 7 2.6 14 8.4 

Respondent Psychologically Reabused Victim 12 4.4 2 1 12.6 

Respondent Caused Other Problems 3 1.1 1 0.6 

types of problems the participants reported included the respondent calling at home or work, coming to the 

victim's home, and stalking the victim. 

Repeat occurrences of physical abuse were reportedly rare, but varied greatly across the study sites. In 

the initial interviews, 2.6 percent of the participants reported repeated physical abuse. At the six-month follow-up, that proportion more than tripled to 8.4 percent (see Table IV.2). The incidence of repeated physical abuse was much higher, however, in Delaware (10.9 percent) and the District of Columbia (11.9 percent) 

than in Denver, where only about 2 percent of the participants reported being reabused physically (see Table 

IV.3). 

Psychological abuse was reported by 4.4 percent of the study participants initially, but after six months 

the reported incidence rose to 12.6 percent. As with the reports of repeated physical abuse, there was a high 

level of variance across the sites on this measure (see Table IV.3). Psychological abuse was highest in 

Delaware (23.6 percent) and lowest in the District of Columbia (1.7 percent), with Denver falling in the middle (13.3 percent). 

The most frequently reported problem in both the initial and follow-up interviews was calling the victim at home or work (16.1 percent and 17.4 percent, respectively). In both the initial and follow-up interviews about 9 percent of the participants reported that the respondent came to the victim's home. Stalking 
CHAPTER IV THE BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS 

Table IW3: 

Effectiveness Measured by Problems with Orders: By Site 

Initial Interview* Follow-up Interview* * 

# Yo # Yo 

No Problems Experienced 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 

Respondent Called HomeNVork 

Delaware 16 19.0 8 14 5 

Denver 13 15.3 12 22.6 

Distr~ct of Columbla 14 14.1 9 15.3 

Respondent Came to Home 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 

Respondent Stalked Victim 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 

Respondent Physically Reabused Victim 

Delaware 4 4.8 6 10 9 

Denver 1 1.2 1 1.9 

District of Columbia 2 2.0 7 11.9 

Respondent Psychologically Reabused Victim 

Delaware 5 6.0 13 23.6 

Denver 4 4.7 7 13.2 

District of Columbia 3 3.0 1 1.7 

Respondent Caused Other Problems 

Delaware 1 1.2 1 1.8 

Denver 1 1.2 0 0.0 

District of Columbia 1 1 .O 0 0.0 

* Delaware (n=84), Denver (n=85), District of Columbia (n=99). 

** Delaware (n=55), Denver (n=53), District of Columbia (n=59). 

was relatively infrequently reported. In the initial interviews about 4 percent of the participants reported 

being stalked by the respondent, and this figure rose to about 7 percent in the follow-up interview^.^ 

To obtain a more complete picture of the study participants' experiences with the protection orders, we 

also looked at the number of different types of problems each participant reported. As discussed above, in 

the initial interviews, 72.4 percent of the participants reported having no problems with the protection 

order. About 15 percent reported having one type of problem, and 7.5 percent reported two types of problems (see Table IV.4). Less than 5 percent of the participants reported having more than two types of problems. Participants with children generally reported a higher number of types of problems than did their 

counterparts with no children. The follow-up interviews show a similar pattern (see Table IV.5). Twenty 

percent had one type of problem, 5.4 percent reported two types of problems, and about 9 percent reported 

three or more types of problems. 

The majority of participants with children reported that they did not experience any problems related to the children. However, in 

contrast to the whole group of participants, the proportion of participants with children who reported having any problems rose from 31 

percent in the initial interviews to 42 percent in the follow-up interviews. This difference makes sense intuitively, because participants 

with children are more likely to be in situations where problems could occur, such as seeing the respondent upon the exchange of children for visitation. In the initial and follow-up interviews, the two most frequently reported types of problems related to children were 

problems at exchange of children for visitation (3.9 percent, 2.1 percent) and threatening to keep the children (2.1 percent, 3.5 percent). 

No one reported that the respondent actually kept the children. Four participants in the first interview and one in the follow-up interview reported that the respondent did not return the children at the appointed time. 
Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and L~mitations for Vict~ms of Domestic V~olence 

Table IK4: 

Effectiveness of Order: Number of Types 

of Problems Reported in Initial lnterviews 

Number of Types Ail Have Child No Child 

of Problems (n=268) (n=22O) (n=48) 

# Yo # Yo # Yo 

Table IK5: 

Effectiveness of Order: Number of Types 

of Problems Reported in Follow-up lnterviews 

Number of Types All Have Child No Child 

of Problems (n=167) (n=1 33) (n=34) 

A Closer Look at Effects on Quality of Life and Abusive Behavior 

To quantify the study participants' reports of well-being and problems with their protection orders, we developed two indexes to serve as outcome measure^.^ One index relates to the participants' well-being and the 

other relates to problems with the protection orders. We then used these indexes to examine the possible 

influence of various factors on the effectiveness of the protection orders the study participants obtained. 

The Well-being Index consists of three variables that inquired whether a study participant felt safer 

with a protection order, whether she felt better about herself, and whether her life had improved since she 

obtained the protection order. Each of these variables has a score of 1. The values for the Well-being Index 

range from a low of 0, indicating the lowest level of effectiveness, to a high of 3, the highest level of effectiveness. (This index was applied only to the data from the initial interviews because in the follow-up interviews only participants who had a protection order in effect were asked about their feelings of safety with 

the order.) 

Across all the sites, the values for the Well-being Index range between 0 and 3 with an average of 2.2. 

These generally positive scores varied among the three study sites, however (see Table IV.6).5 Participants 

The indexes allow more meaningful analyses of relationships among the dependent (or outcome) variables that make up the indexes 

and the many independent variables that could be associated with the effectiveness of protection orders. 

The differences among sites are significant at a 95 percent confidence interval. 
-- 

CHAPTER IV. THE BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS 

Table lK6: 

Well-being Index: Differences Among the Sites 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

2.4222 t 2.3222 $ 1.8571 t$ 

t Significant difference between Delaware and the District of Columbia 

$ Significant difference between Denver and the District of Columbia. 

in both Delaware and Denver believed their well-being had improved in terms of self-esteem, safety, and 

general life improvement to a greater extent than did the participants in the District of Columbia. 

The significantly more positive scores of participants in Delaware and Denver on the Well-being Index 

may suggest that the more centralized process and direct assistance to petitioners for protection orders in 

those sites result in greater effectiveness of the orders in terms of improving victims' well-being. However, 

there are no statistically significant correlations among any independent variables related to the sites (e.g., 

use of services, representation of the petitioner) that explain these differences. Furthermore, differences 

among the sites in outcomes on the Problems Index do not support the notion that the processes in 

Delaware and Denver are more effective than the process in the District of Columbia. 

We also did not find any significant differences in scores on the Well-being Index related to the intensity of abuse the study participants had experienced or to the participants' age, race, ethnicity, income, or 

education level.6 The only demographic variable that appears to influence the effects of protection orders 

on the victim's quality of life is the existence of a criminal record. These findings are discussed below. 

The Problems Index is a tally of the number of different types of problems (see Table IV.2) with the 

protection order that the petitioners might have reported. The possible responses include no reported problems, calling at work or home, coming to the house, stalking the petitioner, repeated physical abuse, repeated psychological abuse, causing other problems, and problems related to children. Each of the variables in 

the Problems Index has a score of 1, and the possible range of the values is from 0 (indicating the highest 

level of effectiveness) to 7 (the lowest level of effectiveness). Thus the values of the Problems Index are the 

inverse of those for the Well-being Index: the greater the number of types of problems the participant experienced, the higher her score on the Problems Index. 

Across all the sites, the values for the Problems Index range between 0 and 5. For the initial interviews, 

the average score is .481. For the follow-up interviews the average score is ,618. The low average scores on 

the Problems Index reflect the fact that the majority of participants reported having no problems related to 

their protection order. 

Although the overall scores on the Problems Index are positive for all of the study sites, we found some 

variation among the sites. The scores on the Problems Index for the initial interviews were significantly 

- higher, i.e., less positive, for the participants in Delaware than for the participants in ~enver.' In the follow-up interviews, the Problems Index scores were significantly higher in both ela aware^ and ~enver~ than 

in the District of Columbia (see Table IV.7). 

The variation in scores on the Problems Index may be driven less by differences in processes and services across the study sites and more by the characteristics of the individual study participants. As reported 

in the discussion of criminal backgrounds below, both the type and extent of the respondents' criminal 

records bear some relationship to the number of problems the study participants reported. Specifically, a 

record of violent crime and higher numbers of prior arrests are associated with higher numbers of problems 

reported by the study participants. As noted in Chapter Three, among the three study sites, more of the 

There also were no differences in outcomes based on whether the respondent was arrested or prosecuted. 

T-test for equality of means: t = 2.33, p = 0.021. 

T-test for equality of means: t = 2.69, p = 0.008. 

T-test for equality of means: t = 1.86, p = 0.066. 
Crv~l Protection Orders The Benefits and L~mitatrons for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table IK7: 

Problems Index: Differences Among the Sites 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

Initial Interviews ,679t .34 1 t ,424 

Follow-UD Interviews .836i .679# .339$$ 

tSignificant difference between Delaware and Denver. 

$Significant difference between Delaware and the District of Columbia. 

$$Significant difference between Denver and the District of Columbia. 

Table IK8: 

Relationship of Well-being to History of Violent Crime: All Sites 

Respondent Has Respondent Has a 

Well-being No Violent Criminal Violent Criminal Row Totals 

Index Score Background (%) Background (%) I'w 

1 (Medium Low)(%) I6 14 3 0 

(6.6) (5.7) (12 3) 

2 (Medium High)(%) 15 2 2 37 

(6.1) 19.0) (1 5.2) 

Column Totals (%/ 115 129 244 

(47.1) (52.9) (1 00.0) 

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 

2.1 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.3 3.0 

respondents in Delaware have a record of violent crime and a greater proportion have three or more arrests 

for any type of crime. The more extensive criminal records of the respondents in Delaware therefore may 

be the factor that distinguishes the participants in Delaware from the participants in Denver and the District 

of Columbia in their scores on the Problems Index. 

