The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Increasing Victim Safety and System 

Accountability: Evaluating a Collaborative 

Intervention Between Health Care and Criminal 

Justice, Final Technical Report 

Author(s): Texas Women's University

Document No.: 201945 

Date Received: September 2003 

Award Number: 2000-WT-VX-0020

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
7 

4 

Increasing Victim Safety and System Accountability: 

Evaluating a Collaborative Intervention Between Health Care and Criminal Justice 

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 

Table of Contents 

Page 

1 

BACKGROUND 

An Epidemic with Few Tested Treatments ...... ............... ... . ..... .. .. ... 

RESEARCH GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

Increase Victim Safety ....................................................I ... .. . .. .. Increase Justice System Efficiency with Protection Orders . .. . . . . . . . , . . . .. 2 

2 

Two Theories Guide This Research 

Curnow's Open Window Phase of Helpseeking and Reality Behaviors . . .. Walker's Theory of Violence ....................................................... 4 

5 

Components of the Advocacy - Case Management Intervention . . . . . . . . . . , .. Advocacy ................................................................................. 6 

Case Management ..................................................................... 7 

Expected Benefits of the Advocacy-Case Management Intervention 

Enhanced Victim Safety ............................................................... 8 

Enhanced Victim Services ............................................................ 8 

Enhanced System Accountability ... ......................................... ....... 9 

METHODS 

Research Design ........................................................................ 10 

Sample Criteria ... .... .. .... ........ ............... ... ...... ............... .. . . . . .. ..... 10 

Power Analysis and Sample Size .................................................... 11 

Sample Retention Methodolo gy... ... . .. ... ..... ..... ..... .... .. ... ................... 11 

Setting and Services Offered ......................................................... 14 

Protocol for Control and Intervention Groups 

Control Group ............................................................................ 15 

Intervention Group .......... , ................ ... ...... .. ..... .. ..... .... ."............... 16 

INSTRUMENTS 

Safety Behaviors Checklist .............................................. ,............. 

Severity of Violence Against Women Scale (SVAWS) ........................... Stalking Victimization Survey (SVS) ... ..... .............................. .,.... ... Danger Assessment Scale @AS) ...................................................... MOS SF-12 Health Survey ............................................................ Employment Harassment .................................. . ............. ... ............ 

17 

19 

19 

19 

20 

20 

RECRUITMENT PROCEDURES ................................................... 20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
. 

. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ............................................................ 21 

RESULTS 

Demographics .............................................................................. 21 

Victim Safety Results ..................................................................... 23 

Victim Violence Results ................................................................. 24 

Victim Health Results ..................................................................... 24 

Justice System Results ................................................................... 25 

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS 

Increasing Victim Safety .................................................................. 26 

Increasing Protection Order Receipt & Process Efficiency ........ , ................ 29 

STUDY LIMITATIONS .................................................................. 33 

SUMMARY ................................................................................. 34 

REFERENCES ........................................................................... 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF INVESTIGATORS 

Dr . Judith McFarlane .................................................................. Dr . Ann Malecha ........................................................................ Ms Elizabeth C . Batten ................................................................. Dr . Julia Gist ............................................................................. Ms Iva Hall ............................................................................... Ms Sheila Smith ......................................................................... 

35 

41 

41 

41 

42 

42 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibits 

A. Safety Behavior Checklist 

B. Severity of Violence Against Women Scale 

C. Stalking Survey 

D. Danger Assessment Scale 

E. SF-12 

F. Employment Harassment 

G. Demographic Data of 150 Women who qualified for a Protection Order 

H. Demographics and test statistics between intervention and control groups 

I. Receipt of protection order status for 75 intervention women compared to 75 control 

group women. 

J. Number of days from application to receipt of a protection order 

K. Number of safety behaviors performed and percentage of women responding “YES” to 

safety behaviors at intake, 3 months, and 6 months by treatment group 

L. Total number of safety behaviors followed and percentage of women responding “YES” 

to Safety Behaviors at Each Intervention Phone Call for the Intervention Group 

M. Adjusted number of safety behaviors performed by time of intervention phone call 

N. Mean number of safety behaviors performed at intake, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 

0. Violence and health hctioning scores for intervention and control group women 

- 

and 18-months for intervention and control group women 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

Increasing Victim Safety and System Accountability: 

Evaluating a Collaborative Intewen tion Between Health Care and Criminal Justice 

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 

An Epidemic with Few Tested Treatments 

Violence against women largely involves intimate partners, such as husbands, boyfriends, 

and dates, A recent federal report estimates that 2.1 million women are physically or sexually 

assaulted each year (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Of surveyed women who report rape or physical 

assault since the age of 18, most (75%) report victimization by a current or former spouse, 

cohabiting partner, or date. 

The urgency and magnitude of the problem of intimate partner violence have caused 

service providers, policy makers, and advocates to implement treatment and intervention 

programs in the absence of scientific evidence (Chalk, 2000). The rush to do something has 

resulted in a broad array of interventions, many with origins in local and national advocacy 

efforts, such as shelters and social support programs, and as such remains mostly undocumented 

and unanalyzed in the research literature. Control or comparison groups are rare in family 

violence research and, if one exists, the sample is frequently too small for sufficient power to 

detect significant differences. To advance the science of family violence research, “Violence in 

Families: Assessing Prevention and Treatment Programs” (Chalk & King, 1998), a recent report 

on family violence prepared by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 

calls for the immediate collaboration of researchers with service providers toward the evaluation 

of interventions that are predicated in theory with critical components that can be measured. The 

purpose of this research is to increase victim safety and increase justice system efficiency with 

protectjon order processing by applying an advocacy-case management intervention. The 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 

research is a collaborative effort between justice and health with registered nurses working with 

the justice system to test an intervention. The setting of this research is the District Attorney’s 

Office in Houston Texas. The subjects were women who qualified for a civil protection order 

against a sexual intimate. The research goals and objectives are presented followed by the study 

methods, results, and implications for victim safety and justice system efficiency. 

RESEARCH GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

Increase Victim Safety 

Women who experience intimate partner violence are at risk to minor and major physical and 

psychological trauma as well as potential femicide. Latest estimates from the National Crime 

Victimization Survey indicate that in 1998 half of the female victims of intimate partner violence 

reported a physical injury. About 4 in 10 of these women received medical health assistance 

(Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Therefore an intervention to increase women’s safety could 

potentially prevent trauma and injury. 

- 

The specific victim outcome objective for this study is: 

0 More safety-seeking behaviors, lower experienced violence, higher physical and 

emotional functioning, and less employment harassment among women who 

qualify for a protection order and receive the Advocacy-Case Management 

intervention as compared to women who do not receive the intervention. 

Increase Justice System Efficiency with Protection Orders 

It is well documented that abused women often turn to the criminal justice system for 

protection. When Taylor (1 995) surveyed 250 victims of domestic violence in New York City 

who had called 91 1 for help, the most common service sought (58.5 %) was help with securing a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 

protection order (PO). These victims view PO’S as the preferable criminal justice alternative, that 

is, they often want to get a PO but do not want to file charges. 

Furthermore, if a woman receives a protection order, several studies have demonstrated 

that the intimate partner violence decreases. Kaci (I 994) found that, of the women who received 

a protection order, 87 percent responded at one month and 100 percent responded at four months 

that the protection order helped to stop the abuse. Keilitz and associates (1 997) also found that 

the majority of women who received a protection order against their abuser reported no 

continuing problems at one month (72%) and at six months (65%). Ptacek (1999) reports some 

86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly 

reduced. Gist and colleagues (2001a) also report that all the women in their study who received a 

protection order reported significantly less violence at one year following receipt of the 

protection order. 

- 

However, a six-month longitudinal study, found that among sixty-five abused AfricanAmerican, White, Hispanic, and Asian women applying and qualifying for a protection order 

against a sexual intimate, only half of the women actually received the order (Gist et al., 2001b). 

Among the women who qualified but did not receive the protection order, most experienced 

“procedural interruptions”. Procedural interruptions included the abusedperpetrator moving to 

another county or state or being deported, the woman moving, hiding, missing her court date, 

returning to live with the abuser, or deciding to discontinue the process, frequently because of 

difficulties in child visitation. In addition, several of the qualified women did not receive the 

protection order because the perpetrator could not be served legal papers, usually because of an 

incorrect address. Many women related stories of frustration such as a.) Not knowing when to go 

to court, b.) Not realizing their file was incomplete and additional papers were needed and c.) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 

Feeling overwhelmed by the filing procedures and process. Based on previous research, the 

justice system outcome objectives for this research are: 

A 20 percent increase in the number of Po’s issued to abused women who access a 

specialized urban DA office and receive the Advocacy - Case Management Intervention. 

A 30 percent decrease in the number of days from PO application to receipt of the PO for 

women that access a specialized urban DA office and receive the Advocacy - Case 

Management Intervention. 

Two Theories Guide This Research 

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the Advocacy-Case Management intervention 

designed to increase victim safety and increase the efficiency of the protection order process. 

Walker’s three-phase cycle theory of violence (1 979, 1981,2002) and Curnow’s (1 997) open 

window phase of helpseeking and reality behaviors guide the study design. - 

Walker’s Theory of Violence and 

Curnow’s Open Window Phase of Helpseeking and Reality Behaviors 

“Sam beat me during each pregnancy. He threw away the vitamins, tore up the 

prescriptions and would not let me return to the clinic. I was too scared to go to the 

emergency room. I thought the nurse or doctor would ask why did I stay? I thought the 

violence would end when Sam got a better job. When he pointed a gun at me during the 

last pregnancy, I called the police. ” 

, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 

‘‘I never considered myselfan abused woman since the slapping and hitting on@ 

occurred with Ted was drunk. When Ted beat me in front ofthe children and threatened 

to kill me, I called the police and applied for a protection order ’’. 

Walker’s (1 979) cycle of violence describes three distinct phases: the tension-building 

phase, the acute violent incident, and the calm (honeymoon) period. During phase one, the 

tension-building phase, the abuser becomes moody, hostile, and critical of the woman. The 

woman usually attempts to calm the abuser by becoming nurturing, compliant, or staying out of 

his way. During phase two, the acute violent incident, the abuser physically and psychologically 

assaults the woman. The woman is severely shaken, frightened, and threatened. She focuses on 

survival. Shortly after the assault phase is the calm (honeymoon) phase. During this period the 

abuser expresses sorrow for his actions; behaves in a loving, charming, contrite manner; and 

promises that the violent behavior will never happen again (Saunders-Robinson, 1991). The calm 

- 

stage gives the woman hope that her partner is going to change. Throughout the three phases, 

Walker (1 979, 198 1) describes characteristic behaviors of the abused woman as denial of the 

partner’s abuse, her injuries, or the existence of alternatives. However, Walker (1979) describes 

a dramatic change in abused women as they progress from the end of phase two, the violent 

period, to phase three. During this transition, abused women realistically assess their situation, 

acknowledge their inability to control or stop the abuser’s violence, and express a desire to stop 

being a victim. 

