Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995

This study was designed to explore whether civil protection
orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of
domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping
violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that
might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the
court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of
support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then
examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection
orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of
Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among
them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil
protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court
processes and service models, the researchers expected that these
models would produce various results and that these variations might
hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data
were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who
had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil
protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the
quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the
extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from
the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading
to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and
respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the
provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order
was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court
experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the
order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case
file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued,
contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social
service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the
petition respondent were also collected.