Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Interpers Violence. 2021 Jun 16;37(17-18):NP16253–NP16276. doi: 10.1177/08862605211021965

Criminal Protection Orders among Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: Women’s Experiences of Court Decisions, Processes, and Their Willingness to Engage with the System in the Future

Samantha C Holmes 1, Christopher D Maxwell 2, Lauren B Cattaneo 3, Barbara A Bellucci 4, Tami P Sullivan 1
PMCID: PMC10968615  NIHMSID: NIHMS1911555  PMID: 34130534

Abstract

Consistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence framework, court decisions and processes can have a therapeutic or anti-therapeutic effect on intimate partner violence (IPV) victims. To maximize therapeutic effects, IPV scholars have advocated for survivor-defined practices that emphasize the importance of engaging with victims in a collaborative manner that promotes autonomy, choice, and control. However, limited research exists in the context of criminal protection orders (POs). The current study addressed this gap by assessing whether criminal PO match (whether victims received the level PO they requested [i.e., PO match] or not [i.e., PO mismatch] and victims’ subjective experiences of the court process were associated with their willingness to use the system in the future to address IPV. In a sample of 187 women whose partners were arrested for IPV, experiencing the court processes as positive (β = .36, p = .001) and court-related fear (β = .41, p < .001) were positively associated with willingness to use the system in the future. Additionally, PO match moderated the association between subjective court experiences and willingness to use the system in the future. Experiencing the court processes as negative (b = .33, p = .005) and validating (b = −.36, p = .001) were associated with willingness to use the system in the future only for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. While experiencing the court as positive (b = −.40, p = < .001) was associated with willingness to use the system regardless of PO match, it was most strongly associated for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. Results suggest the importance of ascertaining strategies to improve victims’ experiences with the court, especially when victims’ requests are not met, to increase future engagement with the system.

Keywords: intimate partner violence, criminal protection orders, therapeutic jurisprudence, survivor-defined practice, procedural justice

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women poses a serious public health risk — one in three women experience physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by an intimate partner within their lifetime, which is associated with a range of adverse outcomes (Black et al., 2011; Breiding et al., 2014). As such, it is necessary to identify and evaluate interventions that may increase victims’ safety and well-being. The use of criminal protection orders (POs) is one legal intervention that warrants greater attention. Criminal POs are initiated by judges and prosecutors following a perpetrator’s arrest (Long et al., 2010). The level of restrictions placed on the perpetrator can vary. For example, in the state of Connecticut, POs are typically categorized into three types (Sullivan et al., 2017). Limited POs are least restrictive – they prohibit the perpetrator from further abusing the victim; however, they pose no other contact restrictions. Residential stay away POs include the same prohibition as the limited PO and mandate that the perpetrator stays away from the victim’s home. Full no contact POs prohibit the perpetrator from contacting the victim in any way. Despite being issued frequently, very little research has examined the impact of criminal POs on IPV victims. The current study addressed this gap by assessing whether or not victims received the level of PO requested (i.e., PO match) and their subjective experiences of the court process were associated with their willingness to use the system in the future.

The question of how the issuance of criminal POs and related court processes impact victims aligns with the framework of therapeutic jurisprudence, which posits that court decisions and processes impact the well-being of those served by the court (Wexler, 2000; Wexler & Winick, 1991; Winick, 1997). This approach advocates for legal systems to function in a manner that produces positive or therapeutic effects while also acknowledging the potential for negative or anti-therapeutic effects. Cattaneo and Goodman (2010) describe the potential for both effects as follows:

a woman whose abusive partner is the subject of criminal prosecution…may be safer or may risk retaliatory violence…may become connected to services for her children or…may risk having her children taken away…may feel validated or…may feel humiliated (p. 482).

To maximize therapeutic and minimize anti-therapeutic effects for victims, many IPV scholars have advocated for survivor-defined practice. Survivor-defined practices are responsive to victims’ self-defined goals, acknowledge that victims have individualized needs, and posit that support systems, such as courts, should engage with victims in a tailored and collaborative way that supports victims’ autonomy, control, voice, choice, and ability to meet those individualized needs (Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Goodman et al., 2016; Kulkarni et al., 2015; Nichols, 2013). For example, many traditional IPV services were created to assist victims in leaving abusive relationships and may, therefore, be ill-equipped to assist victims who are seeking help but want to stay in the relationship (Kulkarni et al., 2015). Specific to POs, victim advocates can work with victims to identify the potential benefits and challenges associated with PO issuance for their specific circumstances (Nichols, 2013). Having this discussion can both inform collaborative decision-making regarding whether a PO is in a victim’s best interest and allow the victim advocate to provide individualized recommendations to help the victim address potential challenges or limitations of POs. For example, if a perpetrator has a history of engaging in behaviors that are abusive but do not reach the threshold of violating a PO, a victim advocate might recommend that the victim keep a log of these behaviors to potentially pursue separate stalking charges (Nichols, 2013). With regards to judges, an exploratory study conducted in several IPV courts described how not all judges granted victims the opportunity to be heard in court but that doing so was consistent with survivor-defined practice and experienced as validating (Anderson, 2015). More broadly, there is evidence that control and choice are integral to favorable outcomes among IPV victims (e.g., empowerment, willingness to contact police or IPV agencies again, if needed) (Cattaneo, 2010; Nnawulezi et al., 2018; Zweig & Burt, 2007).