Curnow (1 997) tested this transition period and found a definite period of reality within 

the cycle of violence, between phase two and three, when denial, avoidant, and dependent 

behaviors are absent and helpseeking occurs. Curnow conceptualized this period as the open \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 

window phase of helpseeking and reality behaviors. Four propositions define this open window 

phase. The abused woman realizes she is a victim and is not able to stop the violence; she is most 

likely to reach out for help; she will learn about alternatives to violence, and she is most 

receptive to intervention. Curnow’s findings agree with other research findings that women are 

more likely to seek help following a violent episode (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; McFarlane, 

Soeken, Reel, Parker, & Silva, 1997; Wiist & McFarlane, 1998). The contact most commonly 

sought is with the justice system or law enforcement (Taylor 1995; Greenfield et al., 1998; 

Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Since contact with the justice system, such as police contact or 

application of a civil protection order, usually occurs immediately, or within 24 to 48 hours of a 

violent incident, abused women seeking a civil protection order should be in transition from 

phase two to phase three of the Cycle of Violence and into Curnow’s8 Open Window Phase of 

helpseeking and reality behaviors. - 

It was hypothesized that: Abused women who contact the justice system and receive an 

intervention to increase safety-seekmg behaviors would report significantly more adopted safety 

behaviors, less violence and better health functioning at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months following the 

Advocacy Case-Management intervention than a group of abused women who receive usual 

care. 

Components of the Advocacy - Case Management Intervention 

Advocacy 

Advocacy is defined as working with and on behalf of targeted individuals, assisting 

them in accessing needed resources (Sarason, 1976). A core condition that is frequently cited as 

requiring an advocacy intervention is vulnerability of a person or a group (Mallik, 1997). While 

advocacy programs for abused women have grown in the past 20 years, Peled & Edleson (3 994) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 

found that the literature defining advocacy for abused women "is almost nonexistent and there is 

no systematic research in its parameters" (pg. 285). A survey of 379 advocacy services for 

abused women found that the major issues and concerns of abused women when using advocacy 

services were: a.) difficulties accessing needed services, b.) fear of the abuser and maintaining 

safety for the woman and her children, c.) legal issues such as securing a protection order, d.) 

emotional and interpersonal issues, and e.) issues dealing with children and parenting (Peled & 

Edleson, 1994). Furthermore, this same survey revealed that advocates spent most of their time 

working with the legal system on behalf of the victim (Le. family and criminal court, DAs and 

prosecutors). 

Advocacy models have often been proposed when intervening with abused women to 

assist them in ending the violence in their lives. These models have idso indicated that when 

abused women work with advocates, they experience less violence over time, report higher 

quality of life and social support, and had less difficulty obtaining resources (Donato & Bowker, 

1984; Sullivan et al., 1994; Weisz, Tolman, & Bennett, 1998). While there have been a few 

- 

studies that have examined advocacy models for abused women in clinical or shelter settings, 

there have been no studies that evaluated advocacy offered through the criminal justice system. 

Case Management 

Closely associated with advocacy is case management, a process that seeks to coordinate 

agencies and resources to promote optimum client care (ANA, 1988; Mundt 1996). A growing 

number of reports discuss the apparent effectiveness of case management interventions in 

improving quality of care and achieving cost savings with a variety of different client groups 

(Ethridge & Lamb, 1989; McKenzie, Torkelson, Holt, 1989; Mahn, 1993). However, no 

published reports were identified that used a case management approach with abused women. It 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 

is important to view the abused woman as a person who can make decisions and collaborate with 

others to solve her dilemma (Yam, 1995). Allowing the abused woman to the express her 

feelings to a nonjudgmental and empathetic person, and make her own decisions about the future 

is central to advocacy and case-management (Newman, 1996). Case management will focus on 

adoption of safety behaviors and utilizing support services for abused women in the community 

Networking people into specific community resources is a primary component to the success of 

case management approach (Stempel, Carlson & Michaeis, 1996). 

Expected Benefits of the Advocacy-Case Management Intervention 

1. Enhanced Victim Safety. Research has documented that victim safety and health is 

significantly enhanced if a protection order is received (Gist, 2001a). However many 

applicants become weary during the application process and chose to “drop” the application 

as they deal with the respondent’s responses to the protection order. By contacting the victim 

weekly after initial application, the advocate can ascertain the victims present concerns with 

the respondent and offer anticipatory guidance about his expected behavior. The advocacy 

phone contacts will provide an opportunity for the victim to vent her frustrations and the 

advocate to review expected behavioral patterns associated with Cycle of Violence and 

“honeymoon” stage. Additionally, the advocate will review safety-seeking actions, offer 

educational information, and tailor referral sources to the woman’s unique situation. Under 

the current system, a caseworker is only able to make one follow-up phone call during the 

entire protective order process. 

2. Enhanced Victim Services. The advocacy intervention will enhance service to the victim 

by offering 6 scheduled telephone contacts with the system - five more contacts than are 

offered during the current process. During each of the 6 planned advocacy phone contacts, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 

the victim was offered a status update on any missing pieces of information from her 

application. The traditional application process places total responsibility on the victim to 

secure and present all required information. This process has resulted in about 30% of 

applicants not receiving the protection order because of missing information from her file. In 

contrast, the advocate functioned to assist the woman toward securing required information 

by offering emotional support and strategies for accessing the needed information such as 

divorce or paternity decrees, medical records, or certified birth certificates. The advocate 

functioned to support, encourage, and compliment the woman’s efforts toward completion of 

her file. An additional 15% of women do not receive the protection order because they fail to 

appear at court. The advocate offered exact information about what to expect at court, 

confronting the abuser, safety measures and use of a witness. These advocacy measures were 

completed to reduce the number of women that fail to receive a protection order because they 

do not present to court. 

3. Enhanced System Accountability. Some 50% of the women do not receive a protection 

order because of an inability of the system to serve papers to the respondent. To enhance 

system processing, the researchers checked the filing status of each applicant in the 

intervention group frequently. Appropriate offices were called to ascertain if service papers 

have been received and how many attempts have been made to serve the respondent. For 

example, the researcher telephoned the police precinct for inquiry if an officer served the 

protection order papers to the perpetrator. It was hypothesized that by having a person who 

knows the system and the process of filing protection orders, daily telephone calls until the 

application is advanced can enhance system accountability and result in a timelier processing 

and receipt of protection orders. 

- 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10 

METHODS 

Research Design. 

A two group experimental design with an intervention utilizing random assignment to 

control group (usual District Attorney procedures) or experimental group (Advocacy Case 

Management Intervention) and repeated measures at three, six, twelve, and 18 months was used. 

A randomized control trial permits direct measurement of the intervention while controlling for 

both intrinsic factors (variables unique to the woman, such as educational level, years of abuse, 

community services used) and extrinsic factors (variables external to the woman such as resource 

availability, community responsiveness to abuse). Randomized control trial permits direct 

recommendations for program and policy implications. Similar recommendations cannot be 

justified with descriptive program designs or quasi-experimental designs in which women are not 

randomized to a control or experimental group. Intimate partner violence was defined as meeting 

qualifying criteria for a protection order in the state where the study was completed. The criteria 

are presented under sample criteria. 

Sample Criteria. 

- 

The sample for this study consisted of all women, 18 years or older, applying and 

qualifying for a protection order against a sexual intimate. At the agency where this study was 

completed, criteria for qualification for a protection order are set by si.ate law and include 

providing evidence (Le., police or witness report, visible injury) that the Respondent (e.g., 

abuser) has been violent with them and are likely to continue this violence towards them. 

Additionally, the applicant must have previously lived with the abuser in the same household or 

be the biological parents of the same chld (Texas Family Code, Title 4). Women are informed at \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11 

the time of application at the district attorney’s office if they qualify or not for a protection order. 

Only qualifying applicants were invited into the study. Other sample criteria include the woman 

English or Spanish speaking. One woman spoke Russian and did not meet sample criteria. 

Power Analysis and Sample Size. 

Based on a pilot study (Gist, et al., 200 1 a) where a statistically significant difference was 

measured for women receiving the PO, a 0.45 (medium) effect size was expected with the 

Advocacy Case Management Intervention group. Using a medium effect size of .45, a power of 

30 and alpha of .05,60 women were required for each group. Allowing 25% attrition over the 

18-month study time, a sample of 75 women in each group is required (Lipsey, 1990). 

Sample Retention Methodology. 

Abused women, as a cohort, are a vulnerable, transient population to follow. In order to 

maintain a high retention rate for this 18-month longitudinal study, a systematized tracking 

methodology was incorporated, which has been shown to have an efficacy rate of 96% 

- 

contactlresponse rate during a longitudinal study with a sample of battered women exiting 

shelters (Rumpz, 1991), a 94% retention rate with pregnant women (McFarlane, et al., 1998), 

and a 95% retention rate with abused women who contacted the criminal justice system 

(McFarlane, et al., 2000a). This successful methodology began with asking each study 

participant for several names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals (e.g. family 

members, friends, neighbors, employers, community organizations) who could be could be used 

as alternate contacts, which will invariably have knowledge of the whereabouts of the study 

participant. After each contact with the study participant the investigator provides a business card 

containing the name of the investigator and other project staff and phone number of the research 

project. In addition to these successful retention strategies, we provided incremental monetary \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12 

incentives of $20 for first base-line interview, $30 for the second 3-month interview, $40 the 6- 

month interview, $50 for the 12 month, and $60 for the 18-month interview with a $40 bonus for 

each woman completing all interviews. 

The base-line interview was completed in person and the woman was offer $20 cash. The 

four remaining interviews at 3-, 6-, 12 and 18-months were completed over the telephone, The 

six intervention contacts were completed over the telephone. All interviews and intervention 

contacts were completed by the interviewer that initially entered the woman. All interviewers 

remained with the study for 18-months 

When all phone and written contacts with the study participant failed, project staff used 

the successful field community tracking strategies outlined by Block & McFarlane (1 999). When 

tracking is completed in the community, the McFarlane and Wiist (1 997) safety plan for home 

visits with abused women in the community was followed. The safety plan is detailed and 

includes a.) working in pairs as often as possible, b.) carrying a cell phone, preferably on your 

- 

person; c.) making someone aware of the tracking destination and expected time of return to the 

office. Using these safety tracking strategies, we were able to maintain 100 retention of the 

sample over the I8 month study period. No threats to personal safety were experienced. 

