Violence Against Women http://vaw.sagepub.

com/

Who Are the Defendants in Domestic Violence Protection Order Cases?

Kathryn E. Moracco, Kathryn Andersen, Rebecca M. Buchanan, Christina Espersen, J. Michael Bowling and Courtney Duffy Violence Against Women 2010 16: 1201 DOI: 10.1177/1077801210387036 The online version of this article can be found at: http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/11/1201

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Violence Against Women can be found at: Email Alerts: http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/11/1201.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 22, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com by Claudine Dombrowski on October 23, 2013

Article

Who Are the Defendants in Domestic Violence Protection Order Cases?

Violence Against Women 1223 16(11) 1201 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1077801210387036 http://vaw.sagepub.com

Kathryn E. Moracco1, Kathryn Andersen3, Rebecca M. Buchanan2, Christina Espersen3, J. Michael Bowling1, and Courtney Duffy1

Abstract Domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) are the nations most widely used intimate partner violence (IPV)related legal intervention, and there is emerging evidence that DVPOs are effective. However, little is known about DVPO defendants. We examined a population-based sample of male DVPO defendants. Most had previous IPV-related offenses, mental health issues, and alcohol and drug-use histories. Court personnel should be aware of the severity of violence plaintiffs are likely experiencing, and the potential danger posed by defendants, and ensure that expedited and appropriate protection is awarded. Concurrent treatment for substance abuse and mental health may enhance the effectiveness of DVPOs. Keywords domestic violence, male defendants, protection orders

Introduction Intimate Partner Violence

It is now well established that physical, sexual, and psychological domestic or intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is both widespread and a serious threat to womens health.
1 2

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Westat, Rockville, MD 3 Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC Corresponding Author: Kathryn E. Moracco, 311 Rosenau Hall, CB 7440, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440 Email: moracco@email.unc.edu

1202

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Intimate partner homicide is the most common form of homicide for women, representing more than one third of the homicides of women every year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004; Campbell et al., 2003; Moracco, Runyan, & Butts, 2003). The National Crime Victimization Survey reported an average annual violent victimization rate by intimate partners of 5.9 per 1,000 women aged 12 and older from 1993 to 2005, and the National Violence Against Women survey conducted in 1995-1996 estimated that 25% of women are physically or sexually assaulted by intimate partners in their lifetimes (Pastore & Maguire, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). More recent (2005) data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) indicate that 24% of women 18 or older had experienced threatened, attempted, or completed physical violence or unwanted sex by a current or former intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008). Sexual assault is particularly concerning since it may affect up to 70% of battered women and has particularly deleterious effects (Pence & Paymar, 1993). IPV has numerous physical and mental health sequelae. Physical and sexual assaults may result in fatal and nonfatal injuries, trauma-specific and generalized pain, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and a variety of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that persist for many years (Coker et al., 2002; Dickinson, deGruy, Dickinson, & Candib, 1999; Drossman, Talley, Leserman, Olden, & Barreiro, 1995; Golding, 1999; Hathaway et al., 2000; Jordan, 2007; Wyshak 2000). Moreover, experiencing IPV is associated with a variety of chronic health conditions, including arthritis, asthma, high blood cholesterol, having a body mass index of greater than 25, and heart disease, as well as higher reported health risk behaviors, such as smoking, binge drinking, and HIV risk behaviors (e.g., IV drug use, receiving money or drugs in exchange for sex; CDC, 2008). IPV also exacts a tremendous societal cost. Batterers have elevated rates of perpetration of child physical and sexual abuse, and children also may be injured during abusers assaults on their mothers, either accidentally or when they attempt to intervene. Furthermore, the deleterious effects of children exposure to IPV, regardless of whether they are physically or sexually abused themselves, include a wide range of psychological, emotional, behavioral, social, and academic problems (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenney, 2003). Using data from the National Violence Against Women Survey, CDC estimated that the direct costs of medical and mental health care services related to IPV exceeds US$4.1 billion annually (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2003). IPV also affects victims economic productivity, contributing to employee absenteeism and turnover. Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema (1996) estimated that adult domestic violence resulted in US$67 billion in annual losses, measured in 1993 dollars. Furthermore, victims and their families who live with the continuous threat posed by IPV become less able to function in society and have many of their basic freedoms as human beings, such as the right to live peacefully, compromised.

Domestic Violence Protective Orders (DVPOs) as Interventions for Secondary Prevention of IPV
In the past 30 years, all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation that mandates civil protection orders specifically for victims of IPV. Although

Moracco et al.

1203

states use a variety of terms, including civil protective orders, no contact orders, restraining orders, and stay away orders, all such orders limit the accused abusers contact with the plaintiff, and most states treat violation of a protective order as a criminal, though most often misdemeanor, offense (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Dugan, 2003). The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), enacted in 1994 as part of the National Crime Control and Law Enforcement Bill, contained specific provisions regarding DVPOs, including, eliminating filing and service fees; restricting defendants access to firearms; stipulating that DVPOs are enforceable across state lines (full faith and credit); establishing penalties for crossing state lines to commit IPV; adding cyberstalking to interstate stalking offenses; and making interstate IPV and stalking a federal crime (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Frattaroli & Vernick, 2006; Violence Against Women Act, 1994). DVPOs are the most widely used IPV-related legal intervention in the United States (Ballou et al., 2007; DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Dugan, 2003; Jordan, 2004; Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006). More than a million DVPOs are issued every year, and data from the Massachusetts BRFSS indicate that among women 18 to 59 who reported experiencing IPV during the preceding 5 years, 39% had police contact, and 34% had obtained a protective order (Hathaway et al., 2000). DVPOs have several unique advantages that may account for their widespread use. The decision to seek a protection order is initiated by the victim, and she is able to request that a variety of provisions be included in the order, giving her more control over the intervention than is the case with criminal prosecution. DVPOs entail fewer legal barriers than criminal prosecution and require a lower evidentiary standard of proof, which is particularly important given that IPV often takes place in the home, away from public scrutiny (Ballou et al., 2007; DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Dugan, 2003; Kanuha & Ross, 2004; Lewis, Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanaugh, 2001; Logan et al., 2006; Logan, Shannon, & Walker, 2005; Malecha et al., 2003; Meloy, Cowett, Parker, Hofland, & Friedland, 1997; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2005; Wan, 2000). Preliminary hearings are usually held immediately, providing victims with timely protection, and the civil procedures involved are less time consuming than those entailed in criminal trials. Unlike criminal charges, a protective order does not jeopardize the defendants joband perhaps, the victims economic security unless he is later arrested for violating it. In addition, the criminal sanctions for violating a DVPO may have a deterrent effect on the defendants behavior (Ballou et al., 2007; Kanuha & Ross, 2004; Lewis et al., 2001; Logan et al., 2006; Malecha et al., 2003; Meloy et al., 1997; Wan, 2000). Finally, protection orders publicly document the risk posed by the defendant to the plaintiff, thereby communicating to the plaintiff, defendant, and community that IPV is not acceptable and will result in public sanctions. There is also emerging evidence that DVPOs are effective interventions for secondary prevention of IPV. Results from a prospective cohort study of 448 women found that those with civil protection orders (CPOs) had a significantly decreased risk of experiencing contact with the abuser, threats with weapons, and injury when compared to those who did not have CPOs. Furthermore, there appeared to be a dose-response effect, with longer duration of the CPO associated with larger decreases in risk (Holt, Kernic, Lumley, Wolf, & Rivara,