Although therapeutic jurisprudence and survivor-defined practice have been understudied in relation to criminal POs, many studies have examined the impact of civil POs on IPV victims. In one systematic review, predominantly focused on civil POs, most studies demonstrated that the issuance of a PO was not associated with rates of revictimization and recidivism (Maxwell & Robinson, 2013). However, several of the more rigorous studies demonstrated the effectiveness of civil POs in increasing victims’ safety. For example, one prospective longitudinal study found that the likelihood of contact by the perpetrator, threats with a weapon, and injury from abuse were lower for victims who had obtained civil POs compared to victims who had not (Holt et al., 2003). Another demonstrated that the rate of physical violence decreased by 80% in the year following the obtainment of a civil PO (Holt et al., 2002). Based on their systematic review, Dowling et al. (2018) concluded that POs are associated with a significant reduction in domestic violence; however, the size of the effect is small. Wright and Johnson (2012) expanded upon previous studies by examining the role of civil POs on IPV victims’ mental health. They found that reductions in posttraumatic stress, but not depression symptoms, were greater for victims who had obtained POs, relative to those who had not. More specific to the question of PO match, Calton and Cattaneo (2014) found that a measure of objective distributive justice, which included civil PO match, was not associated with victims’ willingness to use the system; however, victims who subjectively experienced that they had gotten what they had hoped for from the civil PO and/or criminal case were more willing to use the criminal justice system in the future.

Although research on civil POs provides important preliminary information, it cannot replace rigorous empirical investigation of criminal POs due to differences inherent in processes associated with each type of PO. Unlike criminal POs, civil POs are initiated by victims. Research suggests a variety of barriers may prevent victims from seeking help, such as fear (e.g., of retaliation), embarrassment, not viewing the situation as sufficiently severe, a concern that they will not be believed, lack of awareness of interventions, and logistical constraints (e.g., lack of transportation; Fugate et al., 2005; Logan, 2020). Thus, victims may not initiate the request for a civil PO. A potential benefit of criminal POs is that they offer protection without placing the onus of initiation on victims. However, victims may have less control over the criminal PO process (Long et al., 2010; Sullivan et al. 2017). As previously described, criminal POs are initiated by judges and prosecutors following a perpetrator’s arrest. Subsequently, victim advocates reach out to victims both to inform them of the court process and to provide them the opportunity to indicate their preferences regarding whether they want a PO and the level of the PO’s restriction. Victim advocates can share victims’ wishes with the prosecutor and judge; however, the court is not obligated to honor victims’ requests and criminal POs may, therefore, be less consistent with victims’ wishes.

The majority of IPV victims (65–76%) support mandatory IPV intervention policies; however, a sizeable minority (13–20%) reported that mandatory interventions would make them less likely to utilize the system and report future violence (Smith, 2000). Notably, this study did not assess victims’ perspectives on criminal POs, which might be categorized by some as a mandatory intervention given that the court, not the victim, decides when a criminal PO is issued. Instead, it focused on other interventions such as mandatory arrest laws, no-drop policies, and mandatory medical reporting for nurses and doctors. Given the similarities between criminal POs and other mandatory IPV interventions, namely the potential for victims’ lack of choice and control, one may expect that criminal POs that do not match the goals of the victim (i.e., either the PO is a level other than what she requested or she did not want one at all; referred to as PO mismatch) may be associated with negative outcomes. For this reason, proponents of survivor-defined practice have criticized court-imposed POs, such as criminal POs (Nichols, 2013). There is considerable diversity among victims, their specific circumstances, and their goals (Goodman et al., 2016), and survivor-defined practice positions victims as experts in their own lives (Nichols, 2013). Thus, if a victim experiences PO mismatch, her particular context and needs may not have been considered (see Nichols, 2013 for review). This type of experience risks alienating victims from the criminal justice system which may have deleterious impacts on both victims (who may miss out on opportunities for future protection from the system, should they need it) as well as the system itself (which largely relies on victim reporting as a means for initiating the criminal justice response; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). Therefore, willingness to use the system in the future is a vital outcome to examine in the context of criminal PO issuance.

Legal decisions such as case disposition and PO issuance are not the only avenue through which the court can have a therapeutic impact on IPV victims. Based on observations made in IPV court, Anderson (2015) concluded that there were ways for court personnel to validate and empower victims even when victims’ requests were denied. When judges allowed victims to speak, it modeled respect for the victim and validated the victim’s perspective. Additionally, it appeared that when judges denied victims’ requests, providing a rationale for their ruling mitigated the potential for disempowerment (Anderson, 2015). Thus, victims’ subjective experiences of the court process, termed procedural justice (Tomkins & Applequist, 2008), are also core to therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler, 2000). That is, IPV victims’ experience with the court system overall is just as if not more important than the ultimate legal decision (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010, p. 483). The role of procedural justice is also highlighted by the survivor-defined practice literature (Kulkarni et al., 2015). In addition to emphasizing victims’ choice, survivor-defined strategies encompass allowing victims to share their unique experiences, validating those experiences, and engaging in a sensitive and collaborative manner (Kulkarni et al., 2015) which can occur even if victims’ requests are denied (Anderson, 2015).