It is important to note that women in this study presented to the special division of the 

District Attorney’s Office to apply for a protection order. Choosing to access justice services 

makes the intimate partner violence public. While at the justice office, each woman signed a 

notarized statement to the extent of the abuse and provided witness and or police report 

documentation. At the conclusion of each of the six telephone intervention calls and four followup phone interviews, the women provided a safe time and phone number to the investigator for 

the next contact. Many of the women requested we call them at work, during a break or lunch 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13 

period. Most women in the study had cell phones and requested the investigator call them at the 

cell phone number. Investigators called the woman exactly as requested. For example, if the safe 

time for a phone interview was 9 pm on a Saturday night, then that is when the investigator 

called and completed the interview. Interviewers used cell telephone or the agency phone to 

make the calls to women or her contacts due to caller identification on many phones. All women 

were sent reminder letters about the next interview with their investigator’s name and phone 

contact on a card referring to the “Women’s Health Study”. Study women continually 

commented on how fortunate they felt to be part of a “Women’s Health Study” and how 

important it was to them to be making a contribution towards women’s health and safety. 

Many women reported a change of address at each stage of follow-up. Specifically, 

between 3 and 6 months, 32 of the 149 women (21%) reported a new address; between 6 and 12 

months, 47 of the 149 women (32%) reported a new address and between 12 and 18 months 42 

of 149 (28%) of the women reported a change. Some women had a different address for each 

- 

interview. 

In addition to the safe contact list, tracking procedures, incremental incentives and an 

interview schedule focused on the woman’s safety, the six investigators maintained close contact 

with each other and had frequent debriefing and team sharing sessions. With six investigators on 

the team, each investigator had an average of 25 women in their case load, an average of 12 

intervention women and 12 control group women. This small case load greatly facilitated contact 

and completion of all study interviews. As this was a collaborative study between health and the 

justice system, the sponsoring agency, the District Attorney’s Office, was extremely supportive 

of the research and helphl in day to day tasks of securing private interview space to talk with 

study women, use of the telephones to track protection order processing and updating the status 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14 

of the woman’s order of protection. The 100% retention would have been impossible without the 

exemplary collaboration of the justice agency, the preparedness and dedication of the research 

team, and the intent of the abused women to make a contribution to the safety and welfare of 

other abused women. 

So important are issues of successfbl recruitment and retention of victims and offenders 

in research studies that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has contracted a best practices 

report on the topic. The author of this report has written a section of the best practices report 

entitled “Successful sampling, recruitment and retention strategies for female victims of intimate 

partner violence”. Within this contracted report critical issues including establishing a working 

partnership with the service agency, investigator presence and involvement at the service agency, 

nurturing agency staff and the recruitment, training, and maintaining of a qualified research team 

are discussed in detail. Additionally, safe field tracking protocols for longitudinal research are 

offered as well as the detail procedures of a safe contact list, successfiil use of incentives, and 

I 

strategies for regaining contact with “lost” subjects. Readers are advised to contact the Office of 

Justice Programs for hrther information on the status of this paper. 

Setting and Services Offered. 

The Family Criminal Law Division (FCLD) of the Harris County District Attorney’s 

Ofice is located in Houston, Texas, and serves an ethnically diverse population of 2.8 million 

citizens. The Division was created in 1984 in an effort to bring special attention and services to 

victims of domestic violence. Services include protective orders; crisis intervention for victims 

of domestic violence; intake for parental kidnappinginterference with child custody, bigamy, 

criminal non-support, and harboring a runaway. The Division consists of 17 hull-time staff 

members including 1 Chief Prosecuting Attorney, 3 Prosecuting Attorneys, 1 Protective Order 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15 

- Prosecutor, 2 Investigators, 6 Caseworkers (several of whom are bilingual in Spanish or 

Vietnamese), 4 Administrative Aides, and 2 legal interns. Caseworkers prepare a case history for 

each applicant of a protection order and advise the individual of their qualification status. 

Counseling and referral information is offered to each applicant. Over 3,000 clients are served 

each year. This research study began in December 2000 and ended in August 2002. 

The specific process of the protection order is as follows. If the applicant’s case is 

accepted, the attorney’s file the case with the Family Law Courts, and ask for a court date to be 

set for a hearing. After the case is filed, the court issues a temporary protection order. A copy of 

this order is sent to the applicant by mail, and a copy is served to the abuser in person. The 

temporary protection order is similar to the final 2-year protection order, in that it tells the person 

to stay 200 feet away from the applicant’s honie and workplace, and prohibits the person from 

assaulting the applicant, from threatening the applicant directly or through another person, and 

from harassing or stalking the applicant. However, the temporary protection order differs from 

the final two-year protection order in that a violation of the temporary order cannot be charged as 

a criminal offense; it can only be filed as a civil contempt of court. Furthermore, the temporary 

protection order is only valid for 20 days. The court date is set within those 20 days and the 

order expires whether or not the abuser is served or the hearing takes place. However, the 

temporary protection order may be extended if the abuser is not served by the hearing date. 

Protocol for Control and Intervention Groups: Control Group. 

- 

Women randomized to the control group were offered standard services of this 

specialized district attorney’s (DA) office, which consists of individual counseling and 

community referral information on violence. All applicants are routinely given the name and 

phone number of their intake interviewer and encouraged to telephone the DA’s office for further \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16 

assistance. Following routine DA procedures, control group women were offered a card and time 

for the 3,6, 12 and 18-month interviews. Women were compensated for each interview. 

Intervention Grow 

Women randomized to the intervention group were offered the standard services of the 

DA’s office plus six advocacy case management intervention telephone calls. The focus of the 

advocacy case management intervention telephone calls was increasing victim safety. Each 

telephone call began with a review of safety-seeking behaviors, using the Safety Behavior 

Checklist (Exhibit A). Because violence against women is one facet of a syndrome of coercive 

control by the abuser, the review of safety-seeking behaviors is directed toward increasing the 

woman’s independence and control (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Herman, 1992). This safety 

protocol is based on the McFarlane’s and Parker’s abuse prevention protocol (1994) that was 

previously tested and proven effective with pregnant women (McFarlane, Parker, Soeken, Silva, 

& Reel, 1998; Parker, McFarlane, Soeken, Silva, & Reel, 1999). 

The first intervention call occurred within 48 to 72 hours of the initial visit. Remaining 

calls occurred at one, two, three, five and eight weeks following intake. The investigator that 

entered the woman into the study completed all follow-up telephone calls. Each call began with 

the safety behavior checklist, noting behaviors adopted since the last contact (Exhibit A). 

Strategies for adopting safety behaviors were discussed. For example,, women were given 

information on making extra keys, obtaining copies of birth certificates or a marriage license; 

and applying for a driver’s license. The importance of possessing documents such as rent and 

utility receipts, social security numbers, and birth certificates was discussed. Women were 

offered suggestions on where to hide money, or important documents, such as in an empty 

tampon container, with sanitary products, or with a trusted friend, neighbor, or relative. The 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17 

women were coached in how to develop a code to use with family and friends to signal the need 

for assistance as well as identify a neighbor who could be asked to call the police if an altercation 

was heard. If weapons were in the house, women were offered strategies for removal and 

disposing of them with law enforcement officials. The telephone calls’ ranged in duration from 

three minutes to twenty-five minutes, with a mean of nine minutes per call. The safety 

intervention ended with the sixth telephone call, eight weeks aRer the initial entry into the study. 

At the 3, 6, 12 and 18-month follow-up calls, no information on safety was provided to the 

intervention group women. 

Following a review of safety behaviors, education on the process of protection orders, 

including how to request and obtain necessary documents, was provided. Additionally, as 

appropriate, information was offered to the woman on “usual” reactions of children to witnessing 

abuse (fear, sleeping disorders, aggressive or violent behavior toward others, talking about 

retaliating) as well as feelings of fear, loss, and despair the woman may experience. Possible 

perpetrator behaviors in response to the protection order were discussed with emphasis on 

maintaining safety. Finally, guided referrals were made as needed as well as supportive care in 

the form of active, empathic and non-judgmental listening was offered. 

INSTRUMENTS 

To measure the victim objective of increased safety-seeking behaviors, lower levels of 

experienced violence, higher physical and emotional hnctioning, and greater employment 

productivity among women who receive the intervention, all women were administered the 

following instruments at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18 months. All instruments were 

administered in an interview format. 

Safety Behaviors Checklist. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This 15-item safety survey is administered to assess for present use of safety behaviors 

and chart future adoption. At the first assessment, the woman is asked “Have you EVER . . . .?.”. 

At subsequent sessions, the women are asked “Since the last time we talked, have you . . . .? The 

safety behavior checklist was initially described in Abuse during pregnancy: A protocol for 

prevention and intervention (McFarlane & Parker, 1994) and since has been tested and proven 

extremely effective on an ethnically diverse population of 199 abused Hispanic, Black, and 

White women attending prenatal clinics (McFarlane, Parker, & Cross 2000). See Exhibit A 

To score the safety behavior checklist, an adjustment procedure was used. Because not all 

behaviors were applicable for each woman, the total number of behaviors was adjusted to 

facilitate interpretation and comparison. The total number of behaviors performed was adjusted 

so that each woman’s total fell within the range of zero behaviors performed (0) and all 

behaviors performed (1 5). The adjusted total behaviors performed were computed by 

multiplying each woman’s percent of applicable behaviors by 15 and dividing by 100%. For 

example, if a woman was single, did not have a weapon in the home, an insurance policy or a 

bank account and practiced all but one applicable behavior, her total score would equal 10. Her 

percent of applicable behaviors is 10/11 = 90.9% and adjusted total number of behaviors 

performed is 90.9% x 15/100% = 13.6. Assume a second woman also performed 10 behaviors, 

however all but one behavior was applicable. Therefore the second woman’s percent of 

applicable behavior is 10/14=71.4% and adjusted total number of behaviors performed is 71.4 x 

15/100% = 10.7. Although both women performed the same total number (IO) of 10 safety 

behaviors, one woman performed almost all (90%) applicable behaviors whereas the second 

woman performed less than three-fourths (71%) of applicable behaviors. To determine if the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19 

adjusted safety behavior scores changed over time, data were analyzed using a repeated measures 

analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with one between-groups factor. 

Severity of Violence Against Women Scale CSVAWS). 

A 46-item questionnaire designed to measure threats of physical violence (1 9-items) and 

actual physical trauma (27-items) (Marshall 1992). For each behavior, the woman responds using 

a four-point scale to indicate how often the behavior occurred (never==l, once=2, few times=3, 

many times=4). Reliability has been recorded as .89 for the Threats dimension and 0.91 for the 

Violence dimension (Wiist & McFarlane, 1998). (See Exhibit B) 

Stalking Victimization Survey (SVS). 