1204

Violence Against Women 16(11)

2002; Holt, Kernic, Wolf, & Rivara, 2003). Carlson, Harris, and Holden (1999) also found a significant decrease in the likelihood of physical assault following receipt of a DVPO. Similarly, several earlier studies indicated that the majority (72%-100%) of women receiving protective orders reported either no further violence or a reduction in violence subsequent to receiving the order (Burgess-Proctor, 2003; Carlson et al., 1999; Harrell & Smith, 1996; Harrell, Smith, & Newmark, 1993; McFarlane et al., 2004). At the population level, using individual-level survey data, Dugan (2003) found that families living in states with more aggressive statutes regarding the issuance and enforcement of DVPOs had lower probabilities of experiencing IPV. In keeping with these findings, DVPOs are considered a critical component of a Coordinated Community Response (CCR) to IPV. CCRs are collaborative, community-based partnerships in which local governments and agencies that provide services to prevent and reduce IPV come together to coordinate their efforts, thereby avoiding both gaps in services and unnecessary duplication (Klevens, Baker, Shelley, & Ingram, 2008). The DVPO process may serve as a portal of entry to the CCR for IPV victims, as part of the DVPO application process may entail meeting with a domestic violence court advocate or being presented with information about local IPV resources.

Who Are the Defendants in DVPO Cases?

Despite the popularity, advantages, and potential effectiveness of DVPOs, surprisingly little is known about the defendants in these cases. A review of the literature on DVPO plaintiffs and defendants, supplemented by a review of research on IPV perpetrators charged with criminal domestic violence offenses and/or those attending court-mandated batterer intervention programs (BIPs), suggests several important research questions to better understand the characteristics of DVPO defendants. Characteristics of DVPO Plaintiffs. Women who seek protective orders often do so after being subjected to severe and frequent violence. Researchers in Seattle found that 96% of the women who obtained protection orders had experienced psychological abuse in the past year, 79% had experienced physical violence, and 48% sexual violence (Holt et al., 2003). Similarly, a Kentucky study found that 96% of plaintiffs had experienced physical violence, 76% reported physical injuries resulting from IPV, and about a quarter (24%) had been sexually assaulted by their partners (Logan et al., 2005). In North Carolina, 90% of DVPO plaintiffs had experienced physical IPV in the previous year and 54% had been stalked (Moracco, Clark, Espersen, & Bowling, 2006). In California, 87% of CPO applicants reported being physically and/or sexually assaulted and 45% noted having been injured by the defendant (Sorenson & Shen, 2005). In a recent review of the domestic violence research literature, Klein (2008) notes that IPV victims seek protective orders after failing to stem the abuse through other means (p. 58), including previous attempts to leave the abuser, calling the police, obtaining counseling, and calling a domestic violence hotline.

Moracco et al.

1205

Characteristics of DVPO Defendants and Other IPV Perpetrators

Criminal history. The limited existing research on DVPO defendants suggests that they have high levels of involvement in the criminal justice system, particularly previous IPVrelated criminal charges (Harrell & Smith, 1996; Keilitz, Hannaford, & Efkeman, 1996; Klein, 1996; Logan et al., 2005; Sorenson, 2006; Sorenson & Shen, 2005). For example, a case review of 500 CPOs in a Washington, DC domestic violence court found that 53% of defendants had previous nondomestic violence criminal charges (Steketee, Levey, & Keilitz, 2000); and a review of DVPO applications in California indicated that 32% of the defendants had previously been arrested on domestic violence-related charges for violence committed against the defendant (Vittes & Sorenson, 2006). In some cases, it was an IPVrelated arrest that prompted the plaintiff to file for a DVPO as an adjunct measure to insure her safety, often as a result of police encouragement (Klein, 2008). Similarly, research on criminal IPV defendants suggests that they are disproportionately likely to have a history of criminal activity. For example, an analysis of data from five sites included in the Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) revealed that between 17% and 59% of the domestic violence criminal offenders included in the study had at least one prior arrest, the majority of which were for nonviolent offenses (Piquero, Brame, Fagan, & Moffitt, 2006). Likewise, a review of the criminal history and prior arrest records for men arrested for domestic violence-related charges reported that between 49% to 89% had prior arrest records, with most having multiple arrests (Klein, 2008). Previous criminal activity has been associated with IPV reassault and recidivism among criminal IPV defendants (Bouffard & Muftic, 2007; Bowen, Gilchrist, & Beech, 2005), and this relationship holds for prior arrest for any type of crime, not just IPV-related arrests (Klein, 2008). Similarly, in a longitudinal study of time-varying and time-invariant risk factors for reassault among 840 male participants who were court-mandated into BIPs located in four geographically dispersed locations, Jones and Gondolf (2001) found that a history of arrest was a significant risk factor for reassault. Previous research also suggests a linear relationship between the length of an abusers prior record and the likelihood that he will reabuse his intimate partner (Bouffard & Muftic, 2007; Bowen et al., 2005; Klein, 2008). Substance abuse history. There is also a high prevalence of alcohol and other substance abuse among defendants in IPV criminal cases, and assailants were likely to have used alcohol or drugs prior to the assault that resulted in arrest (Bouffard & Muftic, 2007; Klein, 2008). Some previous research indicates that defendants who abuse substances are more likely to reoffend than those who do not, and that prior arrests for alcohol or drug-related offenses increase the likelihood of reabuse (Klein, 2008). Similarly, the Jones and Gondolf (2001) study of court-mandated BIP participants (described above) found that any drunkenness and high frequency of drunkenness (more than 2-3 times per month) were significant risk factors for reassault. Other factors associated with reoffense. Among criminal IPV defendants, other factors that have been associated with an increased risk of reoffense are age, with younger men more likely to reoffend; unemployed status; living in a household with firearms; and the defendant not being the father of the children in the household (Buzawa, Hotaling, & Klein, 1998;