Although there is a relative dearth of research focused on procedural justice for IPV victims, several previous studies have empirically demonstrated the importance of victims’ subjective experience of the court process. For example, regardless of the disposition of their criminal case, IPV victims who found their court experiences fair and empowering exhibited greater improvement in depression symptoms and quality of life and reported greater willingness to use the system in the future, if the need arose, to address IPV (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010). Additionally, other studies demonstrated that the IPV victims most willing to use the system in the future had been provided information about the court system from police officers, felt as though their voices had been heard, had not been pressured to press charges against their perpetrator, had not shown up to court only to find the proceedings had been canceled, and who, overall, reported a positive experience with the legal system (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2006; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). However, there is no study, to our knowledge, that has examined the role of procedural justice for IPV survivors issued criminal POs. In fact, there is only one study of which we are aware that examines the overarching construct of therapeutic jurisprudence in relation to criminal POs. Among a sample of 298 IPV victims who had been issued criminal POs, Authors et al. (2019) found significant reductions in IPV victimization, posttraumatic stress, depression symptoms, and perceived stress, regardless of the PO restriction level. Those who had been issued POs with the highest level of restriction reported greater reductions in IPV victimization than victims issued POs with lower levels of restriction.

Current Study

The current study expands upon the results of previous studies (i.e., Anderson, 2015; Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2006; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Tomkins & Applequist, 2008) by examining the impact of criminal PO match and victims’ subjective experience of the court process (i.e., procedural justice) on victims’ willingness to use the system in the future. With regards to victims’ experiences of the court process, we sought to examine the role of positive, negative, and validating court experiences as well as negative impact on one’s life, and court-related fear. Consistent with the extant literature reviewed above, we hypothesized that victims who receive the level of PO they requested (i.e., PO match) would be more willing to use the system in the future (H1). We also hypothesized that procedural justice, or victims’ experience of court processes as positive/fair, would be significantly associated with their willingness to use the system in the future (H2; Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Tomkins & Applequist, 2008). Specifically, we predicted that experiencing the court processes as positive (H2a) and validating (H2b) would be positively associated with a greater willingness to use the system in the future (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2006). Additionally, we predicted that experiencing the court processes as negative (H2c) or having the court process adversely impact one’s life at work or home (H2d) would be negatively associated with willingness to use the system in the future (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2006; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). There is a dearth of research on court-related fear in relation to therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice. Intuitively, we could make an argument for a positive or negative association between court-related fear and willingness to use the system in the future – if one’s experiences with the court increases fear, women may consequently avoid interacting with the system; however, women who are experiencing high levels of fear may be more motivated to engage with the system in an effort to keep themselves safe. Therefore, we explored the association between court-related fear and willingness to use the system in the future but did not posit a specific hypothesis.

Finally, given that therapeutic jurisprudence encompasses both the impact of legal decisions and processes (Wexler, 2000) and that court processes and personnel can have a therapeutic impact even when victims’ requests are unmet (Anderson, 2015), we predicted procedural justice would be most important for victims who experienced PO mismatch. That is to say, we predicted that PO match would moderate the association between subjective court experiences (i.e., positive impact, negative impact, validation, negative system impact) and willingness to use the system in the future such that the association would be stronger for those with PO mismatch (H3). Again, we made no specific hypothesis with regards to court-related fear but examined the potential moderation in an exploratory manner.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to the start of this study. Female participants were recruited from courthouses from one suburban and one urban community in the New England area of the United States. Eligibility criteria included being a female victim in a criminal domestic violence case in which a male perpetrator was arraigned 12 to 15 months prior to the study’s recruitment. Additionally, participants had to be English- or Spanish-language speakers. For more details regarding the recruitment and procedures, see Authors (2019).

Although the initial study sample was comprised of 298 participants, the current study utilized the subsample for whom criminal PO match data were available (N = 187), which could only be available for victims who spoke with court-based victim advocates and made a specific request. There were no statistically significant differences on demographic or primary variables between the subsample utilized and those who were excluded for not having PO match data. One hundred sixty (85.6%) of participants were recruited from the urban location and 27 (14.4%) were recruited from the suburban location. Participant age ranged from 18 to 75 years (M = 36.27, SD = 11.51). Just under half of the sample (47.6%) identified as Black or African American, 29.9 as White, 16.0% as Hispanic or Latina, and 6.4% as multi-racial or from another racial/ethnic group. On average, participants had attended 12.80 years of education (SD = 2.10). The average monthly household income was $1,577.84 (SD = $1,176.08). Twenty nine percent of participants had previously lived with their perpetrators.

Measures

IPV victimization.