Relationship Between Criminal Background and 

Protection Order Outcome Measures 

We used the Well-being Index and the Problems Index to examine whether the respondent's criminal history, or lack thereof, bears any relationship to the participants' improvements in well-being or to problems 

related to the protection order. We found three significant relationships. The first was a greater improvement in well-being when the respondent had a record of violent crime (see Table IV.8). 

Whether or not the respondent had a record of violent crime was related to the participants' improvement in well-being in two important respects. First, scores on the Well-being Index of participants who 

obtained a protection order against a respondent with a record of violent crime increased continuously from 

low to high. In comparison, when the respondent had no record of violent crime, the index score actually 

dips slightly (although not significantly) before increasing dramatically at the highest index value.1° This 

lo The correlation between the Well-being Index and Violent Criminal Histories is statistically significant (a = 0.10). Spearman's 

Correlation Coefficient = 0.12137, p = 0.05833. 
Table IV.9: 

Safety Planning 

All Sites # Yo BY Site # Yo 

Delaware (n=8) 2 25.0 

Petitioner Made Safety Plan for TRO 23 24.7 Denver (n=35) 15 42.9 

(No CPO) (n=93) District of Columbia (n=50) 6 12.0 

Delaware (n= 16) 5 31.3 

Petitioner Made Safety Plan for CPO (n=97) 35* 36.1 Denver (n=47) 20 42.5 

District of Columbia (n=34) 10 29.4 

Delaware 24 29.3 

Petitioner Made Safety Plan at Any Time (n= 183) 59 32.2 Denver 21 40.3 

District of Columbia 14 28.6 

* Includes participants who kept same safety plan they made when they obtained a temporary order 

continuous increase signifies that petitioners who sought protection orders against respondents with violent 

criminal histories tended to report greater improvements in well-being as compared to petitioners who 

sought protection orders against respondents with no history of violent crime. 

Second, the magnitude of the increase was significantly greater when the respondent had a violent 

criminal record. The difference between the proportion of petitioners who scored 3 on the Well-being Index 

(34.4 percent) is nearly ten times greater than those who scored 0 (3.7 percent). When the respondent had 

no violent criminal background, this difference was less than three-and-a-half times.ll Protection orders, 

therefore, can be particularly helpful for improving the emotional well-being of women when their abusers 

have been sufficiently (and probably publicly) so violent in the past as to be arrested for the behavior. 

The other two significant effects of the respondents' criminal history appeared in relation to the Problems 

Index. First, for the initial interviews, the participants whose abuser had a higher number of arrests tended to 

report a greater number of problems with the protection order.12 Second, in the follow-up interviews, the participants whose abuser had at least one arrest for a violent crime other than domestic violence were more likely to experience a greater number of problems with the protection order.13 The second relationship between 

respondents' criminal record and problems related to protection orders is stronger than the first. 

These findings indicate that protection orders obtained against respondents with a criminal history are 

less likely to be effective in deterring future violence or avoiding other problems than those obtained against 

respondents without such a history. Because protection orders provide petitioners with less protection 

against respondents with a high number of arrests, and more specifically with a history of violent crime, the 

need for aggressive criminal prosecution policies becomes more critical. Criminal prosecution of such individuals may be required to curb their abusive behavior. Reliance on a protection as the sole intervention in 

these cases may not be the most effective deterrence against further abuse. 

The relationships between the respondents' criminal histories and both the improved quality of life 

and reported problems with protection orders indicate that the dual interventions of criminal and civil 

process are likely to be most helpful to women whose abusers have been arrested in the past. Criminal prosecution may address the violence more effectively, while the civil protection order bolsters the victim's selfesteem and gives greater feelings of security. 

l1 In the individual site data, the only significant relationship between the Well-being Index and respondents' criminal histories occurred 

in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia data also showed a significant relationship between the Well-being Index and respondents with a history of violent crime, but this correlation was comparatively weaker than those that existed for the combined data. One 

possible explanation for the relative weakness of the correlation at the District of Columbia site, and the lack of significant correlations for 

the other two sites, is that there is an insufficient number of cases at the individual sites to document a relationship between these variables with any certainty. The fact that the correlation appears in the combined data, however, suggests that there is a significant correlation between petitioners' improvement in well-being and the existence of respondents' criminal records, albeit a relatively weak one. 

l2 Analysis of Variance, F = 1.6271,p = .0439. 

l3 Analysis of Variance, F = 4.8820, p = .0285. 
Civil Protect~on Orders. The Benefits and Limitations for Victrms of Domestic V~olence 

The Importance of Safety Planning 

Safety planning is likely to play a role in the effectiveness of protection orders and other interventions to 

deter domestic violence. Across the sites, about one-third of the participants said they had made a safety 

plan during the process of obtaining either a temporary or permanent order (see Table IV.9). A higher proportion of participants in Denver reported making a safety plan in comparison to participants in Delaware 

and the District of Columbia. This may reflect the emphasis that Project Safeguard, which provides some 

assistance to most petitioners for protection orders, places on safety planning.14 The fact that about onequarter of the participants who obtained only a temporary protection order engaged in safety planning at 

that time is a further indication that the process of seeking a temporary protection order can have positive 

effects in terms of deterring violence and helping the victim take greater control over her environment. 

l4 See Chapter I1 for information about Project Safeguard and the services it provides to victims of domestic violence in Denver. 
Chapter V: 

Types of Protection Orders Obtained 

and Scope of Relief Provided 

Chapter V: 

Types of Protection Orders Obtained 

and Scope of Relief Provided 

The information for this analysis was derived from telephone interviews and examinations of court case files. 

In both the initial and follow-up interviews, we asked the study participants whether they obtained a temporary order, and if so, whether they returned to court for a permanent order. The rates at which the study 

participants reported that they returned to court for the permanent order varied across the three project sites. 

A comparison of return rates in Denver and the District of columbial indicates that the centralized process 

for obtaining a protection order and greater consistency of services provided to petitioners in Denver has a 

salutary effect on women's decisions to return for a permanent protection order2 (see Table V.l). 

Other factors may play a greater role, however, in influencing whether a victim carries through with 

the court process to obtain a permanent order. Interviewers asked the study participants who did not return 

for a permanent order the reasons they did not return3 (see Table V.2). The explanations given by the participants add support to the proposition that temporary orders can be helpful to victims, whether or not the 

victim returns for a permanent order. 

Table \/:I: 

Types of Orders Obtained 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

# Yo # Yo # Yo 

Women Who Obtained TRO 90 27% 90 94% 105 86% 

Women Who Went Back for CPO 24 75% 85 61 % 8 9 44% 

Women Who Obtained CPO but No TRO 9 0 73% 90 6% 105 14% 

The most commonly cited reason for not returning was that the respondent had stopped bothering the 

petitioner (35.5 percent). The petitioner and respondent had reconciled in 17 percent of the cases, and service reportedly could not be made on the respondent in another 17 percent of the cases. In about 10 percent 

of the cases, the respondent had left the area. Only 2 percent of the participants reported that they did not 

return for a permanent order because the respondents had threatened them. However, another 2 percent of 

the women reported that the respondents had persuaded them to drop the action, and some proportion of 

the cases in which the participant and respondent reconciled probably involved some degree of coercion. 

The return rate for participants in Delaware differs considerably from Denver and the District of Columbia, primarily because the 

majority of participants in Delaware were recruited for the study when they appeared for the hearing on the permanent order. 

The return rate for the Denver participants in this study is virtually the same as the rate found by the Urban Institute in its study of 

protection orders in Denver, which took place before the consolidated protection order was established (Harrell, Smith, and Newmark, 

1993). 

To examine whether the reasons for the return rate in Denver might be linked to the consolidated docket, the interviewers offered participants the same possible reasons that the Urban Institute had found participants gave in its study of the protection order process in 

Denver. 
Civ~lProtect~on Orders The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestrc Violence 

Table V.2: 

Reasons Petitioners Did Not Return for Permanent Order 

All Sites (n=93) # Yo By Site # Yo 

Delaware 2 25.0 

Respondent Stopped Bothering Petitioner 33 35.5 Denver 13 37.1 

District of Columbia 18 36.0 

Delaware 0 0.0 

Respondent and Petitioner Reconciled 16 17.2 Denver 8 22.9 

District of Columbia 8 16.0 

Delaware 

Service of Process Could Not Be Made 16 17.2 Denver 6 17.1 

District of Columbia 10 20.0 

Delaware 2 25.0 

Respondent Left Area 9 9 7 Denver 2 5.7 

Dlstrlct of Columbia 5 10.0 

Delaware 

CPO Procedures Were Too Much Trouble 5 5.4 Denver 1 2.9 

District of Columbia 4 8.0 

Delaware 1 12.5 

Respondent Agreed to Get Counseling 3 3.2 Denver 

District of Columbia 2 4.0 

Delaware 

CPO Procedures Take Too Much Time 3 3.2 Denver 2 5.7 

District of Columbia 1 2.0 

Delaware 

Respondent Persuaded Petitioner Against Returning 2 2.2 Denver 2 5.7 

District of Columbia 

Delaware 

Respondent Threatened Petitioner About Returning 2 2.2 Denver 

D~strict of Columbia 2 4.0 

Delaware 

CPO Procedures Were Too Much Work 2 2.2 Denver 1 2.9 

District of Columbia 1 2.0 

Delaware 1 12.5 

Hearing Not Held Yet 2 2.2 Denver 

District of Columbia 1 2.0 

Delaware 

Respondent Has Returned Home 1 1.1 Denver 

District of Columbia 1 2.0 

Delaware 

Other 1 1.1 Denver 

District of Columbia 1 2.0 

In each of the project sites, researchers gathered data related to protection orders from the civil case 

files of the study participant^.^ Across the three sites, staff examined and compiled case data from 224 files.5 

In total, there were 158 temporary orders and 145 permanent orders. Table V.3 lists the types of the proviNot all of the files for the participants were available to be examined, however. The number of participants for whom we obtained 

official information on the protection orders, therefore, is lower than the number of participants in the study. 