The SVS is a 17-item yes/no questionnaire. Eight items were developed by Tjaden & 

Thoennes (1 998) as part of the Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women in America 

Survey. Examples of items include: being followed or spied on, sent unsolicited letters or written 

correspondence, or finding the perpetrator standing outside the victim’s home, school, or 

- 

workplace. Content validity was established by a panel of experts. Ten items were added from 

the Sheridan (1998) HARASS instrument to form the 17-item SVS used in the present study 

Examples of items added include threats by the abuser to harm the children or commit suicide if 

the woman left the relationship, leaving scary notes on her car, or threatening her family. (See 

Exhibit C) 

Danger Assessment Scale (DAS). This 15-item questionnaire with a yes/no response format is 

designed to assist women in determining their potential risk for becoming a homicide victim 

(Campbell, 1986). All items refer to risk factors that have been associated with murder in 

situations involving abuse. Examples of risk factors include the abusers possession of a gun, use 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20 

of drugs, and violent behavior outside the home by the abuser. Initial reliability of the instrument 

was .71 and ranged from .60 to .86 in five subsequent studies (Campbell, 1995). (See Exhibit D) 

MOS SF-12 Health Survey. 

The SF-12 (Ware, 1998) is a shorter version of the SF-36 (Ware, 1993) and was used to 

assess health status across physical and emotional domains. The reliability (test-retest and 

internal consistency) and validity of this instrument has been well established in diverse 

populations and languages. Normative values for the U.S. by age and gender allow for 

comparison with the study population. (See Exhibit E) 

Employment Harassment. 

Eight questions were asked about worksite harassment. The questions are from a recent 

report to Congress (GAOIHEHS, 1998) that reviewed studies of worksite harassment of women 

by intimate partners. The questions are to be answered as yes or no. Additionally, one-opened 

ended question asks how the abuser prevented the woman from working. Internal consistency, a 

measure of reliability, produced a coefficient alpha of 0.76 (McFarlane, Malecha, Gist, Schultz, 

Willson & Fredland, 2000). (See Exhibit F) 

Recruitment Procedures 

All applicants that were female, qualifying for a protection order against a sexual 

intimate, and who spoke English or Spanish were invited into the study by one of the 

investigators. One investigator was present at the district attorney's office each day. Sampling 

with randomization to treatment or control group continued for 28 days until 75 women were 

entered into the control group and 75 women entered into the treatment group. A total of 154 

women qualified for the study and were invited to participate. Four women refused to participate 

The'primary reason given for refusal to enter the study was pain frorn physical injuries. One 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21 

woman committed suicide six weeks into the study. All remaining 149 women completed the 3, 

6,12, and 18 month follow-up interviews. 

Analysis Procedures 

Analyses was conducted to examine the study output goals of a.) a 20% increase in the 

number of protection orders issued to abused women who access a specialized urban district 

attorney’s office and participate in an advocacy case management intervention program; and b.) 

a 30% decrease in the number of days from application to receipt of protection orders for abused 

women who access a specialized urban district attorney’s office and participate in an advocacy 

case management intervention program. Chi square analyses were performed on the control and 

experimental output data. Group differentiation in the demographic characteristics was 

investigated using independent tests and chi-square tests of independence. Characteristics 

exhibiting significant group differences where included in subsequent analyses. 

To measure the study outcome goal for the victim, specifically an increase in safetyseeking behaviors and health hnctioning and a reduction in reported severity of violence (threats 

and actual abuse), stalking, work harassment and danger of femicide, a mixed model repeated 

measures MANCOVA was used. The between factor was group (control or intervention) and the 

within factor was time (3-, 6-, 12-, 18-month follow-up interviews). Baseline scores were used as 

covariates. This method allows testing the main effect of group, the main effect of time, and the 

time by group interaction. If the global test reveals statistical significance, post-hoc comparisons 

were conducted. 

RESEARCH RESULTS 

Demographics (Refer to Exhibits G and H) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22 

Demographics for the study sample of 150 women appear in Exhibit G. Demographics 

for the intervention and control groups appear in Exhibit H. The mean age (30.3 ) for women in 

the intervention group was significantly (F1,148)=8.903, p=.003), less by almost 5 years than the 

mean age (34.6) reported by the control group women. With the exception of age, there were no 

significant differences between groups for highest grade of schooling completed, self-identified 

racial/ethnic affiliation, relationship to the abuser or language spoken. The retention rate for the 

duration of the study was 100% for the intervention group and 99% for the controls. (The woman 

who committed suicide was in the control group). 

Victim Safetv. Violence and Health Results (Refer to Exhibits I, J, and K) 

The victim outcome objective for this study is: 

0 More safety-seeking behaviors, lower experienced violence, higher physical and 

emotional functioning, and less employment harassment among women that 

receive the Advocacy-Case Management intervention as compared to women that 

do not receive the intervention. 

- 

To determine if the adjusted safety behavior scores, danger scores, stalking scores, and 

work harassment scores changed over time, data were analyzed using a repeated measures 

analyses of (co)variance (RM AN(C)OVA) with one between-groups factor. Doubly 

multivariate analyses of (co)variances (D MAN(C)OVAs were performed using the SVAWAS 

(threats and actual violence) scores and the SF- 12 (physical and mental health) scores. 

Appropriate follow-up procedures were performed when necessary. To control for inflated type 

I error due to multiple testing, Bonferroni's method of adjustment was used to adjust the 

significance level to .01 for each comparison to maintain the experiment wise error rate of .05 

(.01 x 5 administrations =.OS). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 

Means and standard deviations for the adjusted total number of safety behaviors 

performed, SAVAWS scores, stalking, danger, and work harassment scores, and SF-1 2 health 

scores administered to the intervention and control group women at intake, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18- 

months are shown in Exhibit I. 

Victim Safety Results (Refer to Exhibits I, J and K) 

Results from a RM ANOVA on safety behaviors showed a significant (F(4,144)=5.450, 

p<.OOl) main effect over time, a significant group by time interaction (F(4,144)=2.811 l,p=.028), 

and a significant (F( 1,147)=23.724,~ <. 00 1) main effect for group. Because of the significant 

group by time interaction, follow up tests included t tests of the simple effects at each time 

period (intake, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18- months) as well as RM ANOVAs for each group (intervention 

and control) separately over time. Tests of simple effects showed that there were significant 

differences between the intervention and control group scores for 3-mos (p < .OOl) , 6-mos ( p < 

.OOl) , 12-mos (p=.002) , and 18-mos (p=.002). Results from the RM ANOVA for the 

intervention group showed that all of the follow-up scores were significantly different (p < ,001) 

than the intake score. The control group scores were not significantly different (p < .Ol). These 

results indicate that the intervention group practiced significantly more safety behaviors than the 

control group women at 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18- months. Women in the .intervention group also 

practiced significantly more safety behaviors after intake. 

Using a RM ANOVA a trend analysis was performed to model the increase in the 

number of applicable safety behaviors adopted by women at each intervention telephone call 

over time. Results indicated a significant main effect for time (F(6,444)=91.24, p < .OOl), and 

particularly a significant (F(1,74)=69.48, p < .OOl) quadratic trend. As shown by Exhibit J, with 

the quadratic trend, the number of adopted safety behaviors increase sharply for the first 4 phone \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24 

calls and then increases slightly for the remaining calls. Means and standard deviations are also 

reported in Exhibit K and initially, 10.4 (69%) of the applicable safety behaviors were performed 

at intake but by week eight of the intervention, 13.9 (92%) of the behaviors were adopted. 

Victim Violence Results (Refer to Exhibit I) 

Results from the D MANOVA of the SAVAWS yielded a significant (F(8,1176)=70.188, 

p<.OOl) multivariate main effect for time (main effect for time considering the mean of all the 

women at each time period). Univariate tests showed a significant main effect for time for 

Threats (F(4,5 88)=78.988,~<.00 1) and Actual violence (F(4,588)=6:2.876, p C.00 1). Follow-up 

RM ANOVAs for the main effect for time showed significant differences (.001) between each 

time period (3 to 18 months) when compared to intake for threats of violence and actual 

violence. The intake scores for threats and actual violence were significantly higher at intake 

than scores assessed during the subsequent months. Although there were no group differences, 

results from the RM ANOVA showed significant (F(4,144)=82.133, p<.OOl; F(4,144)=124.535, 

p<.OOl; F(4,81)=50.805, p < ,001) effects over time for stalking, danger, and work harassment 

scores. Follow-up tests for the main effect of time showed that the scores at intake was 

significantly (p < .Ol) higher than the subsequent scores. Although analyses of covariance and 

multivariate analyses of covariance were performed adjusting for age, the results were not 

changed and therefore the results are not presented. 

Victim Health Results (Refer to Exhibit I) 

Results of the D MANOVA yielded a significant (F(8,1176)==30.928, p<.OOl) 

multivariate main effect for time. Univariate tests showed the main effect for time was 

significant for Physical Health (F(4,588)=3.719, p <.001) and Mental Health, 

(F(4,588)=71.01 l,p<.OOl). Follow-up RM ANOVAS showed that the mental health intake score \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25 

was significantly ( p < .Ol) worse than the subsequent assessments. However, the physical 

health intake score was significantly ( p < ,O 1) worse than the 3 months and 12 months 

assessment only. Although analyses of covariance and multivariate analyses of covariance were 

performed adjusting for age, the results were not changed and therefore the results are not 

presented. 

Justice System Results (Refer to Exhibits L and M) 

Two justice system outcomes were proposed as follows: 

0 A 20 percent increase in the number of protection orders issued to abused women that 

access a specialized urban district attorney office and receive the Advocacy - Case 

Management Intervention. 

A 30 percent decrease in the number of days from protection order application to receipt 

of the protection order for women that access a specialized urban district attorney office 

and receive the Advocacy - Case Management Intervention. 

0 

Exhibit L presents the number of women receiving a protection order according to 

intervention or control group membership. Using chi square analysis no significant difference 

were found in protection order receipt between the treatment and control groups. Some 56% of 

the intervention women (n=42) received a protection order compared to 52% (n=39) of the 

women in the control group. This difference of three women was not significantly higher (TI’ 

(1)=0.242, p=.623) and not 20% higher. The reasons the women did not receive a protection 

order were not significantly different (TI’ (1)=0.242, p=.623) between the intervention and 

control groups. Exactly the same number of women in both groups did not receive a PO due to 

the inability of the system to serve the perpetrator. Although not statistically different, none of 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26 

the women in the intervention group failed to show in court; whereas three women in the control 

group did not receive the PO due to failure to show in court. 

Exhibit M presents the number of days from application to receipt of the protection order for 

intervention compared to control women. Again, using chi square analysis no significant 

differences were found in number of processing days between the treatment and control groups. 

The mean number of days for receipt was 24 days for both groups of women. Similarly, there 

were no significant differences between the numbers of days required for any step in the 

protection order process. 

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS 

Increasing Victim Safety 

Adoption of safety behaviors significantly increased over time for women in the 

intervention group. The effect of the intervention was large at 3 months (ES=1.5), remained 

substantial at 6 months (ES=0.56), and then stabilized and remain consistent at 12 and 18 

months. The decrease in effect size measured at six months may indicate the need for an 

additional intervention session(s) or the data may indicate a ceiling effect of the intervention. 