Physical IPV victimization was measured using the 12-item Physical Assault subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus et al., 2003). Participants responded to each of the 12 items by indicating the frequency with which they had experienced the act of physical victimization in the 30 days prior to arraignment. Utilizing the scoring procedures described in Straus et al., (2003), participants’ responses were recoded to the midpoint of the range such that 3–5 times = 4, 6–10 times = 8, 11–20 = 15, and more than 20 times = 25. Severity scores were then calculated by summing the recoded responses, with higher scores indicating greater IPV severity.

PO match.

Court-based victim advocates reported the level of PO participants had requested (i.e., no PO, limited PO, residential stay away PO, full no contact PO) and data from the state judicial branch was used to determine the level of PO participants were issued. Based on the concordance or discordance of what victims requested versus what they received, a single dichotomous variable was created (i.e., PO match; 0 = mismatch, 1 = match).

Subjective experiences with the court process.

The Court Impact Scale (Cattaneo et al., 2013) was used to assess participants’ subjective experiences with the court process. Participants responded to each of the 23 items on a 4-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 4 (“strongly agree”). Reply responses of “does not apply” were recoded as “strongly disagree” for four items (i.e., “The court process cost me too much money,” “Telling people in court what happened was like reliving what happened,” “The court process caused problems for me at home,” “The court process caused problems for me at work”).

The scale, developed to assess experiences among IPV victims seeking civil POs, was modified to assess experiences related to the criminal court. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to assess the factor structure in the current sample. Given that the factor structure established would be used in future research with the current data, the analysis was conducted in the full sample of 298 participants. Specifically, a principal axis factor with an oblique promax rotation to allow for anticipated correlations among the factors was conducted with listwise deletion on the full Court Impact Scale. A four-factor solution was selected based on the results of a parallel analysis, scree plot, and eigenvalues (Kahn, 2006). The final solution fit these data, aligned with Cattaneo et al.’s (2013) conceptualization of court experiences, and accounted for 61.7% of the variance. This solution retained 17 of the original 23 items, each of which loaded onto its respective factor at .40 or higher. The four factors supported in the current solution (i.e., positive impact, validation, court-related fear, negative impact) comprise four of the five factors found by Cattaneo et al. (2013). The network impact factor was not reproduced in the current study; thus, the related hypotheses were not tested. See Table 1 for the 17 items retained. Utilizing this four-factor structure and a common approach to scale development, the four latent measures were constructed using mean replacement and the weights that each item loaded on its respective factor (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics at the Item-Level Split by PO Match Status

PO Mismatch (n = 95) PO Match (n = 92)
M (SD) M (SD)
Court Impact Scale
Negative Impact
I was disappointed in the court system. 2.36 (.95) 2.36 (.92)
I was confused about what happened in court. 2.02 (.78) 2.01 (.72)
I was upset. 2.63 (.99) 2.72 (.89)
Positive Impact
I had time to focus on other things. 2.83 (.65) 2.76 (.79)
I got what I needed. 2.54 (.82) 2.59 (.84)
I got all the resources I wanted from the court. 2.46 (.80) 2.72 (.78)
My self-esteem increased because of the court process. 2.10 (.82) 2.24 (.79)
I got everything I wanted in the protective order. 2.66 (.78) 2.77 (.81)
Court-Related Fear
I was worried about what the defendant would do next. 2.26 (1.01) 2.83 (.98)
As a result of this process, I was more afraid. 1.99 (.82) 2.34 (.86)
Telling people in court about what happened was like reliving what happened. 1.97 (.93) 2.47 (1.02)
I believed the defendant learned his/her lesson.* 2.58 (1.11) 2.95 (.94)
I felt like a victim. 2.75 (.74) 3.11 (.79)
Validation
I felt like my case was not all that important to the court workers.* 2.66 (.85) 2.64 (.90)
I felt more like a number than a person during the court process.* 2.63 (.83) 2.66 (.83)
I believed the court took me seriously. 2.68 (.81) 2.81 (.76)
I felt like workers at the court heard me. 2.77 (.75) 2.80 (.74)
Willingness to Use the System in the Future
If an incident like the one that resulted in _____ being arrested, happened again with any partner, I would call the police. 3.21 (.87) 3.35 (.69)
If an incident like the one that resulted in _____ being arrested, happened again with any partner, I would call the victim advocate. 2.83 (.90) 3.01 (.76)
If an incident like the one that resulted in _____ being arrested, happened again with any partner, I would want the court to criminally prosecute him. 3.02 (.79) 3.21 (.74)
If an incident like the one that resulted in _____ being arrested, happened again with any partner, I would file for a civil restraining order. 2.83 (.81) 3.17 (.69)
Open in a new tab

Note. n’s do not always add up to 92 and 95 due to missing data and/or participants selecting “does not apply,” “please skip” and “don’t know.” Participant responses ranged from 1–4 for all items for both PO match and PO mismatch groups.

*

These items were reverse-coded.

Willingness to use the system.

Participants’ willingness to use the criminal justice system in the future to address IPV was assessed using four questions utilized by Cattaneo and Goodman (2010) in their study on the impact of civil POs. Items used in the current study assessed the extent to which participants would call the police, call the victim advocate, file civil PO, and want the court to criminally process any abusive partner in the event they experienced IPV again (see Table 1). Participants responded using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 4 (“strongly agree”). A single factor score was created, using mean replacement, such that each item was weighted based on the strength of its loading on the factor.