1206

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Campbell et al., 2003; Klein, 2008). Among participants in BIPs, other factors associated with increased risk of reoffending include, young age, unemployment, violence in the defendants family of origin, evidence of severe psychopathology at intake, low stake in conformity, and generalized aggression (Bowen et al., 2005; Jones & Gondolf, 2001). The substantial overlap in the factors associated with reabuse among criminal IPV defendants and BIP participants is not surprising, as the majority of BIP participants are mandated into such programs following their arrest for an IPV-related offense.

Purpose of the Study

Experts have posited that IPV perpetrators comprise a heterogeneous group in terms of perpetration etiology, concurrent psychopathologies, potential for recidivism, and amenability to intervention (Stuart, Temple, & Moore, 2007). Most of the research on IPV perpetrators, however, has focused on those charged with criminal domestic violence offenses and/or those attending court-mandated BIPs, rather than perpetrators who are defendants in DVPO cases. Given the popularity and potential effectiveness of DVPOs, as well as their critical role in CCRs, this lack of information about DVPO defendants is detrimental to efforts to prevent and respond to IPV. Specifically, it hinders our ability to provide accurate guidance to those who issue, serve, and enforce DVPOs. In this article, we address this gap in knowledge by exploring the sociodemographic, relationship, mental health, and substance abuse history characteristics, as well as the domestic violence criminal histories, of a population-based sample of male defendants in DVPO cases. Specifically, we asked the following questions: 1. What are the sociodemographic, relationship, mental health, and substance abuse history characteristics of DVPO defendants? and 2. What proportion of male DVPO defendants has a history of IPV-related criminal charges?

Method Population
The studys target population was all adult women (age 18 and older) seeking protection from a male intimate partner by filing for a DVPO in Durham County, NC, from February 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Durham is an urban county located in north-central North Carolina with a population of 242,582 in 2004, of whom 38% were African American, and 56% were White. In addition, 10% of the population was described as being of Hispanic or Latino descent in the 2004 Census Bureau estimate, and 14% spoke a language other than English at home. The median household income was US$43,095 in 2004, and 14% of households were living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.).

Moracco et al.

1207

Data Sources and Collection

For this study, we analyzed data from several secondary sources that were previously compiled as part of another study that assessed the implementation and effectiveness of North Carolina legislation restricting access to firearms by DVPO defendants (Moracco et al., 2006). Data sources included, the DVPO case files in Durham county (n = 731); criminal record background checks for all the defendants named by the plaintiffs in those cases (n = 731); and, for a subset of cases (n = 129), data from an earlier study known as the court-ordered protection evaluation (COPE), which examined the process and effectiveness of DVPOs in two North Carolina counties. We received approval from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) Institutional Review Board to conduct secondary analyses on all of the archival data described above. The COPE study was originally reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and PIRE. DVPO Case Files. Figure 1 illustrates the two-stage North Carolina DVPO process. A person may file for a DVPO without an attorney (pro se) by requesting the necessary forms from the clerk of court at the district courthouse. If the plaintiff or her children are clearly in danger of harm or threat of harm, an emergency order will be granted by a district court judge or authorized magistrate, without the presence of the defendant (ex parte). A full hearing before the authorized court, generally the District Court or a specialized domestic violence court, is then scheduled for 10 to 14 days from the date of issuance of the ex parte order, or 7 days from the date when the defendant is served with the summons, whichever comes later. These proceedings, usually called the 10-day or DVPO hearing, are attended by the plaintiff and the defendant (as well as their attorneys, if any), and the presiding judge who decides whether to grant a permanent DVPO; dismiss the DVPO (either voluntarily or involuntarily); or deny the DVPO. Permanent DVPOs are granted for specified time periods, not to exceed 1 year. Defendants in DVPO cases are subject to arrest and criminal prosecution if they violate the conditions of the order. Violating a DVPO is a Class A1 misdemeanor criminal offense in North Carolina and requires mandatory arrest under state law. The DVPO case files, which are housed in the district courthouse, contain a variety of forms, including the initial ex parte order filing forms; the ex parte order itself; the civil summons; and the DVPO filing form, which includes the disposition of the 10-day hearing and the conditions included in the permanent DVPO, if it was granted. The initial ex parte order filing forms are available in English and Spanish, although they must be completed in English. To extract data from the DVPO case files, each case was assigned a unique identifier, which corresponded to the civil district (CVD) case number. Using a coding scheme we developed for variables of interest, we reviewed all the cases and extracted relevant information including, demographic information about the plaintiff and defendant; the current relationship status between plaintiff and defendant; number of children under 18 in common; details about the incident prompting the DVPO motion; DVPO conditions requested by the plaintiff; ex parte conditions granted; details of the DVPO hearing (e.g., date, presence of

1208

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Plaintiff files for DVPO in district courthouse 24 hours (max.) 10-14 day period

Ex parte order granted

Ex parte order denied Hearing Postponed Defendant not served with order

Defendant served with order

Defendant not served with order Defendant served with order

Permanent DVPO Hearing in District Court

DVPO granted

DVPO voluntarily dismissed

DVPO involuntarily dismissed

DVPO denied

Permanent DVPOs are usually in effect for 12 months, and the issuing judicial official must specify conditions of the DVPO (e.g., firearms restrictions) at the DVPO hearing.

Figure 1. DVPO Process in North Carolina

attorneys); disposition of the DVPO hearing; and conditions of the DVPO, if granted. Coded data were entered into a data entry template we developed in Epi Info. We also photocopied and stored the entire case file, to have access to raw data for verification or recoding.