With the exception of Delaware, the information in the case files was sparse. Most files included only the petition, affidavits, returns 

of service, and the order issued. Because jurisdiction for protection orders in Delaware lies in the Family Court, the case files of participants there were more extensive. Any actions related to divorce, child support, custody, visitation, and, in some cases, criminal charges 

and protection orders sought against the participant also were in the case file. Project staff thus were able to observe cases in which there 

had been numerous matters related to the participant and her family before the court. 
-- 

-- -- 

CHAFTER V TYPES OF PROTECTION ORDERS OBTAINED AND SCOPE OF RELIEF PROVIDED 

Table M3: 

Protection Order Provisions (General): All Sites 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n= 158) Order (n= 1 45) 

# Yo # Yo 

Respondent Prohibited from Abusing [Assault, Abuse, Threats) Petitioner 144 91.1 134 92.4 

Respondent Ordered Not to Contact Petitioner -

126 79.7 80 55.2 

Respondent Ordered to Stay Away from Petltloner's Home or Place of Work 147 93 0 116 80 0 

Respondent Ordered to Vacate Home 43 27.2 4 7 32.4 

Respondent Ordered Not to Transfer Property N/A N/A 2 1 9.4 

Police Ordered to Protect Petitioner While Respondent Vacates Home 16 10.1 3 2.1 

Respondent Contact with Petitioner Limited to Specific Times or Places 3 1.9 2 6 17.9 

Respondent Ordered to Rellnaursh Weapons 

Respondent Ordered to Attend Counselinq 1 0.6 37 25.5 

Other Provisions 10 6.3 25 17.2 

Table M3a: 

Protection Order Provisions (General): Delaware 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n= 1 1) Order (n=68) 

Respondent Prohibited from Abusing (Assault, Abuse, Threats) Petitioner 11 100.0 6 6 97.1 

Respondent Ordered Not to Contact Petitioner 11 100.0 36 52.9 

Respondent Ordered to Stay Away from Petitioner's Home or Place of Work 11 100.0 5 9 86.8 

Respondent Ordered to Vacate Home 9 81.8 3 2 47.1 

Respondent Ordered Not to Transfer Property N/A N/A 2 1 30.9 

Police Ordered to Protect Petitioner While Respondent Vacates Home 0 0.0 1 1.5 

Respondent Contact with Petitioner Limited to Specific Times or Places 0 0.0 18 26.5 

Respondent Ordered to Relinauish Weapons 2 18.2 10 14.7 

Respondent Ordered to Attend Counselinq 1 9.1 3 3 48.5 

Other Provisions 

sions most commonly included in temporary and permanent protection orders and the proportions of each 

type of order in which these provisions occurred. 

As a general matter, a temporary protection order tended to include broad prohibitions on the respondent's contact with the petitioner, while the provisions in a permanent order tended to be more narrowly 

tailored to meet the specific needs of the participant. Differences across the sites in the terms of orders 

reflect to some degree the differences in the scope of relief available; for example, relinquishing weapons in 

Dela~are.~However, although exclusive use of the family residence is an available remedy in each of the 

project sites, the court in Denver is much more disposed than the other courts to order the respondent to 

vacate a common residence in both temporary and permanent orders. This form of relief can be critical for 

The provisions in the Brady Act regarding prohibitions on the purchase or possession of hand guns are likely to influence other states 

to include prohibitions on possession of weapons in protection orders. (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, P.L. No. 103-159, 

197 Stat. 1536, codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.) 
Civ~l Protection Orders The Benefits and L~mitations for V~ctms of Domestrc Violence 

Table K3b: 

Protection Order Provisions (General): Denver 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order [n=69) Order [n=39) 

# Yo # Yo 

Respondent Prohibited from Abusing [Assault, Abuse, Threats) Petitioner 69 100.0 3 6 92.3 

Respondent Ordered Not to Contact Petitioner 68 98.6 34 87.2 

Respondent Ordered to Stay Away from Petitioner's Home or Place of Work 69 100.0 3 6 92.3 

Respondent Ordered to Vacate Home 27 39.1 12 30.8 

Respondent Ordered Not to Transfer Property N/A N/A 0 0.0 

Police Ordered to Protect Petitioner While Respondent Vacates Home 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Respondent Contact with Petitioner Limited to Specific Times or Places 1 1.4 2 5.1 

Respondent Ordered to Relinquish Weapons 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Respondent Ordered to Attend Counseling 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Other Provisions 7 10.1 3 7.7 

Table K3c: 

Protection Order Provisions (General): District of Columbia 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n=78) Order (n=38) 

Respondent Prohibited from Abusing (Assault, Abuse, Threats) Petitioner 64 82.1 3 2 84.2 

Respondent Ordered Not to Contact Petitioner 47 60.3 10 26.3 

Respondent Ordered to Stay Away from Petitioner's Home or Place of Work 6 7 85.9 2 1 55.3 

Respondent Ordered to Vacate Home 7 9.0 3 7.9 

Respondent Ordered Not to Transfer Properw N/A N/A 0 0.0 

Police Ordered to Protect Petitioner While Respondent Vacates Home 16 20.5 2 5.3 

Respondent Contact with Petitioner Limited to Specific Times or Places 2 2.6 6 15.8 

Respondent Ordered to Relinquish Weapons 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Respondent Ordered to Attend Counselina 0 0.0 4 10.5 

Other Provisions 1 1.3 0 0.0 

both the safety and the psychological stability of the victim. Perhaps the philosophy that drove the establishment of a consolidated docket for protection orders in Denver is reflected in the relatively frequent provision of this relief. 

For the 151 cases in which the petitioner and respondent had children in common (92 temporary 

orders and 108 permanent orders), the protection often included provisions concerning the respondent's visitation rights with the children. Table V.4 documents the frequency and types of child visitation provisions 

included in protection orders. Similar to the general protection order provisions, courts appear to be more 

willing to award visitation rights to respondents after a full hearing for a permanent protection order, rather 

than in temporary, ex parte orders. 

Few of the study participants filed amendments to protection orders or contempt motions for violations of the protection order. Out of 145 permanent orders examined, 16 (11.0 percent) had one amendment, 5 (3.4 percent) had two amendments, and 2 (1.4 percent) had three amendments. No amendments 

were made to the remaining 122 (84.1 percent) protection orders. 
CHAPTER V TYPES OF PROTECTION ORDERS OBTAINED AND SCOPE OF RELIEF PROVIDED 

Table K4: 

Provisions Concerning Child Visitation: All Sites 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n=92) Order (n=99) 

# Yo # Yo 

Custodv Granted to Petitioner 7 6 82.6 7 9 79 8 

Visitation Granted to Respondent 9 9.8 65 60.2 

Supervised Visitation Granted to Respondent 19 20.7 11 11.1 

Res~ondent Ordered to Pav Child Su~~ort 4 4.3 37 37.4 

Visitation Denied to Respondent 2 9 31.5 10 10.1 

Order Prohibits Contact with Children 13 14.1 3 3.0 

Table K4a: 

Provisions Concerning Child Visitation: Delaware 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n=7) Order (n=50) 

# Yo # Oh 

Custody Granted to Petitioner 6 85.7 3 9 78.0 

Visitation Granted to Respondent 0 0.0 3 1 62.0 

Supervised Visitation Granted to Respondent 0 0.0 2 4.0 

Respondent Ordered to Pay Child Support 2 28.6 3 2 64.0 

Visitation Denied to Respondent 2 28.6 4 8.0 

Order Prohibits Contact with Children 1 14.3 2 4.0 

Table K4b: 

Provisions Concerning Child Visitation: Denver 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n=34) Order (n=2 1) 

# Yo # Yo 

Custody Granted to Petitioner 3 4 100.0 2 0 95.2 

Visitation Granted to Respondent 4 11.8 16 76.2 

Supervised Visitation Granted to Respondent 0 0.0 8 38.1 

Respondent Ordered to Pay Child Support 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Visitation Denied to Respondent 19 55.9 4 19.0 

Order Prohibits Contact with Children 8 23.5 1 4.8 

In 130 cases (89.7 percent), no contempt motions were filed. Thirteen cases (9.0 percent) had one contempt motion, and only two cases (1.4 percent) had more than one contempt motion. Of the cases in which 

contempt motions were filed, the court held a hearing on the matter in nine cases and granted the motion 

in five of these cases.' The low use by participants of the civil contempt process to enforce protection orders 

indicates that the court should do more to inform victims about the availability of and the process for filThe low rates of contempt motions found in the case files comports with the reports participants gave in the interviews regarding use 

of the contempt process to enforce protection orders. 
Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Lim~tarions for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table K4c: 

Provisions Concerning Child Visitation: District of Columbia 

Temporary Protection Permanent Protection 

Order (n=5 1) Order (~28) 

# Oh # Oh 

Custody Granted to Petitioner 3 6 70.6 2 0 7 1.4 

Visitation Granted to Respondent 5 9.8 18 64.3 

Supervised Visitation Granted to Respondent 1 2.0 1 3.6 

Res~ondent Ordered to Pav Child Sumort 2 3.9 5 17.9 

Visitation Denied to Respondent 8 15.7 2 7.1 

Order Prohibits Contact with Children 4 7.8 0 0.0 

ing contempt rnotion~.~ This need to provide easily accessible and understandable information about the 

enforcement process has become more acute in the wake of the Violence Against Women Act's full faith and 

credit provisions for protection order^.^ 

Participants in Denver also reported little use of the contempt process to enforce orders, but this is most likely because the policy of 

the City Attorney is to vigorously prosecute violations of protection orders. The City Attorney's domestic violence unit works closely with 

the police department to coordinate arrests, arraignments, and prosecution. They reportedly obtain a high proportion of guilty pleas 

because the prosecution efforts have been successful. 

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, Title IV, 108 Stat. 1902-55 54021 (2265-2266). 
Chapter VI: 

Use of Services by Study Participants 

Chapter VI: 

Use of Services by Study Participants 

In both the initial and follow-up interviews, we asked the study participants whether they had received assistance to protect themselves from abuse or otherwise cope with the abuse they had suffered. The interviewers named generic resources, including the police, medical assistance, legal assistance, and friends or relatives, 

as well as specific services and sources of support available in their respective jurisdictions. For the analysis 

of the extent to which the study participants used these services, we grouped the various services into eight 

categories: medical assistance, police protection, private legal services, moral support and guidance from 

friends or relatives, assistance from private community organi~ations,~ government as~istance,~ counseling

services, and support groups. Overall, more than three-quarters (77.5 percent) of the study participants 

received some type of service, either before or after they obtained a protection order (see Table VI.l). 