The significant increase for intervention women in adopting additional safety-seeking 

behaviors from one telephone session to the next is impressive. Within the first 7 days of the 

intervention period, the mean number of safety behaviors performed increased by more than two, 

10.4 to 12.6, with an increase of applicable behaviors performed from 69% to 84%. Many of the 

safety behaviors require great effort and major risk taking. For example, the seemingly simple 

act of making an extra key requires the steps of obtaining the key (many abusers keep house and 

car keys on a ring attached to a belt worn at all times), locating and securing transportation to a 

- 

key duplication site (for several women this meant identifying a trusted person from which to 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27 

request transportation or learning and completing lengthy bus transfers from their homes), and 

returning the key to its original location without the abuser’s knowledge (women reported 

securing and copying the key while the abuser slept). Despite these difficulties, the women were 

eager to share stories of their success, for example, telling a neighbor about the abuse and asking 

the person to phone the police if they lower their kitchen window shade (which normally 

remained up). Women devised creative codes to use with family and friends to alert them to 

potential violence @.e., transposed birth date, asking about a deceased relative, requesting a food 

item to which they had an allergy). Removing weapons and hiding a bag with extra clothing can 

be dangerous. However, more than 70% of the intervention women reported adopted these safety 

behaviors. 

Concerning are the safety behaviors that some intervention women reported adopting at 

three months but no longer practiced at six months, such as hiding keys and a bag with extra 

clothing as well as establishing a code with others and asking neighbors to call the police. As the 

time interval increased since the violent episode for which the woman sought help, some women 

reported, “feeling safer” and did not feel the need to practice all the safety behaviors. Many 

women reported moving to a new residence and wanting to “forget the past”, deciding not to 

inform new neighbors about past violence or ask for assistance should an altercation be heard, 

These statements of perceived safety, although anecdotal, are especially alarming if the 

woman considers the abuser a former partner. Research documents divorced or separated women 

but report up to four times more intimate partner violence than do married women (Dobash & 

Dobash, 1984; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988; Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1989). Also, interviews with men 

who have killed their wives indicate that either threats of separation by their partner or 

completed separation are most often the precipitating events that lead to the murder (Bernard & 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2s 

Bernard, 1983; Daly & Wilson, 1988). Clearly, a decrease in practiced safety behaviors at six 

months indicates a closing of Curnow’s open window phase and supports the need for an 

additional intervention(s) to maintain safety-seeking behaviors. Women must be advised of the 

increased potential for violence following a separation from the abuser and the continued need 

for safety behaviors. 

These results indicate the longer the time interval after the abusive incident; the less 

likely women are to adopt safety behaviors. How long is the open window phase open? The 

length of time after the violent episode this intervention can be applied with expected results is 

unknown. Correlates such as relationship status (current versus former), type, frequency, and 

severity of violence, and previous help seeking actions must also be considered in future 

replication research. To our knowledge, this research is the first randomized clinical trial of a 

safety intervention for abused women. These findings clearly demonstrate that an intervention 

increase safety behaviors of abused women is highly effective when offered following an 

abusive incident. The effectiveness of the safety intervention remaias substantial at six months 

- 

0 

The average length of time required to apply the intervention was only 54 minutes (e.g., six nineminute phone calls), less than one hour of professional time. The low intensity of this 

intervention makes it feasible to be integrated into a variety of agencies in both urban and rural 

settings. Additionally, the cost of the intervention is minimal and the averted trauma and 

associated suffering and costs potentially large. 

All women, irrespective of intervention or control group, reported lower levels of 

intimate partner violence and higher health hnctioning status or up to 18 months after applying 

for a civil protection order. This study followed women after application for a civil protection 

order, irrespective of receipt or dropping of the order. Therefore, this study’s design prevents a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29 

comparison with other studies about PO because all other researchers have only reported on 

women who received the order of protection against the abuser (Kac.i, 1994; Keilitz, Hannaford, 

& Efkeman, 1997; Ptacek, 1999). 

The reduction in violence scores over time for all women, regardless of receipt or 

dropping of the protection order application, is consistent with abuse-intervention findings by 

social and health researchers. When abused women exiting a shelter and receiving home social 

support were compared at 6-months to abused women not receiving the support, women in both 

groups reported a decrease in physical abuse (Sullivan, Campbell, Angelique, Eby & Davidson, 

1994). In health clinic studies of abused women receiving intensive counseling and outreach 

support compared to abused women offered a wallet-sized card that listed community resources 

that dealt with abuse, women in both groups reported significantly lower levels of abuse at 6- 

and 12- and 18-months post intervention (McFarlane, Soeken, & Wiist, 2000; Parker, 

McFarlane, Soeken, Silva, & Reel, 1999). 

- 

The findings that all the women in this study, regardless of receipt or dropping of the 

protection order, reported significantly less violence at follow-up may be due but simply to the 

fact that the women chose to initiate action with the justice system. 'This finding seems to 

emphasize the importance ofjustice system contact with abused women. A decision to contact 

the justice system may indicate to the abuser that official agencies know about the abuse and 

may act to deter any future violence against the woman, especially if the perpetrator fears jail or 

losing prestige in a community. 

Increasing Protection Order Receipt & Process Efficiency 

Slightly more than half of the women in this study (54%) completed the process of 

applying for and receiving a protection order. This finding is higher than previous studies with \ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30 

reported protection order receipt rates of 28.8% (Fernandez, Iwamoto & Muscat, 1997), 35.5% 

(Gist et al., 2001a), and 37% (Zoellner et al., 2000). However, the intervention group that 

received the advocacy case-management and assistance with their protection order processing, 

received no more protection orders and in no shorter time than the control that received standard 

processing. Revealing is the fact that 12% of women in both the intervention and control group 

did not receive the protection order because the perpetrator could not be served. The inability to 

serve the perpetrator lies beyond the scope of the intervention tested in this study. However, the 

major reason that both intervention and control women did not receive the protection order was 

the woman choosing to drop the order of protection. 

More than one-fourth of the women (28%) decided not to complete the process and 

dropped the protection order against the intimate partner. This drop rate was lower than the only 

other reported drop rate of 60% (Zoellner et al., 2000). The drop rate was the exact same 

percentage for both control and intervention women. When the demographic characteristics of 

- 

these two groups (women that received the protection order and women that dropped the 

protection order) were compared, the only significant differences found were related to 

relationship status (current/former partner) and cohabitation status (living together at 3 months). 

Women who dropped the protection order were more likely to be in current relationships and 

living with their abusers three months after application for the protection order. Receiving a 

protection order was not connected to age, ethnicity, or the economic factors of education, 

employment, income, immigration or English speaking status. These results are supported by 

previous research indicating that economics, including education, and ethnicity are not 

significant factors in determining final protection order outcome (Fernandez et al., 1997; 

Zoellner et al., 2000). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
When asked why they dropped the protection order, many of the women (40.5%) stated 

they had returned to the relationship with the abusive partner. Leaving an abusive partner and 

then returning to the abusive partner has been discussed at length in the literature (Baker, 1997; 

Campbell, Rose, Kub, & Nedd, 1998; Dutton & Painter, 1993; Griffing et al., 2002; Herbert, 

Silver, & Ellard, 199 1 ; Horton & Johnson, 1993; Landenburger, 1989; Schutte, Malouff, & 

Doyle, 2001; Strube, 1988; Strube & Barbour, 1983, 1984). Womeri in this study chose to leave 

their abusive partners when they applied for the protection order and signed an affidavit that 

domestic violence had occurred and there was high risk for hrther intimate partner violence. 

When a woman then chooses to drop the protection order, the district attorney's office requests 

that she return to the office and sign a release form that she no longer wants to continue the 

protection order process. Of the 42 women in this study who dropped the protection order, 74.4% 

were in current relationships (intimate partner) with their abusers and 38.1% were living with 

their abusers. 

- 

Zoellner and associates (2000) found women who indicated an "attachment" to the 

abusive partner were less likely to complete the protection order process. Attachment was 

measured with two yes/no questions: "Do you still love your partner?" and "Do you want him 

back if he would change?" Women who perceived threats to themselves were more likely to 

complete the process however; women whose abusive partners made threats to her children were 

more likely to drop the process. These results continue to support other studies of women who 

make attempts to end the violence in their lives, but for some reason, do not continue with the 

process and/or return to the abusive partner (Griffing et al., 2002). 

Almost one-quarter of the women (23.8%) who dropped the protection order cited that 

the process of obtaining the protection order was "too much of a hassle," and inconvenient. In , 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32 

order to obtain a protection order, the applicants in this study had to be willing to participate in 

the following process: (a) arrive at district attorney’s office with proper photo identification; (b) 

complete paperwork, interview with caseworker, take photographs, and sign affidavit (this step 

takes approximately 2 to 3 hours); (c) may need to return to district attorney’s office at a later 

date with additional required paperwork and/or witnesses to the violence; (d) wait approximately 

6 weeks for court date; and (e) appear in court in front of a judge where abuser may contest the 

protection order. During this process, the woman is told to stay away from her abusive partner. 

Fernandez and colleagues (1 997) outlined seven similar stages to the protection order process 

and the possible factors that may determine whether or not an abused woman completes the 

process. Issues that may arise and prevent the receipt of a protection order may include 

transportation issues to and from the government agencies, taking time away from work, family, 

and other duties, child care issues, financial issues, fear or threats of retaliation from the abuser, 

and emotional commitment to the abuser (Chaudhuri & Daly, 1992; Kaci, 1992; Zoellner et al., 

- 

2000). 

We found significant differences in relationship status existed at intake between the 

women that subsequently received or dropped the protection order. Significantly (p<. 05) more 

women who dropped the protection order were in current relationships, whereas protection order 

recipients considered the perpetrator a former partner. Furthermore, at intake and 3 months later, 

women in current relationships, irrespective of subsequent protection order receipt or drop, 

reported significantly (p<.005) more physical assaults compared to women in former 

relationships. Clearly, relationship status is a significant correlate of abused women’s receipt or 

dropping of a protection as well as her level of assault experienced. Relationship status must be 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33 

assessed by service providers and the implications for protection order receipt discussed with 

women. 

S tu dv Limitations 

There are limitations of the study that are important to the generalizability of the findings. 

The sample used in the study was from an urban agency of women who were actively seeking 

assistance from the justice system. Furthermore, the study relied on self-reports that may under 

report or over report due to lack of recall or lack of voluntary disclosure. Research subject may 

respond to questions to please investigators. Therefore, intervention women may have responded 

favorably to safety behaviors not actually adopted. However, because the women were 

randomized to intervention and control groups, this potential response bias was randomly 

dispersed across both groups. Future research is needed with a larger community sample of 

abused persons, both male and female, who have been victimized but choose not to file for a 

protection order. Additionally, hrther longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the factors 

- 

associated with persistence in obtaining protection orders and the barriers and decision making 

processes people go through in securing protection orders. Replication studies will help to firther 

understand the reasons behind dropping protection orders after application is made. Factors need 

to be identified that establish if a protection order is an effective intervention for abused women, 

as well as a better understanding of attachment to an abusive partner and other factors that may 

interfere with a woman's desire to end violence in her life. More studies are needed to explore a 

possible theory of emotional attachment to the perpetrator. Evaluation studies of the long-term 

outcomes of protection orders are also crucially needed. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34 

Summary 

Clearly, the process of obtaining a protection order is not a simple and easy process. 