Data Analyses

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression predicting participants’ willingness to use the system in the future. We first used zero-order correlations and t-tests to explore whether demographic variables (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, level of education, income, history of living with their perpetrator) and IPV experienced in the 30 days prior to arraignment were associated with willingness to use the system in the future. Variables that were significantly associated were included as covariates in Block 1 of the regression. Block 2 included PO match. Block 3 included the four variables representing women’s experiences with the court process (i.e., negative impact, positive impact, court-related fear, validation).

To test Hypothesis 3, we used PROCESS for SPSS (Hayes, 2018). Specifically, we ran Model 1 four times to assess whether PO match moderated the association between each of the variables representing women’s experience with the court process and willingness to use the system in the future. We controlled for the same covariates as in the hierarchical multiple regression (i.e., Block 1) and included additional variables that were significant in Block 3 of the hierarchical multiple regression as additional covariates in these moderation analyses.

Twenty-two participants (11%) had some degree of item-level missing data. Little’s MCAR test was nonsignificant, indicating that these data were missing at random (Little, 1988). Additionally, no significant differences emerged for any of the primary variables between participants with vs. without missing data. As such, all participants were retained to maximize the sample (N = 187) and mean replacement was utilized when creating the factor scores.

Data were inspected to test for assumptions of the statistical analyses. IPV victimization was non-normally distributed and, thus, square root transformed. Examination of Mahalanobis distance demonstrated that there were no multivariate outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Collinearity diagnostics assessed for multivariate multicollinearity. The condition index was below 30, which is in the acceptable range for each variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

In the current sample, about half of the participants (50.8%, n = 95) did not receive the level of order they requested. Of those who experienced PO mismatch, the majority were issued a PO that was more restrictive than they requested (80.0%, n = 76)1. Descriptive statistics at the item level, split by PO match status, can be found in Table 1. Descriptive statistics, at the variable level, can be found in Table 2. T-tests and zero-order correlations demonstrated that none of the demographic variables (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, level of education, income, history of living with their perpetrator) were significantly associated with willingness to use the system. Because some of the racial/ethnic groups comprised small sample sizes, race/ethnicity was dichotimzied in three ways: a) 0 = White women and 1 = women of Color, b) 0 = Black women and 1 = non-Black women, and c) 0 = White women and 1 = Black women (excluding non-Black women of Color). There were no signficiant differences in willingness to use the system, regardless of the way race/ethnicity was examined. However, IPV victimization was positively correlated with willingness to use the system (see Table 2) and therefore was included as a covariate in the primary analyses.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 α M(SD)
1. IPV victimizationa — .90 22.47 (35.95)
2. PO match .30*** — —b —b
3. Negative impact .08 .05 — .69 .01 (.84)
4. Positive impact .03 .10 −.70*** — .78 −.01 (.86)
5. Court-related fear .39*** .30*** .34*** −.14 — .74 .02 (.88)
6. Validation .04 .04 −.66*** .78*** −.18* — .86 −.06 (.92)
7. Willingness to use the system in the future .29*** .15* −.20** .39*** .37*** .31*** .81 .08 (.82)
Open in a new tab
a

Correlations are based on transformed scores and the mean and standard deviation are based on untransformed scores.

b

PO match was scored dichotomously (0 = mismatch, 1 = match).

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression

The final hierarchical multiple regression model accounted for 34.4% of the variance in willingness to use the system in the future, F(6,180) = 16.58, p < .001 (see Table 3). IPV victimization, positive impact, and court-related fear were unique significant correlates of willingness to use the system in the future; however, PO match, negative impact, and validation were not. Specifically, higher levels of IPV victimization, more positive experiences with the court process, and greater levels of court-related fear throughout the court process were associated with a greater willingness to use the system.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Willingness to Use the System in the Future

Correlates B SE B β Significant F Change ΔR2
Block 1 16.87*** .08
 IPV victimization .39*** .09 .29
Block 2 .99 .01
 IPV victimization .36*** .10 .27
 PO match −.08 .11 −.05
Block 3 18.70*** .27
 IPV victimization .18* .09 .14
 PO match −.08 .11 −.05
 Negative impact −.07 .09 −.07
 Positive impact .35** .10 .36
 Court-related fear .38*** .07 .41
 Validation .05 .09 .05
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Moderation Analyses

Results of the series of moderation analyses can be found in Table 4. Graphs of the significant interactions can be found in Figure 1. Here we describe only describe the main effects if the interaction effect in that model was nonsignificant. PO match moderated the association between negative impact and willingness to use the system in the future such that negative impact was significantly negatively associated with willingness to use the system in the future for participants with PO mismatch but not for participants with PO match. PO match also moderated the association between positive impact and willingness to use the system in the future. Although the association between positive impact and willingness to use the system in the future was positive and significant regardless of PO match, the association was significantly stronger for participants with PO mismatch. PO match did not moderate the association between court-related fear and willingness to use the system in the future. In this model, results demonstrated a significant main effect of court-related fear, but not PO match. Finally, PO match moderated the association between validation and willingness to use the system in the future such that validation was significantly positively associated with willingness to use the system in the future for participants with PO mismatch but not for participants with PO match.