With the exception of counseling and support groups, participants tended to use services more 

before they obtained a protection order than in the month afterward (see Table VI.2). This finding suggests 

that victims are aware of, or perceive the need for, some types of services while they are still in an abusive 

relationship or are trying to leave it. For example, police services were used by 28 percent of the study participants before they obtained a protection order, whereas a month or so later only 8 percent of the participants had called upon the police for assistance. Likewise, medical assistance was sought by more participants before they obtained a protection order than afterward. These findings comport with the commonsense notion that medical and police assistance may be critical for coping with or surviving domestic abuse. 

In contrast, victims may tend to seek counseling and assistance from support groups only after the immediate danger from the respondent has abated (by terminating the relationship, obtaining a protection order, 

and establishing stable postrelationship living arrangement^).^ 

Differences Among Sites 

The only types of services for which the trend to decrease services after receiving a protection order did not 

apply at all three sites were community and government services. In Denver, all seven of the study participants who received government services began doing so only after obtaining a protection order.4 In the 

District of Columbia, two participants began receiving community services after obtaining a protection 

order, and only one participant stopped receiving such services after obtaining a protection order. At both 

of these sites, however, the small number of petitioners affected was insignificant for statistical purposes. 

There were, however, some specific differences among the sites with respect to the rates at which the study 

participants received services (see Table VI.3). 

Examples of private community services include battered women's shelters and victim advocacy services provided by universities and 

private organizations. 

Examples of government assistance include victim services units of police and prosecutors offices and social services. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.4: Relationship of Participants with Respondent. * These were most likely referrals from Project Safeguard or another victim service. 
-- 

C~vil Protect~on Orders: The Benefits and Llmltatlons for Vict~ms of Domestic V~olence 

Table VI. 1 : 

Rates at Which Participants Received Types of Services at Any Time 

All Sites (n=285) 

Petitioners Receiving . . . # YO By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 78 86.7 

Any Services 22 1 77.5 Denver 72 80.0 

District of Columbia 71 67.6 

Delaware 6 6.7 

Medical Services 17 6.0 Denver 5 5.6 

District of Columbia 6 5.7 

Delaware 32 35.6 

Police Services 86 30.2 Denver 17 18.9 

District of Columbia 37 35.2 

Delaware 17 18.9 

Private Legal Services 32 11.2 Denver 7 7.8 

District of Columbia 8 7.6 

Delaware 54 60.0 

Assistance from Friends/Relatives 130 45.6 Denver 34 37.8 

District of Columbia 42 40.0 

Delaware 37 41.1 

Assistance from Community Services 92 32.3 Denver 48 53.3 

District of Columbia 7 6.7 

Delaware 2 2 2 

Assistance from Government Servlces 18 6 3 Denver 7 7 8 

Dlstr~ct of Columbra 9 8 6 

Delaware 16 17.8 

Counseling Services 36 12.6 Denver 12 13.3 

District of Columbia 8 7.6 

Delaware 1 1.1 

Support Groups 6 2.1 Denver 1 1.1 

District of Columbia 4 3.8 

* Delaware (n=90);Denver (n=9O);and District of Columbia (n= 105) 

Table VI.2: 

Rates at Which Petitioners Received Services Before and After 

Obtaining Protection Orders (All Sites) 

Petitioners Receiving . . . Before Order After Order 

# Yo # Yo 

Any Services 203 71.2 148 51.9 

Medical Services 

Police Services 79 27.7 2 3 8.1 

Private Leaal Services 25 8.8 17 6 0 

Assistance from Friends/Relatives 104 36.5 8 7 30.5 

Assistance from Private Communitv Services 76 26.7 57 20.0 

Assistance from Government Services 

Counseling 18 6.3 28 9.8 

Support Groups 2 0.7 5 1.8 
CHAPTER V1 USE OF SERVICES BY STUDY PARTICIPANTS 

Table V1.3: 

Rates at Which Participants Received Services Before 

and After Obtaining Protection Orders (By Site*) 

Before Order After Order Total 

Petitioners Receiving . . . # O/o # Yo # Yo 

Any Services 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 

Police Services # % # % # % 

Private Legal Services # % # % # % 

Delaware 13 14.4 ll 12.2 

Denver 

Assistance from Friends/Relatives # % # % # % 

Assistance from Community Services # % # % # % 

Assistance from Government Services # % # % # % 

* Service types not appearing in this table had no significant differences among sites. 

Dark shading indicates statistical significance at the p = 0.05 level. Light shading indicates 

statistical significance at the p = 0.10 level. 

Delaware had the highest rate (87 percent) of participants receiving services, followed by Denver at 

80 percent and the District of Columbia at 68 percent. This ranking held consistent for participants both 

before and after obtaining the protection order. There were some striking differences in the types of services 

participants received at each site, however. In Delaware, participants received assistance from friends and 

relatives at a significantly higher rate than participants in Denver or the District of Columbia. They also 

began receiving assistance from this source comparatively later than their counterparts at the other sites; 

nearly 15 percent of the Delaware participants first sought help from friends and relatives after obtaining a 

protection order compared to about 8 percent in Denver and 6 percent in the District of Col~mbia.~ 

Delaware also had the highest proportion of participants that sought private legal assistance, over twice that 

of Denver and the District of Columbia. Their reliance on private legal assistance may be the result of the 

comparatively higher incomes of the Delaware participant^.^ 

This delay in reaching out to personal support structures is an indication that obtaining the protection order instilled greater confidence in the women, as well as freedom to reveal their plight. 

See Appendix 111, Table A.III.7: Monthly Income of Participants. 
Crv~l Protectron Orders The Benefits and Lim~tations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

In Denver, the most significant differences in the types of services received were those involving police 

services and government/community services. Petitioners there received police services at a significantly 

lower rate than those in either Delaware or the District of Columbia, but received government assistance at 

much higher rates. 

Differences in Service Usage Rates Reported in Initial and Follow-up Interviews 

Examining service usage overall, we found no significant differences between the use of services reported in 

the initial interviews and in the follow-up interviews. In most instances, there were no differences according to the specific type of services either. A higher proportion of participants reported in the follow-up interviews that they had received police services after obtaining a protection order compared to the participants' 

reports in the initial interview^.^ This difference may be the result of participants calling the police for violations of the protection order they received or for subsequent incidents of violence after a temporary order 

had expired. In addition, a significantly higher proportion of the participants reported receiving private 

legal services in the follow-up interviews in comparison to the initial interview^.^ Perhaps the study participants who were interviewed a second time were more likely to have sought legal assistance for obtaining a 

divorce, separation, or custody of the children. 

Differences in Service Use Rates According to Various Demographic 

Characteristics of Petitioners 

In most instances, the demographic characteristics of the study participants had no correlation with service 

use.9 There were relationships between private legal services and racelo and between private legal services 

and marital status.ll Both relationships appear most strikingly in Delaware, where the study participants 

have comparatively higher incomes and a larger proportion of them are married. Income also had a significant, and inverse, correlation with participants' use of police services. Lower-income participants (less than 

$500 per month) tended to seek police assistance at a higher rate than higher-income petitioners, but this 

rate varied considerably among the income levels. 

The proportion of participants reporting post-order police services in the initial interviews was 3.7 percent, whereas 10.7 percent of 

participants in the follow-up interviews received these services. The difference was significant at the 0.05 level ( t = -2.12, p = 0.035). 

The proportion of participants reporting private legal services in the initial interviews was 6.5 percent compared to 14.1 percent in the 

follow-up interviews. This difference is significant at the 0.05 level (t = -1.99, p = 0.048). 

There were no significant correlations between petitioners' rates of service use and the indexes of effectiveness. See discussion in 

Chapter IV describing the construction of the Well-being and Problems indexes. 

lo White petitioners used private legal services at four times the rate of other races (F = 4.5315, p = 0.0116). 

Divorced and separated petitioners were four to six times more likely to use private legal services than married and single, never-married petitioners. 
Chapter VII: 

Police and Prosecution 

Chapter VII: 

Police and Prosecution 

The initial interviews with the study participants sought information about the participants' experiences, if 

any, with the police in relation to the incident that provided the impetus for obtaining a protection order. 

Interviewers also asked the participants whether the respondents were prosecuted. The information about 

the involvement of the police and prosecutors in the individual cases of the participants is based exclusively on the responses the participants provided in the interview^.^ Because the memories of the participants 

could be faulty or faded, strong conclusions about the response of either the police or the prosecutors should 

not be drawn from the interview results that follow. 

The reported use of police services varied across the sites, as did the responses of the police (see Table 

VII.l). In Delaware, for example, a higher proportion of the participants had called the police following the 

incident that spurred them to seek a protection order (Delaware, 96.7 percent; Denver, 93.3 percent; District 

of Columbia, 89.9 percent), but the police came to the scene of the incident in a lower proportion of the 

cases (Delaware, 79.3 percent; Denver, 89.3 percent; District of Columbia, 93.8 percent). Once at the scene, 

however, the police in Delaware (Wilmington Police and New Castle County Police) were more likely to take 

notes and interview witnesses. The extent to which the study participants had called the police on previous occasions for domestic violence incidents also varied among the sites. Three-quarters of the participants 

in Delaware had previously called the police, whereas only half the participants in both Denver and the 

District of Columbia had. 

The police arrested respondents in Denver in a considerably higher proportion of the cases, particularly in comparison to the District of Columbia-87 percent compared with 41 percent. (Similarly, higher proportions of participants in Delaware and Denver reported that the police had arrested the respondents on 

prior domestic violence calls.) On the other hand, a higher proportion of participants in the District of 

Columbia reported that the police had informed her about the availability of and process for obtaining a 

civil protection order. These two findings taken together suggest, however, that the police in the District of 

Columbia may be relying too heavily on the civil process and not devoting sufficient attention and resources 

to the criminal proces~.~ 

The questions about prosecution applied to only a very small number of participants because relatively few of the respondents had been arrested in relation to the incident for which the participants sought protection orders (see Table VII.2). There was some variation in reported prosecution across the sites, but little can drawn form this information. 