Although we applied a systematic intervention toward increasing the number of protection orders 

received and the decreasing the number of days from application to receipt of the order, the 

intervention made no difference on either desired outcome. Would improving the process, in 

terms of less work and hassle on the applicant's part, help abused women obtain a higher rate of 

protection orders? How can we better serve those women who want the protection orders but the 

perpetrators can not be found for service? Relationship status is significantly linked to receipt or 

dropping of a protection order, as well as degree of assault experienced immediately before and 3 

months after application. These findings indicate the importance of assessing relationship status 

and the 

data on 

- 

implications of relationship status when applying for protection orders. Obtaining more 

the factors associated with obtaining or dropping a protection order is a logical step. 

Although the advocacy-case management intervention did not increase the number of 

protection orders received or decrease the number of days required tl:, receive the order, the 

number of safety behaviors practiced by intervention women increased quickly and dramatically 

following a simple straightforward intervention that required less than one hour of time. The 

safety behaviors adopted may well prevent trauma and possible death. If applied following an 

abusive incident, this intervention is extremely effective and should seemingly be considered for 

immediate application at a variety of agencies serving abused women including justice, law 

enforcement, and social and health service providers. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35 

References 

American Nurses Association. (1 988). Nursing case management. Kansas City: American 

Nurses' Association. 

Baker, P.L. (1997). And I went back: Battered women's negotiation of choice. Journal of 

Contemporary Ethnography, 26(1), 55-74. 

Bernard, J.L. & Bernard, M.L. (1 983). The abusive male seeking treatment: 

Jekyll & Hyde. Family Relations, 33, 543-547. 

Block, C.R., McFarlane, J.M., Walker, G.R. & Devitt, C.O. (1999). Beyond public records 

databases: Field strategies for locating and interviewing proxy respondents in homicide research. 

Homicide Studies, 3 (4), 349-366. 

Campbell, J. C. (1986). Assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. Advances in 

Nursing Science, 8 (4), 36-5 1. 

Campbell, J.C. (1 995). Assessing dangerousness: Violence bv sexual offenders, batterers, 

and child abusers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1 998). Voices of strength and resistance: 

The A contextual and longitudinal analysis of women's responses to battering. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 743-762. 

Chalk, R., King, P.A. (1 998). Violence in families: Assessing Prevention and treatment 

programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Chalk, R. (2000). Assessing family violence interventions: Link:ing programs to researchbased strategies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 4(7), 29-53. 

Chaudhuri, M., & Daly, K. (1 992). Do restraining orders help? Battered women's experience 

with male violence and legal process. In E.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa (Eds.) Domestic violence: 

The changing criminal iustice response @p. 227-252). Westport, C?': Auburn House. 

Crowell, N.A., & Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1 996). Understanding violence against women. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Curnow, S.A. (1 997). The open window phase: Helpseeking and reality behaviors 

by battered women. Applied Nursing Research, 10(3), 128-135. 

Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY:Aldine. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36 

Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1 984). The nature and antecedents of violent events. 

British Journal of Criminology, 24(3), 269-288. 

Donato, K. & Bowker, L. (1 984). Understanding the helpseeking behavior of battered 

women: A comparison if traditional service agencies and women's groups. International Journal 

of Women's Studies, 7 (2), 99-109. 

Dutton, D.G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of 

traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105-1 20. 

Ethridge, P. & Lamb, G.S. (1 989). Professional nursing case management improves quality, 

but access, and costs. Nursing Management, 20,30-35. 

Femandez, M., Iwamoto, K., & Muscat, B. (1997). Dependency and severity of abuse: 

Impact on women's persistence in utilizing the court system as protection against domestic 

violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(1), 39-63. 

General Accounting Office, Health, Education, and Human Services Division. (1 998). 

Domestic violence: Prevalence and implications for employment among welfare recipients (No. 

99- 12). Washington, DC. welfare recipients (No. 99-12). Washington, DC. 

Gist, J.H., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Willson, P., Wilson, K., Fredland, N., 

Schultz, P., Walsh, T., Hall, I., & Smith, S. (2001a). Protection orders and assault charges: Do 

justice interventions reduce violence against women. American Journal of Family Law, 15( l), 

59-71. 

Gist, J., McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Fredland, N., Schultz, P., Willson, P. (2001 b). Women 

in danger: Intimate partner violence experienced by women that qualify and do not qualify for a 

protection order. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 19: 1-1 1. 

Gondolf, E., & Fisher, E. (1 988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to treating 

learned helplessness. Lexington: D.C. Health. 

Greenfield, L.A., Rand, M.R., Craven, D., Klaus, P.A., Perkins, C.A., Ringel, C., Warchol, 

G., Maston, C., & Fox, J.A. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of data on crimes by current 

or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. (NCJ-167237). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Griffing, S., Ragin, D.F., Sage, R.E., Madry, L., Bingham, L.E., & Primm, B.J. (2002). 

Domestic violence survivors' self-identified reasons for returning to abusive relationships. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, I7(3), 306-3 19. 

Herbert, T.B., Silver, R.C., & Ellard, J.H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: 

How and why do women stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,311-325. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37 

Horton, A L., & Johnson, B.L. (1993). Profile and strategies of women who have - 

ended abuse. Families in Society, 74(8), 481-492. 

Hennan, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Harper Collins. 

Kaci, J.H. (1994). Aftermath of seeking domestic violence protection orders: The victim’s 

perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 10 (3), 201-219. 

Keilitz, S.L., Hannaford, P.L. & Efkeman, H.S. (1997). Civil protection orders: The benefits 

and limitations for victims of domestic violence. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for state 

courts. 

Landenburger, K. (1 989). A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive 

relationship. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, IO, 208-227. 

Lipsey, M. W. (1 990). Desim sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. 

Newbury Park, NJ: Sage. 

McFarlane, J. Willson, P., Lemmey, D., Malecha, A. (2000). Women filing assault charges 

on an intimate partner: Criminal justice outcome and future violence experienced. Violence 

Against Women, 6(4), 396-408. 

McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Gist, J., Schultz, P., Willson, P., Fredland, N. (2000). Intimate 

partne-r violence and women’s employment. AAOHN. Journal of Occupational Health Nursing, 

- 48 (5). 

McFarlane, J., Parker, B. & Cross, B. (2000). Abuse during pregnancy:A protocol for 

prevention and intervention. Ed 2. NewYork: National March of Dimes Birth Defects 

Foundation. 

McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Wiist, W. (2000). An Evaluation of Interventions to Decrease 

Intimate Partner Violence to Pregnant Women. Public Health Nursing1 7(6):443-45 1. 

McFarlane, J., Parker, B., Soeken, K., Silva, C., Reel, S. (1998). Safety behaviors of abused 

women after an intervention during pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal 

Nursing. 27( l), 64-49. 

McFarlane,J., & Wist, W. (1997). Preventing abuse to pregnant women: Implementation of a 

“mentor mother” advocacy model. Journal of Community Health Nursing;, 14, 237-249. 

McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Reel, S., Parker, B., Silva, C. (1997).Resource use of abused 

women following an intervention program: Associated severity of abuse and reports of the abuse 

ending. Public Health Nursing. 14(4):244-250. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38 

McFarlane, J., Parker, B. (1994). Abuse during premancy:A protocol for prevention and 

intervention. NewYork: National March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. 

McKenzie, C.B., Torkelson, N.G., & Holt, MA. (1989). Care and cost: Case management 

improves both. Nursing Management, 20, 30-34. 

Mahn, V. (1 993). Clinical nurse case management: A service line approach. Nursing 

Management, 24,48-50. 

Mallik, M. (1 997). Advocacy in nursing: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced 

Nursing, 25 (l), 130-138. 

Marshall, L. L. (1 992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. 

Journal of Family Violence, 7 (2), 103-121. 

Mundt, M.H. (1996). Key elements of nurse case management in curricula. In E.L.Cohen 

(Ed.). Nurse Case ManaPement In the 21" Century. St. Louis: Mosby (pp48-54). 

Newman, M.A. (1996). Theory of the nurse-client partnership. In E.L. Cohen (Ed.). Nurse 

Case Management in the 21St Century. St. Louis: Mosby (ppl19-123). 

Parker, B., McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Silva, C., Reel, S. (1999). Testing an intervention to 

prevent further abuse to pregnant women. Res Nurs Health, 22,59. - 

Peled, E., Edleson, J. (1994). Advocacy for battered women: A national survey. Journal of 

Family Violence, 9 (3), 285-296. 

Ptacek, J. (1 999). Battered women In the courtroom: The power of judicial resonses. Boston: 

Northeastern University Press. 

Rennison, C.M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violem (Publication No. NCJ 

178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Rumpz, M.H., Sullivan, C.M., Davidson, W.S., Basta, J., (1991). Brief research report: An 

ecological approach to tracking battered women over time. Violence and Victims, 6(3), 237-244. 

Sarason, S. (1 976). Community psychology, networks, and Mr. Everyman. American 

Psychologuc, 3 1 I 3 17-328. 

Saunders-Robinson, M.A. (I 991). Battered women: An African American perspective. 

Association of Black Nursing Faculty in Higher Education Journal, 2(4), 8 1-84. 

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., & Doyle, J.S. (2001). The relationship between characteristics 

of the victim, persuasive techniques of the batterer, and returning to a battering relationship. 

Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5), 605-6 10. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39 

Sheridan, D. (1 998). Measuring harassment of battered women nursing concern. Unpublished 

doctoral dissertation. Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland. 

Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. (1988). Violence among intimates: An Epidemiological Review. 

In V.B. Van Hasselt (Ed.), Handbook of family violence (pp307-308). New York:Plenum Press. 

Stempel, J. Carlson, A., & Michaels, C. (1996). Working in partnership. In E.L. Cohen (Ed.). 

Nurse Case Management in the 2ISt Century. St. Louis: Mosby (pp.124-132). 

and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, I04(2), 23 6-250. 

Strube, M.J. (1 988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Empirical evidence 

Strube, M.J., & Barbour, L.S. (1983). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: 

Economic dependence and psychological commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 

785-793. 

Strube, M.J., & Barbour, L.S. (1984). Factors related to the decision to leave an abusive 

relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 837-844. 

Sullivan, C., Campbell, R., Angelique, H., Eby, K., Davidson, W. (1 994). An advocacy 

intervention program for women with abusive partners: Six-month follow-up. American Journal 

of Community Psychology. 22 (l), 101-122. 