Table 4.

Moderating Effect of PO Match on the Association between Subjective Experiences of the Court Process and Willingness to Use the System in the Future

b SE p-value 95% CI
IPV victimizationa .16 .09 .076 [−.02, .33]
Positive impacta .39 .08 < .001 [.24, .55]
Court-related feara .37 .06 < .001 [.24, .49]
Negative impact −.21 .10 .028 [−.40, −.02]
PO match −.07 .10 .497 [−.27, .13]
Negative impact X PO match .33 .12 .005 [.10, .56]
IPV victimizationa .14 .09 .096 [−.03, .32]
Court-related feara .37 .06 < .001 [.25, .49]
Positive impact .63 .08 < .001 [.47, .78]
PO match −.08 .10 .431 [−.28, .12]
Positive impact X PO match −.40 .11 < .001 [−.62, −.18]
IPV victimizationa .18 .09 .045 [.004, .35]
Positive impacta .43 .06 < .001 [.31, .54]
Court-related fear .28 .08 .001 [.11, .44]
PO match −.09 .11 .389 [−.30, .12]
Court-related fear X PO match .18 .12 .119 [−.05, .41]
IPV victimizationa .15 .09 .082 [−.02, .32]
Positive impacta .40 .09 < .001 [.22, .57]
Court-related feara .38 .06 < .001 [.26, .50]
Validation .22 .09 .023 [.03, .40]
PO match −.10 .10 .315 [−.31, .10]
Validation X PO match −.36 .10 .001 [−.57, −.15]
Open in a new tab
a

These variables were included as covariates.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Moderating role of PO match in the association between subjective experiences with the court process and willingness to use the system in the future.

Note. PO = protective order.

Post Hoc Moderation Analyses

To better understand the impact of court-related fear, given that our analyses were exploratory, we assessed for a potential two-way interaction of court-related fear and positive impact on willingness to use the system. We used Model 1 of PROCESS for SPSS (Hayes, 2018) to determine whether the degree of court-related fear experienced significantly impacts the association between positive impact and willingness to use the system in the future.

Controlling for IPV victimization, results demonstrated significant main effects of both court-related fear and positive impact, as well as a significant interaction effect of court-related fear and positive impact on willingness to use the system in the future (see Table 5). The association between positive impact and willingness to use the system in the future was positive and significant at all levels of court-related fear; however, the association between positive impact and willingness to use the system was strongest at low levels of court-related fear and weakest and high levels of court-related fear (see Figure 2).

Table 5.

Moderating Effect of Court-Related Fear on the Association between Positive Impact and Willingness to Use the System in the Future

b SE p-value 95% CI
IPV victimizationa .16 .09 .057 [−.005, .33]
Positive impact .44 .06 < .001 [.33, .56]
Court-related fear .33 .06 < .001 [.21, .45]
Positive impact X court-related fear −.13 .06 .022 [−.24, −.02]
Open in a new tab
a

This variable was included as a covariate.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Moderating role of court-related fear in the association between positive impact and willingness to use the system in the future.

Discussion

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to assess how criminal PO match and subjective experiences of the court process (i.e., procedural justice) are associated with IPV victims’ willingness to use the system in the future to address IPV. Results demonstrated that victims’ subjective experiences of the court processes, specifically the extent to which victims perceived the court process as having a positive impact, were positively associated with willingness to use the system. These findings are consistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence framework (Wexler, 2000) and results of previous studies that highlight the importance of procedural justice for IPV victims, albeit in other contexts (e.g., Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2006; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). However, in the multiple regression analysis, negative experiences, validating experiences, and PO match were not directly associated with willingness to use the system. Instead, PO match interacted with various court experiences in their relation to willingness to use the system in the future. Specifically, negative and validating experiences were only significant predictors for victims who experienced PO mismatch. While positive experiences were significantly associated with willingness to use the system regardless of PO match, they were more strongly associated for victims who experienced PO mismatch. These results suggest that, regarding criminal POs, victims do not necessarily need to have court decisions that match their requests to be willing to use the system in the future. Indeed, the majority of participants (70–86%) positively endorsed some degree of willingness to use the system in the future despite the fact that over half did not get the level of criminal PO requested. Rather, it appears that when victims’ wishes are not met, that is when procedural justice matters most.

This conclusion is consistent with Anderson’s (2015) observation that victims’ voice and choice are distinct. Stated another way, court personnel may find ways to validate and empower victims even when victims’ requests are denied. This finding is encouraging as improving court personnel’s interactions with victims may be feasible even when victims’ express requests are not or cannot be met. The questions utilized in the current study (e.g., “My self-esteem increased because of the court process,” “I got what I needed”) assessed victims’ general reactions to and experiences of the court process rather than identifying the specific types of interactions that were experienced as positive and validating. Future research should, therefore, identify the types of court-related interactions that result in a positive and validating impact for victims.