Law enforcement and prosecution obviously have vital roles to play in addressing and reducing domestic violence. Initiatives currently are under way throughout the country in the wake of the crusades for 

reform that advocates for battered women have pressed for the past two decades. Recently, the Violence 

An examination of police and prosecutors' records was beyond the scope of the current study. Project staff interviewed representatives 

of the police departments and the prosecution offices in each of the project sites to obtain general information about how these components of the criminal justice system are involved in addressing domestic violence in their respective jurisdictions. 

Evidence suggests that police are reluctant to arrest in domestic violence incidents due to fears of liability for false arrests. See, Klein, 

1995; Lerman, 1984. 
Civil Protection Orders The Benefits and Limitat~ons for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table VII. 1 : 

Police Procedures 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

# Ya # Yo # Yo 

Petitioner Called Police Following CPO Incident 58 96.7 5 6 93.3 80 89.9 

Police Came to the Scene 46 79.3 5 0 89.3 75 93.8 

Police Interviewed Witnesses at the Scene 2 5 59.5 2 7 55.1 2 7 37.5 

Police Took Notes at Scene 3 1 72.1 2 8 60.9 46 64.8 

Police Arrested Respondent 9 55.0 2 7 87.1 14 41.2 

Police Secured Warrant for Respondent's Arrest 13 44.8 11 50.0 18 39.1 

Poke Informed Petrtloner About CPO Avarlab~hty 35 60 3 37 60 7 69 77 5 

Police Informed Petitioner About CPO Procedures 33 56.9 3 2 53.6 63 70.8 

Petitioner Believes Police Were Hel~ful 3 1 52.5 27 45.0 39 43.8 

Petitioner Called Police for Prior Abusive Incidents 64 74.4 48 54.5 58 55.8 

Police Arrested Res~ondent for Prior Abusive Incidents 35 53.0 3 0 57.7 17 28.3 

Table VII.2: 

Criminal Prosecution of Protection Order Respondent 

Delaware Denver District of Columbia 

# % # % # ?'a 

According to Petitioner, Respondent Was Prosecuted 24 64.9 37 80.4 2 1 53.8 

Petitioner Testified/Planned to Testify at Criminal Hearinq 15 60.0 2 1 56.8 16 72.7 

Against Women Act has provided added resources in the form of formula grants that are aimed specifically 

at improving how law enforcement agencies and prosecutors fulfill their responsibilities in a coordinated 

response to domestic ~iolence.~ Future research should, and no doubt will, evaluate these efforts to ensure 

that the most effective approaches are used and shared among the states. 

The Urban Institute, 1996. 
Appendices 

1. References 

II. Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders: Judicial Curricula and 

Supplemental Resources 

Ill. Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants 

Length of Relationship with Respondent 

Marital Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

Proportion of Participants with Children 

Relationship of Participants with Respondent 

Age of Participants 

Educational Level of Participants 

Monthly Income of Participants 

Employment Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

RaceIEthnicity of Participants 

I Nature of Abuse 

.1 Nature of Abuse Before Order Obtained 

.2 Frequency of Abuse: All Sites 

.3 Frequency of Abuse: By Sites 

.4 Duration of Abuse Prior to Order 

.5 Abuse Occurred After Alcohol/Drug Use by Respondent 

Appendix I: 

References 

References 

American Bar Association Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their 

Families (1993). America's Children at Risk: A National Agenda for Legal Action. Chicago: American Bar 

Association. 

Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence (September 1984). Final Report. Washington, DC. 

Bachman, R. (1994). Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bailey, C. (1995). "Statewide Family Violence Coordinating Councils." Courts and Communities: Confronting 

Violence in the Family l(2). 

Bowker, L. H. (1983). Beating Wife-beating. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books 

Bouza, A. (1991). "Responding to Domestic Violence." In M. Steinman (ed.), Woman Battering: Policy 

Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and 

Anderson Publishing. 

Browne, A. (1987). When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1994). Selected Findings: Violence Between Intimates. Washington, DC. 

Buzawa, E., and C. Buzawa, eds. (1992). Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response. Westport, 

CT Greenwood Press. 

Buzawa, E., and C. Buzawa, eds. (1996). Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Cahn, N. R., and L. G. Lerman (1991). "Prosecuting Woman Abuse." In M. Steinman (ed.), Woman Battering: 

Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and 

Anderson Publishing. 

Chaudhuri, M., and K. Daly (1991). "Do Restraining Orders Help? Battered Women's Experience with Male 

Violence and Legal Process." In E. Buzawa and C. Buzawa (eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing 

Criminal Justice Response. Westport, CT Greenwood Press. 

Dakis, L. (February 1995). "Dade County's Domestic Violence Plan: An Integrated Approach." Trial. 

"Developments in the Law: Legal Responses to Domestic Violence" (1993). Haward Law Review 106(7). 
Civ~l Protect~on Orders The Benefits and Lim~tations for Victlms of Domest~c V~olence 

District of Columbia Domestic Violence Plan (1995). 

Domestic Violence Coordinating Council Annual Report (March 15, 1994). State of Delaware. 

Dutton, D. G. (1995). The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives. Vancouver, 

British Columbia: UBC Press. 

Dutton, D. G., with S. K. Golant (1995). The Batterer: A Psychological Profile. New York: BasicBooks. 

Dutton, M. A. (1993). "Understanding Women's Responses to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered 

Woman Syndrome." Hofitra Law Review 21(4). 

Dutton-Douglas, M. A., and D. Dionne (1991). "Counseling and Shelter Services for Battered Women." In 

M. Steinman (ed.), Women Battering: Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: 

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing. 

Edleson, J. L. (1991). "Coordinated Community Responses." In Michael Steinman (ed.), Woman Battering: 

Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and 

Anderson Publishing. 

Edwards, L. P. (1992). "Reducing Family Violence: The Role of the Family Violence Council." Juvenile and 

Family Court Journal 43(3). 

Edwards, L. P. (1992). "The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge." Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal 43(2). 

Finn, P. (1991). "Civil Protection Orders: A Flawed Opportunity for Intervention." In M. Steinman (ed.), 

Woman Battering: Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: Academy of Criminal 

Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing. 

Finn, P., and S. Colson (March 1990). "Civil Protection Orders: Legislation, Practice and Enforcement." 

National Institute of Justice Issues and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Fischer, K., and M. Rose (1995). "When 'Enough Is Enough': Battered Women's Decision Making Around 

Court Orders of Protections.'' Crime and Delinquency 41(4). 

Flango, V. E, and H. T. Rubin (1994). "How Is Court Coordination of Family Cases Working?" Judge's Journal 

33(4). 

Freize, I., and A. Browne (1989). "Violence in Marriage." In L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Gamache, D. J., J. L. Edleson, and M. D. Schock (1988). "Coordinated Police, Judicial, and Social Service 

Response to Woman Battering: A Multiple-Baseline Evaluation Across Three Communities." In G. T. 

Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, and M. A. Straus (eds.), Coping with Family Violence: Research 

and Policy Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Goolkasian, G. A. (1986). Confronting Domestic Violence: A Guide For Criminal Justice Agencies. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 
APPENDIX I 

Goolkasian, G. A. (November 1986). "Confronting Domestic Violence: The Role of Criminal Court Judges." 

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Hamlin, E. R. (1991). "Community-based Spouse Abuse Protection and Family Preservation Team." Social Work 

36(5). 

Harrell, A. (1993). A Guide to Research on Family Violence. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Harrell, A., B. Smith, and L. Newmark (1993). Court Processing and the Effects ofRestraining Orders for Domestic 

Violence Victims. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Hart, B. (1990). Violent No More: Intewention Against Women Abuse in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department 

of Human Services. 

Hart, B. J. (1992). "State Codes on Domestic Violence: Analysis, Commentary, and Recommendations." 

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43(4). 

Hart, B. J. (March 31, 1995). Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence. Paper presented at the 

Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women, Washington, DC. 

Hart, B. J. (1996). Full Faith and Credit for Protections Orders and Federal Domestic Violence Crimes. Paper presented at the National College of District Attorneys, Reading, PA. 

Herrell, S., and M. Hofford (1990). Family Violence: Improving Court Practice. Reno, NV: The National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence Project. 

Hilton, N. Z., ed. (1993). Legal Responses to Wife Assault: Current Trends and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Hofford, M., ed. (1989). Families in Court. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

Hofford, M. (Spring 1996). "Full Faith and Credit: A Promise and a Challenge!" In Courts and Communities: 

Conftonting Violence in the Family 2(2). 

Hofford, M., and A. V. Harrell (1993). Family Violence: Intewentions for the Justice System. Program Brief. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Hofford, M., and R. J. Gable (1989). "Significant Interventions: Coordinated Strategies to Deter Family 

Violence." In M. Hofford (ed.), Families in Court. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges. 

Hotaling, G. T., and D. B. Sugarman (1986). "An Analysis of Risk Markers in Husband to Wife Violence: The 

Current State of Knowledge." Violence and Victims l(2). 

Jaffe, P. (1995). "Impact of Domestic Violence on Children and Families in Divorce." In The National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (ed.), Custody and Visitation Decision-making When There 

Are Allegations of Domestic Violence, Seminar Notebook. Reno, NV: The National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges. 
C~vil Protection Orders The Benefits and Limitat~ons for V~ctrms of Domestrc Violence 

Justice Research and Statistics Association (September 5, 1995). Report on State Domestic and Sexual Violence 

Against Women Act of 19%. Washington, DC. 

Keilitz, S. L. (1994). "Civil Protection Orders: A Viable Justice System Tool for Deterring Domestic Violence." 

Violence and Victims 9. 

Klein, C. F. (Summer 1995). "Full Faith and Credit: Interstate Enforcement of Protection Orders Under the 

Violence Against Women Act of 1994." Family Law Journal Quarterly 29(2). 

Klein, C. F., and L. E. Orloff. "Providing Legal Protection for Battered Women: An Analysis of State Statutes 

and Case Law." Hofitra Law Review 21(4). 

Lerrnan, L. G. (1984). "Statute: A Model State Act: Remedies for Domestic Abuse." Harvard Journal on 

Legislation 21. 

"Making the Link: Domestic Violence and Alcohol and Other Drugs" (1994). Prevention Works 3(6). 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1992). Family Violence: State-of-the-Art Court Programs. 

Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1994). Courts and Communities: Conffonting Violence 

in the Family, Conference Highlights. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

Newmark, L., A. Harrell, and P. Salem (1994). Domestic Violence and Empowerment in Custody and Visitation 

Cases: An Empirical Study on the Impact of Domestic Abuse. Madison, WI: Association of Family and 

Conciliation Courts. 