Sullivan, C., Tan, C., Basta, J., Rumptz, M., Davidson, W. (1992,). An advocacy program for 

women with abusive partners: Initial evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 

- 20 (3), 309-332. 

Taylor, B.G. (1995). An Evaluation of the Domestic Violence Prevention Project. Internal 

Report. Research Division, Victim Services, New York. 

Texas Family Code, Title 4, (1 995). Protection of the family, Chapter 7 1. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner 

violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey (Publication No. NCJ181867). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National 

Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 169592). Washington, DC: 1J.S. Department of Justice, 

Walker, L.E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row, 

Walker, L.E. (1981). Battered women: Sex roles and clinical issues. Professional 

PsycholoPy, 12( 1),8 1-89. 

Walker, L.E. (2000). The battered woman (Znd ed.). New York: Springer. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40 

Ware, J. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health 

Institute. 

Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Keller, S. (1998). How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health 

summary scales (2nd ed.). Medical Outcomes Trust. 

Weisz, A.N. (1999). Legal advocacy for domestic violence sunrivors: The power of an 

informative relationship. Families in Society, 80 (2), 138-147. 

Weisz, A., Tolman, R., Bennett, L. (1998). An ecological study of non residential services 

for battered women within a comprehensive community protocol for domestic violence. Journal 

of Family Violence, 13 (4), 395-41 5. 

Wiist, W., & McFarlane, J. (1998). Use of police by abused pregnant Hispanic 

women Violence Against Women, 4,677-693. 

Yam,M. (1 995). Wife abuse:Strategies for a therapeutic response. Scholarly inquiry for 

Nursing Practice,9,147-158. 

Zoellner, L.A., Feeny, N.C., Alvarez, J., Watlington, C., O'Neill, M.L., Zager, R., & 

Foa, E.B. (2000). Factors associated with completion of the restraining order process in female 

victims of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(10), 108 1-1099. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41 

Investigators Biosketch 

Dr. Judith McFarlane is the Parry Chair in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at 

Texas Woman’s University, College of Nursing, in Houston, Texas. Dr. McFarlane conducts 

research on the health effects of violence against women and the effectiveness of interventions to 

prevent further violence. Her research has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control, 

National Center for Injury Prevention, Agency for Health Research gL Quality, The National 

Institutes of Justice, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. McFarlane began studying intimate 

partner violence during pregnancy in 1984 and has since authored seminal studies on abuse of 

pregnant women and its connection with low birthweight. Her research findings have been 

presented to congressional committees, included in national health objectives, and used by 

clinicians in the U.S. and abroad to set standards of care for pregnant women. To improve access 

to early prenatal care for high-risk Hispanic women, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation funded Dr. 

McFarlane to design and test the program De Madres a Madres, a health care delivery model 

featured in TIME Magazine and excerpted on NBC “TODAY” show. Dr. McFarlane is the 

author or coauthor of six clinical textbooks and more than 125 peer reviewed journal articles on 

women’s health. Dr. McFarlane presents regularly to national and international audiences. 

Dr. Ann Malecha is an Assistant Professor at Texas Woman’s University, College of 

Nursing in Houston, Texas. Her research program focuses on improving the health and safety 

outcomes of abused women. Utilizing her experience as an adult nurse practitioner and nurse 

researcher, Dr. Malecha is studying the practice and policy implications of universal screening 

for domestic violence in health care settings. Selected as a Chancellor’s Research Fellow for 

2002-2003 at Texas Woman’s University, Dr. Malecha is studying the outcomes of domestic 

violence screening in the occupational health setting. Dr. Malecha is the author or coauthor of 

more than 25 publications that focus on improving the health of abused women. 

Ms Elizabeth C. Batten completed her undergraduate degree at Bryn Maw College and 

studied in the cultural anthropology graduate program at the University of the Americas in 

Puebla, Mexico. Ms Batten has worked for five years as a bilingual case worker at the Harris 

County District Attorney’s Office in Houston, Texas. Ms Batten interviews persons applying for 

a protective order, and starts the protection order application process. She also interviews victims 

in criminal cases, and testifies in court. For the past three years, Ms Batten has participated in a 

cooperative research project with Texas Woman’s University and the District Attorney’s Office 

and functions as a hi-lingual investigator. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42 

Ms Iva Hall has worked as a registered nurse since 1974 in a variety of community and 

hospital settings. Since 1985, Ms Hall has been on the faculty of Lamar University and functions 

as the coordinator of undergraduate programs. In 1998, Ms Hall began her doctoral studies at 

Texas Woman’s University and is presently completing her dissertation on disclosure of intimate 

partner violence at the worksite and associated worksite assistance. hls Hall has been a 

researcher/interviewer with studies related to intimate partner violence since 1998 and is the 

author or co-author of six peer reviewed journal articles on violence against women. 

Ms Sheila Smith has been a registered nurse since 1972 and functions in a variety of 

professional nursing settings including in-patient and ambulatory. Ms Smith is a PhD candidate 

at Texas Woman’s University in Houston and has been a researcher/interviewer with studies 

related to intimate partner violence since 1998. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43 

Exhibits 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

I. 

J. 

K. 

L. 

Safety Behavior Checklist 

Severity of Violence Against Women Scale 

Stalking Survey 

Danger Assessment Scale 

SF- 12 

Employment Harassment 

Demographic Data of 150 Women who qualified for a Protection Order 

Demographics and test statistics between intervention and control groups 

Safety Behaviors, Violence and Health Scores for intervention and control groups at 

Intake, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-Months for Intervention (n=75) and Control (n= 75) Group 

Women 

Adjusted number of safety behaviors performed by time of intervention phone call for 75 

women 

Total Number of Safety Behaviors Followed and Percentage of Women Responding 

“YES” to Safety Behaviors at Each Intervention Phone Call for the Intervention Group 

Receipt of protection order status fro 75 intervention women compared to 75 control 

group women. 

M. Number of days from application to receipt of a protection order 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44 

Since I talked to you on (date of last interview), 

HAVE YOU: 

Exhibit A 

Yes (1) No (0) NA (66) 

Safety Behavior Checklist 

Ask the woman to answer YES, NO, or NOT APPLICABLE 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 I Had available: I I I I 

*After the first visit, change the leading question to: 

“Since the last time we talked, have you ... ? 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45 

Exhibit B. Severity of Violence Against Women Scale 

Since I talked to YOU, 

1 

NEVER 

which of the following behaviors has this person done and how often? 

2 3 4 

OlyCE A FEW TIMES IWNY TIMES 

(2-3 times) (4 or more times) 

1. Hit or kicked a wall, door or furniture.. ......................................... ____ 

2. Threw, smashed or broke an object ____ 3. Drove dangerously with you in the car -____ 

5. Shook a finger at you -__ 

6. Made threatening gestures at you -___ 

7. Shook a fist at you -___ 

8. Acted like a bully towards you.. _~ 

9. Destroyed something belonging to you -___ 

11. Threatened to destroy property.. -___ 

12. Threatened to hurt someone you care about -- 

13. Threatened to hurt you.. -- 

14. Threatened to kill themselves.. -___ 

15. Threatened to kill you. -__ 

16. Threatened you with a weapon.. -- 

17. Threatened you with a club-like object -- 

18. Acted like they wanted to kill you.. ____ 

19. Threatened you with a knife or gun.. -- 

20. Held you down, pinning you in place.. ____ 

2 1. Pushed or shoved you ____ 

22. Grabbed you suddenly or forcefully ____ 

23. Scratched you ____ 

24. Pulled you. -- 

25. Shook or roughly handled you -___ 

26. Twisted your arm -____ 

27. Spanked you -___ 

28. Bit you -___ 

29. Slapped you with the palm of their hand -___ 

30. Slapped you with the back of their hand -___ 

3 1. Slapped you around the face and head _____ 

32. Hit you with an object _____ 

33. Punched you -___ 

34. Kicked you _.___ 

3 5. Stomped on you -___ 

36. Choked you --___ 

37. Burned you with something __- 

38. Used a club-like object on you -- 39. Beat you up -- 

40. Used a knife or gun on you -- 4 1. 

42. Made you have oral sex against your will _____ 

43. 

44. 

45. Made you have anal sex against you will -- 46. 

.............................................. 

.......................................... 

4. Threw an object at you ............................................................ ............................................................... 

................................................ 

................................................................... 

.................................................. 

........................................... 

10. Threatened to harm or damage things you care about. ........................ -___ 

.................................................. 

..................................... 

........................................................... 

................................................... 

............................................................. 

.................................................. 

........................................... 

.............................................. 

............................................ 

........................................... 

............................................................... 

.............................................. ........................................................................ 

........................................................................... 

.................................................... 

.................................................................... 

......................................................................... 

................................................................................ 

........................................ 

....................................... 

.......................................... ............................................................. 

........................................................................ 

......................................................................... 

................................................................... 

........................................................................ 

...................................................... 

................................................... ......................................................................... 

....................................................... 

Demanded sex whether you wanted to or not ................................. 

Physically forced you to have sex. ..................... 

Used an object on you in a sexual way 

_____ 

...................................... 

Made you have sexual intercourse against your will 

......................................... 

........................................... ___ 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46 

Each answer is a YES or NO: 

EXHIBIT C. Stalking Survey 

YES NO (0) 

(1) 

Since I talked you on (Date of Last Interc.dw), has this person done the following: 

Followed or spied on you? 

Sent you unsolicited letters or written correspondence? 

~ 

01 

02 

IF YES to any of the above questions, ask: 

18. As a result of these stalking behaviors, would you say you were/are: (circle answer) 

(1) Very frightened (2) Somewhat frightened (3) Little frightened (4) Not frightened (circle if NA) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47 

Each answer is a YES or NO: 

Yes 

(4 

1. Has the physical violence increased in frequency? 

2. Has the physical violence increased in severity and/or has a 

Exhibit D. Danger Scale 

No 

(0) 

weapon or threat with weapon been used? 

3. Has the person tried to choke you? 

4. Is there a gun in the home where you live? 

5. Has this person forced you into sex when you did not wish to do so? 

6. Has this person used drugs? 

7. By drugs I mean “uppers” or amphetamines, speed, angel dust, cocaine, 

“crack”, street drugs, marijuana, heroin, or mixtures.(CIRCLE DRUGS 

USED) 

8. Has this person threatened to kill you. 

9. Has this person been drunk every day or almost every day? 

(In terms of quantity of alcohol) 

10.Does this person control most or all of your daily activities? 

For instance, does the person tell you who you can be friends with, how 

much money you can take with you shopping, or when you can take the 

car? 