COPE Study Data. Our second data source included information pertaining to a subset of cases (n = 129) in which the plaintiffs were interviewed within 3 days of filing their ex parte orders as part of the COPE study. We created a COPE dataset that contained variables of interest to our study, and then matched the COPE participant data to abstracted DVPO file data by CVD number.

Although the COPE data were not available for our entire sample, when we compared the demographic characteristics of the subgroup of Durham plaintiffs who participated in the COPE study to Durham plaintiffs who did not participate in the COPE study, we found that they were not significantly different from the overall study population, except that the COPE plaintiffs and defendants were slightly more likely to be African American (70% of Durham COPE vs. 66% of Durham Non-COPE for plaintiffs, 2 = 7.66, p = .022, and 78% of Durham COPE versus 68% of Durham Non-COPE for defendants, 2 = 8.71, p = .013 [data not shown]).

Moracco et al.

1209

Criminal Record Background Checks. For our third data source, we contracted with
an employment screening agency to conduct statewide (North Carolina) criminal record background checks on all defendants named in ex parte notice to parties forms filed by the women in our study population. As arrests are made or warrants are sworn out in a given county, the clerk of court starts a case file, which includes a unique identifier, the CVD, and an electronic entry about the case. The electronic record for each case contains information such as the original charge, the final charge, the trial date, and the disposition of the case, and provides a snapshot of what is contained in the actual case file housed at the courthouse. There are electronic records for criminal misdemeanors dating back 7 years and felonies dating back indefinitely. The criminal record background checks yielded a report for each defendant covering the time period from the earliest available electronic records (mid-1980s) through June 30, 2005 (i.e., 1 year from the most recent study DVPO filing). Using the CVD number as a unique identifier, we abstracted pertinent information from each report, including applicable IPV charges (e.g., assault on female, communicating threats, violation of DVPO, stalking, other domestic violence-related charges), and the associated offense dates. For those defendants without criminal charges on file, no was indicated under the records found heading in our study database. In situations where a criminal record existed, but could not be verified as an exact match to the defendant (e.g., because of missing birth date), we noted the record as a probable match. These data were matched to the combined DVPO and COPE data sets by CVD number to create a single study database containing information from all three sources.

Operational Definitions of Study Variables Sociodemographics. We obtained information about the plaintiffs and defendants ages
(collapsed into 10-year age groups) and race (within the categories listed on the DVPO forms, i.e., Black/African American, White, American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Other) from information in the DVPO case files. Although there was no place on the forms to indicate plaintiff or defendant ethnicity (i.e., Latino vs. non-Latino), we coded whether the Spanish version of the Complaint and Motion form was completed. Relationship Information. The DVPO files also contained information about the current relationship between the plaintiff and defendant (checkboxes for married, divorced, cohabitating, current or former dating relationship), and the number of children the plaintiff and defendant had in common, which we categorized into 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more. Mental Health History. The defendants mental health history was measured in a COPE interview item that asked the plaintiff whether the defendant had ever been told by a health care provider or social worker that he has a mental health or emotional condition, followed by an openended question about the type of mental health condition. We also included questions about whether the defendant had received treatment (yes/no/dont know) or had been prescribed medication for the condition (yes/no/dont know). Substance Abuse History. The defendants substance abuse history was also measured in the COPE interview. With respect to the defendants alcohol use, we asked whether the defendant had consumed alcohol in the previous 6 months; the number of days in the previous month the defendant had one or more alcoholic drinks; the number of drinks the

1210

Violence Against Women 16(11)

defendant had on days he drank; and how often the defendant got drunk on days that he drank. We also included an item asking whether the defendant had received treatment for alcohol abuse in the past 12 months. To assess the defendants drug use, we included items that asked whether or not the defendant had used illegal or prescription drugs (not for prescribed purposes) in the past 6 months, and how many times in the past month he had used marijuana or hash; crack or powdered cocaine; other illegal drugs; and prescription drugs not prescribed to the defendant or prescribed for a different purpose. As with alcohol, we asked whether the defendant had received treatment for drug abuse in the previous 12 months. Criminal History. For each defendants criminal history, we created a dichotomous (yes/ no) variable that indicated whether the criminal background check noted that the defendant had a recorded history of criminal charges. For those who had a criminal history, we recorded whether their record included charges for IPV-related offenses (yes/no), and the nature of each IPV-related charge (assault on a female, violation of a DVPO, stalking, other). We also abstracted information from the DVPO case files to determine the disposition of the DVPO, in other words, the outcome of the permanent DVPO hearing. We grouped the outcomes into five categories that correspond to the issue order codes used by the clerks of court when they report information about DVPOs to the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC): granted, denied, involuntarily dismissed, voluntarily dismissed, and other/not enough information. Permanent DVPOs were considered granted if an order (form AOC-CV-306) in the case file indicated that the case had been heard in District Court, and that the judicial official (usually a District Court judge) had checked the box indicating that this domestic violence protective order is necessary to bring about a cessation of acts of domestic violence. DVPOs were considered denied if an order (form AOC-CV-306) in the case file indicated that the case had been heard in District Court, and that the judicial official had checked the box indicating that the plaintiff has failed to prove grounds for a domestic violence protective order. We considered a DVPO to be involuntarily dismissed if an order (form AOC-CV-306) in the case file indicated that the case had been heard in District Court, the plaintiff was not present, or the judicial official checked the box noting that this action is dismissed and as of this date any ex parte order issued in this case is null and void. In the majority of these cases there was also a notation somewhere in the file that the action was dismissed because the plaintiff was not present in court. Cases that we categorized as voluntarily dismissed contained some notation in the file that the DVPO was dismissed at the request of the plaintiff, or the judicial official checked the box noting that this action is dismissed and as of this date any ex parte order issued in this case is null and void. We were conservative in our coding, and did not classify a case as voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed unless there was clear evidence in the file as to the nature of the dismissal. We created several time-related variables to delineate behavior and events that occurred prior and subsequent to plaintiff filing for a DVPO. We used the date noted on the Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order (AOC-CV-303, Rev. 11/02, 12/03) to create these variables. Prior to DVPO filing included any date prior to the DVPO filing date up until 1 week before filing. Concurrent with the Ex parte Order included the 6 days

Moracco et al.