Nevada State Team and Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (1995). Responding to Domestic Violence: A 

Plan for Action. Sparks, NV: Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence. 

Page, R. W. (1993). "Family Courts: An Effective Judicial Approach to the Resolution of Family Disputes." 

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 44(1). 

Roberts, A. R. (1994). "Court Responses to Battered Women and Reform Legislation." In Critical Issues in Crime 

and Justice. 

Rubin, H. T., and V. E. Flango. (1992). Court Coordination ofFamily Cases. Williamsburg, VA: National Center 

for State Courts. 

Rubin, H. T., and V. E. Flango (1993). "Courts and Families: A Time of Change." State Court Journal 17(3). 

Rusbult, C. E., and J. M. Martz (1995). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(6). 

Schachere, M. (1995). "STOP Grants Training Conferences Highlight Successful Strategies." National Bulletin 

on Domestic Violence Prevention l(6). 

Slater, C. M., and G. E. Hall, eds. (1996). 1996 County and City Extra: Annual Metro, City and County Data Book. 

Lanham, MD: Bernan Press. 
APPENDIX I 

Stalans, L. J., and A. J. Lurigio. (1995). "Public Preferences for the Court's Handling of Domestic Violence 

Situations." Crime and Delinquency 41(4). 

Steinman, M., ed. (1991). Women Battering: Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: 

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing. 

Steinman, M. (1991). "The Public Policy Process and Woman Battering: Problems and Potentials." In M. 

Steinman (ed.), Woman Battering: Policy Responses. Highland Heights, KY, and Cincinnati, OH: 

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and Anderson Publishing. 

Straus, M. (1979). "Measuring Family Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales." Journal ofMawiage 

and the Family 41. 

Strube, M. J. (1988). "The Decision to Leave an Abusive Relationship: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical 

Issues." Psychological Bulletin 104. 

Syers, M., and J. L. Edleson (1992). "The Combined Effects of Coordinated Criminal Justice Intervention in 

Woman Abuse." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(4). 

Syzmanski, L., T. Homisak, and E. H. Hurst I11 (1993). Policy Alternatives and Current Court Practices in the 

Special Problem Areas of Jurisdiction Over the Family. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Thaemert, R. (March 1993). "Till Violence Do Us Part." State Legislatures 19(3). 

Tifft, L. L. (1993). Battering of Women: The Failure of Intervention and the Case for Prevention. Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press. 

Topliffe, E. (1992). "Why Civil Protection Orders Are Effective Remedies for Domestic Violence but Mutual 

Protective Orders Are Not." Indiana Law Journal 67(4). 

Urban Institute (1996). The Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Washington, DC. 

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, Title IV, 108 Stat. 1902-55. 

Virginia Commission on Family Violence Prevention (1996). Community Planning Guide. Richmond, VA: 

Virginia Commission on Family Violence Prevention. 

Walker, L. (1984). The Battered Woman's Syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing. 

Witwer, M. B., and C. A. Crawford (1995). A Coordinated Approach to Reducing Family Violence: Conference 

Highlights. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Zalman, M. (1992). "The Courts' Response to Police Intervention in Domestic Violence." In E. Buzawa and 

C. Buzawa (eds.), Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response. Westport, CT: Greenwood 

Press. 

Zorza, J. (1995). "How Abused Women Can Use the Law to Help Protect Their Children." In E. Peled et al. 

(eds.), Ending the Cycle of Violence: Community Responses to Children ofBattered Women. Thousands Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Appendix 11: 

Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders 

Judicial Curricula and Supplemental Resources 

Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders 

Judicial Curricula and Supplemental Resources 

Although the materials in this appendix are diverse, their shared goal is to raise the understanding of domestic abuse among judges and court personnel and to provide practical knowledge about dealing with abuse 

victims seeking legal relief. 

Most of the curricula and resources provide information about domestic abuse law and explain such 

practical matters as what a civil protection order is and how it should be drafted. Some materials also cover 

more esoteric but equally important topics such as the history and dynamics of domestic abuse. Methods 

used to convey this information include reading assignments, lectures, workshops, and discussions. The 

authors reflect the range of public and private organizations-including judges' organizationsaeconcerned 

about domestic abuse. The various geographic locations of the authors indicate that domestic abuse is a 

widespread problem not centered in one part of the nation nor focused primarily in an urban or rural setting. Given the diversity of topics, teaching methodologies, and geographic range, it is hoped that users of 

this appendix will find information that can be adapted to suit their particular needs. 

Curricula 

Family Violence: Effective Judicial Intervention. Developed by the Women Judges' Fund for Justice. 

The goals of this curriculum are to help judges understand the dynamics of family violence, enable 

them to respond appropriately, and assist them in crafting appropriate orders. The curriculum includes program notes for mental health lecturers, legal lecturers, and break-out group leaders. Legal lecturer notes 

include: (1) Checklist of Provisions for Protective Orders; (2) Appropriate Questioning by the Court; (3) 

Mutual Restraining Orders; (4) Constitutional Requirements for Ex Parte Orders of Protection; (5) 

Evidentiary Issues in Domestic Violence Litigation; and (6) Use of Court's Contempt Power to Enforce CPOs. 

Contact: Esther K. Ochsman, Executive Director, The Women Judges' Fund for Justice, 733 15th Street, - - NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 783-0930. 

Domestic Violence in Civil Court Cases: A National Model for Judicial Education. Developed by the Family 

Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF). 

This curriculum uses several vehicles to enhance the understanding of domestic violence among 

judges; it encourages them to explore personal and societal attitudes that affect their decision making, 

reviews current domestic violence statutes and case law, examines civil protection orders, discusses court 

practices in domestic violence cases, and considers domestic violence as it arises in other types of civil cases; 

for example, child custody disputes and divorce proceedings. The curricula may be used in conjunction with 

Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the Judge in Criminal Court Cases, a National Model for Judicial Education 

(also developed by FVPF). 

Contact: Janet Carter, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Building 1, Suite 200, 1001 Potrero Avenue, 

San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 821-4553. 
Crvrl Protection Orders The Benefits and Limitatrons for Victrms of Domestic V~olence 

Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the Judge in Criminal Court Cases, a National Model for Judicial 

Education. Developed by the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF). 

Although the curriculum focuses on criminal aspects of domestic violence cases, certain sections highlight the nexus between criminal domestic abuse charges and civil protection orders. Specifically, Chapter 4 

(pretrial and release considerations) and Chapter 6 (case disposition) discuss no-contact orders for batterers. 

Contact: Janet Carter, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Building 1, Suite 200, 1001 Potrero Avenue, 

San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 821-4553. 

Iowa Domestic Abuse (Civil) Workshop. Adapted from Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the Judge in 

Criminal Court Cases, a National Model for Judicial Education (FVPF) and Domestic Violence: A Curriculum 

for Rural Courts (Rural Justice Center) by Jerry Beatty, Iowa State Court Administrator. 

This six-hour judicial workshop proposes an agenda and provides background materials for workshop 

faculty on several topics. A two-hour presentation entitled "Domestic Abuse: The What, Why and Who in 

the Civil Court" lays the foundation for the course. It provides a contemporary definition of domestic 

abuse, describes common behaviors of affected persons (batterers, victims, third parties), reviews current theory regarding the causes of domestic abuse, and includes an appendix of relevant literature and sample CPOs 

and related filings. 

Judges learn how to draft effective protective orders ciaring "Issuance of Civil Protective Orders." Topics 

covered during this presentation include the following: Iowa statutes and case law on CPOs; grounds for 

issuing CPOs; jurisdiction and venue; relief available through CPOs; emergency and temporary CPOs; and 

procedural and administrative considerations at pretrial and trial stages of proceedings. Appendix material 

includes a checklist for judges considering CPO petitions, a sample order for CPO, and recommendations for 

court clerks assisting pro se litigants. 

"Enforcement of Civil Protective Orders" reviews Iowa statutes and case law granting courts the authority to enforce CPOs. Among the issues addressed are the contempt power of Iowa courts, interstate compliance with CPOs, legal representation for the parties involved, constitutional considerations (the main one 

being the problem of double jeopardy), and sentencing. 

The presentation "Judicial Role and Leadership" asks judges to consider their role in domestic abuse 

cases. Discussion questions provoke exploration of such topics as how the judge's special function differs in 

domestic violence cases, what judges can or should do when the legal system fails, and ways of maintaining 

neutrality while eliciting information from an unrepresented plaintiff. Supplemental material covers related issues; for example, gender bias and its relationship to domestic abuse 

Contact: Jerry Beatty, Iowa State Court Administrator, State Capitol, Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-8279. 

0 Domestic Violence Trainers Manual (1995). Developed by Virginia Leavitt, Colorado Judicial Department, 

for the Encouraging Family Peace Through Judicial Education Project (SJI-94-288). 

This manual uses a companion benchbook as a substantive guide for each of the lessons. In addition, 

instructors' materials include case scenarios and exercises to promote participant discussion, needed equipment and supplies, and lesson outlines with supplemental materials and transparencies for overhead projectors. Lesson 1 (Protective Orders Under the [Colorado] Domestic Abuse Act) discusses temporary restraining order procedures including grounds for issuance and available relief under Colorado law. Other lessons 

focus on related issues of domestic abuse, including dissolution and custody cases, considerations in criminal cases, and sentencing considerations and alternatives. 

Contact: Virginia H. Leavitt, Staff Development Administrator, Colorado Judicial Department, 1301 

Pennsylvania, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 837-3654. 

Domestic Violence: A Benchguide for California Judges in the Criminal Courts, developed by Nancy K. D. 

Lemon. A useful companion to Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the Judge ivz Criminal Court Cases, 

the California benchguide provides a model for states interested in producing their own state-specific 
APPENDIX I1 

benchguide for the criminal courts. It also serves as an important resource for criminal court judges in 

California (1989; 100 pages). 

Contact: Janet Carter, Office of the District Attorney/Family Violence Project, 1001 Potrero Avenue, 

Building 1, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 941 10 (415) 821-4553. 

Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of the [Washington] Criminal Court Judge, by Mary C. McQueen, 

Washington Administrative Office of the Courts. Adapted from Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of 

the Judge in Criminal Court Cases, a National Model for Judicial Education (FVPF). 

