Civil Protection Orders and Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence

• NCJ Number: 196566
• Journal: JAMA Volume: 288 Issue: 5 Dated: August 7, 2002 Pages: 589-594
• Author(s): Victoria L. Holt Ph.D.; Mary A. Kernic Ph.D.; Thomas Lumley Ph.D.; Marsha E. Wolf Ph.D.; Frederick P. Rivara M.D.
• Date Published: August 2002
• Length: 6 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded August 7, 2002.

Annotation

This study examined any linkages between obtaining a protection order and the risk of subsequent police-report intimate partner violence (IPV).

Abstract

In this retrospective cohort study, subjects were all 2,691 female residents of Seattle, Washington, who had a police-reported episode of IPV inflicted by a male current or former intimate partner between August 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999, and who had not obtained a permanent protection order in the prior 12 months. The primary outcome in these analyses, i.e., subsequent police-reported abuse of a study subject by the same abuser, was ascertained from police-reported incidents of IPV during the 12 months following the initial police-reported incident (the index incident). Using police reports, the study categorized subsequent IPV incidents as those including physical abuse (assault, reckless endangerment, or unlawful imprisonment) and those including psychological abuse (harassment, menacing stalking, threats, disturbance, criminal trespass, custodial interference, interfering with IPV reporting, or property damage). Demographic differences were identified among women who obtained a temporary protection order at any time in the 12 months following the index incident, women who obtained a permanent protection order at some time during the 12 months of follow-up, and women who obtained neither type of order at any time during the follow-up. Overall rates of police-reported physical and psychological abuse in the 12 months of follow-up were 13.5 percent and 12.3 percent, respectively. After controlling for cohabitation at the time of the index incident and index incident offense type, women with temporary protection orders in effect were more likely than women without protection orders to be psychologically abused, and women with permanent protection orders in effect were less likely than those without orders to be physically abused. The study thus concluded that permanent, but not temporary, protection orders were associated with a significant decrease in risk of police-reported violence against women by their male intimate partners. 3 tables and 22 references