1211

prior to filing for the DVPO and the day the ex parte order was issued. Our reasoning for coding this as concurrent was that events that occurred within a week of the woman filing for a DVPO, particularly those that resulted in criminal domestic violence charges, were likely violent incidents that precipitated the womans decision to seek a protective order. Subsequent to the ex parte order referred to any time after the date that the ex parte order went into effect. For the COPE participants, we also assessed number of previous DVPO filings (0, 1, >1); number of IPV-related police calls (0, 1, >1); number of times defendant had been arrested for IPV offenses (0, 1, >1); and number of times the defendant had been arrested for non-IPV offenses in the year before the plaintiff filed for the study DVPO.

Data Analysis
Once the data from the three data sources were checked for valid responses and adherence to skip patterns, all data sets were converted into SAS data sets and matched by their unique CVD numbers. Some additional data coding was also performed at this point. For example, we collapsed categories for several variables. Data were described using frequencies and associated percentages for categorical variables, and medians and associated interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Frequencies are reported as proportions of nonmissing values, with the number of missing values reported for each variable in the tables. We tested bivariate differences between the subgroup of COPE participants and the overall study population by computing bivariate chi-square tests for dichotomous variables and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel nonzero correlation chi-square statistics when one of the categorical variables had more than two nonordered groups (Rothman & Greenland, 1998). In several instances, the sample sizes were too small to allow for a typical chi-square statistic, so the Fishers Exact Test was computed. Differences between the COPE participants and the overall study population were considered statistically significant at the = .05 level.

Results
There were 731 DVPO case files housed in the Durham County Courthouse that met study inclusion criteria. Permanent DVPOs were granted in half of these cases, with the other half divided among cases that were involuntarily dismissed (31%), denied (11%), and voluntarily dismissed (7%; Table 1).

Defendant Sociodemographic and Relationship Characteristics

Demographic characteristics for all 731 Durham County DVPO plaintiffs and defendants are described in Table 2. Plaintiffs were slightly younger than the defendants, with a median age of 31.8 years (IQR = 13.87) compared to 34.5 years (IQR = 13.85) for the defendants. Six percent of the plaintiffs completed the Spanish version of the Complaint and Motion for a Domestic Violence Protective Order form.

1212

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Table 1. DVPO Dispositions, Durham, North Carolina (n = 731) DVPO Disposition Granted Involuntarily dismisseda Denied Voluntarily dismissedb Not enough information n (%) 366 (50) 223 (31) 82 (11) 52 (7) 8 (1) 95% CI 46-54 27-34 9-14 5-9 0-2

Note: DVPO = domestic violence protective orders, CI = confidence interval. a. DVPO was dismissed, but not at the request of plaintiff (usually because plaintiff was not present at hearing). b. DVPO dismissed at request of the plaintiff.

The majority (59%) of the plaintiffs and defendants were not married to each other at the time of the filing, and nearly half (48%) of the participants had at least one child under the age of 18 in common. More than three quarters (82%) of the COPE plaintiffs had previously attempted to end their relationship with the defendant at least once. Of those who had attempted to end the relationship, most (75 of 82; 91%) had made multiple attempts.

Defendant Mental Health and Substance Use

Among DVPO plaintiffs participating in the COPE study (n = 129), 40% reported that their partners had been told that they had a mental health condition (Table 3). Of these, nearly half (18 of 43; 42%) had received some form of treatment, and 35% (15 of 43) had been prescribed medication for the condition. In terms of alcohol use, 80% of COPE participants reported that their partners had consumed alcohol on at least one day during the previous month, and almost half (48%) noted that their partner drank 4 to 5 days per week or every day during that month. Moreover, 59% of COPE respondents said that their partners often or always got drunk when they drank alcohol (Table 3). Despite the high reported prevalence of heavy alcohol use, only 11% of respondents noted that their partners had received treatment for alcohol abuse in the previous 12 months. Regarding their partners use of illegal and prescription drugs, 61% of the COPE participants reported that their partners had used drugs in the previous 6 months. Marijuana (48%) was the most commonly used drug, followed by powdered or crack cocaine (31%), and diverted prescription drugs (15%). Similar to the finding regarding alcohol treatment, only 10% of COPE participants reported that their partners had received treatment for drug abuse in the previous year.

Defendants Criminal Histories

The results of the criminal background checks revealed half of all the defendants had IPVrelated criminal charges on record prior to the plaintiff filing for a DVPO (Table 4), although

Moracco et al.
Table 2. Sociodemographic and Relationship Characteristics of DVPO Plaintiffs and Defendants, Durham County, North Carolina (n = 731) Plaintiff Characteristic n (%) 95% CI n (%) Defendant

1213

95% CI

Age <18 0 (NA) 0-1 2 (<1) 0-1 18-24 167 (23) 20-26 109 (16) 14-19 25-34 283 (39) 35-42 233 (34) 32-39 35-44 192 (26) 23-30 222 (33) 30-37 45-54 69 (9) 8-12 82 (13) 10-15 55-64 19 (3) 2-4 13 (2) 1-3 65+ 1 (<1) 0-1 4 (1) 0-2 Missing 0 66 Median age 31.8 30.5-32.7 34.5 33.8-35.5 Race White 180 (25) 22-28 156 (21) 19-25 Black 476 (66) 63-70 508 (70) 66-73 Other 62 (9) 7-11 63 (9) 7-11 Missing 13 4 Spanish form Yes 45 (6) 5-8 No 686 (94) 92-95 Missing 0 Relationship between plaintiff and defendant Married 278 (41) 38-45 Divorced 31 (5) 3-6 Dating, not 151 (22) 19-26 cohabitating Dating and 213 (32) 28-35 cohabitating Missing 58 Number of children <18 in common 0 379 (52) 49-56 1 213 (30) 26-33 2 87 (12) 10-15 3+ 43 (6) 4-8 Missing 9 Number of times plaintiff attempted to end relationship (COPE participants only, n = 129) 0 18 (18) 12-27 1 7 (7) 3-14 2 14 (14) 8-22 3+ 61 (61) 51-70 Missing 29
Note: DVPO = domestic violence protective orders, CI = confidence interval, COPE = court-ordered protection evaluation.