The curriculum focuses on criminal aspects of domestic violence cases for Washington State criminal 

trial courts. Certain sections highlight the nexus between criminal domestic abuse charges and civil protection orders. Specifically, Chapter 4, Part I1 (pretrial considerations) discusses no-contact orders for batterers and their relationship to civil protection orders. 

Contact: Mary C. McQueen, Washington Administrative Office of the Courts, 1206 South Quince 

Street, Mail Stop EZ-11, Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 753-3365. 

Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence. Drafted by the Advisory Committee of the Conrad N. 

Hilton Foundation, Model Code Project of the Family Violence Project; Approved by Board of Trustees, 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

This code outlines curricula for family court judges and personnel and for public employees legally 

required to report abuse and neglect of children. The purpose of the curricula is to heighten the awareness 

of domestic violence among persons ideally positioned to curtail it. Required topics are as follows: the 

nature, extent, and causes of domestic violence; safety practices to protect the victim, family, and other 

household members; resources available for victims and perpetrators of domestic violence; awareness of gender bias and sensitivity to cultural, racial, and sexual issues; and the deadliness of domestic violence. The 

code encourages states to include other topics and mandates that the courses be developed only after consultation with the following public and private domestic abuse professionals: providers of programs for 

abuse victims, providers of intervention programs for perpetrators, advocates of abuse victims, the statewide 

family or domestic violence coalition, and the state advisory council on domestic violence. 

Contact: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, University of Nevado, P.O. Box 8970, 

Reno, NV 89507 (702) 784-6012. 

Domestic Violence Protection Orders: Handbook for District Court Administrators, Prothonotaries, and Special 

Court Administrators. Developed by Barbara J. Hart, Esquire, Staff Counsel, Pennsylvania Coalition 

Against Domestic Violence. Funding provided by The Phoebus Fund of the Philadelphia Foundation. 

Adapted from a handbook of the Seattle-King County Bar Association. 

This court administrators' handbook gives practical information and advice about providing clerical 

assistance to domestic abuse victims. An introductory chapter summarizes the history of domestic abuse, 

and briefly describes its victims, perpetrators, and various forms. Later chapters cover a range of topics. For 

example, administrators learn not only how to soothe upset abuse victims and but also receive helpful suggestions on managing job-related stress. Other chapters give legal information, explaining what a protection order is and detailing the steps that need to be followed to obtain one. A chapter on forms and instructions tells administrators what forms a victim needs to complete, provides suggestions on how to guide victims in filling out the forms, and includes model forms and affidavits. Other subjects include service of protection orders, options available to victims if the order is violated, and advice to victims about courtroom 

demeanor. 

Other Curricula - Not Available for Review 

Domestic Violence: A Curriculum for Rural Courts. Developed by the Rural Justice CenterICenter for 

Community Change. 
Contact: Kathryn 

Montpelier, VT 05601 

Fahnestock, Rural Justice CenterICenter for Community Change, P.O. Box 675, 

(802) 223-0166. 

Domestic Violence for the Criminal Courts, a National Model Educational Curriculum for Judges on Domestic 

Violence. Adapted from Domestic Violence for the [California] Criminal Courts (Office of the District 

Attorney/Family Violence Project) by Esta Soler, The Trauma Foundation. 

Contact: Esta Soler, The Trauma Foundation, Building One, Room 400, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San 

Francisco, CA 941 10 (415) 821-4553. 

Domestic Violence: The Crucial Role of Nebraska's County Court Judges. Adapted from Domestic Violence: 

The Crucial Role of the Judge in Criminal Court Cases, a National Model for Judicial Education (FVPF) by 

Janet Hammer, Nebraska State Court Administrative Office. 

Contact: Janet Hammer, Nebraska State Court Administrative Office, P.O. Box 98910, Lincoln, NE 

68509-8910 (402) 471-3205. 

Supplemental Resources 

Adele Harrell, Barbara Smith, and Lisa Newmark, Court Processing and the Effects of Restraining Orders for 

Domestic Violence Victims (The Urban Institute, 1993). 

Based on a study of CPO use in Denver and Boulder, Colorado, this report examines how court procedures in the two cities affected the usefulness of restraining orders. It explores why abuse victims sought 

temporary CPOs, describes their experiences in obtaining them, presents factors that influenced the decision to obtain a permanent order, and compares the court experiences of men and women. The report also 

looks at related issues; for example, noncompliance with CPOs and enforcement measures undertaken by 

the courts in response. 

Contact: Adele Harrell, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (202) 857-8687. 

Rural Justice Center, Not in My County: Rural Courts and Victims of Domestic Violence (1992). 

This report describes problems associated with securing and enforcing CPOs in rural jurisdictions and 

makes recommendations for improving the accessibility and effectiveness of rural courts. It was developed 

under the "Project to Improve Access to Rural Courts for Victims of Domestic Violence" with funding by the 

State Justice Institute (No. SJI-88-081). 

Contact: Kathryn Fahnestock, Rural Justice CenterICenter for Community Change, P.O. Box 675, 

Monpelier, VT 05601 (802) 223-0166. 

Deborah Epstein, Juley A. Fulcher, and Fredrica L. Lehrman, Litigating Civil Protection Order Cases: A 

Practice Manual (1995). 

This legal practitioner's manual includes information about obtaining and enforcing CPOs in the 

District of Columbia. Chapter 5, "Drafting and Filing the CPO Petition and Affidavit and Obtaining a TPO," 

focuses on drafting the petition and affidavit, filing requirements, amendment procedures, ex parte TPOs, 

Service of Process, and D.C. Superior Court Intrafamily Rules. Chapter 8 examines CPO enforcement and 

modification; it covers topics such as motions for civil and criminal contempt, sentencing for contempt, 

and filing and service of process issues for motions to modify or extend the CPO. 

Contact: Emergency Domestic Relations Project, Georgetown University Law Center Sex Discrimination 

Clinic, 111 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (202) 393-6290. 
Appendix Ill: 

Demographic Characteristics 

of Study Participants 

Length of Relationship with Respondent 

Marital Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

Proportion of Participants with Children 

Relationship of Participants with Respondent 

Age of Participants 

Educational Level of Participants 

Monthly Income of Participants 

Employment Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

RaceIEthnicity of Participants 
-- 

Civil Protection Orders The Benefits and L~mitations for Victims of Domestic V~olence 

Table A.III. 1 : Length of Relationship with Respondent 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 2 2.2 

Less Than 1 Year 16 5.6 Denver 6 6.7 

District of Columbia 8 7.6 

Delaware 3 3.3 

1 to 2 Years 2 4 8.4 Denver 14 15.6 

District of Columbia 7 6.7 

Delaware 6 6.7 

2 to 3 Years 27 9.5 Denver 9 10.0 

District of Columbia 12 11.4 

Delaware 8 8.9 

3 to 4 Years 2 1 7.4 Denver 8 8.9 

District of Columbra 5 4.8 

Delaware 6 6.7 

4 to 5 Years 28 9.8 Denver 6 6.7 

District of Columbia 16 15.2 

Delaware 2 9 32.2 

5 to 10 Years 9 1 3 1.9 Denver 28 31.1 

District of Columbia 34 32.4 

Delaware 14 15.6 

10 to 15 Years 34 11.9 Denver 10 11.1 

District -of Columbia 10 9.5 

Delaware 15 16 7 

15 to 20 Years 29 10 2 Denver 7 7 8 

D~str~ct of Columb~a 7 6 7 

Delaware 1 11 

20 to 25 Years 5 18 Denver 2 2 2 

Dmct of Columbla 2 19 

Delaware 6 6.7 

Over 25 Years 10 3.5 Denver 0 0.0 

District of Columbia 4 3.8 

Mean Median Mean Median 

Delaware 9.9 7.0 

All Sites 7.6 6.0 Denver 6.1 5.0 

District of Columbia 6.9 5.0 

* Delaware (n=90),Denver (n=9O),and District of Columbia (n=105) 
APPENDIX Ill 

Table A.III.2: Marital Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 

Married 68 23.9 Denver 

District of Columbia 

Delaware 

Separated 6 1 21.4 Denver 

District of Columbia 

Delaware 

Divorced 2 6 9.1 Denver 

District of Columbia 

Delaware 

Single, 130 45.6 Denver 

Never Married District of Columbia 

* Delaware (n=90), Denver (n=9OJ,and District of Columbia (n= 105). 

Table A.111.3: Proportion of Participants with Children 

All Sites (n=285) Yo By Site* Yo 

Delaware 89.6 

Children in Common with Respondent 78.6 Denver 64.7 

District of Columbia 79.8 

Delaware 40.8 

Children from Other Relationships 51.7 Denver 50.7 

District of Columbia 62.4 

Delaware 84.4 

Total with Children 81.8 Denver 76.7 

District of Columbia 83.8 

* Delaware (n=9O), Denver (n=9O),and District of Columbia (n= 105). 