1 1. If pregnant, did this person beat you? (If not pregnant in past 3 months, 

12. Has this person been violently and constantly jealous of you? 

circle NA) 

(For instance. does this Derson say. “If I can’t have vou. no one can.”) 

na(66) 

13. Have you threatened or tried to commit suicide? 

14. Has this Derson threatened or tried to commit suicide? I 

firearm? If yes, please circle the type and note the number: rifle -, shotgun 

15. Has this person been violent outside of the home? 

16. Does this person have a rifle, shotgun, handgun, pistol or other type of 

, handgun 

17. Has this uerson threatened to harm the children if you leave or do not return? I 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48 

6. Accomplished less than you would like 

Exhibit E. SF-12 

YES (1) NO (2) 

1. In general, would you say your health is: 

Excellent (1) Very Good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) 

(circle one answer) 

All of the 

time (1) 

9. Have you felt 

calm and peaceful? 

10. Did you have a 

lot of energy? 

1 1. Have you felt 

downhearted and 

blue? 

Does your health NOW limit you in the following activities? (check answers) 

Most of A good bit Some of A little of None of 

the time of the time the time the time (5) the time 

(2) (3) (4) (6) 

Yes, (1) 

limited a lot 

2. Moderate activities, such as moving a 

table,pushing a vacuum cleaner, playing 

sports. 

3. Climbing several flights of stairs 

During the past 3 months, have you had any of the following problems with your work or daily 

activities as a result of your PHYSICAL health? (circle answer) 

4. Accomplished less than you would like 

5. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities 

7. Didn't do work or other activities as carefully as usual 

8. During the past 3 months, how much did pain interfere with your normal work (include both work 

outside the home and housework)? (circle only one answer) 

Not at all (1) A little bit (2) Moderately (3) Quite a bit (4) Extremely (5) 

For the past 3 months: (check answer) 

12. 

interfered with your social activities (like visiting friends, relatives, etc.)? (circle one answer) 

For the past 3 months, how much of the time has your physical health or emotional problems 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49 

Exhibit F. Employment Harassment 

1. Have you workedlbeen employed during the last 3 months? 

If YES to working 

2. Has your partner harassed you at work in person? 

3. Has your partner harassed you at work over the phone? 

4. Have you been late for work or left early because of any abuse? 

5, Have you missed work because of any abuse? 

6. Have you been reprimanded at work for behaviors 

related to any abuse (IPV)? 

7. Have you lost a job because of abuse (IPV)? 

8. Has your partner discouraged you from working? 

9. Has your partner prevented you from working? 

IF YES to #9 (prevent from working), give some examples: 

- 

YES (1) NO (0) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

MCS (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

YES (1) NO (0) NA(66) 

NA(66) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50 

- 

Exhibit G 

Demographic Data of 150 Women Who Qualified for a Protection Order 

Against an Intimate Partner @=150) 

Characteristic Mean (SD) 

Age in Years 

~ 

32.4 (2.08) 

Years of Education 11.77 (9.18) 

Percent @J 

Ethnicity 

LatinokIispanic 40.7 (61) 

African American 32.7 (49) 

White 26.7 (40) 

Household Income 

< $5,000 16.7 (25) 

$5,000 to $9,999 12.7 (19) 

$10,000 to $19,999 28.0 (42) 

$20,000 to $29,999 24.0 (36) 

>$30,000 18.0 (27) 

Employment Status 

Employed 78.7 (1 18) 

Not employed 21.3 (32) 

Relationship to Abuser 

Current partner 62.0 (93) 

Former partner 38.0 (57) 

English Speaking 

Yes 84.0 (126) 

No 16.0 (24) 

Immigration Status 

Born in US 72.0 (108) 

Not born in US 28.0 (42) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51 

a 

Exhibit H 

Demographics and test statistics between Intervention and Control Groups 

Variable Intervention Control Statistic 

(N=75) (N=75) 

M M (S'D) 

Age 30.25 7.87 34.61 9.91 t (141)=-2.98,p=.003 

Grade 11.35 2.99 12.20 2.55 t (148)=-1.88,~=.062 

N % N 

Race 

African American 23 30.7 26 3 4.7 X2 (2)=0.694,p=. 7 07 

White 19 25.3 21 28.0 

Latin 23 44.0 28 3'7.3 

Relationship 

Speuse/Common-Law 40 53.3 41 54.7 X2 (3)=0.7 06 ,p= . 8 72 

Ex-SpouseEx-Common-law 14 18.7 11 14.7 

BoyfriendlGirlfriend 5 6.7 7 9.3 

Ex-BoyfriendEx-Girl friend 16 21.3 16 21.3 

Language 

English speaking 62 82.7 64 85.3 X2 (1)=0.198,~=.656 

Non-English speaking 13 

17.3 11 14.7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
52 

- 

Exhibit I. Safety Violence, and Health Scores at Intake, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-Months for 

Intervention (~7.5) and Control (n= 75) Group Women 

Group Initial 3-MOS 6-MOS 12-MOS 18-MOS 

Measure -~ 

M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) 

Intervention Group 

Safety Behaviors 10.4 (2.8) 12.5 (2.9) 12.0 (2.5) 11.13 (2.7) 12.0 (2.7) 

SAVAWS: 

Threats 44.5 (14.2) 22.4 (8.5) 21.1 (6.1) 23.3 (9) 22.1 (6.7) 

Actual 49.1 (18.9) 28.7 (6.2) 27.2 (1.2) 29.2 (8.5) 28.5 (5.7) 

Stalking 6.9 (4.1) 2.1 (3.3) 1.3 (2.7) 1.9 (2.9) 2.0 (3.1) 

Danger 6.8 (3.2) 1.9 (2.3) 1.3 (1.7) 1.6 (2.4) 1.5 (2) 

Work Harassment 3.9 (1 .8) 1.8 (1) 1.2 (0.4) 1 .S (0.9) 1.3 (0.7) 

SF-12: 

Physical Health 48.5 (12) 49.9 (10.4) 51.5 (9.6) 51.5 (9.3) 50.2 (10.6) 

Mental Health 29.2 (12.1) 39.5 (12) 43.8 (11.7) 44.8 (12.6) 46.1 (11.6) 

Control Group 

Safety Behaviors 9.6 (3.1) 9.9 (2.8) 10.4 (2.2) 10.6 (2.5) 10.5 (2.6) 

SAVAWS: 

- 

Threats 47.5 (13.1) 22.1 (7.5) 22.2 (8.5) 22.7 (8.6) 22.5 (9.2) 

Actual 48.6 (16.3) 28.1 (4.7) 28.8 (6.2) 28.7 (6.7) 29.0 (9.0) 

Stalking 7.8 (3.8) 3.1 (3.5) 2.0 (3.0) 2.3 (3.1) 1.8 (2.8) 

Danger 7.3 (2.6) 1.7 (2.2) 1.5 (2.2) 1.5 (1.9) 1.4 (2.3) 

Work Harassment 4.1 (1.9) 2.4 (1.7) 1.5 (1.4) 1.5 (1.1) 1.3 (0.8) 

SF-12: 

Physical Health 47.0 (12.9) 50.8 (10.2) 48.5 (11.1) 50.4 (10.2) 49.1 (10.8) 

Mental Health 28.8 (10.6) 40.4 (13.9 42.9 (13.7) 44.1 (13.4) 44.3 (12.9) 

*n=74 for control group 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53 

I 

14 

13 

12 

I1 

1 

rTime of Phone - M - SD 

Call 

Intake 10.4 2.8 

Call 1. (48 hours) 11.5 2.6 

- 

Call 2 (3-7 days) 12.6 2.2 

Call 3 (7-14 days) 13.2 2.0 

Call 4 (3 weeks) 13.6 1.8 

Call 5 (5 weeks) 13.7 1.7 

Call 6 (8 weeks) 13.9 1.6 

/ 

IO - - - - - 

3-7 days 3 wks 8 wks Intake 

7-14 days 5 wks 48 hrs 

Intervention Phone Call 

Exhibit J. Adjusted number of safety behaviors performed by time of intervention phone call 

for 75 women. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
. 54 

. 

+ Exhibit K. Total Number of Safety Behaviors Followed and Percentage of Women Responding 

“YES” to Safety Behaviors at Each Intervention Phone Call for the Intervention Group 

Ad SD 

Intake 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 10.4 2.8 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 69.4 18.7 

Call 1 (48 hours) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 11.5 2.6 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 76.9 17.3 

Call 2 (3-7 days) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 12.6 2.2 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 83.9 14.9 

Call 3 (7-14 days) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed - 

Call 4 (3 weeks) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 

13.2 2.0 

88.3 

13.6 

13.4 

1.8 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 90.4 12.1 

Call 5 (5 weeks) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 13.7 1.7 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 91.2 11.5 

Call 6 (8 weeks) 

No. of Behaviors Performed (Adjusted) 13.9 1.6 

% of (Applicable) Behaviors Performed 92.4 10.6 

Significant F(6,444)=91.24, p 5.001 based on results from a repeated measures analysis of 

variance, The number of behaviors performed (or % of applicable behaviors performed) 

significantly (p 5 .Ol) increases after each successive call. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
. 

Exhibit L. Receipt of protection order status for 75 intervention women compared to 75 

control group women. 

Intervention Control Total 

Received Protection Order 42 56.0 39 512.0 81 54.0 

Did Not Receive Protection Order 

Women Dropped 20 26.7 20 2!6.7 40 26.7 

Perpetrator never Served 9 12.0 9 12.0 18 12.0 

N_ % N_ % N YO 

Case dismissed by DA: 4 5.3 7 9.3 11 7.3 

Incomplete (3) (3) 

PO contested &judge dismissed (1) (1) 

Woman no show (3) 

The 42 protective orders, or 56%, received by the intervention group were not significantly 

higher (n2 (1)=0.242, p=.623) than the 39 protective orders, or 52%, received by the control 

group. 

The reasons the women did not receive a protection order were not significantly different (112 

(1)=0.242, p=.623) between the intervention and control groups. 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
56 

Exhibit M. Number of days from application to receipt of protection order (PO). 

Number of Days from Intake Intervention Control 

E - M __ S 1) N - M - SD 

Days to PO Secretary 72 1.5 2.7 70 1.4 2.6 

Days Application Typed 71 4.7 3 .:3 70 5.2 3.5 

Days to PO Prosecutor 71 4.7 3 .:3 70 5.2 3.5 

Days Back from PO Prosecutor 71 4.9 3 .:3 69 5.5 3.5 

Days File Copied 68 7.2 3.1 69 7.6 3.3 

Days Service Papers Received 66 11.9 5.4 68 11.2 3.3 

Days Perpetrator Served 51 16.0 8.5 53 15.0 5.5 

Days Filed in Court 68 7.3 3.1 69 7.7 3.2 

Days Serve Papers to Constable 66 12.2 5.5 68 11.7 3.2 

Days from Intake Woman Received 

PO 41 24.5 9.l 39 24.7 8.5 

F(8,70)=1.735, p=. 106 

\ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.