1214

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Table 3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues Among Male DVPO Defendants in COPE Study (n = 129) n (%) 95% CI

Mental health Defendant told he had a mental health condition Yes 43 (40) 33-51 No 60 (58) 49-67 Missing 26 Defendant received treatment for this mental health condition in past 12 months Yes 18 (18) 12-27 No 81 (81) 73-88 Missing 30 Defendant prescribed medication for this mental health condition in past 12 months Yes 15 (16) 10-25 No 80 (84) 77-91 Missing 34 Alcohol and Substance Use Number of days per month defendant drank alcohol in past month None 20 (20) 13-27 1/Month 4 (4) 1-10 2-3/Month 6 (6) 3-13 1/Week 5 (5) 2-11 2-3/Week 18 (18) 12-27 4-5/Week 12 (12) 7-20 Every day 36 (36) 27-45 Dont know/ 28 refused How often defendant gets drunk when he drinks alcohol (Among defendants who drank in past month, n = 84) Always 32 (40) 30-50 Often 15 (19) 11-29 Sometimes 21 (26) 18-37 Never 13 (16) 10-26 Dont know/ 3 refused Defendant received treatment for alcohol abuse/alcoholism in past 12 months Yes 10 (11) 5-17 No 95 (89) 87-97 Missing 24 Defendant used any type of illegal drug or any kind of prescription drug that was not prescribed for him in past 6 months Yes 61 (61) 52-71 No 38 (38) 29-48 Missing 30 (continued)

Moracco et al.
Table 3. (continued) n (%)

1215

95% CI

Type of illegal/prescription drug used by defendant (Among all defendants; items are not mutually exclusive) Marijuana/hash Yes 46 (48) 40-59 No 49 (52) 43-62 Missing 4 Cocaine/crack 29 (31) 22-41 Yes No 65 (69) 59-78 Missing 5 Any other illegal drug Yes 8 (9) 5-17 No 80 (91) 83-95 Missing 11 Diverted prescription drug Yes 13 (15) 9-24 No 75 (85) 76-91 Missing 11 Defendant received treatment for drug use/abuse in past 12 months Yes 10 (10) 6-18 No 88 (90) 82-94 Missing 31
Note: COPE = court-ordered protection evaluation, DVPO = domestic violence protective orders, CI = confidence interval.

we could not ascertain whether these offenses were committed against the plaintiffs for the DVPOs included in the study or against a different partner. In addition, 12% of all defendants had been charged with criminal IPV charges that were concurrent with the ex parte order, which suggests that those criminal charges were related to the same incident that prompted the plaintiff to file for a DVPO. Finally, a quarter of DVPO defendants were charged with additional IPV-related criminal charges within 1 year of the plaintiff filing for the DVPO, and approximately half of these cases included arrests for DVPO violations, although again we could not ascertain whether these charges were related to incidents involving the DVPO plaintiff or another partner. The subset of COPE participants provided information regarding the defendants involvement with the criminal justice system during the 12 months prior to filing for the DVPO, excluding any incidents that were related to the DVPO filing (Table 5). More than three quarters (81%) of the respondents reported that there had been at least one IPV-related police call during the 12 months prior to the DVPO filing. In 66% of the cases where there

1216

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Table 4. History of Criminal Charges Among Defendants in Ex Parte DVPOs (n = 731) Prior to Filing for DVPOa n (%) 363 (50) 330 (45) 120 (16) 2 (0) 42 (6) 95% CI 46-53 42-49 14-19 0-1 4-8 Concurrent With Filing for DVPOb n (%) 86 (12) 78 (11) 1 (0) 2 (0) 5 (1) 95% CI 10-14 9-13 0-1 0-1 0-2 Subsequent to Ex Parte Orderc n (%) 185 (25) 121 (17) 89 (12) 6 (1) 27 (4) 95% CI 22-29 14-19 10-15 0-2 3-5

Type of Criminal Charges Noted Any domestic violence chargesd Assault on female DVPO violation Stalking Other

Note: DVPO = domestic violence protective orders, CI = confidence interval. a. Charge occurred any time within 7 days prior to DVPO filing. b. Six days preceding DVPO filing and day of DVPO filing. c. Any time subsequent to and within a year of DVPO filing. d. Domestic violence charges are not mutually exclusive.

were police calls, there were two or more calls during the previous year. In addition, 45% of the defendants had been arrested on IPV-related charges during the previous year; and 43% of those arrested were arrested two or more times. DVPO defendants also had considerable involvement in the criminal justice system for non-IPV related matters; 25% of them had been arrested in the previous year for offenses not related to IPV. In terms of previous DVPOs, nearly a third (30%) of the COPE plaintiffs indicated that they had filed for DVPOs against the COPE defendants during the previous year, not including the index DVPO. Of those who had previously filed, 22% had filed two or more DVPOs.

Discussion
The goals of this study were to describe the characteristics of defendants in DVPO cases, particularly their histories of mental health issues, substance use, and previous involvement with the criminal justice system. We discuss the implications of our findings, and the studys limitations below.

Comorbid Conditions: Implications for Defendant Treatment

Our findings are consistent with previous research on men involved in criminal IPV cases and those participating in court-mandated BIPs that found a high prevalence of mental health issues and extensive alcohol and drug use among batterers. The convergence of these results suggests that a substantial proportion of defendants in criminal and civil IPV cases has concurrent substance abuse and/or mental health problems, and that concurrent treatment of these comorbid conditions might enhance the effectiveness of both DVPOs and BIPs.

Moracco et al.

1217

Table 5. DVPO Defendants Involvement With Criminal Justice System, Previous 12 Months, COPE Participants (n = 129) Type of Criminal Justice System Involvement IPV-related police calls 0 1 2+ Missing IPV-related arrests 0 1 2+ Missing Non IPV-related arrests 0 1 2+ Missing Previous DVPOs 0 1 2+ Missing n (%) 22 (20) 31 (28) 59 (53) 17 61 (55) 28 (25) 21 (19) 19 58 (75) 19 (25) 0 (0) 52 74 (70) 25 (24) 7 (7) 23 95% CI 13-28 20-37 43-62 46-64 18-34 13-28 65-84 16-35 0-6 60-78 17-33 3-13

Note: IPV = intimate partner violence, DVPO = domestic violence protective orders, COPE = courtordered protection evaluation, CI = confidence interval.