Table A.111.4: Relationship of Participants with Respondent 

Before CPO At CPO 6 Months After CPO 

(Initial lnterview n=285) (Initial lnterview n=285) (Follow-up lnterview n=177) 

Living Together 

All Sites 144 50.5 2 8 9.8 2 1 11.9 

Delaware 4 5 50.0 8 8.9 10 17.9 

Denver 53 58.9 9 10.0 6 10.3 

District of Columbia 46 43.8 11 10.5 5 7.9 

Not Living Together, Dating 

All Sites 3 1 10.9 14 4.9 10 5.6 

Delaware 5 5.6 8 8.9 4 7.1 

Denver 7 7.8 1 1.1 3 5.2 

District of Columbia 19 18.1 5 4.8 3 4.8 

Not Living Together, Not Dating 

All Sites 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 

Other Living Arrangements 

All Sites 

Delaware 

Denver 

District of Columbia 
C~vil Protect~on Orders The Benef~ts and Lirnitatlons for Victims of Dornest~c Violence 

Table A.111.5: Age of Participants 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo 

Less Than 18 3 1.1 

18 to 25 74 26.0 

26 to 35 

36 to 45 

46 to 55 

56 to 65 

Over 65 

Mean 32 Median 31 

Delaware [n=90) 

Less Than 18 

I8 to 25 

26 to 35 

36 to 45 

46 to 55 

56 to 65 

Over 65 

Mean 33 Median 32 

Denver [n=90] 

Less Than 18 

I8 to25 

26 to 35 

36 to 45 

46 to 55 

56 to 65 

Over 65 

Mean 32 Median 31 

District of Columbia (n= 1 05) # 

Less Than 18 0 

18 to 25 37 

26 to 35 4 6 

36 to 45 17 

46 to 55 4 

56 to 65 1 

Over 65 0 

Mean 30 Median 30 
APPENDIX Ill 

Table A.lll.6: Educational Level of Participants 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 13 14.4 

12th Grade or Less 5 6 19.6 Denver 17 18.9 

District of Columbia 2 6 24.8 

Delaware 41 45.6 

High School Graduate 1 17 41.1 Denver 2 9 32.2 

District of Columbia 4 7 44.8 

Delaware 24 26.7 

Some College 7 0 24.6 Denver 2 9 32.2 

District of Columbia 17 16.2 

Delaware 8 8.9 

College Graduate 24 8.4 Denver 7 7.8 

District of Columbia 9 8.6 

Delaware 4 4.4 

Postgraduate I2 4.2 Denver 5 5.6 

District of Columbia 3 2.9 

Delaware 0 0.0 

Other 6 2.1 Denver 3 3.3 

District of Columbia 3 2.9 

* Delaware (n=9O),Denver (n=9O),and District of Columbia (n= 105). 
C~vil Protection Orders The Benefits and Lmtations for V~ctims of Domest~c V~olence 

Table A.111.7: Monthly Income of Participants 

All Sites # Yo 

Less Than $500 101 35.4 

$500 to 1,500 124 43.5 

5 1,500 to 2,500 4 1 14.4 

$2,500 to 3,500 12 4.2 

$3,500 to 4,500 3 11 

Over $4,500 4 1.4 

Mean $1,284 Median $ 1,000 

Delaware # Yo 

Less Than $500 2 7 30 0 

$500 to 1,500 37 41.1 

$1,500 to 2,500 19 21.1 

$2,500 to 3,500 4 4.4 

$3,500 to 4,500 0 0 0 

Over $4,500 3 3.3 

Mean $1,432 Median $1,000 

Denver 

Less Than $500 

$500 to 1,500 

$1,500 to 2,500 

$2,500 to 3,500 

$3,500 to 4,500 

Over $4,500 

Mean $1.15~~- Median $ 900 

District of Columbia 

Less Than $500 

$500 to 1,500 

$1,500 to 2,500 

$2,500 to 3,500 

$3,500 to 4,500 

Over $4,500 

Mean $1,267 Median $1,040 
- - 

APPENDIX Ill 

Table A.111.8: Employment Status of Participants When Order Obtained 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 5 2 57.8 

Employed, Full-time 173 60.7 Denver 59 65.6 

District of Columbia 62 59.0 

Delaware 10 11.1 

Employed, Part-time 20 7.0 Denver 5 5.6 

District of Columbia 5 4.8 

Delaware 2 5 27.8 

Unemployed 8 5 29.8 Denver 2 3 25.6 

District of Columbia 37 35.2 

Delaware 2 2.2 

Other 3 1.1 Denver 0 0.0 

District of Columbia I 1 .O 

* Delaware (n=90), Denver (n=9O), and District of Columbia (n=lO5). 

Table A.111.9: Race/Ethnicity of Participants 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 5 6 62.2 

White 96 33.7 Denver 37 41.1 

District of Columbia 3 2.9 

Delaware 30 33.3 

Black 145 50.9 Denver 19 21.1 

District of Columbia 9 6 91.4 

Delaware 3 3.3 

Hispanic 3 8 13.3 Denver 3 2 35.6 

District of Columbia 3 2.9 

Delaware 1 1.1 

Other 6 2 1 Denver 2 2.2 

Distr~ct of Columbia 3 2.9 

* Delaware (n=9O), Denver (n=9O), and District of Columbia (n=l05). 

Appendix IV: 

Nature of Abuse 

.1 Nature of Abuse Before Order Obtained 

.2 Frequency of Abuse: All Sites 

.3 Frequency of Abuse: By Sites 

.4 Duration of Abuse Prior to Order 

.5 Abuse Occurred After Alcohol/Drug Use by Respondent 
Civil Protection Orders The Benefits and L~mitatrons for V~ctims of Domestic Violence 

Table A.IV. 1 : Nature of Abuse Before Order Obtained 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # Yo 

Delaware 2 9 32.2 

Threatened or Injured with a Weapon 105 36.8 Denver 33 36.7 

District of Columbia 43 41.0 

Delaware 5 5 61.1 

Severe Physical Abuse: Beaten or Choked 155 54.4 Denver 48 53.3 

District of Columbia 52 49.5 

Delaware 24 26.7 

Petitioner Was Injured in Incident Leading to CPO 100 35.1 Denver 3 4 37.8 

District of Columbia 42 40.0 

Delaware 80 88.9 

Mild Physical Abuse: Slapping, Grabbing, Shoving, 239 83.9 Denver 79 87.8 

Kicking District of Columbia 80 76.2 

Delaware 41 45.6 

Forced Sex 104 36.5 Denver 33 36.7 

District of Columbia 3 0 28.6 

Delaware 90 100.0 

Intimidation through Threats, Stalking, Harassment 282 98.9 Denver 90 100.0 

District of Columbia 102 97.1 

* Delaware (n=90),Denver (n=90),and District of Columbia (n=105) 

Table A.IV.2: Frequency of Abuse: All Sites 

(~285) Weapons Severe Physical Abuse Mild Physical Abuse Intimidation 

# Yo # Yo # Yo # Yo 

Once 

Twice 

Once a Year 

Twice a Year 

Every Few Months 

Monthly 

Every Few Weeks 

Weekly 

2-3Times per Week 

Almost Daily 

Total 
APPENDIX IV 

Table A.IV.3a: Frequency of Abuse by Site: Delaware 

(n=90) Weapons Severe Physical Abuse Mild Physical Abuse Intimidation 

# Yo # Yo # Yo # Yo 

Once 

Twice 

Once a Year 

Twice a Year 

Every Few Months 

Monthly 

Every Few Weeks 

Weekly 

2-3 Times per Week 

Almost Daily 

TOTAL 

Table A.IV.3b: Frequency of Abuse by Site: Denver 

(n=90) Weapons Severe Physical Abuse Mild Physical Abuse Intimidation 

Once 

Twice 

Once a Year 

Twice a Year 

Every Few Months 

Monthly 

Every Few Weeks 

Weekly 

2-3 Times per Week 

Almost Daily 

TOTAL 

Table A.IV.3c: Frequency of Abuse by Site: District of Columbia 

In= 1 05) Weapons Severe Physical Abuse Mild Physical Abuse Intimidation 

Once 2 4 55.8 2 0 38.5 6 11.5 

Twice 9 20.9 14 26.9 6 11.5 

Once a Year 2 4.7 1 1.9 1 1.9 

Twice a Year 0 0.0 2 3.8 3 5.8 

Every Few Months 3 7.0 6 11.5 9 17.3 

Monthly 0 0.0 2 3.8 3 5.8 

Every Few Weeks 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 

Weekly 1 2.3 6 11.6 8 15.4 

2-3 Times per Week 2 4.7 0 0.0 I 1.9 

Almost Daily 2 4.7 1 1.9 6 11.5 

TOTAL 43 100.0 52 100.0 44 100.0 74 100.0 
Civil Protection Orders, The Benefits and Llm~tations for Victims of Domestic Violence 

Table A.IX4: Duration of Abuse Prior to Order 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo By Site* # 9'0 

Delaware 2 2 3 

Less Than 1 Week 28 10 0 Denver 7 7 8 

D~strrctof Columbra 19 18 4 

Delaware 3 3.4 

1 Week to 1 Month 10 3.6 Denver 4 4.4 

District of Columbia 3 2.9 

Delaware 2 2 3 

1 to 3 Months 15 5 3 Denver 8 8.9 

Drstrrct of Columbra 5 4 9 

Delaware 2 2.3 

3 to 6 Months 17 6.0 Denver 9 10.0 

District of Columbia 6 5.8 

Delaware I 1.1 

6 to 9 Months 5 1.8 Denver 2 2.2 

District of Columbia 2 1.9 

Delaware 14 15.9 

9 Months to 1 Year 39 13.9 Denver 6 6.7 

District of Columbia 19 18.4 

Delaware 10 11.4 

1 to 2 Years 4 1 14.6 Denver 16 17.8 

District of Columbra 15 14.6 

Delaware 9 10.2 

2 to 3 Years 23 8.2 Denver 7 7.8 

District of Columbia 7 6.8 

Delaware 9 1 0/2 

3 to 4 Years 2 1 7 5 Denver 6 6 7 

Dmct of Columbra 6 5 8 

Delaware 7 8 0 

4 to 5 Years 14 5 0 Denver 2 2 2 

Dlstrrct of Columbra 5 4 9 

Delaware 2 9 33.0 

Over 5 Years 68 24.2 Denver 23 25.6 

District of Columbia 16 15.5 

Number of Months Number of Months 

Mean Median Mean Median 

Delaware 60 48 

All Sites 4 5 24 Denver 44 24 

District of Columbia 33 12 

* Delaware (n=9O),Denver (n=90),and District of Columbia (n= 105). 
APPENDIX IV 

Table A.IK5: Abuse Occurred After Alcohol/Drug Use by Respondent* 

All Sites (n=285) # Yo 

Always 100 35.1 

Often 37 13.0 

Sometimes 38 13.3 

Rarely 3 1.1 

Never 9 5 34.8 

By Site* * # Yo 

Delaware 2 9 32.2 

Denver 3 6 40.0 

District of Columbia 3 5 33.3 

Delaware I5 16.7 

Denver 16 17.8 

District of Columbia 6 5.7 

Delaware 15 16.7 

Denver 10 11.1 

District of Columbia 13 12.4 

Delaware 1 1.1 

Denver 2 2.2 

District of Columbia 0 0.0 

Delaware 26 28.9 

Denver 2 1 23.3 

District of Columbia 48 45.7 

* Percentages do not total 100 percent due to missing data. 

* * Delaware (n=90), Denver (n=9O), and District of Columbia (n= 1 05).