By Mary Malefyt Seighman, ALSO STAAR Project Consultant 

TK Logan, PhD, Professor in the Behavioral Science Department at the University of Kentucky, has extensively researched and written about violence against women issues. Most recently, she has conducted research and published a number of articles on protection orders – including access to them, enforcement and effectiveness of protection orders, and differences between urban and rural women in each of these areas. These research findings have important implications for strategic planning, policy-making, and the development and implementation of practices for law enforcement, prosecutors, the judiciary and court staff, and advocates. The research results can also be extremely useful for STOP administrators in terms of implementation planning, request for proposals development, funding decision-making, and program development with subgrantees.

A selection of the findings[1] from Dr. Logan’s research are included here, organized by issue area: effectiveness, enforcement, and access to protection orders. This information is by no means exhaustive; there are many other important results from her research on both protection orders and stalking. A list of some of Dr. Logan’s publications is provided below for those who would like to read more.

Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders

Protection orders appear to be a similarly effective intervention for both rural and urban women initially. Half (50%) of victims experienced no violations (i.e., property damage, threats to harm or kill, physical violence, threats or use of a weapon, or victim perception that the protection order was violated) of the protection order during the six months after issuance of the order. However, enforcement efforts by criminal justice system professional varied widely between rural and urban areas, with rural women experiencing fewer appropriate actions taken to enforce their protection orders (see Enforcement of Protection Orders, below). 

Protection orders are relatively low cost, especially when compared with the social and personal costs of domestic violence. Dr. Logan’s research indicates that protection order effectiveness is particularly relevant for low-income rural women. This group of women had more personal and social barriers to stopping the violence including higher rates of unemployment and closer connections to the abuser, coupled with fewer community resources and alternative sources of help.

For victims who experienced protection order violations, all types of violence and abuse were significantly reduced during the six months following issuance of the order compared to the six months before the order was issued.

A large majority of both rural and urban women thought that the protection order was effective in terms of how it affected their quality of life (measured as days of distress and sleep loss due to the abuse). Rural women reported significantly more days of distress and sleep loss than did urban women both before and after issuance of the protection order:

                Average days of distress:

v  Six months before protection order: Rural women: 147 days; Urban women: 109 days

v  Six months after protection order: Rural women: 107 days; Urban women: 65 days

                Average days of sleep loss:

v  Six months before protection order: Rural women: 107 days; Urban women: 55 days

v  Six months after protection order: Rural women: 68 days; Urban women: 27 days

Both rural and urban women experienced significant reductions in fear of future harm in four categories (ongoing harassment, physical harm or injury; harm to children or interference with child care; harm to family or friends). Significantly more rural women were afraid of future harm before and after they obtained a protection order, and the fear of future harm showed a greater decline for urban women than rural women in three of the four fear categories.

Protection orders are less effective for those who are stalked. Dr. Logan’s research indicates that being stalked by the abusive partner in the six months prior to protection order issuance was strongly predictive of violations of the protection order after issuance.

Those who were stalked after issuance of the protection order were more afraid of future harm, experienced more distress related to the abuse, endured more property damage and other kinds of violence, and were less confident in the order than those who were not stalked.

Access to Civil Protection Orders

Research suggests that rural women have more difficulty accessing protection orders due to a more bureaucratic process and more negative and blaming attitudes when they seek an order.

Enforcement of Protection Orders

Research results suggests that partner violence is part of a larger pattern of criminal conduct – the majority of abusers who have protection orders against them had prior charges and convictions.

About half of rural and urban women experienced at least one violation of their protection order.

Rural women reported significantly more violations than urban women.

65% of victims who experienced a violation reported at least one violation to police or other authorities.

Of those who reported a violation, 38% of urban women and 19% of urban women believed that the offender was arrested for the violation.

During the 6-month period after issuance of a protection order, more than ½ (56%) of urban offenders who were reported for violating the order had a specific DV charge noted in their court record. In stark contrast, only 6% of the rural offenders had a similar charge noted in their court record.

In the course of key informant interviews, significantly fewer (34%) rural criminal justice system professionals indicated that an arrest often followed a report of protection orders than did urban professionals (48%). Rural professionals also indicated that fewer protection order violation cases would be prosecuted (5 in 10 rural areas compared with 6 in 10 in urban areas).

In cases that were prosecuted, rural professionals believed that significantly fewer offenders would be found guilty (5 in 10 vs. 6 in 10 in urban areas).

Rural community professionals partially attributed the barriers to protection order enforcement to difficulty in determining the primary aggressor. Nine (9) out of 10 rural criminal justice professionals said that both parties would be arrested if the primary aggressor could not be identified. In urban areas, only 42% of those interviewed said that a dual arrest would be made in such a case.

Significantly more rural community professionals reported that local politics would play a role in the prosecution of a protection order violation (45% in rural areas vs. 16% in urban areas). Here, “politics” means the degree to which family or other connections could result in a lack of law enforcement action.

The official court data on the disposition of protection order violation charges is consistent with the perceptions of key informant professionals. Five years of protection order violation data showed:

                In urban areas, 71% of charges resulted in convictions

                In rural areas: 49% of charges resulted in convictions

    In rural areas, 38% of violation charges were dismissed outright compared with 17% in urban areas.

 

More Articles by TK Logan on Protection Orders:

TK Logan, Robert Walker, & William Hoyt, The Economic Costs of Partner Violence and the Cost-Benefit of Civil Protective Orders, J. Interpers. Violence (published online Dec. 26, 2011). Available at http://bit.ly/1gY4Vdp

TK Logan & Robert Walker, Policy Brief No. 18: Civil Protective Orders Effective in Stopping or Reducing Partner Violence, Challenges Remain in Rural Areas with Access and Enforcement (Carsey Institute, Spring 2011). Available at http://bit.ly/1fO8jbL.

TK Logan, Robert Walker, William Hoyt, & Teri Faragher, The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A Rural and Urban Multiple Perspective Study of Protective Order Violation Consequences, Responses, & Costs (University of Kentucky, Sept. 2009). Available at http://1.usa.gov/17ahy3r

TK Logan & Robert Walker, Civil Protective Order Outcomes: Violations and Perceptions of Effectiveness, 24 J. Interpers. Violence 675, published online May 1, 2008). http://bit.ly/19l4k14

TK Logan, Jennifer Cole, Lisa Shannon, & Robert Walker, Relationship Characteristics and Protective Orders Among a Diverse Sample of Women, 22 J. Fam. Viol. 237 (2007). http://1.usa.gov/GWOQXf

TK Logan, Robert Walker, & Lisa Shannon, Protective Orders in Rural and Urban Areas : A Multiple Perspective Study, 11 Violence Against Women 876 (2005). http://bit.ly/1d8JN3O