Defendants Prior Criminal Justice Involvement: Implications for Ensuring Plaintiff Safety
Also consistent with previous research is our finding that most of the DVPO defendants had extensive previous involvement with the criminal justice system for IPV-related offenses, indicating that when mens violence toward their female partners comes to the attention of the court system via DVPO filing, it is likely to reflect chronic behavior, not an isolated or initial assault. Indeed, although not reported in this study, the female participants in the COPE study recounted being subjected to severe and repeated violence at the hands of the defendants; 87% had been physically assaulted and 92% had been threatened in the previous year. These statistics, coupled with the tendency toward substance abuse and/or mental health problems, calls to mind the similarities between these defendants and criminal defendants. However, unlike in criminal cases, where the state is considered the moving party, plaintiffs in DVPO cases often have no legal representation, and the defendants often do. It is therefore important that court personnel are aware of the high level of serious violence DVPO plaintiffs

1218

Violence Against Women 16(11)

are likely to be experiencing, and the potential danger posed by the defendant, to ensure that expedited and appropriate civil protection is awarded. This awareness is especially important given the fields current lack of precision in predicting recidivism and our limited ability to assess abusers lethality. Although there is consensus that we should not rely on defendants self-reported behavior, there is debate in the field regarding the best method for predicting dangerousness in IPV cases, with some arguing for clinical judgment, others preferring survivors assessments of their own situations, and still others advocating for statistical or actuarial methods in the form of checklists comprised of behaviors retrospectively shown to be associated with lethality (Weisz, Tolman, & Saunders, 2000). In addition, some researchers and advocates have voiced concerns about limiting assessments of dangerousness and risk of recidivism to single sources of information (Ballou et al., 2007; Campbell et al., 2003), advocating instead for taking into consideration a constellation of factors, such as survivors accounts; previous IPV incidents; severity of the violence or threats of violence; presence of red flags such as threats of suicide, generalized aggression, stalking, and weapon use. Until more is known about these critical issues, the high levels of violence experienced by the women filing for DVPOs in our study may argue for erring on the side of safety when deciding whether or not to grant DVPOs. Our findings also underscore the importance of granting DVPOs that include conditions that will ensure the safety of plaintiffs and their families, and ensuring the enforcement of these provisions. In a recent systematic review of domestic violence research and its implications for the court system, Klein (2008) concluded, Notwithstanding the court arena, civil or criminal, the abuse reported is typically as serious in one as the other. The major differences are the responses the courts can offer (Klein, 2008, p.12). Although the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant may appear to have ended, they often reconcile, remain connected, and/or come into contact for a variety of reasons, including having children in common, shared property, geographic proximity, and common family, work, or community ties. DVPO provisions such as temporary custody and child support payments; restrictions on the defendants presence at certain locations, such as work, school, or child care centers; and guidelines regarding disposition of property may serve to increase the effectiveness of DVPOs in some cases. It is worth noting that in nearly half of the cases (49%), the plaintiff was not granted a DVPO (i.e., cases that were involuntarily dismissed or denied), despite her apparent desire to obtain such protection. This finding is concerning, given the high level of violence reported by the plaintiffs and the extensive history of previous criminal IPV offenses among the defendants. DVPO cases are frequently involuntarily dismissed, most commonly because the plaintiff does not appear in court for the 10-day hearing. Further research is needed to discern the reasons why plaintiffs do not return for these hearings to identify potential areas for interventions that may reduce DVPO dismissals that are truly involuntary. The relatively high proportion of DVPOs that are denied may be attributable to judges underestimating defendants potential dangerousness and indicates a potential need for consistent judicial education and training about IPV so that thorough and consistent inquiry and decision making in DVPO cases are the norm. Another mechanism for increasing judicial inquiry is making revisions to ex parte and DVPO forms that will prompt judges to ask about defendants

Moracco et al.

1219

previous IPV, access to firearms, suicide threats, and other risk factors and, based on this information, to incorporate appropriate restrictions and other provision as part of the DVPO.

Study Limitations
As is always the case, our findings should be viewed within the context of the studys limitations. First, we analyzed data from several different secondary sources, thus we had no control over the quantity and quality of some of the available data, nor were all of the available items ideal for assessing the variables of interest to our study. For instance, in the DVPO case files there was minimal information about defendants. Ideally we would have primary data about the defendants IPV perpetration histories, as well as information about their mental health conditions, substance use, and other variables of interest. Another limitation was that our study involved DVPO cases in a single county in one state, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Despite these limitations, as discussed above, our findings have several important implications for policy, practice, and research pertaining to the secondary prevention of IPV.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the women who participated in the COPE study as well as to the tenacious COPE interviewers.

Authors Note
Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. Drs. Moracco and Clark and Ms. Espersen were with the PIRE when this research was conducted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or the publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following support for their research and/or authorship of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. CH2004-IJ-CX-00025 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

References
Ballou, M., Tabol, C., Liriano, D., Vazquez-Nuttall, K., Butler, C., Boorstein, B. W., et al. (2007). Initial development of a psychological model for judicial decision making in continuing restraining orders. Family Court Review, 45, 274-286. Bouffard, J. A., & Muftic, L. R. (2007). An examination of the outcomes of various components of a coordinated community response to domestic violence by male offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 353-366.

1220

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Bowen, E., Gilchrist, E. A., & Beech, A. R. (2005). An examination of the impact of communitybased rehabilitation on the offending behaviour of male domestic violence offenders and the characteristics associated with recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 189-209. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Homicide trends in the U.S.: Intimate homicide. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm Burgess-Proctor, A. (2003). Evaluating the efficacy of protection orders for victims of domestic violence. Women and Criminal Justice, 15, 33-54. Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., & Klein, A. (1998). The response to domestic violence in a model court: Some initial findings and implications. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16, 185-206. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multi-site case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097. Carlson, M. J., Harris, S. D., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Protective orders and domestic violence: Risk factors for re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 205-226. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violenceUnited States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57, 113-117. Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., et al. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268. DeJong, C., & Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). A summary of personal protection order statutes in the United States. Violence Against Women, 12, 68-88. Dickinson, L. M., deGruy, F. V., III, Dickinson, W. P., & Candib, L. M. (1999). Health-related quality of life and symptom profiles of female survivors of sexual abuse. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 35-43. Drossman, D. A., Talley, N. J., Leserman, J., Olden, K. W., & Barreiro, M. A. (1995). Sexual and physical abuse and gastrointestinal illness: Review and recommendations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123, 782-794. Dugan, L. (2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 283-311. Frattaroli, S., & Vernick, J. S. (2006). Separating batterers and guns: A review and analysis of gun removal laws in 50 states. Evaluation Review, 30, 296-312. Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132. Harrell, A., & Smith, B. E. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In E. S. Buzawa, & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 214-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harrell, A. V., Smith, B., & Newmark, L. C. (1993). Court processing and the effects of restraining orders for domestic violence victims. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Hathaway, J. E., Mucci, L. A., Silverman, J. G., Brooks, D. R., Mathews, R., & Pavlos, C. A. (2000). Health status and health care use of Massachusetts women reporting partner abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 302-307.

Moracco et al.

1221

Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., Lumley, T., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2002). Civil protection orders and risk of subsequent police-reported violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 589-594. Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2003). Do protection orders affect the likelihood of future partner violence and injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24, 16-21. Jones, A. S., & Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Time-varying risk factors for reassault among batterer program participants. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 345-359. Jordan, C. E. (2004). Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examination of the interface. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1412-1434. Jordan, C. E. (2007). The health implications of violence against women: Untangling the complexities of acute and chronic effects: A two-part special issue. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(2), 87-89. Kanuha, V. K., & Ross, M. L. (2004). The use of temporary restraining orders (TROs) as a strategy to address intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 19, 343-356. Keilitz, S. L., Hannaford, P. L., & Efkeman, H. S. (1996). The effectiveness of civil protection orders in deterring domestic violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339-352. Klein, A. R. (1996). Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why restraining orders dont work. In E. S. Buzawa, & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 192-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Klein, A. R. (2008). Practical implications of current domestic violence research: Part III: Judges. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Klevens, J., Baker, C. K., Shelley, G. A., & Ingram, E. M. (2008). Exploring the links between components of coordinated community responses and their impact on contact with intimate partner violence services. Violence Against Women, 14, 346-358. Lewis, R., Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2001). Laws progressive potential: The value of engagement with the law for domestic violence. Social & Legal Studies, 10, 105-130. Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2005). Protective orders in rural and urban areas: A multiple perspective study. Violence Against Women, 11, 876-911. Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. M. (2006). Protective orders: Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 175-205. Malecha, A., McFarlane, J., Gist, J., Watson, K., Batten, E., Hall, I., et al. (2003). Applying for and dropping a protection order: A study with 150 women. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 486-504. McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Gist, J., Watson, K., Batten, E., Hall, I., et al. (2004). Protection orders and intimate partner violence: An 18-month study of 150 black, Hispanic, and white women. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 613-618.

1222

Violence Against Women 16(11)

Meloy, J. R., Cowett, P. Y., Parker, S. B., Hofland, B., & Friedland, A. (1997). Domestic protection orders and the prediction of subsequent criminality and violence toward protectees. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34, 447-458. Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Moracco, K. E., Clark, K. A., Espersen, C., & Bowling, J. M. (2006). Preventing firearms violence among victims of intimate partner violence: An evaluation of a new North Carolina law. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Moracco, K. E., Runyan, C. W., & Butts, J. D. (2003). Female intimate partner homicide: A population-based study. Journal of the American Medical Womens Association, 58, 20-25. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005). A guide for effective issuance and enforcement of protection orders. Reno, NV: Author. Pastore, A. L., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus.pdf Pence, E., & Paymer, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer. Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Fagan, J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Assessing the offending activity of criminal domestic violence suspects: Offense specialization, escalation, and de-escalation evidence from the spouse assault replication program. Public Health Reports, 121, 409-418. Rothman, K. J., & Greenland, S. (Eds.). (1998). Modern epidemiology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven. Sorenson, S. B. (2006). Taking guns from batterers: Public support and policy implications. Evaluation Review, 30, 361-373. Sorenson, S. B., & Shen, H. (2005). Restraining orders in California: A look at statewide data. Violence Against Women, 11, 912-933. Steketee, M. W., Levey, L. S., & Keilitz, S. L. (2000). Implementing an integrated domestic violence court: Systemic change in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: National Center for State Courts. Stuart, G. L., Temple, J. R., & Moore, T. M. (2007). Improving batterer intervention programs through theory-based research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 560-562. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Durham county quick facts. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37063.html Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 40001-40703 of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.S. (1994). Vittes, K. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2006). Are temporary restraining orders more likely to be issued when applications mention firearms? Evaluation Review, 30, 266-282.

Moracco et al.

1223

Wan, A. M. (2000). Battered women in the restraining order process: Observations on a court advocacy program. Violence Against Women, 6, 606-632. Weisz, A. N., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence: The importance of survivors predictions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 75-90. Wyshak, G. (2000). Violence, mental health, substance abuse: Problems for women worldwide. Health Care for Women International, 21, 631-639.

Bios
Kathryn E. Moracco, PhD, MPH, is a research associate professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research and advocacy interests include the effects of violence on womens physical and mental health and participatory evaluation of community-based violence and substance abuse prevention programs. Kathryn Andersen, PhD, MSPH, joined Ipas in 2007 after 5 years working as an independent consultant on research projects focusing on the health of women and children, with particular attention paid to reproductive health issues and intimate partner violence. She currently provides methodological and biostatistics support for Ipas work in research and evaluation both globally and with specific support for country programs in Ghana, Nepal, India, and Pakistan. Her current research interests include design, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to improve womens health status through access to safe and comprehensive abortion services, prevention of unintended pregnancy, and prevention of violence against women. Rebecca M. Buchanan, PhD, is a social scientist with more than 15 years of experience in promoting the well-being of children, youth, and families through research, program evaluation, consultation, clinical intervention, teaching, and training. As a community psychologist, she is interested in understanding how developmental and environmental factors (including family, schools, community, and culture) interact to affect the well-being of children and youth, and using this knowledge to guide the development and evaluation of programs to prevent behavioral and social problems. Christina Espersen, MSPH, is a research coordinator at Ipas. Her research and advocacy interests include violence against women, and womens and childrens health in conflict settings. J. Michael Bowling, PhD, is a research associate professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. He is a survey sampling methodologist with academic training in sociology/demography. He has conducted evaluation studies in breast cancer and mammography, IPV, and unintentional and intentional injuries. Courtney Duffy, MPH, was awarded her bachelor of arts from the University of Wisconsin and her masters of public health at the University of North Carolinas Gillings School of Public Health. Her research interests lie in interpersonal violence and womens health.