The other domain of subjective court experiences that was positively associated with victims’ willingness to use the system in the future, in the multiple regression analysis, was court-related fear. Given the nature of the questions utilized in the current study (e.g., “I was worried about what the defendant would do next”), it is not entirely clear what is provoking the court-related fear that participants endorsed. That being said, given that court-related fear was positively associated with IPV victimization (see Table 2), it is likely that victims’ experiences of court-related fear are, at least in part, related to the severity of their victimization. Perhaps victims’ potential exposure to their perpetrator through various court processes contributes to their court-related fear. They may also fear retribution related to their criminal justice system involvement. Although the questions utilized in the current study do ask about victims’ experiences based on court processes, the questions are not specific to the courtroom setting. It is therefore possible that some victims fear that their perpetrators may have strong negative reactions to the issuance of criminal POs and might engage in more intimidating or threatening behaviors outside of the courtroom. Consistent with the survivor-defined framework that acknowledges victims are experts of their own lives and circumstances (Nichols, 2013), victims’ concern for revictimization may be informed by past IPV severity as well as other knowledge of their perpetrator and contextual information. Victims who endorse higher levels of court-related fear might be especially motivated to use the system in the future to promote their own safety, which is consistent with previous research demonstrating that, for some women, IPV severity and injury severity are associated with help-seeking and cooperation with the criminal investigation and prosecution (Goodman et al., 1999; Goodman et al., 2003; Hipple et al., 2019). In addition to the main effect of court-related fear on willingness to use the system, results of the post hoc moderation analyses also indicate that victims’ level of court-related fear impacts the association between positive experiences with the court and their willingness to use the system in the future. At higher levels of court-related fear, the association between positive experiences and willingness to use the system was weaker. This interaction suggests that victims who are most afraid may be so motivated to protect themselves that they are willing to tolerate less than ideal interactions with the court to use the system to promote their own safety. It should be noted, however, that positive experiences with the court and willingness to use the court in the system remain positively associated, even at high levels of court-related fear. The quality of the court experiences remains vital for all victims, regardless of their relative level of court-related fear. However, victims with relatively low levels of court-related fear may be most at risk for not using the system in the future if they do not experience the court process as positive.

The results of the current study should be interpreted within the context of its strengths and limitations. The study’s strengths include its use of both victim self-report data and data from a state judicial branch as well as the diversity of the sample with regards to race/ethnicity and age. The current sample lacked diversity in other ways, however. Specifically, the sample disproportionately represented lower SES women, and all participants were women with male perpetrators within two communities in New England. Other limitations include the current’ study’s cross-sectional design and the fact that participants were reporting on their experiences 12 to 15 months following the arraignment. Although the time frame may be more representative of victims’ long-term perspective on utilizing the system in the future, they may have had additional experiences in those 12 to 15 months that impact their willingness but were not captured by the current study. Relatedly, other aspects of their court experience such as the case disposition (e.g., whether the perpetrator was convicted) were not assessed but may impact victims’ willingness to use the system in the future. Self-reported willingness to use the system may also deviate from the actual use of the system in the future. Additionally, the current study lacked cases where criminal POs were not issued and there were not enough cases where the PO issued was less restrictive than what was requested which precluded more nuanced analyses. Future studies should test whether the current results are reproduced when utilizing a prospective longitudinal design and in a more diverse sample (e.g., male victims, victims in same-sex relationships, victims of diverse SES, victims involved in courts of other geographic regions) and include additional variables of interest (e.g., case disposition, actual use of the system). Given the demonstrated importance of both PO match and subjective experiences with the court, future research also should assess factors that may predict these proximal outcome variables (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, specific court-related interactions).

In conclusion, criminal POs offer legal protection to IPV victims who may not otherwise seek help. However, given the potential for legal interventions to produce both therapeutic and anti-therapeutic effects (Wexler, 2000; Wexler & Winick, 1991; Winick, 1997), it is essential for research to examine the impact of criminal POs and relevant court processes on IPV victims. The current results suggest that when victims are not issued the criminal PO level they requested, it does not necessarily mean they will be less likely to use the system in the future, so long as they have positive and validating experiences with the court process. Future research should identify survivor-defined practices that may improve victims’ experiences and court personnel should adopt such practices with the goal of increasing victims’ future engagement with the system.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by Award No. 2012-IJ-CX-0045 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice awarded to Yale University/Tami Sullivan. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. Work on this paper by the first author was supported by NIH grant T32 DA019426.

Footnotes

1

The small subsample of participants who were issued a PO less restrictive than they requested (n = 19) precluded us from conducting analyses at this level

References

  1. Authors (2019).
  2. Anderson KL. (2015). Victims’ voices and victims’ choices in three IPV courts. Violence Against Women, 21(1), 105–124. doi: 10.1177/1077801214564166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, & Stevens MR. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. [Google Scholar]
  4. Breiding MJ, Chen J, & Black MC. (2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cattaneo LB. (2010). The role of socioeconomic status in interactions with police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of ommunity Psychology, 45(3–4), 247–258. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9297-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calton J, & Cattaneo LB. (2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help seeking. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(4), 329–340. doi: 10.1037/h0099841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cattaneo LB, Dunn JL, & Chapman AR. (2013). The court impact scale: A tool for evaluating IPV victims’ experience in court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(5), 1088–1108. doi: 10.1177/0886260512459383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cattaneo LB, & Goodman LA. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 481–502. doi: 10.1177/0886260509334282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowling C, Morgan A, Hulme S, Manning M, & Wong G. (2018). Protection orders for domestic violence: A systematic review. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fleury-Steiner RE, Bybee D, Sullivan CM, Belknap J, & Melton HC. (2006). Contextual factors impacting battered women’s intentions to reuse the criminal legal system. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3), 327–342. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fugate M, Landis L, Riordan K, Naureckas S, & Engel B. (2005). Barriers to domestic violence help seeking. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 290–310. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1177/1077801204271959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodman L, Bennett L, & Dutton MA. (1999). Obstacles to victims’ cooperation with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 427–444. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.14.4.427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman L, Dutton MA, Weinfurt K, & Cook S. (2003). The Intimate Partner Violence Strategies Index: Development and application. Violence Against Women, 9(2), 163–186. doi:. 10.1177/1077801202239004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodman LA, & Epstein D. (2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodman LA, Thomas K, Cattaneo LB, Heimel D, Woulfe J, & Chong SK. (2016). Survivor-defined practice in domestic violence work: Measure development and preliminary evidence of link to empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(1), 163–185. doi: 10.1177/0886260514555131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayes AF. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hipple NK, Thompson KJ, Huebner BM, & Magee LA. (2019). Understanding victim cooperation in cases of nonfatal gun assaults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(12), 1793–1811. doi: 10.1177/0093854819848806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hotaling GT, & Buzawa ES. (2003). Forgoing criminal justice assistance: The non- reporting of new incidents of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence victims. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  19. Holt VL, Kernic MA, Lumley T, Wolf ME, & Rivara FP. (2002). Civil protection orders and risk of subsequent police-reported violence. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(5), 589–594. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.5.589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Holt VL, Kernic MA, Wolf ME, & Rivara FP. (2003). Do protection orders affect the likelihood of future partner violence and injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(1), 16–21. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00576-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kahn JH. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 684–718. doi: 10.1177/0011000006286347 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kulkarni S, Herman-Smith R, & Ross TC. (2015). Measuring intimate partner violence (IPV) service providers’ attitudes: The development of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS). Journal of Family Violence, 30(7), 911–921. doi: 10.1007/s10896-015-9719-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Little RJ. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. [Google Scholar]
  24. Logan T. (2020). Understanding civil protective order effectiveness, barriers and arguments: Justice or just a piece of paper? In Fluery-Steiner R, Hefner M, & Miller S (Eds) Civil court responses to intimate partner violence. San Diego, CA: Cognella, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  25. Long JG, Mallios C, & Tibbetts Murphy S. (2010). Model policy for prosecutors and judges on imposing, modifying and lifting criminal no contact orders. Washington, DC: AEquitas. Retrieved from https://box.sve.mybluehost.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Model-Policy-for-Prosecutors-and-Judges-on- Imposing-Modifying-and-Lifting-Criminal-No-Contact-Orders.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. Maxwell CD, & Robinson AL. (2013). Can interventions reduce recidivism and revictimization following adult intimate partner violence incidents? In Carroll L, Perez MM, & Taylor RM (Eds.), Evidence for Violence Prevention Across the Lifespan and Around the World: Workshop Summary (pp. 58–66). Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nichols AJ. (2013). Survivor-defined practices to mitigate revictimization of battered women in the protective order process. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1403–1423. doi: 10.1177/0886260512468243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Nnawulezi N, Godsay S, Sullivan CM, Marcus S, & Hacskaylo M. (2018). The influence of low-barrier and voluntary service policies on survivor empowerment in a domestic violence housing organization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(6), 670–680. doi: 10.1037/ort0000291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Smith A. (2000). It’s my decision, isn’t it? A research note on battered women’s perceptions of mandatory intervention laws. Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1384–1402. doi: 10.1177/10778010022183703 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Straus MA, Hamby SL, & Warren WL. (2003). The conflict tactics scales handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services [Google Scholar]
  31. Sullivan TP, Price CE, Weiss NH, & Pugh NE. (2017). Criminal protective orders as a critical strategy to reduce domestic violence: A final summary overview. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tomkins AJ, & Applequist K. (2008). Constructs of justice: Beyond civil litigation. In Civil juries and civil justice (pp. 257–272). Springer, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wexler D. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. TM cooley l. rev, 17, 125. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wexler DB, & Winick BJ. (1991). Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC, US: Carolina Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Winick BJ. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(1), 184–206. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.3.1.184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Worthington RL, & Whittaker TA. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. doi: 10.1177/0011000006288127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wright CV, & Johnson DM. (2012). Encouraging legal help Seeking for victims of intimate partner violence: The therapeutic effects of the civil protection order. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(6), 675–681. doi: 10.1002/jts.21754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zweig JM, & Burt MR. (2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients? Violence Against Women, 13(11), 1149–1178. doi: 10.1177/1077801207307799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES